People fill the land.

 

I begin the practical part of my book by discussing people and land, the number of people and the amount of land. The surface of the land, the place where the soil ends and the air begins, divides the living into two parts. In the light are flowers and cats, birds and butterflies, and underneath in the dark are worms and mushrooms, roots and bacteria. These two worlds need and help each other. They hold a dialogue, either they both thrive or are destroyed at the same rate.

 

 

Mankind should either adapt to this interaction or create alongside it their own imitation of nature in symbiosis with the earth. Neither alternative allows man to become the master or parasite of Mother Earth. He must help the earth and replace what he has taken. This relationship, this balance, is the basic condition for land use. The future of the earth is threatened by a multiple ecological disaster, which includes changes in the atmosphere, the depletion and aging of forests, desertification of arable land, pollution of ground and surface water, and the impoverishment of the soil. This is accompanied by a gradual breakdown in social order due to wars, crime, slums, hunger, terrorism and disease.

 

The social disaster only affects people, but the ecological disaster affects all life and is thus infinitely more destructive. Some aspects of the ecological disaster, such as changes in the air, water or soil, deserts and deforestation, may return to normal over the following millenniums. The earth may in these respects become healthier and regain its balance if mankind radical changes its behaviour. One change can never be rectified: the fall in species diversity in the biosphere. Once extinct, a species is lost for ever, its inherited genes can never be rediscovered. The species which are disappearing most are the plants and insects in the tropical rain forests. They have never been studied or documented, so it is impossible to search for related species. Because of man they vanish without even leaving a trace for posthumous discovery.

 

The ecological and social disasters are different things, but they have a common root, the population explosion.

 

It is imperative to demand a stop to the uncontrolled growth in the populations of developing countries. It is not growth that burdens the environment, but quantity. Europe burdens the earth, not through growth but through quantity; the quantity of people and consumption, the quality and quantity of production. This load is in every respect unbearably heavy and excessive. If the whole world was as densely inhabited as Europe, if the whole world had lived as Europe has, it would no longer exist.

 

The more people there are, the greater the threat to the environment. That is why my first consideration is the relationship of the number of people and to the land.

 

 

 

THE POPULATION OF EUROPE

 

It is the evening of May 26th in the year 2035.

 

In the small town of Barneveld, Holland, Anna and Pieter Vestdijk are weighing up the difficulties they will experience if they have a third child. At the beginning of the century, taxation measures, media pressure and attitudes combined to create an oppressive social atmosphere in which even two children was considered a special privilege and a third total irresponsibility towards mankind, Europeans and other Dutch people. Overpopulation in Holland had been for long a bone of contention on the continent and in the rest of the world. Immigration from other continents had been halted ages ago, but still accepted within Europe.

 

Thus Pieter and Anna are thinking of moving to Matti’s place in Finland or Mihail’s in Romania. They are both old friends from whom they have a standing invitation. Large families are not frowned upon so much in these countries. Even in Holland there is no law prescribing family size, but a third child is a heavy economic burden. More annoying is the attitude of people. The parents of three children are considered feckless and old fashioned, in fact a bit simple. At school such children are nicknamed “gash kids”. On the hand, moving to Finland or Romania will mean problems with the language. But this indecisiveness is getting on their nerves.

 

 

Eco-disaster and population

 

Overpopulation and the burden it causes are the most important problems of our planet. Unless the increase is halted and the population reduced in the worst areas, all our other efforts to save the earth will be in vain. It is the first question that must be answered, the key to all the other doors. Population explosions have many unpleasant consequences, the most irreversible of which are the extinction of species and the impoverishment of nature. The diversity of life is something intrinsic, and its loss casts a dark cloud over man’s life, especially that of the generations to come.

 

People in the industrialised countries are often horrified at the rapid growth of population in the developing countries. Let us forget for the moment that the burden comes from numbers, not growth. Growth is an indication of future problems, whereas population density means overburdening now. Thus criticism should not only focus on growth, but the overpopulated countries like China, India and Europe. In Europe there is a continuous, densely-populated zone stretching northwest to southeast, from Britain to Italy, that man has exploited efficiently and selfishly (Figure 1).

