Futures,Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 75–81, 1998Pergamon 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Printed in Great Britain0016–3287/98 $19.00+ 0.00

PII: S0016–3287(98)00007-X

ESSAY

Attitudes to death and the future changing ourthinking

Robert J Gregory

The drive to survive has been extremely strong for individuals and groups over thecourse of history and across various cultures. Given the rapid increase in population,however, carrying capacity may have already been exceeded. Although limiting births,improving quality of and extent of participation in social life, applying technology andother approaches may help, the likelihood is that there are already more people thancan be reasonably accommodated on our planet Earth. Attitudes towards death mayneed to and may in fact, change from shock and horror to a far greater acceptancethan in the recent past. 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Read any newspaper, watch any televisionnews show, talk and listen to virtually any per-son in any street, and you will quickly comeaway filled with news of the many tragediesof the day. War, famine, epidemics, violence,pollution, and human deaths are many. As welisten, we are quickly swept into an emotion-ally based negative view, how utterly mad,sad, and bad the world seems. The lot ofhuman beings appears to be the very worstand that lot is growing more difficult almostdaily.

A simple change in thinking can enableus to look at the positive side of these events,however, for there may be benefits. Just as acup of water can be seen as half full or halfempty, so too can death be regarded as nega-tive or positive. This article offers a plea anda way to reexamine the world and see somebenefits in some human deaths.

Robert J. Gregory is Senior Lecturer at the Depart-ment of Psychology, Massey University, PalmerstonNorth, New Zealand (Tel: 64 06 350-4158; fax: 6406 3505673; e-Mail: R.J.Gregory@massey.ac.nz).

75

Personally, I neither applaud death, norwelcome it for anyone, ever. I do not condonenor do I feel in any way positive about anydecisions, covert or overt, which cause injuryor death to humans or animals. I take no joyin writing and seeking to publish this paper.The messages are not pleasant. But I do callfor an end to the psychic numbing that blindsus to facing up to the coming environmentaland social collapse we will face, in fact, arefacing now. Debate, discussion, research, andaction is an urgent matter.

The situation

Throughout history, we have been distressedat each and every incidence of suicide, homi-cide, warfare, accidental death or early deathfrom disease and illness, as well as by thecomplex issues posed by abortion. For somegroups and places, even discussion about theissue of contraception has brought angrydebate and bitter arguments. Our senses shud-der at the news of almost all deaths, and wewonder and ask why anyone need die before

Essay: R J Gregory

a ‘natural’ fading away takes place at a veryold age.

Our health, legal, social and emergencyservices do their best to prevent death, and topromote survival and good health. Again andagain, we try as individuals, groups, andnations to accomplish that primary mission, tomaintain life, to survive, at the least, to preventdeath, for ourselves, and for our fellow humanbeings. Only when we are goaded into takingaction to defend ourselves do we condemn kil-lers and murderers and those who seek towage war to death, and even then we carryout such penalties only after numerous legal,moral, and ethical checks.

The problem

In 1798, Malthus1 published his classic andwell known essay on population. His argu-ment was simply put, namely, that ‘Popu-lation, when unchecked, increases in a geo-metrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in anarithmetical ratio. A slight acquaintance withnumbers will show the immensity of the firstpower in comparison of the second’. Neo-Malthusians2 have had fluctuations in fortuneever since but the underlying problems, toomany humans on a limited planet, have notfaded away. At times, the issues have beenignored, but psychic numbing has not workedto eliminate the problem.

World population has, in fact, slowly andgradually risen from a few million, to around300 million in 1000 A.D. to 500 million in1500 A.D. to nearly 6 billion as the 21st mil-lennium occurs. The rise in population hasbeen particularly rapid over the past three orfour hundred years, although for our way ofthinking, the scale as to what is meant by theword ‘rapid’ when a global change is takingplace, remains somewhat hidden.3 Accordingto best available projections from the UnitedNations4,5 the human population is likely tonearly double by 2050 or so.

And yet, we are making technological,social, economic, and political progress incoping with such large numbers of humanbeings and moving towards considerations ofnot just the numbers of lives, but of the qualityof their lives.

Or, are we?

