Sustainability means keeping the population at a consistent level. Otherwise, exponential growth means that the planet is eventually covered in humans to a depth of 50ft, and nobody wants that.
There are only two ways to accomplish this: having fewer children, or killing more people. The latter is what has historically dominated, but we've become so much better at keeping people alive in the last couple of centuries or so that it's no longer working. That aside, many people find that solution to be tasteless.
That leaves having fewer children. Contraception is the only way to accomplish this. Yes, technically it is possible to accomplish this by avoiding sex. But socially, this doesn't work, because people simply don't do that. Contraception, however, does work.
It's the only available solution to a serious problem, and that's why it's on the list.
Could you please point out what part of that supports the idea that a leveling off of the population would be possible without contraceptives?
Both of the replies I've received so far appear to completely misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not saying the population will grow without limit no matter what. I'm saying that contraceptives are vital to avoiding that. Which is not at all contradicted by the fact that our world appears to be headed for zero population growth, because our world contains readily available contraceptives.
> Both of the replies I've received so far appear to completely misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not saying the population will grow without limit no matter what.
Point taken. I'm sorry, and you're right, I don't disagree with anything you actually said.
> Sustainability means keeping the population at a consistent level. Otherwise, exponential growth means that the planet is eventually covered in humans to a depth of 50ft, and nobody wants that.
But the third myth section covers your proposed malthusean explosion, and declares that it's not a valid concern.
"In Southeast Asia and Latin America, average fertility dropped from six or seven children per woman to two or three in a single generation, thanks in large measure to the modern contraceptives available by the 1960s."
The article is talking about our world, which is one in which contraceptives are widely available. We can't really look at alternate realities in which there are rich countries with no contraceptives and see how their birth rates fared, but I see no reason to assume they would drop, because people will still have sex.
The Malthusian explosion is not a valid concern precisely because of contraception.
There are only two ways to accomplish this: having fewer children, or killing more people. The latter is what has historically dominated, but we've become so much better at keeping people alive in the last couple of centuries or so that it's no longer working. That aside, many people find that solution to be tasteless.
That leaves having fewer children. Contraception is the only way to accomplish this. Yes, technically it is possible to accomplish this by avoiding sex. But socially, this doesn't work, because people simply don't do that. Contraception, however, does work.
It's the only available solution to a serious problem, and that's why it's on the list.