Blogs for a Planet of Life: eBook

BLOGS FOR A PLANET OF LIFE

POPULATION MEDIA CENTER (PMC) IS A GLOBAL SUSTAINABILITY NON-PROFIT. FOREWORD

We work to help create a more equitable, flourishing world for all people and ecosystems. We do this by providing immediate and transformative opportunities for the people of today, using storytelling for social impact.

One of our greatest concerns is how to progressively help create the conditions for global population growth to stop — naturally, of its own accord, and as soon as possible — as a contribution towards the ability of future generations to achieve a sustainable living scenario with the planet.

This goal is intergenerational in scope. We hold a long-term vision of a much smaller, more ecologically right-sized number of humans on the planet in the future. We know our work cannot pay immediate and substantial demographic dividends at the global scale, because demography does not turn on a dime. We also know that working on population is not necessarily a priority action for near term mitigation of the greenhouse gas emissions emergency and biodiversity crises. These problems must be forcefully addressed and largely solved far before the 30 or 40 years of hard work it will likely take to stop population growth.

We can, however, improve lives immediately — and significantly shift long term population trajectories. This can, and does, happen every day. We partner with local talent and production teams in countries around the world to create award-winning, popular entertainment for TV, radio, and the web that is positively life-changing. We specialize in telling stories that support women’s rights, healthy populations, and enhancing social and environmental responsibility. Our work advances:

• The Sustainable Development Goals, especially SDG targets 3.7 and 5.6.

• The Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, specifically its call to meet the unmet needs for good quality family planning services and to increase knowledge and use of family planning and contraceptive methods — as well as increasing awareness among men of their responsibility in family planning and contraceptive methods and their use.

• Family Planning 2030’s vision for change, including “Voluntary modern contraceptive use by everyone who wants it, achieved through individuals’ informed choice and agency.”

• The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) motion titled “Importance for the conservation of nature of removing barriers to rights-based voluntary family planning.”

In this eBook, we are happy to share a compendium of our recent blogs. We hope you enjoy and share. PMC is a 501 (c)(3), based in Burlington VT, and holds the highest ranking possible on Charity Navigator. We offer charitable giving opportunities for the ecologically informed, concerned environmentalists, and other progressive donors who are interested in helping to advance global sustainability.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

This document is interactive. Click on the numbers below to jump ahead to a certain section, and click the three-line menu button ( ) in the top right corner of any page to return to the table of contents.

Population Growth Rate Vs. The Volume of Pop Growth

Impacts of Population Growth on Wildlife

Equal Claims: Earth Can’t Fairly or Sustainably Support 8 Billion

Say No to Demographic Fatalism (EditorRecommended)

The Most Ethical Gift

São Paulo Declaration on Planetary Health

Conclusion and More From PMC

POPULATION GROWTH RATE VS. THE VOLUME OF POPULATION GROWTH

The global population growth rate has been in steady decline since 1968, from 2.1 percent annual growth down to 1.1 percent today. According to one recent study in The Lancet, the global population could peak as soon as 2064 at 9.7 billion and gradually decline thereafter, falling to 8.8 billion by 2100. The most cited United Nations population projection, by contrast, forecasts population increases throughout the 21st century, with an estimated population of 10.8 billion by 2100. The differing conclusions are essentially the result of unique assumptions about the future trends of fertility.

Either way, over the last 50 years, it is clear the population growth rate has been declining—and that is great news for an already-overburdened planet. We already use more resources than can be replenished each year with our current population Earth is in the midst of an extinction crisis, a greenhouse gas emissions emergency, and many other ecological breakdowns. When it comes to the question of a sustainable human civilization, reasonable minds can disagree on the relative importance of the population factor—but no sensible objective analysis would ever ignore it completely.

Hence, it is critical to understand that a declining population growth rate does not signal that the population challenge is solved. It certainly does not signal that the current population size is ecologically sustainable, nor that efforts to avoid the higher population projections are undesirable. Until we reach a 0% growth rate—and yes, even temporary negative

growth rates (similar to what Japan is experiencing now)—the world’s population will continue to expand, and consumption levels, CO2 emissions, and ecological degradation will follow suit.