The problem of population increases is both apolitical and economic clash of interest, as

76

well as a potential environmental collapse.Political strength and economic might have agreat deal to do with sizes of population,indeed, some6 would claim that relative popu-lation size is one of the most significant factorsin the global power structure. The discussionabout the declining Western populations ascompared with the increasing populationselsewhere reveals Western fears and anxieties,which may well lead to massive confron-tations and interventions.

The deeper problem

However, there are concerns well beyond justpolitical and economic dominance. A centralconcept for the consideration of futures for apopulation is the carrying capacity of theenvironment. Regarding plants and animals,and biological diversity, Worldwatch7 arguesthat a biological collapse has already begunaround the world. Citing a report by John C.Ryan, they note that three-fourths of the spec-ies of birds are declining or threatened, thatnumbers and diversity of amphibians aredeclining worldwide, that many plant speciesare disappearing, that wetlands are beingdestroyed, that rising global temperatures willsimply overwhelm many species, and so on.Wilson8 has covered the importance of biodiv-ersity, the extensive and increasing loss ofbiodiversity, and the implications for the con-tinuation of life. Among many others, Gary W.Harding9 claims that the rapid expansion ofhuman numbers and their activities is increas-ing the mean global temperature, through con-centrating carbon dioxide, methane, nitrousoxide, water vapour and other trace gases byburning fossil fuels and clearing land.Although he acknowledges that futures fore-casting is risky, the greenhouse gases andmean global temperature appear set to riseeven more rapidly in the near future than inthe past. He feels that carrying capacity for thehuman population was exceeded in 1975.

With similar regard to the human aspectof the carrying capacity of the environment,Catton10 in his profound observations in hisbook Overshoot, claims that the human popu-lation overshot the sustainable maximumnumbers some decades ago. Donnella Mea-dows and others11 with the much publicisedClub of Rome reports12 predicted a global col-lapse around 2025, given population data,resources available and estimated, and projec-tions of existing trends. More recently, David

Essay: R J Gregory

Pimental and his team13 at Cornell University,in research sponsored by the Laurel Foun-dation, pointed out that a sustainable ormaximum population figure of people whocould live at a reasonable level of healthwould be around 1 to 2 billion people. Thisfinding is at marked variance with even cur-rent population numbers, let alone projectionsfor the near or distant future. These predictionsrepresent a gloomy and frightening future.

The opportunities

Given situations of great complexity andextreme urgency, opportunities remain. Not alloptions are likely to be addressed, for sometaboos remain—particularly those choices thatare socially and politically difficult to face. Butthe easy solutions have been examined, andfound wanting.

Four possible scenarios or directionsappear available: we can limit births, we canimprove our environment and its use, we canmobilise and include and strengthen ratherthan exclude people, or, as a last and most dif-ficult resort, we can consider acceptance ofand perhaps even promotion of early deathfor some.

We can seek to limit births, by reducingfertility below replacement levels. Some14

argue that people should not be forced to limittheir families, and that education and accessto contraceptives is sufficient to limit futurepopulation growth. Cohen5 and Athanasiou15

skilfully trace the enormous amount of infor-mation on population increase that is avail-able, while they argue that limits exist but arestill unknown. However, in the words of Wolf-gang Lutz16: ‘even drastic fertility reductionswould not achieve this goal of rapid negativepopulation growth by 2100’. His analysis ofworld populations demonstrates that even thelowest possible projections would see at least8 to 10 billion people on earth by 2100. In anycase, this first scenario does not seem likely tosucceed in alleviating or solving the problems.

A second direction is to improve ourenvironment, to use science and technology topromote better use of water, cleaner air, andmore production of high quality food. Somewould claim that science and technologyshould enable us to overcome almost any limi-tations, and to produce almost infiniteamounts of food, clean water, and clean air.As unrealistic as this optimism may be to the

77

majority, the reality currently faced is alreadybordering on disaster.

