literary transcript

 

I

 

Overpopulation

 

In 1931, when Brave New World was being written, I was convinced that there was still plenty of time.  The completely organized society, the scientific caste system, the abolition of free will by methodical conditioning, the servitude made acceptable by regular doses of chemically induced happiness, the orthodoxies drummed in by nightly courses of sleep-teaching - these things were coming all right, but not in my time, not even in the time of my grandchildren.  I forget the exact date of the events recorded in Brave New World; but it was somewhere in the sixth or seventh century A.F. (after Ford).  We who were living in the second quarter of the twentieth century A.D. were the inhabitants, admittedly, of a gruesome kind of universe; but the nightmare of those depression years was radically different from the nightmare of the future, described in Brave New World.  Ours was a nightmare of too little order; theirs, in the seventh century A.F., of too much.  In the process of passing from one extreme to the other, there would be a long interval, so I imagined, during which the more fortunate third of the human race would make the best of both worlds - the disorderly world of liberalism and the much too orderly Brave New World where perfect efficiency left no room for freedom or personal initiative.

      Twenty-seven years later, in this third quarter of the twentieth century AD, and long before the end of the first century AF, I feel a good deal less optimistic than I did when I was writing Brave New World.  The prophecies made in 1931 are coming true much sooner than I thought they would.  The blessed interval between two little order and the nightmare of too much has not begun and shows no sign of beginning.  In the West, it is true, individual men and women still enjoy a large measure of freedom.  But even in those countries that have a tradition of democratic government, this freedom and even the desire for this freedom seems to be on the wane.  In the rest of the world freedom for individuals has already gone, or is manifestly about to go.  The nightmare of total organization, which I had situated in the seventh century after Ford, has emerged from the safe, remote future and is now awaiting us, just around the next corner.

      George Orwell's 1984 was a magnified projection into the future of a present that contained Stalinism and an immediate past that had witnessed the flowering of Nazism.  Brave New World was written before the rise of Hitler to supreme power in Germany and when the Russian tyrant had not yet got into his stride.  In 1931 systematic terrorism was not the obsessive contemporary fact which it had become in 1948, and the future dictatorship of my imaginary world was a good deal less brutal than the future dictatorship so brilliantly portrayed by Orwell.  In the context of 1948, 1984 seemed dreadfully convincing.  But tyrants, after all, are mortal and circumstances change.  Recent developments in Russia, and recent advances in science and technology, have robbed Orwell's book of some of its gruesome verisimilitude.  A nuclear war will, of course, make nonsense of everybody's predictions.  But, assuming for the moment that the Great Powers can somehow refrain from destroying us, we can say that it now looks as though the odds were more in favour of something like Brave New World than of something like 1984.

      In the light of what we have recently learned about animal behaviour in general, and human behaviour in particular, it has become clear that control through the punishment of undesirable behaviour is less effective, in the long run, than control through the reinforcement of desirable behaviour by rewards, and that government through terror works on the whole less well than government through the non-violent manipulation of the environment and of the thoughts and feelings of the individual men, women and children.  Punishment temporarily puts a stop to undesirable behaviour, but does not permanently reduce the victim's tendency to indulge in it.  Moreover, the psycho-physical by-products of punishment may be just as undesirable as the behaviour for which an individual has been punished.  Psychotherapy is largely concerned with the debilitating or anti-social consequences of past punishments.

      The society described in 1984 is a society controlled almost exclusively by punishment and the fear of punishment.  In the imaginary world of my own fables, punishment is infrequent and generally mild.  The nearly perfect control exercised by the government is achieved by systematic reinforcement of desirable behaviour, by many kinds of nearly non-violent manipulation, both physical and psychological, and by genetic standardization.  Babies in bottles and the centralized control of reproduction are not perhaps impossible; but it is quite clear that for a long time to come we shall remain a viviparous species breeding at random.  For practical purposes genetic standardization may be ruled out.  Societies will continue to be controlled post-natally - by punishment, as in the past, and to an ever-increasing extent by the more effective methods of reward and scientific manipulation.

