Population activist David Nova took his message to the trail

14 Dec 2005

David Nova.

While camping alone in the Mojave Desert three years ago, David Nova was suddenly struck by the lack of human influence -- no buildings, no streetlights, no cars, all the way to the horizon. It wasn't the first time the avid hiker had thought about the effects of population on the environment, but it was the moment he decided he could do something about it.

A longtime social activist who is president and CEO of a western Virginia Planned Parenthood network, Nova began making plans to hike the 2,650-mile Pacific Crest Trail. The journey would not only fulfill a 20-year-old dream (he'd bought guidebooks for the trail in 1986, shortly after completing a thru-hike of the Appalachian Trail), it would also raise awareness about population and consumption in the U.S.

Nova set out on the five-month trek, dubbed PopHike, in April. With the help of supporters and Planned Parenthood contacts, he raised $100,000 for organizations working on population issues and, he says, inspired at least a few people to change their lifestyles.

After meeting him in Seattle just one day off the trail, Grist caught up with Nova again once he'd had time to catch his breath. We talked with him about the physically demanding hike, the changes he's made in his own life since coming home, and the trappings of our consumption-driven society.

What inspired you to make your PopHike trek?

PopHike was my attempt to raise awareness of the 1994 U.N. Cairo Agreement during a five-month thru-hike of the Pacific Crest Trail. The PCT runs from Mexico to Canada; it's the West Coast equivalent of the Appalachian Trail. For years I've seen the encroachment of residential and commercial developments threaten to reduce the AT from a wilderness trail to some sort of long, suburban park. I wanted to find a way to use my thru-hike to raise concerns about the effects of population on both the AT and the PCT.

A reflective moment on the trail.

Story continues below

ADVERTISING POLICY

Could you explain the theme for your hike, "From Mexico to Canada by way of 'Cairo'"?

Cairo is a non-binding agreement developed in Egypt in 1994. Under Cairo, the nations of the world threw out the paternalistic notion of "population control." They recognized that empowering women is a more effective approach to global sustainability. By providing women with education, free health care, and job opportunities, impoverished nations become increasingly developed and women begin to see themselves as more than mere vehicles for procreation. The result is a natural reduction in family size and population growth. The Cairo Agreement also calls upon developed nations like the United States to limit the overconsumption of our natural resources.

PopHike is my way of drawing funding and attention to this practical and innovative agreement. Most people have never heard of the Cairo Agreement. Though the Clinton administration embraced it, the Bush administration now largely ignores it. That's got to stop.

What was your experience like?

The Pacific Crest Trail is amazing. It begins in the desert along the Mexican border. It passes through the high mountains of the Sierra Nevada and then along the spine of the Cascade Mountains through central Oregon and Washington, reaching elevations of up to 13,000 feet. During my trek, temperatures varied from under 20 degrees Fahrenheit to a high of 111. This year's hike was especially challenging due to the enormous snowpack in California. I walked with snow on the trail most days from April through the end of July. Three out of four thru-hikers failed to finish this year, and snow was the primary factor. Several hikers even died along the route due to snow-related accidents.

Hiking this trail was the hardest thing I've ever done. But after a few months, I developed a real sense of connection with the wilderness. I knew I was outdoors, but I no longer felt like I was outside. And the dirt just didn't seem that dirty anymore. Instead of using my tarp, I began sleeping out under the stars. I gained a sense of intimacy with the natural world that simply cannot be achieved during a weeklong backpacking trip. I also began to relish the solitude and isolation.

How did you reduce the amount of weight you carried?

I did everything I could think of. I hiked in sneakers rather than boots. Instead of a three-pound tent, I made an 11-ounce tarp. Rather than a commercial backpacking stove, I used a two-ounce stove made with recycled cat-food cans. I cut the lining out of my nylon shorts and the handle off my toothbrush. I even made my own crampons using machine screws and hex nuts. I also became very miserly -- carefully measuring out just enough fuel for cooking and using toilet paper by the sheet.

When thru-hiking, you don't buy what you can afford -- you buy only what you can afford to carry. As a result, thru-hikers become very conscientious consumers. If everyone had to carry all their possessions on their backs, there would be no worries of overconsumption.

Clear-cuts along the northern half of the PCT.

Did you see any evidence of climate change or other environmental problems on the trail?

