THE United States is experiencing an epidemic of overweight and even obese people, including far too many overweight children. On this subject, I recently read about greenhouse gas emissions from cattle and pigs being taxed in Denmark, as this type of pollution is also quite serious. Not only industrial pollution, but also pollution from meat food production, which also leads to land degradation and reduction of flood-proof trees and foliage, turning wetlands, forests, etc., into land agricultural land, then transforming much of all land into residential land. . Then add the degradation of these lands and water tables, not only for natural water retention, but also for pollution of the water supply through excessive use of fertilizers to increase yields and soil levels. commodities, not only to feed people, but also to feed the animals that become our meat given the demand. for these products.

This seems to be Malthus’ expected revenge, and I always believed he was right. Although the reckoning may be postponed, if we continue to inexorably increase the population, it will inevitably come.

However, before we get back to that, about obesity and meat eating etc., the American literature on being overweight seems to fail to grasp a key point that most other people understand. Look at the richness, flavor and even high fat content of much French, Japanese and Chinese cuisine. They taste great, thanks to the wonderful flavors but also the high fat content of much of their food. However, they are not obese like Americans. For what?

Portion control. Look at the portion sizes and you will see that you can eat very tasty, rich and even fatty foods, but don’t overdo it on portions and frequency. Something that seems to be anathema to most Americans. I used to eat a lot more, but as I got older my appetite decreased. That, plus Ozempic and playing tennis three to four times a week after retirement, allowed my weight to return to what I was in college and 35 pounds less than my peak weight and 27 pounds less than my pre-Covid weight. A lot of this is due to portion control. Then the second part, which is just because you like to eat well, doesn’t mean you have to eat that way every day. If you can eat a conservative amount of healthy foods the rest of the time, an occasional indulgence will do. Most French people don’t eat croissants every day. Again, this is something that many Americans seem to have difficulty doing.

However, this is only marginal aid, even if for the Americans, a very significant margin. What is the additional problem and the deeper problem: We also need portion control for our population.

Look at the Scandinavian countries and see what a modest population that does not excessively use or abuse their environment achieves, and you can see that a sustainable lifestyle does not mean a lower quality life, regardless the measuring criterion. They can even afford to promote sustainable initiatives. Read the November 28 Bloomberg article: “This is what the world’s first fully dedicated electric vehicle market looks like.” An incredible 94 percent of new cars sold in Norway in October were electric, almost double the rate of number two China.

Many studies have produced widely varying estimates of what the sustainable global population is likely to be. Some clustered around the turn of the 20th century population, which was around 4 billion, or half of today’s population. I wonder what the fate and prosperity of the Philippines would be if only our population doubled in the last 124 years. In 1959, when I was born, we had 19 million people and that number has since increased by about 600 percent. I am not in favor of mass sterilization like that attempted in India in the 1970s, or even the mandatory one-child policy imposed in China for decades and only recently relaxed. I think the lack of reproductive control measures or education has not served us well. Look at all our neighbors, their population and their economic growth compared to ours. The opposite of ours. High economic growth and modest population growth. We have a high population and modest economic growth. So much for the much-vaunted and, in my opinion, misguided demographic dividend that I discussed previously. I don’t believe in volume of life over quality. Just like I don’t care about total gross domestic product (GDP) unless it’s accompanied by high GDP per capita.

A small, sustainable population will do just that, help keep things sustainable. Those who have experienced today’s industrial agriculture and meat production will not find this sustainable or humane. This is coming from a meat lover who appreciates his premium beef. The need to increase size and output did not come without significant costs and damages. I am sorry that a devout wing of our Catholic proselytes thinks that more and more people are a virtue rather than a scourge. Other Catholic countries are doing much better without taking an extreme stance on population control. Nobody is talking about coercive measures in favor of population control. Coercive measures are on their side in the vigorous fight against reproductive control measures, their availability and their cost. Proselytism too.

A lower population would help. Just look at what a 600% population growth in 65 years has had on the quality of life and environmental degradation in the Philippines. Compare this recording to others and also consider differences and similarities between other factors. To me, this is not just correlation but causation.