For example, Ehrlich and Ehrlich17 arguethat depletion of nonrenewable resourceswithout degrading the ability of the environ-ment is the key. They claim that by using sucha key, ‘the entire planet and virtually everynation is already vastly overpopulated’.McMichael3 believes that the changingenvironment is already affecting the health ofthe human population. Ophuls18 states ‘wehave frittered away the two decades since thefirst Earthday without seizing this grandopportunity... we seem to do everything wecan to avoid facing up to the inevitability oflimits and of changing our profligate way oflife’. Meadows, Meadows, and Randers19

acknowledge that ‘Human use of many essen-tial resources and generation of many kinds ofpollutants have already surpassed rates thatare physically sustainable’ and without sig-nificant changes, they forecast ‘an uncon-trolled decline in per capita food output,energy use, and industrial production’. Thusthe second direction appears likely to fail aswell.

A third possibility is to recognise that theadditional human beings being born and sur-viving can become valuable resources andsoon add to the growth and development ofbetter societies, more clever uses of theenvironment, and so on. However, manywould argue that large numbers of humanbeings are already being left out from thewealth and riches available to a relative few.15

The concentration of wealth among an elitehas increased of recent date. Representative ofthis concern is global income distribution. Thetop one-fifth of the world population has 82.7per cent of the total of all income. The nextone-fifth has another 11.7 percent of allincome. These two fifths account for 94.4 per-cent of income, leaving 5.6 percent for somesixty per cent of the population.2,20 It may wellbe the case that the bonds of caring andrelationship between rich and poor have beensevered so completely that the distribution ofwealth in the future will continue to be moreand more concentrated and the masses will bealmost completely excluded.

But wealth is far from the only factor.Wolfensberger21 recognises that people withdisabilities are increasingly at risk, given thechanging climate of public opinion. Wol-fensberger documented the shift in values fromintrinsic value in all of human life to ‘modern-

Essay: R J Gregory

ism’ which is characterized by individualism,sensualism, disregard for external moralities,and materialism. This modernism, he claims,has led to the death and destruction of humanpopulations, particularly that of people whoare handicapped or have disabilities. Perhapsanother way though, however controversial, ofviewing the issue is that these new values, asdescribed by Wolfensberger, are preservinglife and high quality of life of a few by ensuringthat some people die.

Thus, each and even combinations of theabove three possibilities are unlikely to achi-eve the needed results to avert collapse. Thefourth direction is to accept and even increasemortality. Most responsible scientists and lead-ers avoid any discussion of such a direction.Lutz16 for example, states that such a move‘would never be socially or politically feasible’and argues further that it would not bringabout a higher quality of life. Of course thisis true, for all concerned. Yet as difficult anddistasteful as increasing mortality may be, thisroute may be well worth looking at, eventhough it is typically a taboo topic.

For many years, deaths other than by‘natural’ old age have occurred in each andevery society. Although no one appears happyabout such deaths, acceptance of a certain rateof such deaths has become almost a norm, foraccidents, for illnesses including some that arequite preventable, and for large-scale prob-lems such as warfare, violence, famine, flood-ing, earthquakes, and other natural disasters.

A simple look at these deaths and theiracceptance is revealing. Individual, family,social, and institutionalized violence afflicts usall, particularly children and women, but alsominorities, those with behaviour that is differ-ent or ‘deviant’ and people with disabilities. Inaddition to on-going violence, accidents are adaily occurrence, in which people die, areinjured, or suffer severe losses. Automobilecrashes, falls, drowning when boating orswimming, industrial mishaps, and pedestrianaccidents are only a few of the many misfor-tunes that can and do hit, generally withoutwarning.

On a societal level, war continues to bepervasive, for example, Bosnia, Africa, Sou-theast Asia, and internally in what was theSoviet Union. New revelations of past warsand their decimation of populations flourish,as in Indonesia, Latin America, and Africa. Thepotential for more wars and deaths is omni-present as the arms race and military research

78

continues but with less publicity and publicawareness than in the days of the Cold War.

Famine kills children and adults everyday, but the numbers of people at starvationlevels is far greater, as in North Korea cur-rently. Africa, Latin America, and even in theslum centres in cities of the United States aresome of the places where hunger achieves itsdeadly toll. Disease is another killer. The HIVvirus and AIDs is sweeping the world—witharound 14 million testing positive for HIV ordying now. The spread is rapid, and appearsif anything to be increasing. Similar epidemicspreads are occurring with ‘superbugs,’ andsuch unusual diseases as the Ebola virus ornecrotizing fascitis. Though under control,they may evolve further and they certainlyhave potential to decimate populations.