Though many of the glaciers along the Pacific Crest Trail are apparently receding, loss of habitat seemed to me the most pressing environmental concern. The expansion of housing developments in Southern California is depressingly obvious. In Oregon and Washington, it's the clear-cut forests that seem to have the greatest environmental toll on habitat.

Has your daily life changed since you've returned? Do you consume less?

I've recognized that so many of my insights during the hike are not compatible with my usual routine. I am still grappling with how I need to change, but I feel change is inevitable. I have made about a dozen trips to the local Goodwill to drop off all sorts of furniture, housewares, and appliances that I no longer want. I think I used to judge my worth by my possessions; now those possessions seem more like clutter. I have also decided to walk to work once a month. It's 13 miles roundtrip. Hopefully, I can inspire others to leave their cars at home once in a while.

Would you say PopHike was a success?

The website presence, media interviews, speaking engagements, and events all combined to generate awareness of the Cairo Agreement. PopHike also raised about $100,000 in donations and per-mile pledges for organizations that support the tenets of PopHike. I even think I inspired a few people to make permanent changes to their lifestyles.

Yet even when I was out there, my efforts sometimes felt like a drop in the bucket. Now I see all the holiday marketing efforts urging us to consume more. I don't know how to compete with that.

Solitude in the high desert.

How do you see your work with Planned Parenthood meshing with the goals of the environmental movement?

Environmentalism is already implicit to Planned Parenthood's agenda -- I think it should be more explicit. Planned Parenthood has had a huge environmental and human-rights impact in developing nations that lack access to affordable contraceptives and sexuality education.

Planned Parenthood now needs to consciously seek ways to have a greater environmental impact in the U.S. We have 900 health centers nationwide serving millions of women, couples, and teens. I can see many ways in which our waiting rooms could serve as locations to promote environmental health as well as reproductive health.

Among environmentalists, the topic of population is often controversial, but the related topic of consumption is readily accepted as a problem. How should we be talking about the connections between the two, and possible solutions?

I see the concepts of "overpopulation" and "population control" as outdated and paternalistic. The Cairo Agreement moves beyond such notions. Cairo considers how best to improve the quality of our lives and of the natural world, given both our population trends and our excesses in consumption. It's not a series of laws or impositions, but rather a collective handshake among the nations of the world. Cairo recognizes that the solution is empowerment rather than control. I think that's something environmentalists everywhere can agree to support.

The future of developing countries is often part of the population dialogue, especially in terms of consumption and environmental health. How can we address these issues in countries where people are just reaching the point where they can afford to consume more and don't want to give that up?

It's a great question, and one I grappled with for 2,000-plus miles. The populations of India and China are replacing their bicycles with cars and their huts with homes. These improvements in living standards are to be celebrated. However, such changes place an even greater burden on our dwindling natural resources. I don't have a solution for this trend. Organizations like the Center for a New American Dream are seeking solutions by encouraging conscientious consumption on a voluntary basis.

In the end, most people won't choose moderation unless they have to. We may all be forced to conserve as our natural resources become scarce and, consequently, more expensive. I hope we never reach that point. A better solution has to come soon if we are to sustain our environment and improve the quality of our lives.

Sarah van Schagen is Grist's editorial fellow.

Comments: (13 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Population economics

It's a real pity that this topic is not more spoken about in positive terms. While decreasing population may hurt in some places, it must be a positive in others. Surely Paul Ehrlich could not have been all wrong.

Population increase is often seen by economically-driven politicians as synonymous with economic growth. Populate or perish?

by roastero at 7:26 PM on 14 Dec 2005

Drowning Myself in the Gene Pool

So glad to see this being discussed. I'm amazed at how many environmentally-minded people I know can agree in the abstract that overpopulation is the root of just about every environmental problem we're facing, but won't apply it personally. Or they use the logic that since they're a couple, it's ok to have 2 kids, because it keeps the number neutral - doesn't that assume that we are currently at a desirable population level, and not long past it?

My wife and I love kids, and have many children in our lives through our friends, but neither of us feel any real desire to reproduce. So why do I often get the feeling that when we tell people that, there's this underlying assumption that its really me, as the "male" that doesn't want kids and my wife is just aquiescing? She feels just as strongly about it as I do! Environmental issues aside, we also consider the impact it would have on our lives, and we see friends who have no free time, look exhausted all the time, can't just spontaneously go out to a movie or dinner, and we know that its not for us - we enjoy our free time, and the lack of pressure of having to make "x" amount of salary to start saving forr universities, etc.

