In last week's New Statesman, David Attenborough wrote an essay on the problem of uncontrolled population growth. His argument was that current population growth is unsustainable, and must be reversed, through increased availability of contraception, liberation of women and education. This is necessary because we're very quickly approaching the absolute limit to the number of people who can be exist on the planet, and the alternative is enforced population decline through war and famine.

I agree with everything he said, and it's so self-evident that I see no reason to present an argument for it.

However, I was surprised that he didn't mention what's surely the most serious barrier to population control: an economy based on debt. The transaction underlying the global economy is that companies borrow money against future growth, then pay it back with interest to fund the next round of loans. (I believe this is well-known capitalist theory, and not a new idea.)

If growth stops, as it must do when both labour and natural resources start to decline*, the entire system breaks down. While it's tempting to say that this would serve them right, such an event would adversely affect everyone, not just the rich -- and in any case, it's the rich who decide policy.

Population control and reduction in natural resource use and harmful emissions are both important, but it's futile to try to force through changes that directly threatens the basis of the world economy.

* There is an argument that growth can still be achieved through efficiency savings -- as many companies are already doing, to offset a reduction in revenue -- this can only be taken so far before it starts to flatten out.