Somewhat unbelievably, many people, including influential economists, politicians, and certain captains of industry, still make their decisions as if there were no environmental problems at all. Others, like Elon Musk, worry about the end of population growth as if it were a terrible problem. These examples demonstrate that many extremely skilled, talented, and intelligent people do not sufficiently respect the complexity and value of Earth’s ecological systems. To them, population growth is considered categorically good because it helps fuel neo-liberal economic expansion. Perhaps even more surprisingly, some people agree that there is an environmental crisis, but believe that sustainability is possible even with a large and growing human population. This 2013 op-ed in the NY Times typifies such a philosophy.

HISTORY OF GROWTH RATE VS. ABSOLUTE NET GROWTH

People who are not bothered by the current human load on the planet, or who feel strongly that population is not a priority issue for ecological sustainability, habitually point to the decreasing rate of population growth. They cite the declining growth rate as if doing so should put an immediate end to any further discussion. They insinuate—or assert outright—that population worries are naïve, unintelligent, misanthropic, or worse.

Ecologists, biologists, and environmentalists certainly welcome decreasing population growth rates, but they point emphatically to a critical caveat: the volume of population growth has not yet begun to decline substantially.

World population reached 1 billion early in the first decade of the 1800s. It was over 120 years before it reached 2 billion in 1927. Then the great acceleration began—and it took only 33 years to reach three billion in 1960. At this point, the population growth rate was about 1.86%.

The global population reached 4 billion in 1974 (14 years), when the growth rate was 1.94%. Five billion came in 1987 (13 years), and the growth rate was 1.85%. Population surpassed 6 billion in 1999 (12 years), and the growth rate was 1.33%. Seven billion was passed in 2011 (12 years) with a growth rate of 1.21%. Importantly, 8 billion is expected in late 2022 or 2023—just 12 years since 7 billion—and the growth rate will still be around 1%.

Despite an ongoing decline in population growth rates—a good thing, to be sure—the volume of

population growth (the absolute number of people being added to the population) is still resulting in an additional 1 billion person load on the planet every 11-14 years. This has been happening incessantly since 1960.

DIVERGENT OPINIONS ON POPULATION

At Population Media Center, we believe that population size is a fundamental contributor to ecological degradation. Of course population is, literally, just one part of the equation.

Consumption rates around the world also play a fundamental, highly damaging role. A handful of nations are responsible for the majority of CO2 emissions, and a relatively small clique of extremely wealthy people consume significantly more resources than billions of low-income people combined. Many of the countries that have high fertility rates, such as those in sub-Saharan Africa, currently have relatively low carbon footprints. It is worth noting, however that all current low-footprint countries are working to maximize their consumption as soon as possible. It is clear that at least 2.5 billion of the 7.9 billion people living on the planet today desperately need more material resources if they are to escape poverty and achieve minimally acceptable standards of nutrition, housing, and sanitation.

With this in mind, tempering consumption rates in the already economically developed countries should be a major environmental priority—but that does not make the population growth rate any less salient as an area for long-term intervention. The two goals are not mutually exclusive. We should do everything we can to mitigate the worst impacts of a rapidly changing planet while working to create the most sustainable situation for future generations.

IMPACTS OF POPULATION GROWTH ON WILDLIFE

In September of 2020, the World Wildlife Fund’s Living Planet Report was issued. It was not pleasant reading for conservationists, ecologists, biologists. Or any other person who cares about the rights of other species to exist freely and with sufficient habitat.

Or, to exist at all.

On the other hand, for those who have been paying attention, the report could not have been very surprising. There are, of course, many different statistics about the human usurpation of nature. At least 680 vertebrate species have been driven to extinction since the 16th century. At least 1 million animal and plant species are currently threatened with extinction. There is near-absolute consensus among ecologists that we are in the midst of the sixth mass extinction. The population sizes of mammals, birds, fish, amphibians, and reptiles that are not yet extinct have also seen an alarming average drop of 68% since 1970. Meanwhile, since 1970, the human population on Earth has increased from 3.7 billion to about 7.9 billion — more than doubling.

For people who believe that all creatures and ecosystems have spiritual energy and spiritual connection, or at least have a healthy reverence for nature, this situation is extremely vexing. At the risk

of over-simplification, the easiest way to think of what is happening is that as the human presence on the planet increases, the presence of wildlife decreases.