I've actually heard people say its "selfish" not to reproduce, and to value your own time and energy over having children - what's more selfish than acknowledging overpopulation is a serious issue, but you're going to have kids anyway?

by Trucha at 2:23 AM on 15 Dec 2005

Having Kids

I'm a 44 year old married female, and I long ago decided not to have kids. (My husband has a grown daughter from his first marriage and was fine with not having any more.) At the time it wasn't because I was an environmentalist (I wasn't until a few years ago), but because I just don't like kids. That's a radical thing to say in this world, and certainly in this country. I must have been born without the "mommy gene," because I have never felt the urge to have a baby. I have several female friends around my age who feel the same way, and they chose not to have children either. All are well educated and have satisfying careers. We whisper among ourselves that we are glad we don't have kids; we all have friends who do, and they are exhausted, have no time for themselves, and are financially strapped due to the huge cost of raising kids and trying to save for college.

I don't understand why so many people who do want kids have two, three, even four or more children. What's wrong with having just one, which would ease the burdens on working parents and allow many of them to save both for college and for their own retirement?

I often feel like a "female mutant" for feeling this way, because it is definitely not the norm. But since becoming an environmentalist several years ago, I have another reason to be glad that I'm childless.

by wren7 at 8:44 AM on 15 Dec 2005

Drowning Myself...

This is a terrific article. It's surprisingly moving and really thought-provoking. I really enjoyed reading it.

What are we, people who do want children but are social-responsibility-minded, to do? It is a real dilemma, and it isn't being discussed.

by yorkvillezendo at 1:37 PM on 15 Dec 2005

It's not just a numbers game

One of the reasons that population is not discussed more often is that it usually is spoken of in terms of numbers. However, it's not just how many children one has, but how they (and you) live. The deeper issue is consumption. Someone who builds a huge mansion but has no children has a more negative effect on the planet than a peasant family with five children. The real problem in the developed countries is not just how many people there are, but the way we all live.
While population needs to stabilize and trend downward, more importantly the consumption practices of the West need to be addressed. The houses full of unused stuff, the three cars per family, the suburban lifestyle especially (though not only) are what is killing the planet.
A stable society with good social welfare programs, education and empowerment for women seem to "solve" the numbers part of the population issue. The consumption part is even less likely to be seriously discussed.

by bookerly at 9:01 PM on 15 Dec 2005

Overpopulation

Great articles! A colleague at VHEMT.org shared this with the discussion group today. Just wanted to throw out a little more brain candy on this subject in the form of a few quotes:

"The road to the future leads us smack into the wall and we simply ricochet off the alternatives that destiny offers. The wall is a demographic explosion that triggers social chaos and spreads death, nuclear delirium and the quasi-annihilation of the species... Our survival is no more than a question of 25, 50 or perhaps 100 years." -Jacques Cousteau (1910 - 1997)

"The prevailing view holds that a stable population that does not tax the environment's "carrying capacity" would be sustainable indefinitely, and that this state of equilibrium can be achieved through a combination of birth control, conservation, and reliance on "renewable" resources. Unfortunately, worldwide implementation of a rigorous program of birth control is politically impossible. Conservation is futile as long as population continues to rise. And no resources are truly renewable." -"Energy and Human Evolution" by David Price

"Beyond a critical point within a finite space, freedom diminishes as numbers increase. This is as true of humans in the finite space of a planetary ecosystem as it is of molecules in a sealed flask. The human question is not how many can possibly survive within the system, but what kind of existence is possible for those who do survive." -Pardot Kynes, First Planetologist of Arrakis

"There not need be any more people in the world than one can get to know in a lifetime." - Unknown

"I question whether technological growth can keep us ahead of the consumption wolf pack. Particularly if we're trying to export a consumption-based economy to the whole world. At some point we need to say enough is enough." -Kurt Yeager, president and CEO of the industry-funded Electrical Power Research Institute

"You're not actually mammals. Every mammal on the planet naturally develops equilibrium with their surrounding environment. You humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern, a virus. You're a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague and we are the cure." - The Matrix (Film)