      In Russia the old-fashioned, 1984-style dictatorship of Stalin has begun to give way to a more up-to-date form of tyranny.  In the upper levels of the Soviets' hierarchical society the reinforcement of desirable behaviour has begun to replace the older methods of control through the punishment of undesirable behaviour.  Engineers and scientists, teachers and administrators, are handsomely paid for good work and so moderately taxed that they are under constant incentive to do better and so be more highly rewarded.  In certain areas they are at liberty to think and do more or less what they like.  Punishment awaits them only when they stray beyond their prescribed limits into the realms of ideology and politics.  It is because they have been granted a measure of professional freedom that Russian teachers, scientists and technicians have achieved such remarkable successes.  Those who live near the base of the Soviet pyramid enjoy none of the privileges accorded to the lucky or specially gifted minority.  Their wages are meagre and they pay, in the form of high prices, a disproportionately large share of the taxes.  The area in which they can do as they please is extremely restricted, and their rulers control them more by punishment and the threat of punishment than through non-violent manipulation or the reinforcement of desirable behaviour by reward.  The Soviet system combines elements of 1984 with elements that are prophetic of what went on among the higher castes in Brave New World.

      Meanwhile impersonal forces over which we have almost no control seem to be pushing us all in the direction of the Brave New Worldian nightmare; and this impersonal pushing is being consciously accelerated by representatives of commercial and political organizations who have developed a number of new techniques for manipulating, in the interests of some minority, the thoughts and feelings of the masses.  The techniques of manipulation will be discussed in later chapters.  For the moment let us confine our attentions to those impersonal forces which are now making the world so extremely unsafe for democracy, so very inhospitable to individual freedom.  What are these forces?  And why has the nightmare which I had projected into the seventh century A.F., made so swift an advance in our direction?  The answer to these questions must begin where the life of even the most highly civilized society has its beginnings - on the level of biology.

     

On the first Christmas Day the population of our planet was about two hundred and fifty million - less than half the population of modern China.  Sixteen centuries later, when the Pilgrim Fathers landed at Plymouth Rock, human numbers had climbed to a little more than five hundred million.  By the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, world population had passed the seven hundred million mark.  In 1931, when I was writing Brave New World, it stood at just under two billion.  Today, only twenty-seven years later, there are two thousand eight hundred million of us.  And tomorrow - what?  Penicillin, DDT and clean water are cheap commodities, whose effects on public health are out of all proportion to their cost.  Even the poorest government is rich enough to provide its subjects with a substantial measure of death control.  Birth control is a very different matter.  Death control is something which can be provided for a whole people by a few technicians working in the pay of a benevolent government.  Birth control depends on the cooperation of an entire people.  It must be practised by countless individuals, from whom it demands more intelligence and willpower than most of the world's teeming illiterates possess, and (where chemical or mechanical methods of contraception are used) an expenditure of more money than most of these millions can now afford.  Moreover, there are nowhere any religious traditions in favour of unrestricted death, whereas religious and social traditions in favour of unrestricted reproduction are widespread.  For all these reasons, death control is achieved very easily, birth control is achieved with great difficulty.  Death rates have therefore fallen in recent years with startling suddenness.  But birth rates have either remained at their old high level or, if they have fallen, have fallen very little and at a very slow rate.  In consequence, human numbers are now increasing more rapidly than at any time in the history of the species.

      Moreover, the yearly increases are themselves increasing.  They increase regularly, according to the rules of compound interest; and they also increase irregularly with every application, by a technologically backward society, of the principles of Public Health.  At the present time the annual increase in the world population runs to about forty-three millions.  This means that every four years mankind adds to its numbers the equivalent of the present population of the United States, every eight and a half years the equivalent of the present population of India.  At the rate of increase prevailing between the birth of Christ and the death of Queen Elizabeth I it took sixteen centuries for the population of the earth to double.  At the present rate it will double in less than half a century.  And this fantastically rapid doubling of our numbers will be taking place on a planet whose most desirable and productive areas are already densely populated, whose soils are being eroded by the frantic efforts of bad farmers to raise more food, and whose easily available mineral capital is being squandered with the reckless extravagance of a drunken sailor getting rid of his accumulated pay.