 

Because of overpopulation, the people of Europe can no longer maintain their standard of living or guarantee their future independently. Europe consumes more of the world’s natural resources and pollutes the atmosphere and seas essential to all life on Earth more than all the other countries together. Neither does Europe protect its own nature, not even the rich variety of species it contains as an example to other continents and peoples.

 

Even when calculated on a per capita basis the burden is excessive. The figures are, however, much more glaring if the burden caused by people living in the different parts of the world is calculated for the area they inhabit. Allow me here to introduce a small additional reason, as intertwined within the two approaches is the difference between man-oriented and life-oriented thinking. In comparing the burden caused to the environment by individuals, it may be thought that all those living now have a right to our common resources, irrespective of the population density of the area they inhabit. It follows from this that as the population in some area doubles, so the environmental burden they cause will also double. Nature, mankind and future generations collectively bear the burden of the harm caused by the overpopulation of a particular group.

 

Another, more correct way is to compare the burden focussed on a sub-unit. It remains unchanged if, in addition to the area used by an individual, the materials and energy he uses are reduced by half as the population doubles. Then the group is responsible for the harm done by proliferation and recognises that nature has a right to its own space, a right to defend itself against human consumption. Likewise mankind’s right to pass the responsibility on to people for the land they occupy is also recognised.

 

We Europeans are not only guilty of overpopulating and therefore burdening our own continent. Ever since the voyages of discovery, Europe’s influence and responsibility has been world-wide and in the long run mostly harmful. The exportation of technology and medicine to other continents heedless of the consequences – the consumption of nature, pollution and population growth – was a serious mistake. It was the British, Germans and French who overpopulated North America, not the Apache and Sioux nations. The Spanish and Portuguese destroyed the advanced cultures of South America and now their descendants are slowly destroying the rain forests. Australia, India, China, Japan, Africa – not one corner of the globe has been spared from European influence. Europeans are responsible for the globe. That’s the starting point and also the basic message of this book.

 

Figure 1. Regional population density in Europe, 1995

 

Figure 2. Ratio of the average loads in Europe and the world

 

(Sources: Statistical Yearbook 1992, 1994; The Fifth World Food Survey 1985, 1986; FAO Yearbook, Fishery Statistics 1993, 1995.)

 

Future population policy

 

It is the duty of Europe to make the world safe from the threat of ecological disaster, to serve as an example. This means the creation of a new style of production, but above all a reduction in population, either voluntarily or coercively through legislation. Its borders must be closed to immigrants and the natural growth in population reversed. It will also require an entirely new attitude towards developing countries, although I am not going to discuss that here.

 

The countries of Europe differ widely in the densities of their populations. The Nordic countries like Norway, Sweden and Finland are sparsely populated and provide the last true breathing spaces on the continent. There are still a few relatively open areas in France and Spain, and the Alps are not so highly settled. Running diagonally through Europe, however, is an overpopulated area, teeming with people and factories, smoke belching chimneys, unending traffic jams, exhausted croplands, monotonous plantations of trees, poisonous landfills, dying forests, sewage-spoiled rivers, and everywhere the clank and clamor of transport and industry (Figures 3 and 4). The populations in these countries have grown quickly and uncontrollably (Figure 5).

 

When the long-range future is being planned, the population question is preeminent. Everything else is dependent upon the answer to this question. For purely selfish reasons, Europe cannot accept immigrants from other continents. This cannot be viewed as recompense for past injustices, but as irresponsibility towards the future. Neither can Europe – for similar historical and ethical reasons – divert the continuous migration from the overpopulated countries to, for example, Canada, Siberia or Australia. For ethical reasons, and in the long-term interests of Europe, the wisest strategy would be the deliberate reduction of population over the following centuries. This should not take place by planning the populations of all countries to the same extent, but by concentrating on the over-populated countries and inculcating into them the idea that the morally acceptable upper limit for families is two children.