"Relief for hungry children is nothing but a symptom of accelerated ignorance, unaware of how a world forecloses on invading circumstance." - Roy Harper's "Ghost Dance"

"Urban growth is a pyramid scheme in which a few people make a killing, some make a living, the many pay for it and the planet is dying for it."

by i zimba at 8:04 AM on 16 Dec 2005

Pop Goes Ecotopia

Regarding population control as a neglected component of environmentalism is further evidence of the movement ignoring holistic/non-linear problem solving. If the Earth Charter effort (www.earthcharter.org) was made the hub all environmental and socially responsible activism we could truly get to dealing with the entirety of our current problems on Spaceship Earth. Each country would be allowed/facilitated into self-sustainability rather than corporate colonialization. Human, fauna, flora and mineral equal rights and maintenance would assume the key economic engines of each of our lives rather than mindless comsumerism. The consequence of these implementations would be worlwide peace and harmony, as with economic viability augmented by non-toxic technologies evenly and non-competetively distributed, leads to lowered population and higher quality of life. This higher quality of life would lead to mandatory ubiquitous non-toxic technologies and processes as the default modality of a new "adult" civilization. Dare I say world-wide Ecotopia (Ernest Callenbach)?

But to get there we need to:

ratify, implement and support all of the features of the Earth Charter...

eliminate political influence or power by non-citizens (this means corporations, businesses or PACs that own our political infrastructure) in our governments, and secure a verifiable and understood to be effective voting system (IRV)...

and establish appropriate taxation of the wealthy so that the lower and middle classes, and our government, have adequate resources to function in a sustainable way, under the circumstance of a satisfying life on Earth ("scarcity" is an illusory myth perpetrated by the Rich Boys Club).

I believe that if these three statements above can be the actively pursued goal of 10% of the population of Earth we can indeed build, what the Universe has as it's intended purpose for all of it's conscious fauna, Ecotopia.

Let's do Ecotopia Now! Let's do Revolution Now!

Peace!

-Sandy Sanders

by sandysanders at 2:23 PM on 16 Dec 2005

Going Down - I'm sorry, what's the issue exactly?

While I enjoy, agree with and am often entertained by most everything I read in Grist, "Going Down" left me thinking, "huh?" The author takes an extraordinary amount of space to not present anything really all that worrisome.

What exactly are the conerns here? That we may someday have a lot of immigrants in European countries working in low wage jobs?!? While not an ideal situation, is it all that different than the present one? And this seems like a deep-seated social issue, not one caused by depopulation. And clearly, "depopulation isn't really what's happening - it's just population shift. To be honest, after years of colonial pillaging, I have little sympathy for countries like France that now have to deal with integrating people from the countries they robbed from for so many years. It is a serious issue, and one for which I see no easy solutions, but it really has little to do with "depopulation."

And what were the other issues to be concerned about here? That all those folks collecting pension plans will drain monetary resources from "green projects?" Please - a fraction of many countries' bloated military budgets could bridge the gap in a heartbeat. The issue isn't there isn't a result of people collecting pensions as much as it is the western military-industrial complex having warped priorities.

As the Mr. Wendling admits, the world's population is still growing, regardless. And the effects of that far outweigh whatever miniscule and over-dramatized impacts may be felt from declining populations in some limited areas. Frankly, with real issues worthy of serious concern, whether or not the aging population of some small town in northern England can find suitable young people to mate with and do their work for them is pretty low on my list. Yawn....

by Trucha at 3:09 PM on 17 Dec 2005

Popping out

I'm glad this has generated such debate - the causes and effects of population changes are amazingly complex. The time scales we're dealing with are almost too long to comprehend, the variables are many, and the statistical analysis can be extraordinarily detailed. In fact I'm a bit out of breath.
At the same time, however, population is tied to very personal choice - i.e. whether or not to have children - a difficult issue that John Kurmann handled brilliantly.
One thing I touched on briefly in my article was the impact on public policy. As a completely unscientific and, um, somewhat flippant survey, I did a bit more research over the weekend, into how many children a select few world leaders have spawned:

-Blair: 4
-Bush: 2
-Angela Merkel: 0
-Junichiro Koizumi: 3
-Jacques Chirac: 2
-Hu Jintao: 2
-Vladimir Putin: 2
-Silvio Berlusconi: 5
-Manmohan Singh: 3
-Kofi Annan: 3

So, like the larger topic - some surprises, few simple conclusions! I'm convinced though that we have to resume seriously thinking about population and how many of us can fit on the planet - despite the problems I outlined, the environmental benefits of a falling population could be tremendous.

by Mike Wendling at 4:23 AM on 19 Dec 2005

Drowning ?

so many things ....