      In the Brave New World of my fable, the problem of human numbers in their relation to natural resources had been effectively solved.  An optimum figure for world population had been calculated and numbers were maintained at this figure (a little under two billions, if I remember rightly) generation after generation.  In the real contemporary world, the population problem has not been solved.  On the contrary it is becoming graver and more formidable with every passing year.  It is against this grim biological background that all the political, economic, cultural and psychological dramas of our time are being played out.  At the twentieth century wears on, as the new billions are added to the existing billions (there will be more than five and a half billion of us by the time my granddaughter is fifty), this biological background will advance, ever more insistently, ever more menacingly, towards the front and centre of the historical stage.  The problem of rapidly increasing numbers in relation to natural resources, to social stability and to the well-being of individuals - this is now the central problem of mankind; and it will remain the central problem certainly for another century, and perhaps for several centuries thereafter.  A new age is supposed to have begun on October 4th, 1957.  But actually, in the present context, all our exuberant post-Sputnik talk is irrelevant and even nonsensical.  So far as the masses of mankind are concerned, the coming time will not be the Space Age; it will be the Age of Overpopulation.  We can parody the words of the old song and ask,

 

                                             Will the space that you're so rich in

                                             Light a fire in the kitchen,

                                             Or the little god of space turn the spit, spit, spit?

 

The answer, it is obvious, is in the negative.  A settlement on the moon may be of some military advantage to the nation that does the settling.  But it will do nothing whatever to make life more tolerable, during the fifty years that it will take our present population to double, for the earth's undernourished and proliferating billions.  And even if, at some future date, emigration to Mars should become feasible, even if any considerable number of men and women were desperate enough to choose a new life under conditions comparable to those prevailing on a mountain twice as high as Mount Everest, what difference would that make?  In the course of the last four centuries quite a number of people sailed from the Old World to the New.  But neither their departure nor the returning flow of food and raw materials could solve the problems of the Old World.  Similarly the shipping of a few surplus humans to Mars (at a cost, for transportation and development, of several million dollars a head) will do nothing to solve the problem of mounting population pressures on our own planet.  Unsolved, that problem will render insoluble all our other problems.  Worse still, it will create conditions in which individual freedom and the social decencies of the democratic way of life will become impossible, almost unthinkable.

      Not all dictatorships arise the same way.  There are many roads to Brave New World; but perhaps the straightest and the broadest of them is the road we are travelling today, the road that leads through gigantic numbers and accelerating increases.  Let us briefly review the reasons for this close correlation between too many people, too rapidly multiplying, and the formulation of authoritarian philosophies, the rise of totalitarian systems of government.

      As large and increasing numbers press more heavily upon available resources, the economic position of the society undergoing this ordeal becomes ever more precarious.  This is especially true of those underdeveloped regions, where a sudden lowering of the death rate by means of DTT, penicillin and clean water has not been accompanied by a corresponding fall in the birth rate.  In parts of Asia and in most of Central and South America populations are increasing so fast that they will double themselves in little more than twenty years.  If the production of food and manufactured articles, of houses, schools and teachers, could be increased at a greater rate than human numbers, it would be possible to improve the wretched lot of those who live in these underdeveloped and overpopulated countries.  But unfortunately these countries lack not merely agricultural machinery and an industrial plant capable of turning out this machinery, but also the capital required to create such a plant.  Capital is what is left over after the primary needs of a population have been satisfied.  But the primary needs of most of the people in underdeveloped countries are never fully satisfied.  At the end of each year almost nothing is left over, and there is almost no capital available for creating the industrial and agricultural plants, by means of which the people's needs might be satisfied.  Moreover, there is, in all these underdeveloped countries, a serious shortage of the trained manpower without which a modern industrial and agricultural plant cannot be operated.  The present educational facilities are inadequate; so are the resources, financial and cultural, for improving the existing facilities as fast as the situation demands.  Meanwhile the population of some of these underdeveloped countries is increasing at the rate of three per cent per annum.