For the majority of those in Western civi-lisation, cancer and heart attacks remain themajor killers, but they are only one small partof death and destruction when viewed aroundthe globe. Still, the contributions of poor dietsand faulty environments, the lack of exercise,and other activities reveals that there arenumerous easily preventable deaths in mostsocieties which are virtually ignored. Weappear to accept such deaths without alarm.

Of course, alcoholism and illegal drugabuse, and the chronic problem of tobaccoconsumption, continue as scourges every-where. Pollution is endemic, whether water,air, or land. The search for clean air to breathe,clean water to drink, and land on which togrow crops that are not filled with trace met-als, poisonous chemicals and so on is increas-ingly difficult. Strange and unusual cults mayappear from time to time which seem to glorifydeath, resulting in intense media interest fora while, then disappear from public but notprivate view.

Thus directly opting out of life is stillanother possibility. Youth suicide, suicide ingeneral, and attempts at suicide are many.Abortion is regarded by many as equivalent tomurder. And the various state governmentsmete out justice of their own to murderers andkillers by death sentences for at least a fewpersons each year. The governments justifytheir actions by claiming that the deaths willmake the community a better and safer placefor the remainder.

In addition to the actual deaths, accept-ance and tolerance of death whether by dis-ease, violence, wars, famine, and suicide, iswidespread. Recognition that a certain inci-

Essay: R J Gregory

dence and prevalence of ‘unnatural’ deathsdoes occur is general and pervasive. The atten-tion paid to Jack Kevorkian and other leaderswho provide euthanasia programmes is but thetip of a surge of interest in self and other-assisted death. Some such efforts are highlypublicised, others are hidden from publicview. The Internet reveals thousands of articlesabout death and dying, and some resources22

are designed to be helpful to those who wouldacclaim and ease rather than deride death.Death and dying courses are taught in univer-sities and medical schools, seminars on deathare many, and interest appears to beexpanding.

Still, we can and must go beyond theexisting taboos about these deaths, the toler-ance we appear to have developed, and beginto question seriously and then address deeperissues. Perhaps we should begin to talk veryseriously about deciding who should be saved,who will be saved, and identify those who willnot. Rather than let a precipitous die-off takeplace by chance or random action, on animplicit level, explicit discussion, followed bytough decisions, can and should be held.

In fact, these decisions are already madecovertly, and just perhaps, are continuing tobe made every day, albeit indirectly or surrep-titiously. Africa is one example for it has beensaid that the developed world no longer hasany serious desire to support the peoples ofAfrica. Their condition, given war, lack ofresources, soil erosion, and so on, is deemedby world powers to be largely hopeless.Another group in the United States who havebeen seemingly tossed aside is represented bythe homeless. Also, automobile manufacturerswho produce cars capable of high speeds,careless and drunk drivers, and accidents areresponsible for some 50,000 Americans whodie each year due to the road toll. Handgunsand pistols kill around 38,000 people per yearin the United States. Around the world, thenumbers of deaths by automobile accidentand gunshots are probably far greater in num-ber.

More silent killers lurk as well, forexample, cigarette manufacturers and distribu-tors, and alcohol producers and bar-tendersare still subsidized by governments, which inturn are encouraged by their tax take andadvertising revenues. Thus there are both obvi-ous and subtle influences on the causes ofdeath, but our decisions about these matters

79

as a society have too often been hidden andimplicit, not explicit.

The current epidemics, misfortunes,deaths, famines, and other ailments are symp-toms of a deep problem that may get worse.Part of this problem can be addressed throughlateral thinking and open discussion. Death ofthousands or even millions of human beings isnot a simple or easy matter to talk about, butit may well be important to discuss the issue,that is, essential to the survival of the humanspecies on our planet. The answer lies in list-ening, understanding, and deciding to act, andthen acting, in ways that are as ethical as poss-ible. An entirely new ethical system may berequired—for the survival of humankind, somechanges, some sacrifices are needed. This situ-ation is reminiscent of classic situations of thedeclaration of war, and the subsequent send-ing of troops to the front.

