The Ostrich Factor: Our Population Myopia (Hardcover)

While I (and the natural resources of the planet) would welcome a world with say six hundred million people as opposed to six billion, I must disagree with the man from Mars about the educated and the uneducated. I suspect, regardless of actual numbers, their proportions would stay approximately the same.

However most of this book is not about overpopulation, but about political and economic issues that Professor Hardin is pleased to expound on. There is the problem of "Equity, Equality, and Affirmative Action" (Chapter 14). As Hardin sees it we really need to understand that "no two human beings are created equal" (p. 109) and that "equity" and "equality" are not the same thing. Exactly how he feels about affirmative action however is never stated directly--indeed little in this book is stated directly. Hardin prefers to hint at his position and let the reader figure it out. Since he gives the (absurd) example of laws mandating "the admission of pygmies to professional basketball teams," I am persuaded that he is opposed to affirmative action.

There are some things he does make clear, but not in a manner likely to persuade. For example, he is opposed to one world government, believing that it would be unstable. In support (surprisingly enough) he quotes Bertrand Russell: "A world state, if it were firmly established, would have no enemies to fear, and would therefore be in danger of breaking down through lack of cohesive force." Why a superstate would necessarily lack cohesive force is never explained. One gets the sense that it somehow has to do with another related Hardin idea, namely that multiculturalism within a single society is unstable. (See Chapter 15.) His argument is that the differing cultures would not be able to agree on how to go about their business peaceably and laws could not be formulated that all cultures would find acceptable. He gives the example of somebody from one culture wanting to drive on the right side of the road and somebody from another wanting to drive on the left. In fact, he gives this example a couple of times.

I am at a loss to appreciate these arguments (and some others in the book). That different people could not be persuaded to agree to drive on one side of the road seems silly. That a superstate could not find enemies for the populace to rally against seems naive. After all we have today the phenomena of the U.S. government directing its energies against drug lords and terrorists with the public firmly behind those efforts, as President Bush's high approval ratings attest. Furthermore, there will always be a counter-culture (in a democratic society) that the majority culture can and will rail against (and vice-versa). But I even question the underlying psychological assumption that a state needs enemies to be cohesive. Historically, governments have sought enemies (both within and without) as a means to solidify their power, but that hardly proves that a state necessarily needs enemies to survive. At any rate, perhaps we can dream up nasty little green men from some distant solar system to hate, if need be.

Hardin's style is somewhat off-putting at first and betrays his long years as a teacher. He makes statements with little or no support that encourage readers to evaluate for themselves, and then later on (after readers have presumably had time to think for themselves), he gives his rationale. (Or he doesn't!) The subject of one chapter is concluded in the next and then reopened in another. He sometimes explains the obvious and then fails to explain the cryptic, as for example he informs us that "philosophy" means "love of knowledge" (p. 31 ), but does not reveal why "adding two more lanes to a highway...ultimately increases traffic jams." (p. 39)

Some of Hardin's sentiments, however, I find quite agreeable. For example, "No one expects the physics of 50 B.C. to tell us how to launch a spaceship. But apparently many people are sure that the 2,000-year-old ethics developed in Near Eastern villages is all we need to solve" our moral problems. (pp. 4-5)

The greatest problem facing the planet today (and the root cause of many other problems) is overpopulation. It is a truth that needs a wider and more emphatic expression. I hope in his next book Professor Hardin concentrates on this urgent problem and leaves the political and economic niceties for others to straighten out.

Is it something to do with me not being American? Not that the cult of the individual isn't big in Oz too, and I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, but I don't have any problem with the idea that individual rights cannot continue to run rampant once they start to damage the world that we all depend upon, and obliterate the other species with whom we share it. Surely there are plenty of educated, thinking people who have come to the same conclusion? I found myself frustrated with Hardin's seeming assumption that this was the ultimate taboo which needed to be elaborately justified at every step, at the expense of an in-depth discussion of the practical side of population control.

Good criticisms of current economic theory and immigration policy, but nothing I haven't read before. I finished the book feeling that I was little the wiser about how a large-scale system of "mutually coercive" population control might occur.