      Their tragic situation is discussed in an important book, published in 1957 - The Next Hundred Years, by Professors Harrison Brown, James Bonner and John Weir of the California Institute of Technology.  How is mankind coping with the problem of rapidly increasing numbers?  Not very successfully.  'The evidence suggests rather strongly that in most underdeveloped countries the lot of the average individual has worsened appreciably in the last half-century.  People have become more poorly fed.  There are fewer available goods per person.  And practically every attempt to improve the situation has been nullified by the relentless pressure of continued population growth.'

      Whenever the economic life of a nation becomes precarious, the central government is forced to assume additional responsibilities for the general welfare.  It must work out elaborate plans for dealing with a critical situation; it must impose ever greater restrictions upon the activities of its subjects; and if, as is very likely, worsening economic conditions result in political unrest, or open rebellion, the central government must intervene to preserve public order and its own authority.  More and more power is thus concentrated in the hands of the executives and their bureaucratic managers.  But the nature of power is such that even those who have not sought it, but have had it forced upon them, tend to acquire a taste for more.  'Lead us not into temptation,' we pray - and with good reason; for when human beings are tempted too enticingly or too long, they generally yield.  A democratic constitution is a device for preventing the local rulers from yielding to those particularly dangerous temptations that arise when too much power is concentrated in too few hands.  Such a constitution works pretty well where, as in Britain or the United States, there is a traditional respect for constitutional procedures.  Where the republican or limited monarchical tradition is weak, the best of constitutions will not prevent ambitious politicians from succumbing with glee and gusto to the temptations of power.  And in any country where numbers have begun to press heavily upon available resources, these temptations cannot fail to arise.  Overpopulation leads to economic insecurity and social unrest.  Unrest and insecurity lead to more control by central governments and an increase of their power.  In the absence of a constitutional tradition, this increased power will probably be exercised in a dictatorial fashion.  Even if Communism had never been invented, this would be likely to happen.  But Communism has been invented.  Given this fact, the probability of overpopulation leading through unrest to dictatorship becomes a virtual certainty.  It is a pretty safe bet that, twenty years from now, all the world's overpopulated and underdeveloped countries will be under some form of totalitarian rule - probably by the Communist Party.

      How will this development affect the overpopulated, but highly industrialized and still democratic countries of Europe?  If the newly formed dictatorships were hostile to them, and if the normal flow of raw materials from the underdeveloped countries were deliberately interrupted, the nations of the West would find themselves in a very bad way indeed.  Their industrial system would break down, and the highly developed technology, which up till now has permitted them to sustain a population much greater than that which could be supported by locally available resources, would no longer protect them against the consequences of having too many people in too small a territory.  If this should happen, the enormous powers forced by unfavourable conditions upon central governments may come to be used in the spirit of totalitarian dictatorship.

      The United States is not at present an overpopulated country.  If, however, the population continues to increase at the present rate (which is higher than that of India's increase, though happily a good deal lower than the rate now current in Mexico or Guatemala), the problem of numbers in relation to available resources might well become troublesome by the beginning of the twenty-first century.  For the moment overpopulation is not a direct threat to the personal freedom of Americans.  It, remains, however, an indirect threat, a menace at one remove.  If overpopulation should drive the underdeveloped countries into totalitarianism, and if these new dictatorships should ally themselves with Russia, then the military position of the United States would become less secure and the preparations for defence and retaliation would have to be intensified.  But liberty, as we all know, cannot flourish in a country that is permanently on a war footing, or even a near-war footing.  Permanent crisis justifies permanent control of everybody and everything by the agencies of the central government.  And permanent crisis is what we have to expect in a world in which overpopulation is producing a state of things in which dictatorship under Communist auspices becomes almost inevitable.