ISSUES
: Our Changing Population
Chapter 2: Global population issues
30
Population debate: why the Pope needs
encouragement, not criticism
Chief Executive Patrick Holden responds to last week’s article by Jonathon Porritt on
overpopulation and his criticism of the Pope.
D
ear Jonathon,
Thank you so much for
responding to my invitation to
share your views about the problem
of overpopulation for the SFT website.
As someone who has played a part in
contributing to overpopulation, with
eight children tomy name, I confess, at
least in part, to have been a significant
contributor to this problem! However,
without wanting to let myself, the
environmental NGOs or the Catholic
Church off the hook, I think it is worth
reflecting why it is that so many
institutions and individuals end up
sticking to outdated orthodoxies.
I’m no expert in the history of why
and when it came to pass that the
Catholic Church took the view that
the sanctity of life commenced with
conception, and that taking steps
to prevent conception was wrong.
However, trying for a moment to put
myself in the Pope’s shoes, I can
easily imagine how difficult it must be
for him to abandon one of the defining
precepts of Catholicism. For him, this
must surely not just be a moral but
also a political dilemma – how can he
take it upon himself to decide which
elements of Catholicism should be
superseded by changing events and
which elements are sacred?
That’s the moral part of the dilemma,
but politically, if he decides to change
his stance, presumably he also risks
an enormous backlash from the
establishment element of his church.
In saying this I’m not trying to defend
the Pope, as I completely agree with
you that until and unless the world
deals with our collective problem of
an ever-growing population on a finite
planet, any effortswemake to bemore
sustainable will be overwhelmed by
the sheer scale of demand and exceed
all so-called planetary boundaries.
However, I know from my own
experience that having the courage
to abandon a principle, an ideology,
a truth which is held to be of central
importance by a whole movement,
is not so easy and I’m wondering
whether ‘hypocrisy’ is quite the right
word to use when one is trying to
encourage individuals in leadership
positions to embark on that lonely
journey?
You may recall occasions in the past
when you have attacked me for a rigid
adherence to the belief that organic
farming, which as you know I helped
to develop and promote while I was at
the Soil Association, is the only way
forward for global food production.
Organic farming was conceived as a
way of making food production more
sustainable, yet I have finally reached
the conclusion that, although I remain
absolutely committed to the principles
of organic farming, unfortunately
the motives behind the organic
project, at least in the UK, have been
misinterpreted and misunderstood.
My advocacy played a part in
polarising the food community into
those that are and those that aren’t
organic and that has not been helpful
in addressing the problems on the
major part of farmed land.
I can now see that almost all farmers
want to farm in a sustainable way,
but many of them have become
locked into their damaging production
systems by financial constraints. As
such, I’m now more keen to work with
them to help find a way forward, than
to criticise them because they can’t
see a way out. And with the Pope
having taken such important steps on
the environment, as you recognise,
maybe trying to find a way to work
with him and broaden the definition of
the sanctity of life, rather than simply
oppose him on this matter, would
bear more fruit?
But what are the key ingredients
necessary for this to happen?
Arguably it needs courage and
humility in equal measure, but also
perhaps a reconciling gesture from
those that are leading the call for
change? I know there is a counter
argument here, namely that we need
people, in this case you, to call a
spade a spade, as you have done
so brilliantly on so many fronts over