To do nothing is to act

That we are the species in question in thisissue should blind us neither to the issues northe actions. For any of us, or for the environ-ment (Gaia) itself to survive, that is, for life onPlanet Earth to have a chance to proceedtowards and to arrive at a future yet unknowndestination, the number of human beings mustdecrease and this event must take place rap-idly.

Therefore, I ask, since other alternativesappear limited in solving the problems, can weand should we seek to reduce populations? Ifso, by what range of means, and when? Cer-tainly, some decisions, some means, somepaths of action, may be more ethical andresponsible than others. This is obviously nota desirable direction, but it may be more desir-able than alternatives. Maintaining somehuman life may be a better solution than towait until all human life is extinguished com-pletely.

In many senses, decisions are alreadybeing made. The world does not produceenough food for all, and hidden decisions aremade daily that certain financial and politicalexchanges are essential before food is distrib-uted. As a result some estimates are that40,000 children die each day of starvation,bad nutrition or easily remediable childhooddiseases. Abortion, decisions not to resusci-tate, and ‘pulling the plug’ are only the tip ofa great many ways in which decisions to

Essay: R J Gregory

reduce the population are made, daily, in vir-tually all parts of the world.

Is it time to change our attitudes, and tobegin to approve population reduction, fordeath of some humans means that the destruc-tion of the environment and carrying capacitywill be less than otherwise? Those who do sur-vive will live better with a far higher quality oflife as a result of the deaths of some. Sus-tainability, long term sustainability, may beenhanced.

Should we be sorry when we hear ofdeath? The survival of human, and animal, andplant life on earth may well depend upon thedeath of a large part of the human population.

Attitudes towards death have varied overhistory, and among different cultures andpopulations today.23 Indigenous and collectiv-ist societies may have quite different conceptsof self, and self awareness, than do individual-ist Western societies.24,25 Attitudes towardsdeath in the past may have been influencedby the lack of scientifically based health care,the brevity of the life span, the beliefs in heav-ens, and the relationship of person to com-munity.

Accordingly, one of the most significanttasks before us may be to reverse personal andpublic attitudes, opinions and beliefs, andbehaviour, towards death. Time, effort andmoney being put into saving lives could per-haps be as well spent in finding appropriateand suitable ways to promote euthanasia, toencourage suicide, and to make accidentaldeath more acceptable.

Conclusion

Obviously one of the major problems we andthe world face is overpopulation. More peopleare now present on Planet Earth than can man-age comfortably given the limited resourcesavailable. Reducing births, restoring theenvironment, using science and technology toinnovate and develop resources, educatingand enabling the entire population to flourish,are potential solutions which, in reality, arenot now being used effectively. But thesemeans are unlikely to be able to turn the situ-ation around in the future, when even morepeople are here. Even in combination, theseanswers are insufficient to remedy this mostdifficult situation. Further, the likelihood ofusing these possible solutions to handle theproblems posed are and will continue to beextremely limited.26 Thus exploring attitudes

80

and behaviour towards death is an essentialnext step. There are simply too many of ushere.

On an individual and personal scale,every time you read about or hear aboutpeople dying, it is important to remember thatdeath is a natural process and that worldresources are limited. Therefore, if we thinkabout and analyze the situation carefully, wedo and should sorrow when and if people die,but we might also reflect that death of somemeans that humankind has a greater chancefor a sustainable future. Perhaps we shouldface our own personal deaths within a positiveframework, welcoming rather than fighting,rejoicing rather than sorrowing.

On an international scale, broad attitudi-nal changes are needed. One of the potentialgroups of people who could address suchissues is psychologists. Psychological prac-titioners often deal with matters of individualselves, the meanings we attach to our lives,and to death and grieving. Their role might beto conceptualize, design, develop, and thenmarket with the assistance of advertising pro-fessionals various programmes to address thiscomplex and difficult issue. Public oppro-brium might then change to public acceptancewhen the day comes that the masses realiseworld population numbers have already led usfar too deeply into the Malthusian dilemma.Another group is politicians for their obviousleadership skills, and religious leaders maywish to join in to assure that appropriate ethi-cal questions are addressed, that morality ismaintained, and that celebrations areenabling, rather than disabling. Attitudes dochange, sometimes rapidly, given new circum-stances.