Id love to have a child! somehow having all this machinery and not using it is just the most frustrating idea. Then theres what is called 'instinct',or what i've started to think of as conditioning, society expects that every woman would have the instinct to give birth to a child, and you accept it, and after a bit its so ingrained in you its almost biological.
There is the instinct to care for children, and anyone whose had a brother(s) or sister(s) knows its one of the best things in the world (usually). I do,I think more than one child is a great idea.
Then theres the age old pattern, babies need parents to take care of them, especially ones that love them. Old people, invalids need young people to care for them, especially young people who love them. That is a very important function of a 'family'. old age homes just do not compare.

so its quite clear people need parents, and people need children . . . But its perfectly clear that this genetic instinct for survival is actually responsible for bringing us closer to extinction !
I think the saving grace is that there are plenty of children out there that, unfortunately, do not have any parents. Of course they may not mirror your features, but they will follow your example, they might mimic your expressions , and adopt your walk, or the way you talk, and most importanly your values as much as any biological child would.
I like to think that if some of us have been given the insight to realise that bringing a child into the world is no longer as logical or wonderful as it used to be-for the parent or the child, we must value life-and that would make us more able to accept as our own somthing that has not necessariliy come from within us.

by su at 9:51 PM on 20 Dec 2005

immigration

Intuitively, stemming the flow of immigration to the U.S. may not seem to have an impact on the global population, but there are studies that show it would. Generally because immigrants to the U.S. are more likely to have children once in the U.S. than they would otherwise have. Secondly, any excess population or overcrowding of other countries is diminished by those who leave for the U.S.

Therefore, it would make sense to put far stricter rules around immigration than are currently in place. Not just because it would save the American environment, but the global environment.

Sadly, this thought is often dismissed even by environmentalists as racist for two reasons. First, most immigrants are not white. Second, the most vocal advocates of ending immigration have historically been tied to racist or sectarian groups going back to the 1800s. There is kind of a knee-jerk reaction in mainstream U.S. society to anything that could be deemed "anti-immigrant" because Americans often view the U.S. as an immigrant country.

Added to that, the Mexican government will do anything to increase Mexican migration to the U.S. as remittances are the second largest source of foreign currency after oil exports.

http://www.picayuneitem.com/articles/2005/12/21/news/19wall.txt

It would be nice to see the Sierra Club and other environmentalists take over the immigration issue from xenophobes and militia types so we can have an honest and productive dialoge about the effect of population growth on the environment. I think we can have this conversation in the context of improving the economies of all countries and the livelihoods of their citizens and not in the context of keeping groups of verious national or ethnic or religious backgrounds seperate from one another.

by saxa at 5:30 PM on 21 Dec 2005

Why drown?

The best part of parenting has nothing to do with the genepool. In this case, you CAN have your cake and eat it too.

I'm single, and found myself craving parenthood, too. So - I adopted a baby boy from Russia. Ohhh, he's the love of my life. It's the hardest thing I've ever done, and the best thing I've ever done, and I can't believe how happy I am. Yes, I too was a career overachiever, but now it's just a job. I can go back with gusto someday if I want to, but for now, I'm singing nursery rhymes and making snowmen. And I can't believe that I'm actually enjoying it!

There are tens of thousands, or maybe even hundreds of thousands of wonderful kids wasting away in orphanages just waiting for a family. When my little 3 year old gives me a hug and says "I wub woo", the genes don't matter.

by kateotis at 9:08 AM on 28 Dec 2005

The Shape of the World to Come

This is an important and complicated issue. For more information, check out The Shape of Things to Come: Why Age Structure Matters to a Safer, More Equitable World, a new publication from Population Action International (PAI) which examines age structure and its bearing on political stability, improved governance, and economic development.

Also, if you're in the Washington, DC area: Please attend a discussion on this topic at the Wilson Center on October 2, 2007.

by tylepard at 11:41 AM on 26 Sep 2007

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?

Hike Messenger

Population activist David Nova took his message to the trail