In one sense, the harm being done to wildlife can be seen as an affront to any logic that values human prosperity. In other words, even at the most transactional and self-interested level of analysis, whathumanityisdoingtotheplanetdoes not make sense. After all, the biosphere is what makes human life possible. Damaging the Earth is sowing the seeds for our own future struggles.

But, the human population’s impact on wildlife is much more than a failure of self-interested, logical stewardship — it is also a failure of human ethical and moral cognition. It is a failure to see beauty. A failure to appreciate complexity. An apparent inability to realize the Earth is a living system, and it is in grave danger because of human attitudes and behaviors. Eileen Crist puts it this way in her chapter in Overdevelopment,Overpopulation, Overshoot:

“…Lifeisbarelyhangingoninthepresent world… I use the word Life, with capital L, to mean something akin to what life scientistscall“biodiversity”;unfortunately, though,thelattertermisoftenmistakenly conflatedwithnumbersofspeciesonEarth. Whilenumbersofspeciesareasignificant dimension of Life’s fecundity, Life is far greater than a total species inventory—as extravagantasthatinventorymaybe.Lifeis bewildering in its creative expressions, its beauty, strangeness, and unexpectedness, its variety of physical types and kinds of awareness, and its dynamic, burgeoning, andinterweavingworld-making….

…And here’s the crux of the matter: Humanitycanchoosetoliveonaplanetof Life instead of haplessly plunging toward a human-colonized planet on dialysis (“wiselymanaged”).Toliveonaplanetof Lifeitisnecessarytolimitourselvessoasto allowthebiospherefreedomtoexpressits ecological and evolutionary arts. For that, we in turn need to cultivate the breadth of imaginationtogivetheconceptoffreedom wider scope—pushing its territory beyond the sheath of human exclusivity. In the nameofahigherfreedomthatencompasses Earth and its entire community of beings, we can choose to let the world be the magnificence and wealth it was and still canbe…”

The statistics and measures and reports that stem from the human population’s impact on wildlife are numerous. Here are two of the best resources for understanding the full breadth of the predicament. But always keep in mind that while the statistics are important they also hide something deeper and more meaningful. Other species are intrinsically valuable–they have inherent, natural worth that is beyond the ability of a single species (humans) to ascertain.

RESOURCES FOR HUMAN POPULATION’S IMPACT ON WILDLIFE

International Union for the Conservation of Nature RED LIST: the world’s most comprehensive information source on the global extinction risk status of

World Wildlife Foundation Living Planet Report 2020: the thirteenth edition of WWF’s biennial flagship publication and includes contributions from more than 125 experts from around the world. t

When Population Media Center says our vision is: A Sustainable Planet with Equal Rights for All, we really mean “all.” We applaud the many new initiatives sprouting up around the world that are codifying the rights of other species and ecosystems to exist. Meanwhile, we will continue to do our part to slow down and stop human population growth.

EQUAL CLAIMS: EARTH CAN’T FAIRLY OR SUSTAINABLY SUPPORT 8 BILLION

To achieve a sustainable global civilization, humanity must evolve to function in a way that helps biodiversity flourish, preserving the planet’s energetic balance. The complex, dynamic, co-evolving living systems of Earth must be healthy and self-regenerating. Ecologists call this homeostasis or dynamic equilibrium.

At the same time, because we are serious about social and economic justice, a sustainable civilization must also ensure human lifestyles that are healthy, comfortable, and enjoyable at a decent standard of living. Therefore, the global community needs to work on three large tasks:

1

Raise consumption/access to resources for the impoverished.

Reduce over-consumption in the gluttonous states – like the United States.

without a certain ecological impact. In other words, humans are not ethereal beings: by nature, our lives require energetic and material exchanges with the environment. Right now, at the planetary level, humans are collectively over-exploiting the environment. Also in 2021, Ripple, et. al., noted that “Policies to alleviate the climate crisis or any of the other threatened planetary boundary transgressions should not be focused on symptom relief but on addressing their root cause: the overexploitation of the Earth.”

However, and again in support of social and economic justice, we cannot honestly look at the overexploitation of the Earth without examining international disparities in ecological footprints.

There are 12+ billion hectares of biologically productive land and water on Earth — providing resources to us and absorbing our wastes. A hectare is an accounting unit that measures biocapacity. Divided by our current population of nearly 8 billion, an equal distribution of these 12+ billion hectares would mean each person could claim about 1.6 global hectares to support their material needs and habits.