Ethically, establishing a healthy popu-lation, and weeding out some, perhaps thosewho cannot contribute in a meaningful or pro-ductive way, is a frightening thought, makingthe Holocaust, World Wars I and II, and fam-ine but minor blips in a world gone mad. Toeven write about such a topic is heretical. Onthe other hand, acknowledging that the worldhas indeed already gone mad, and rationallyseeking to do something about the situation tocontrol a population that is way out of line,might just be seen to be highly reasonableand responsible.

Who can judge? How will historydevelop? We do not know, but we can be cer-tain that this and similar questions will beraised in the coming years.

Essay: R J Gregory

Notes and references

1. Malthus, T. R., An Essay on the Principle ofPopulation, Oxford University Press, Oxford,1798, 1993, see page 13.

2. Chamberlain, N. W., Beyond Malthus: Popu-lation and Power, Basic Books, New York,1970.

3. McMichael, A. J., Planetary Overload: GlobalEnvironmental Change and the Health of theHuman Species, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, 1993, pages 295-296.

4. see United Nations, Long-range World Popu-lation Projection: Two Centuries of PopulationGrowth, 1950–2150, United Nations, NewYork, 1992 and United Nations, World Popu-lation Prospects: The ’94 Revision, UnitedNations, New York, 1993.

5. Cohen, J. E.,How Many People Can the EarthSupport?, Norton, New York, 1995.

6. see http://www.africa2000.com/INDX/decline.htm

7. see http://www.livelinks.com/sumeria/earth/col-lapse.html

8. Wilson, E. O., ed., Biodiversity, National Acad-emy Press, Washington, D. C., 1988.

9. see http://members.aol.com/trajcom/private/pop-co2.htm

10. Catton, W. R., Jr., Overshoot: The EcologicalBasis of Revolutionary Change, University ofIllinois Press, Urbana, 1980.

11. Meadows, D. H., et. al., The Limits to Growth,Potomac Associates, Washington, D. C., 1972.

12. Mesarovic, M. and Pestel, E., Mankind at theTurning Point: The Second Report to the Clubof Rome, Hutchinson, London, 1975.

13. Pimentel, D., Harman, R., Pacenza, M., Pecar-sky, J. and Pimentel, M., Natural Resourcesand an Optimum Human Population. Popu-

81

lation and Environment: Journal of Interdisci-plinary Studies, 1994, 15(5), 347–369.

14. see http://www.miyazaki-mic.ac.jp/classes/en-vsoc/enass5p.html

15. Athanasiou, T., Divided Planet: The Ecology ofRich and Poor, Little, Brown, New York, 1996.

16. Lutz, W., The Future of World Population,Population Bulletin, 49(1) 1994) pages 1–47,see especially page 35.

17. Ehrlich, P. R. and Ehrlich, A. H., The Popu-lation Explosion, Simon and Schuster, NewYork, 1990, p. 39.

18. Ophuls, W. and Boyan, S. S., Ecology and thePolitics of Scarcity Revisited: The Unravelingof the American Dream, W. H. Freeman, NewYork, 1992, page 313.

19. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L. and Rand-ers, J., Beyond the Limits: Global Collapse ora Sustainable Future, Earthscan Publishing,London, 1992, see pages xv and xvi.

20. During, A., Asking How Much is Enough, In L.R. Brown, et. al., Eds. The State of the World,W. W. Norton, New York, p. 153-169.

21. Wolfensberger, W., The Growing Threat to theLives of Handicapped People in the Contextof Modernistic Values. Disability and Society,1994, 9(3), 395–413.

22. see http://www.newciv.org/worldtrans/GIB/nat-death/ndh2.html

23. Kastenbaum, R. and Aisenberg, R., The Psy-chology of Death, Springer Publishing, NewYork, 1976.

24. see http://www.wwdc.com/death/attitudes.html25. see http://dieoff.org/page74.htm26. For an excellent discussion of the search and

struggle for sustainability, the special issue ofFutures, 26(2) 1994, is highly recommended.Obviously sustainability is a preferred choicefor us all, but the vision appears to be recedingas the reality of overpopulation, environmentaldamage, and other threats to survival grow.