Stopping Growth Saves Lives:
Why Population Limits are Necessary For a Better Future
Overpopulation oppresses people. It causes misery, suffering, and early death. Both sides of the political spectrum should be able to agree – government programs should not lead to oppressive living conditions. But these conditions persist, exacerbated by too much population growth – congested highways, water bans, high housing prices, and crowding in general.
The weight of not being in control of any given situation caused by too much demand of a limited resource is oppressive. Overpopulation causes oppression because once there are too many people in a region, the pressure of exceeding limits begins. Clogged freeways, lines at airports, water bans, the escalation of endangered wildlife and even high housing prices are all put in place when overpopulation rears its ugly head.
The simple definition of overpopulation is when population density exceeds an area’s carrying capacity and results in environmental deterioration, an impaired quality of life, or a population crash. Resiliency to extreme circumstances is lost when an area becomes overpopulated. As our nation becomes more and more densely-populated, Americans need to grasp the relationship between overpopulation and the oppressive conditions it creates around us.
Rugged individualism and freedom of choice are a deep part of the cultural infrastructure of our country. Unlike East Asian cultures where collectivist thinking is of highest value, here in the U.S. we cherish having individual choice. But individualism erodes away as we allow overpopulation to control our daily lives. The ever-wise late comedian George Carlin talked about we have the illusion of choice. We can choose from 35 kinds of shampoo or 300 kinds of sugary cereals. But when it comes to life’s important decisions, they allude us. We have no real choice when it comes to choosing to live in uncrowded places, or drive the speed limit in our large cities, thanks to an already overpopulated country of some 345 million.
The LA fires illustrated the ruin that can result when population growth overwhelms an area’s carrying capacity. Clearly, the burned-out neighborhoods of LA were too densely populated – they were overpopulated. Not only were homes built in fire zones they only had narrow roads to use as escape routes. The other day, NPR exposed their pro-growth bias. When describing the LA neighborhoods facing the specter of rebuilding, the commentator said that “limiting housing is tough when there’s a housing shortage.” That’s one interpretation. It would have more accurate if she said, “…limiting housing is tough in such an overpopulated area.”
As the LA fires demonstrated, when we cram too many people into areas by building housing to meet the relentless demand of growth, we can exceed natural limits and put people in danger. As is true with most natural “catastrophes,” population growth can push people into harm’s way when housing expands into marginal lands (e.g., flood zones, steep hillsides, fire prone or hurricane prone terrain) which are inherently hazardous. This also is true when communities sprawl across arid land, except that running out of water happens more gradually than let’s say a landslide.
The continuous loss of wild species continues to raise the alarm. When we keep worshipping growth over sustainability it becomes a force that is killing off our wildlife and our ability to live within the boundaries of our fragile ecosystems. Promoting growth is the ultimate creator of misery and suffering. Chasing demand with solutions which are not going to solve our long-term problems is a fool’s errand. We keep building more housing, more roads, more of everything that requires the earth’s limited resources, and we are doing it in areas which can barely sustain a limited demand let alone a large one. Because we are overpopulated, we build on mountain sides and in arid regions. We build in windy areas and on top of known earthquake zones.
In Nathanial Gronewold’s recent Negative Population Growth’s Forum Paper, he points out that we are knowingly building in areas vulnerable to the ravages of climate change. Continuing in our old patterns of promoting growth with our policies and tax laws makes no sense in 2025 when the dangerous combination of overpopulation and climate change are knocking on our door. We should be building resilience instead of housing especially in vulnerable areas.
We need to see the multiplier effect of population growth is causing a never-ending litany of disasters, increasing in frequency, size, and death tolls. The real culprit is right before our eyes if we choose to lift our blinders and say it proud and out loud. To fight overpopulation with tough zoning laws that limit growth and rational immigration policies intended to stop our relentless population growth would be life-saving.
We need laws that govern the number of people who can live in a given area, while maintaining resiliency. This includes safeguarding adequate water supplies, along with wildlife habitat up and down the food chain. We cannot continue to pretend that future generations will be fine and that we care about saving lives while allowing life-threatening growth to continue.