Who will be the first politician to say the G-word?
I suspect there will come a time, perhaps not so far in the future, when many will feel that there are simply too many people on the planet and something must be done about it. This concern will be fueled and rationalized by several factors, including a physically deteriorating planet; diminishing resources; a fear and loathing of the Other; a sense of moral, cultural, and perhaps religious superiority; self-preservation; and perhaps a good old dollop of greed. From this perspective, the world’s lakes, rainforests, mines, arable farmland, fishing zones, mountains, natural wonders, and vast open spaces, as well as the rest of Earth’s bounty, will be especially appealing and coveted. To lay claim to such geographic prizes and to alleviate the pressure on the Earth’s finite resources, it is possible to imagine the forced removal or the elimination of a sizable chunk of the world’s population. Hence, we are talking about the G-word: genocide.
Of course, genocide is nothing new and has been a common occurrence throughout human history; from the Old Testament to more recent examples in Rwanda, Myanmar, Cambodia, Bosnia, and Sudan. Although previous genocides have often been ethnic, cultural, and political in origin, there have been many based on geography and the quest for territory and resources. Obvious examples would be the conquest and colonization of North America, Australia, and New Zealand.
Humans are voracious, selfish, and brutal beasts and this must not be forgotten, despite the veneer of modernity constructed over the past sixty years. Lurking inside contemporary societies and their citizens remains a robust albeit contained capacity for extreme violence and dog-eat-dog carnage. All that is required for civilization to turn to extermination are three things: cause, capability, and opportunity. Put these three things in place and then, lo and behold, we have decimation. Not only did it happen in Europe during the 1990s, the genocidal desire of Trumpian extremists is glaringly obvious, and often overt. Given half the chance the American extreme far-right would happily slaughter every Mexican, Muslim, and socialist in the United States, and beyond. Happily.
The planet’s population of homo sapiens took 200,00 years to reach one billion and then a mere one hundred years to reach seven and a half billion. Just examining the past twelve thousand years, the spike in the graph remains startling:
Of course, some will see the world’s burgeoning population as a money-making opportunity: bigger markets equal bigger profits. Nevertheless, others will conclude that owning and having access to more of the world and liberating more of the planet from human interference is a greater reward and one with far more long-term advantages. This view will be bolstered by the understanding that the world is simply too small and its resources too finite to cater for so many people, especially when people’s material needs are increasing exponentially. Nowadays, every person in every corner of the globe wants, for example, a smartphone, a fridge, a car, unlimited electricity, a computer, a state-of-the-art kitchen, and air-conditioning. Such wants are materially unsustainable.
Perhaps there will be revolutionary scientific advances in food production, energy and materials to accommodate such an enormous population, but it is more likely that the powerful might see in the powerless, or one group might see in another, the opportunity to claim the world’s space, beauty, and resources for themselves. Eradicating a sizable chunk of the world’s population would drastically reduce demand for resources whilst simultaneously increasing supply for those remaining. Suddenly, the rainforests could remain less scathed, the oceans less fished, arable land less tilled, cities less sprawled, nature less despoiled, and the planet less drained. Maybe in such a radical ideation, one or two whole continents would be left untouched or developed as nature reserves to encourage biological and ecological flourishment.
I completely accept that this genocidal vision represents a rather hideous and dystopian view of the future, but it really does not seem so far-fetched. Purely on the basis of survival rather than greed, the notion of eliminating nations or even continents of people would seem a rational and rather unsurprising move in the context of human history, which has been a litany of war, violence, competition, and domination over others.
The plain fact is that humans are destroying the planet and, at best, ensuring that life for future generations will be much harder. I wonder, therefore, which politician and in which country might be the first to make noises about over-population, demographic management, radical solutions, before progressing to more militant talk of expansion, invasion, liberation, and elimination? What politician, populist, or revolutionary will articulate the coveting of the Earth’s resources and the potential to free the planet from rapacious humanity? Perhaps the earliest discussions will take place (or have already taken place) behind closed doors between powerful individuals or groups. It is not hard to imagine such schemers drooling over the prospect of expunging half the world’s population and divvying up the spoils for themselves.
Ultimately, unless a severe pandemic, a significant force-majeure, or another form of annihilation befalls mankind, then we should brace ourselves for another G-word.