Why must we do these things?

As ecological footprint analysis convincingly shows, the human enterprise is already in overshoot. In fact, relative to the Earth’s available biocapacity, humanity’s aggregate footprint has been unsustainable since the early 1970s. An analysis written by Lucia Tamburino and Giangiacomo Bravo, published in 2021, “Reconciling a positive ecological balance with human development: A quantitative assessment,” contributes to these core understandings by introducing a new concept, “population biodensity,” and a new indicator, the “eco-balance” or (EB).

The authors assert, correctly, that sufficient levels of human and social capital cannot be achieved

On the other side of the coin is a measure called ecological footprint. This amounts to the area of productive hectares an individual — or a population, like a state or country — requires to support their material consumption and absorb its wastes. The world-average per-person ecological footprint in 2019 was 2.75 hectares. So, 1.6 hectares per person are available, but we are using an average of 2.75 hectares per person. Hence, we are in ecological overshoot.

Yet, upon closer examination, we can see quickly that the global average footprint of 2.75 hectares masks severe inequality in use of resources. A person in the United States consumes 8 times as many resources as a person in Ethiopia.

Notice that the country of Niger has an ecological footprint per capita that is close to what the Earth could theoretically sustain at our current population.

Note also that Niger also has a GDP of $550 dollars per capita and is rated by the UN as one of the world’s least-developed nations. 43% of its 25 million people live in extreme poverty.

Aspiring to a material lifestyle common in Niger is something few people will do voluntarily, nor should it be. It is a real-time tragedy. This is a good reminder that at least 2.5 billion of our nearly 8 billion fellow people desperately need more material resources if they are to escape poverty and achieve minimally acceptable standards of nutrition, housing, and sanitation.

Alternatively, if the whole world adopted the material lifestyle of a person in Luxembourg, the planet could only support 935 million people. The Earth could only support 1.5 billion people at an average American citizen’s lifestyle.

Yet, Tamburino and Bravo’s work shows there are no independently sustainable levels of population, technology use, or per-capita consumption — but only theoretical future “combinations of technology, consumption, population, and available biocapacity” that might someday be sustainable. Most importantly, circa 2021, is that the authors quantify a poignant, troubling fact: even with perfectly fair consumptive redistribution, where every single person on the planet had a perfectly equal “portion of the pie,” the planet could not sustainably lift everyone out of poverty. Not with a total population of nearly 8 billion people – and obviously not with

the several billions more projected by the end of the century by the United Nations.

In a truly just and equitable world, all people will have an equal claim to the sustainable yield of the planet’s renewable resources.

An “ecologically right-sized” humanity will be able to live comfortably, with equal standards of living, while nested benignly within the complex systems of nature.

This is why Population Media Center (in addition to promoting sustainable farming practices, species protection, and other pro-environmental behaviors) works around the world every day to create the conditions for population growth to stop and eventually reverse.

To be clear, creating the conditions for population growth to stop is not the single solution for halting the overexploitation of Earth and we reject false and strident narratives that suggest otherwise. At the same time, well-justified frustrations related to unfair and unjust resource extraction, production, and consumption activities of humanity do not, and cannot, render the size of human population any less salient as an area for long-term intervention. These two “meta-problems” are not mutually exclusive. They are intimately interlinked and we should do everything we can to create the most sustainable situation for future generations.

JUST SAY NO TO

DEMOGRAPHIC FATALISM

In the quest for global sustainability, reformers must embrace an intergenerational, long-term effort to ensure a much smaller, more ecologically right-sized number of humans on the planet in the future. In other words, there must be continuous efforts — today and everyday — to create the conditions for global population growth to stop naturally, of its own accord, as soon as possible. Once that goal is achieved, hopefully by the middle of the 21st century, subsequent global decreases to population levels — to a level that would allow humanity to live healthy and prosperous lives via the sustainable yield of the planet’s renewable resources — will be necessary.

Yet, public advocacy that promotes (or simply embraces) the end of population growth as a netpositive for human progress faces many headwinds.