 

Figure 3. Open-cast lignite mining in the Ruhr

 

Figure 4. Traffic jam on the German autobahn, summer 1995

 

Figure 5. Populations and suggested densities for the most populous countries in Europe, 1811-2300

 

(Sources: Demographic Yearbook, 1949; Mitchell; Statistical Yearbook of the Netherlands, 1993)

 

The first population reductions should be carried out in Holland, Belgium, Germany and Britain. The average population density of Germany and Britain should drop to 200 people per square kilometre. Although Holland and Belgium will not be able to reach this level for decades to come, they should try for a 20 per cent reduction in their present populations. This would bring their average densities down to 350 and 250 people per square kilometre respectively. A reduction of 20 per cent would mean an annual fall of 0.35 per cent over the next 60 years or a net reproduction rate (NRR) of 0.75 over a period of two generations. Explanation: if the NRR is 1.0, then women of child-bearing age will have an average of one daughter and the population remains unchanged.

 

If migration is discounted, the populations of many western European countries have increased only slowly or even declined without pressure or persuasion. The populations of many eastern European countries have also declined in recent years.

 

Figure 6. The net reproduction rate for the most populous countries in Europe, 1975-1992

 

(Sources: Statistical Yearbook of the Netherlands, 1993; Eurostat, 1994)

 

 

We shall now forecast developments over the following ten generations, for the next 300 years. Within such a long period there is a theoretical, but precise mathematical connection between NRR and the reduction in population. It is assumed that there is no net gain or loss from migration, neither any change in average age. In order to achieve the desired population, the lowest European NRRs are as follows: Belgium 0.90, Holland 0.88, Germany 0.92, United Kingdom 0.92 and Italy 0.94 (Figure 5). Much lower figures than these have already been achieved in the above mentioned countries during the past decade. This means that the population will fall to a sufficient extent without coercion if the average age does not rise and their is no net change due to migration (Figure 6).

 

The net reproduction rate reveals an aversion to having children. The actual fall in population happens much more slowly. The NRR only affects the younger age groups, whereas the actual population figure is also affected by changes in the average age, the average age of childbirth, wars, and above all by the net migration balance.

 

The change I am suggesting is not dramatic, neither does it require coercive measures. In the future legislation should aim at diminishing support for population growth and preventing migration from other continents. This should be continued throughout the centuries to come. If the most populous countries find it easy to conform to these objectives, it will not be so difficult for others to follow suit. The population of Europe will decline from its present half billion level by 5 per cent over the following two generations. This reduction is one of the starting points in my plan for the following decades.

 

After then the population could slowly and steadily drop to the 1900 level. The goal is an harmonious Europe with a population of 300 million people. To achieve it humanely and voluntarily would take three centuries. It could even become the permanent population level for Europe. The density of the populations of Finland, Norway and Sweden is already well under 50 people per square kilometre, so they could retain their present levels. The other countries would have to significantly reduce their populations, especially the overpopulated ones. The density for the stabilised population in Europe is 65 people per square kilometre and the ceiling for the greater part is 100 people per square kilometre (Figure 7). This level could be achieved by about the year 2300. The density of population would still be about three times what it is in Africa today. Such conditions would allow for spacious living, extensive nature areas, cleanliness and noiselessness, culture, peace and a permanently high quality of life. If Europe’s present population density was duplicated throughout the world, it would mean a population of 12.5 billion. It is just this thought, this nightmare, that terrifies us. Europe’s duty is to reduce its population.

 

 

Changes in land use

 

Population planning demands transcontinental land use planning and also makes this possible. This is supported by the following two principles:

 

1. Europe may not exploit other continents or overload the world more than they do.

 

2. Europe must leave so much space for nature that the well-being of all animal and plant species is safeguarded.

 

Figure 7. Proposed population densities for Europe, 2300

 

 

 

It is also possible to choose a long-term option which fulfills all the above mentioned requirements and allows Europe to keep its present level of population. However, the level of consumption in Europe would then fall drastically and we should be compelled to replace meat eating by a more vegetarian diet. This is not such a bad idea, but psychologically and politically difficult to introduce.

 

Europe today has no strategies for population growth and land use. These problems must be put in order before we can start planning anything else.

 

Population and land use belong together. The uses for land which I suggest may for many be new, and these are detailed in the following chapters concerning nature areas, agriculture, forestry and energy. Here I shall discuss the present use of land in Europe and suggest new combinations for the future (Figures 8 and 9). The calculations and premises for these are contained in Appendix I. The basic objectives of the plan are self-sufficiency for Europe and a sharp reduction in the volume of crosswise transportation. The most important ideological improvement is the vast increase in nature areas. In the name of future generations, we must demand that the rain forests of South America be preserved, that the mammals of Africa be protected, and that the rich bird life of South-East Asia be safeguarded. These demands are right, but only justified and credible once we ourselves have made the first and significant sacrifices. Our duty is to provide the example of how to protect the diversity of nature. Between the present and the planned use of land there are the following differences.

