Demography & sexuality

“The Earth can feed 30 billion people if they had to live like the people of Bangladesh, and only 700 million if they all had to live . (The Quid 2001)

This is why deeply reduce our standard of living . Above all, do not export it to Third World countries if we do not want to see tomorrow our planet completely exsangue . Since the 1980s, humanity’s ecological footprint exceeds renewal capabilities of the biosphere. We vivons-a-credit , with all the dangers that this poses, we must therefore act urgently to minimize environmental degradation.

Only here, this fine reasoning neglects two inevitable facts . It is : it should now be ten times the planet to provide for the needs of 7 billion people who have fully gained progress. And even if it were possible thanks to the miracles of the new technologies , the efforts made would soon be caught up in the galloping demography .

The world population, for a long time, doubled every two generations . The exponential goes back from sight in the Middle Ages, and takes an explosive boom at the end of the millennium. Recently, the increase seems rather linear. We were three billion in 60, four billion in 74, five billion in 87, six billion in 99, seven billion in 2012… At the same time, the proportion of individuals with high ecological footprints is growing at high speed. Will it be necessary to wait, in order to put an end to this double lethal evolution, for the la-rarefaction-des-ressources to lead us to famine, disease and war ? All measures taken in the areas of agriculture , restrictions , recyclages , technologie , energies-renouvelables [energies-renouvelables], if indeed , they may even encourage procreation and prolong and amplify demographic expansion !

Unless it quickly exceeds the “cross and multiply” that irresistibly animates humans , the planet will soon be invivable WHAT TO DO. All efforts to preserve the environment will only delay the fateful deadline and, paradoxically, multiplier-les-victimes …

According to the demographers, the demographic explosion is the immediate consequence of industrial and medical progress . It is generally mentioned the contributions of medicine, hygiene measures, disease prevention, antibiotics and other factors that promote life expectancy , the reduction of infant mortality, food abundance, confidence in the future and, a crucial difference with the animal world: [the absence of any predator that takes on the human species](the absence-of-all-predator-who-s-take-the-human-species). Would the man be condemned to becoming his own predator …

Again, conventional explanations are not necessarily the right ones. The curve of population growth in France shows an amazing point of inflection at the end of the seventeenth century (the intersection of the two segments on the right).

Medicine has not made any particular progress in this period. Vaccines only started to spread during the 19th century. The sudden change seen as early as 1700 was not explained by no increase in life expectancy or by a decrease in infant mortality (on the contrary, increased by the mode of feeding ). It is also not explained by industrial progress, which has far later effects on the population. Watt had not invented his steam machine , no trains ran on the rails, no cars on the roads, food was not plentiful, and the splendors of the court were not for the people.

The only convincing explanation: the French suddenly began to procreate more at the beginning of the Enlightenment century, for obscure reasons. There remains therefore a mystery to explain, of which no author seems to have at the moment cared . Is it a moral change induced by naturalist philosophies, a physiological cause influencing fertility rate, a psychological factor linked to the genesis of the Revolution…

At present it is the global population growth rate is 1.096% . Every year, the planet increases once the population of France. How to slow down the descent to hell? Demographers rely on an alleged “ demographic transition ”. It would be enough for poor countries to attain a standard of living equal to ours to see their birth rates decline as in most rich countries. But this hypothesis is materially impossible ! Because the planet would be COMPLETELY DISCOWN long before our standard of living spread everywhere, even under the aegis of gigantic ecological and technological efforts. Faced with danger, under the effect of stress, by need of reassurance, spirits lose their objectivity and sink either into catastrophism or irresponsible optimism.

The most elementary arithmetic lets us see a general planetary catastrophe. It is enough to make the figures speak: a planet for 700 million people at the European standing, ten planets for 7 billion, 13 for 9 billion in 25 years, 20 for 14 billion that we would be at the end of the century. It is clear that never the hypothetical reduction of the ecological footprint possible thanks to the new technologies will seriously compensate such explosion.

There will only be room for a fraction of the wealthy, all the others having ended up in undernutrition, lack of fresh water, deprivation, epidemics and inevitable conflicts triggered by a death threat. The dilemma is inevitable: either the big blow to the proliferation of the most predatory species of all time; Or collective suicide…

We’re here. is carried away by currents, the fatal delay approaches at high speed. But the vast majority prefer to keep their habits, believe in progress, increase their standing, close their eyes and reproduce in peace. Let’s open ours a little!

“Try to persuade people to refrain from procreation in the name of morality – great gods! What an outcry! (Leon Tolstoy)

Malthusianism, part of a utopian voluntary reduction of conceptions, was quickly given for a sinister anti-growth doctrine, thus anti-happiness. This is where the best wills are stumbling: it is impossible to obtain from all nations measures that seriously slow birth . Unable for non-totalitarian governments to impose that individuals have only one child per family . The problem remains unresolved, whatever the warnings issued by such tops as Cousteau , Lévi-Strauss and many others.

** Population growth will not be controlled until all mechanisms are understood. **

First of all, it is surprising that the average fertility rate is just above what is required for the renewal of generations. The global average was 2.47 children per woman in 2012. It remains below 2.7 in two out of three countries. It stabilizes in France around 2.01. The demography itself could explode much faster . The sociocultural level and access to contraceptives do not explain everything . Invoking a deliberate will of individuals is utopian: rare are the spirits fond of ecology enough to limit their offspring to the name of future generations… There are clearly many factors that are still obscure .

A range of psychological factors can occur. Neglectively: fear of pregnancy, childbirth, end of months, work, care, responsibility for the upbringing of a child. Positively: the image of manhood and its reproductive power, of femininity and the fertile mother, of the family haven of happiness, the need to fill a certain existential void by being in her children, the still underlying influence of the biblical “grow up and multiply”, the perception of a large offspring as a sign of wealth or power, the fear of the rise in power of other nations or religions, or any foolishly family allowances.

All these sociocultural contingencies must be tested as to their impact on birth rates and, the number one objective of human ecogenetics: their origin and their raison d’être.

But one must not forget a primary factor, hitherto neglected by demographers: the way of living sexuality. Yet it is the key element par excellence of fertility!

Pulsions in love and sex are an integral part of human nature. They are among the most deeply rooted, because in direct connection with the instinct of reproduction, the primary instinct on which the survival of the species depends. Although innate, they are conditioned by culture, morals, patterns of behaviour, stress and other factors that are still obscure. Their ways of expression have immediate consequences on the probability of fertilization. The image of sexuality that culture conveys influences the types of relationships.

Even if couples try to limit their progeny, accidental conceptions are statistically inevitable . The rate of involuntary fertilization depends directly on the types of relationships and the prevalence of sexual impulses. Only one out of five or ten unwanted children can move from demographic stability to exponential growth.

In any event, there is nothing to exclude a priori unknown links between sexual habits and birth rates. The mysteries of the Eros are far from clear. Many myths, Orphic cults, Tanrism, the Garden of Delights by Jerome Bosch are there to remind us. Our way of living love and sex could be subject, without our knowledge, to some distortions of cultural or other origin that could overly multiply the number of fruitful relationships.

Many more complex and far-reaching issues to be included in the human ecogenetics program…

**The results of the various discussions on the topics discussed on this page will be presented in the comments to the highlighted words, which you can make appear by clicking on them. If you have any relevant objections or arguments, do not hesitate to send them to us by email! **