In 2013, Diana Coole wrote a highly informative essay, “Too many bodies? The return and disavowal of the population question.” In it, she suggests and describes five discourses that conspire to “foreclose public debate” around human population size and growth as having any significant (or even possible) deleterious ecological impacts. As Coole suggests, when it comes to staid academia, nervous environmental charities, and status quo capitalistic global development, “the problematization of population numbers is widely disavowed or regarded with profound suspicion.” One of the discourses she describes is population-fatalism.

Population-fatalism, she suggests, can be defined as “treating population growth as a given… as an

– WE CAN & WILL ADDRESS POPULATION

aggravating or critical factor” in various contemporary problems, but also one that is not amenable to intervention. This happens almost daily in news reports, when population size or growth is cited as a driver of a problem, but then treated (or subsequently ignored) as an issue that society is “powerless to change and reluctant to address.”

Environmental author and ethicist Eileen Crist captures this phenomenon well in the Afterword of Overdevelopment,Overpopulation,Overshoot:

“Oneofthecommonplacesofenvironmental writingthesedaysisapopulationforecast of10billion(ormore)peoplebycentury’s end.Indeed,thisprojectionisendlessly repeated,asifitwereasinevitableasthe calculabletrajectoryofanasteroidhurtling throughspace.Besidesbeingafacilememe amenabletoreplication,thisrecurrent demographicreportsignalsawidelyshared fatalism:Thecominggrowthhastoomuch inertiabehindit,andisfartoopolitically sensitive,toquestion.Atthesametime,the projectionreinforcesacollectiveimpression thatnothingcanbedonetochangeit. Ironically,theincantationof“10billion” seemsatworkasself-fulfillingprophecy,for withoutconcerted,proactiveintervention itisroughlythenumbertobeexpected;so dowehypnotizeandpropelourselvesinthe predicteddirection.”

Indeed, the expert demographers at the United Nations think the most likely trajectory for global population — referred to as the medium variant projection – is that humanity will expand to 9.7 billion people by 2050 and 10.8 billion by 2100.

But, all demographic forecasts are built on assumptions about childbearing and human longevity trends. The most influential variable in these models is childbearing, also known as total fertility rate, or average number of births per woman per lifetime. The lower the fertility rate, then generally speaking, the smaller future population growth will be, and the sooner population growth will stop altogether. The medium variant projection is based on a decrease in global fertility from today’s average of 2.4 births per woman down to 2.1 by 2050 and 1.9 by 2100.

who have thought deeply about a sustainable human population size gravitate towards a number of 2 billion or less. In other words, one-quarter of our current population, and just one-fifth of what the UN expects to happen this century.

It is, however, to argue that humanity should strive for even more substantial fertility decreases than those that inform the low variant projection.

Fertility rates are highly correlated to contraceptive prevalence rates. Looking at global maps of contraceptive prevalence, it quickly becomes clear that there are severe inequities at play. Clearly, there are forces at work that are keeping contraceptive prevalence low in most of sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia. To be sure, these are not progressive forces. They are not fair. And, they need to be eliminated.

There is obvious inequitable availability of a full range of safe, modern contraceptive commodities, such as the hormonal IUD. Equally or even more important, is inequitable access to accurate information about the safety and efficacy of modern contraception. For example, when 62% of female respondents in Kenya think contraceptives could result in deformed babies, and more than 55% worry that contraceptives could cause cancer, there is an unfair information ecosystem working against full reproductive autonomy and choice.

But, there is no good reason to take a fatalistic approach to these fertility projections. Population Media Center is committed to helping global fertility decrease to even lower levels, in a more expedient manner, than those anticipated by the UN. In fact, in another projection, called the low variant, the UN calculates what would happen if global fertility decreased by a half child further. In that scenario, global population growth could end in the 2050s at just under 9 billion people. And, if we could achieve this trajectory, population would actually be lower by 2100 than it is today, at around 7.3 billion.

Now, this is not to argue a population of 7.3 billion would be sustainable over millennia. Most ecologists

Make no mistake, working on the population issue in the 21st century largely means working against oppressive cultural practices and social maladies that oppress women and girls.

Blaming victims for our collective ecological predicament – especially disempowered and socially repressed women and girls in Africa – is not merely immoral, it also eludes our most progressive solutions. Make no mistake, working on the population issue in the 21st century largely means working against the oppression of women and girls.