 

 

1. Nature conservation areas have to be greatly expanded. The projected new area is intended as a real nature area, where no artificial changes may be made and where human access is restricted. In extent it is usually 10 per cent of the whole land area, but in the more sparsely populated Nordic countries – Finland, Sweden and Norway – I propose that 20 per cent of the land be handed over for this purpose. To start with this uniform area will be like a corridor, but later on a network running the length and breadth of Europe. In addition we shall need thousands of separate protected islands.

 

Figure 8. Land use in Europe, 1995

 

Figure 9. Planned land use in Europe, 2030, Alternative 1

 

 

Figure 10. Planned land use in Europe, 2030, Alternative 2

 

 

2. Regional self-sufficiency in agriculture will be guaranteed. Diets will be reminiscent of what people are accustomed to nowadays and regional variations in productivity will be taken into consideration when calculating the need for land. As neither Holland or Belgium are large enough to feed their own populations, they will be excepted from self-sufficiency, and some 4 300 square kilometres of Denmark allotted to augment their food supply. The arable area is smaller than the present crop and pasture land together for three reasons: the population is smaller, people eat more healthily, and yields are greater. If it is desired to preserve low productivity pastures, then pieces of “other land” could be used for this purpose. The exception to this is the large commercially exploited area in the north which is also unfit for pasture. The “other land” share in northern Europe will be larger than now and a huge recreational area will be created. Two other exceptions are France and Ireland where the land under cultivation is nowadays far larger than they need and so can be reduced without difficulties.

 

 

3. Self-sufficiency in forests will not be achieved because the land is used for food production. Thus even in the future the populous countries of central Europe will have the disguised use of the forest areas of the Nordic countries, southeast Europe and France. The area of commercial forest in Europe can be reduced by about a third due to the radical reduction in the consumption of paper. About a third of the net growth of existing forests will be allowed to decay. If it is not wished to diminish the consumption of paper, then “other land” will have to be used for the forest industry.

 

4. The plan envisages that the built area will remain much the same as now, and fall slightly in those countries where the population is thought to decline. The plan is based on spacious town planning, because the minimum area per person is 700 square metres which allows for a small garden. The built area includes industrial plants, public buildings and the transport infrastructure. No multi-storey residential buildings will be erected.

 

 

5. It is thought to locate energy forests in the more open regions. They are the same countries who produce enough to export. Energy forests are needed so that the related technology is not forgotten. It is a natural alternative to solar panels and at the same time provides a living environment.

 

 

6. The major change in present day land use is the area required for the new power plants. These are combinations of wind turbines, solar panels and underground thermal pipelines. The plan estimates they will need an area of 136 000 square kilometres, which is about 3 per cent of the land area of Europe.

 

 

7. By “other land” is meant the area that remains after all the above mentioned uses have taken their share. In the Nordic countries it could be used for rambling and other recreational purposes, and in central Europe as agricultural or forestry reserve land. The arable and commercial forest areas proposed in the plan are final solutions in which the effective utilisation of land has been taken to the limit. It is doubtful whether this can be done in practice, or whether it is even necessary.

 

 

The arable and forest areas presented in the first land use plan are based on specific assumptions, which are explained in detail in Appendix I. They are pretty tough and demand sacrifices, so in the end there is quite a lot of “other land” left over. Certain adjustments can, however, be made to the basic premises in the calculations, and these are also explained in the appendix. Once these adjustments have been made, a second land use plan is obtained in which, with the exception of the Nordic countries, all “other land” is converted to agricultural or forest use (Figure 10). These assumptions relating to land use are more permissive and do not demand the same tough measures as in Alternative 1. The alternative presented in Figure 10 show that there is little available land in Europe and so an urgent plan is required for transcontinental land use.

 

As we have seen, population and land use are intimately connected to each other. Their correct combination and control are the basic questions in any long-range plans. These, then, are the starting points around which society constructs the details.