THE MOST ETHICAL GIFT: TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE DEMOGRAPHIC FUTURE

ThefollowingwasfirstpublishedbyTheEcologicalCitizen,apeerreviewedecocentricjournal

The goal of slowing down, stopping, and eventually reversing human population growth is no longer to avert an ecological catastrophe. That ship has sailed. Activists, funders, and NGO’s focused on population are operating in the midst of overshoot already in progress. Accepting this reality, and building messaging around it, may help considerably in optimizing the public face of population advocacy moving forward.

As of now, population activists should advance an intergenerational narrative when it comes to explaining the ecological relevancy of human population size and growth. Population interventions should be framed as ethical imperatives, and longterm projects, to improve the chances of future generations establishing sustainable living scenarios with the planet. Continuing to frame population interventions as being able to pay immediate and substantial demographic dividends at the global

near term mitigation of the greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity crises — no longer makes sense.

To be clear, creating the conditions for population growth to stop, and minimizing total population increases prior to the eventual global peak, are still the two key population objectives. Once the peak arrives, and population starts naturally decreasing, there will be new messaging and public relations challenges for population-aware environmentalists. But, this is a long way off. Even the most optimistic projections do not forecast an end to population growth until the 2050s or 2060s, and those that do assume heroic ongoing work to help fertility decrease further. Of course, this inconvenient truth will not stop anthropocentric economists and politicians from calling for higher birth rates, and we can expect outright panic from them as fertility decreases.

But, for the ecologically informed, admitting that global demographic trends, in any non-dystopian

quickly, strongly, and decisively. Yet, in terms of population, concepts of “quickness” extend to decades. It will likely take at least 30 or 40 years to end population growth – and the greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity crises must be largely resolved long before then.

By ceding a sense of immediacy in our outlook and messaging, population activists can be fully enriched in our ability to stake out visions of future global sustainability. Beautiful scenes of an equitable, ecologically informed population of 2 billion, living in harmony with a wild and vibrant Earth, are appealing to human nature. They speak to the ethics of caring for our descendants’ wellbeing. They also give us the exact platform we need to double down on population programs and public education, for the most critical factors in determining the future population size of humanity are the family size decisions of today. There are well-understood, affordable, and progressive ways to decrease family size outcomes.

We agree with Oswald Spengler: optimism equals cowardice. There is nothing to be optimistic about, ecologically speaking. The power of positive thinking, on the other hand, is different. It is

not naivety; in fact, it is predicated on a full and sober accounting of reality. In terms of the human population size relative to the Earth’s sustainable capacity to support it, the reality is we are living in a disaster. This situation is deplorable, tragic, frustrating, and outrageous — but making appeals for forward-looking population related programs, and organizing sufficient public support for them, need to go beyond condemnations of the condemnable. Would be supporters also need to form a positive emotional attachment the idea of improved, sustainable demographic future.

The most critical factors in determining the future size of the human population are the family size decisions being made today.

The most ethical gift we can give the people and creatures of the late 21st century and early 22nd century is a chance. In the realm of population, this means working across the generations to ensure a much smaller, more ecologically right-sized number of humans.

POPULATION MEDIA CENTER & THE SÃO PAULO DECLARATION ON PLANETARY HEALTH

The São Paulo Declaration on Planetary Health is a multi-stakeholder call to action co-created by the global planetary health community. It outlines the actions necessary for humanity to achieve a “Great Transition” — defined as a just transformation to a world that optimizes the health and well-being of all people and the planet.

Developed by the global planetary health community with support from the United Nations Development Programme, the Declaration states that humans must make transformational shifts now in how we live in order to optimize the health and well-being of all people and the planet we depend on. It also guides people across society with suggested concrete actions that support a more just and regenerative postpandemic world.

Population Media Center is a signatory to the declaration, joining over 250 other organizations from over 40 countries to help raise an alarm that the ongoing degradation of Earth’s natural systems is a clear and present danger to the health of all people everywhere.

The Declaration notes that achieving the Great Transition will require rapid and deep structural changes across most dimensions of humanity. This includes how we produce and consume food, energy, and manufactured goods; how we consider and measure growth; and a rethinking of our values and relationship with Nature and to each other – from human exceptionalism, domination, and scarcity to interdependence, equity, and regeneration.

Certainly, these principles are at the heart of Population Media Center’s own efforts to raise global sustainability. We focus our contributions on work to continually create a more equitable, flourishing world for all people and ecosystems across four vital, interconnected dimensions—individual, social, economic, and environmental. In so doing, we benefit the world of today and the planet of tomorrow.

There is no doubt that, as of today, global sustainability remains a destination. Contemporary human civilization functions mostly in ways that make global sustainability farther away and less attainable.

For global sustainability to be achieved, overexploitation of the Earth’s environment must stop. Human civilization must evolve to function in a

way that helps biodiversity flourish. Humanity must help maintain and preserve, rather than perturb, the planet’s energetic balance.

To accomplish these transitions, a great change in our stewardship of the earth and the life on it is required.

Population Media Center contributes to this process by promoting things like species protection, sustainable framing practices, and reductions in material consumption. We also work diligently to help create the conditions for population growth to slow down, stop, and naturally reverse.

In a truly just and equitable world, all people will have an equal claim to the sustainable yield of the planet’s renewable resources. An ecologically right-sized humanity will be able to live their lives with comfortable, equal standards of living, while nested benignly within the complex systems of nature. Global sustainability, when it happens, will not be just for humans. It will be for the co-evolving, complex, living system that we are a part of. Because the climate and biosphere make the world habitable, they can be only be defined as the guiding and preeminent arbiters of humanity’s success or failure as a global civilization. Therefore, global sustainability will be, fundamentally, ecological in nature.

As noted by The Lancet, “Humanity, and indeed all of life on Earth, is at a crossroads. Over the past several decades, the scale of human impacts on Earth’s natural systems has increased exponentially to the point where it exceeds our planet’s capacity to absorb our wastes or provide the resources we are using. The result is a vast and accelerating transformation and degradation of nature. This includes not only global climate change but also global-scale pollution of air, water, and soil; degradation of our planet’s forests, rivers, coastal, and marine systems; and the sixth mass extinction of life on Earth.

“The core insight of planetary health is that these disruptions and degradations of natural systems are a clear and urgent threat not only to the web of life but to humanity itself. The scale of our own environmental impacts is threatening our nutrition and mental health, increasing exposure to infectious diseases and non-communicable diseases, and driving population displacement and conflict. On our current trajectory, we can no longer safeguard human health and wellbeing.”

NOW PLAYING: VIDEOS FROM POPULATION MEDIA CENTER

Watch Now: Two Crises, One Solution

Watch Now: Strengthening Conservation with Stories

Watch Now: Solving Population Growth with Art and Science.

Watch Now: The Rights of Women and Girls, Population, and Social Norms

THANK YOU FOR DOWNLOADING AND READING

Population Media Center is a global sustainability non-profit and broadcast production partner. We create life-changing, popular entertainment for a more sustainable world. How cool is that?

We believe that the most ethical gift we can give the people and creatures of the future is a chance at true ecological sustainability — a thriving and equitable planet for all. Given the times we live in, each day and every action becomes more important. Working across generations for a smaller, healthier, and more ecologically right-sized number of humans in the future is a key goal, and we do this by making immediate improvements in the lives of people today. It is a win-win for people and the planet.

Now, we fully understand some critics are not much bothered by the current pressures humans are putting on the planet. Others feel passionately that population is not a priority issue for ecological sustainability. Efforts to create the conditions for population growth to slow down and stop are sometimes cast as naïve, unintelligent, or even worse. We proudly disagree.

Instead, we are inclined to respect the thoughts of leaders like Malawi’s Minister of Forestry and Natural Resources, Ms. Nancy Tembo. She spoke at the November 2021 Climate Conference in Glasgow – COP26 — and had this to say:

“Malawi is highly populated, highly vulnerable to climate change — we have rapid population growth. This is a recipe for disaster.” She went on to say that, “Unless we address issues of reproductive health and population, we will not achieve anything... Addressing gender and population growth need to be at the center of climate mitigation and adaptation.”

Please make a donation to Population Media Center today to help accomplish these goals. PMC holds the highest possible rankings on charity scoring sites like Guidestar and Charity Navigator. Most importantly, we are one of the very few non-profit organizations that both recognize the challenges of human population as it relates to a sustainable future AND has investable programs in the field, every day, all around the world — doing good work, making a difference, and inspiring entire communities to choose a healthier, more equitable, and flourishing world for all.