-
I found this a fresh and fascinating article. I have to wonder, though, about how we broach the fact that a significant number of our children are born to families with limited resources, health care and opportunities, and that many of these children are unplanned. This conversation is one thing if all children are wanted and sought out, but we know that is not the case. Millions of children come from unplanned pregnancies, to parents who don't have the ability to care for them properly. The real coup would be if we could get contraceptives and prenatal care to ALL women, not just women who can afford it.
posted by : JillinVT on 5/22/2009 at 12:18 PM Flag For Abuse
-
i agree with the point that it is not the number of people but the
amount of consumption and it is good to see it in print. i have a
friend who is limiting her family to two kids because they only want to
"replace themselves". huh? just because you exist means you have the
right only to replace yourself? that is a random idea, not based in
logic. wouldn't it be better for the earth to have no kids at all? or
to commit suicide?
in response to JillinVT, i don't think it's a good idea to
differentiate between "wanted" and "unplanned" children. the concept
of "planned" children is a contemporary idea. lots of children are
unplanned but wanted. lots of children are poor but wanted. it's
dangerous to assume that because people are poor that they should be
helped to not have children.
much of the global problem with poverty is about corrupt government. not an easy problem to solve but dealing with it by limiting population doesn't address the underlying causes of poverty and hunger and lack of economic opportunity.
posted by : lilly on 5/22/2009 at 1:29 PM Flag For Abuse
-
fewer, not less
posted by : jana89 on 5/22/2009 at 1:31 PM Flag For Abuse
-
The eco-activists can BITE-ME!
If they want to control the population maybe they can start by offing themselves!
posted by : tired of smug people on 5/22/2009 at 1:55 PM Flag For Abuse
-
I think we need to take more responsibility for our own over consumption and stop finger pointing in the hope of distracting from the real truth that we all demand too much for too little. Yes a huge population is not sustainable, but raising kids who believe it is their birthright to own more 'things' and expect everyone else to pick up after them is not going to solve any of the earths problems. Education is the key to this issue - we need to nurture a culture of sharing and motivate ourselves to take more responsibilty for the use of the worlds natural resources.
Until we as a society learn to raise kids who are respectful of our planet and are less concerned with personal greed we will never do anything to turn the tide.
posted by : planetlover on 5/22/2009 at 2:27 PM Flag For Abuse
-
It is not unreasonable (perhaps even commendable) for all of us to attempt to live in an eco-friendly way. But those people who advocate *reducing* population by having fewer children are totally ignoring global politics, and the fact that Nature abhors a vacuum. You see what's happening in Europe these days? The native Europeans are indeed having fewer children, and not replacing themselves ... and they are bringing in guest workers from Islamic countries who are *not* becoming part of the culture. In twenty years the Islamic citizens will vote in Sharia law, and goodbye Europe as we know it! And what about all those "extra" boys in China? Do you know what historically happens when a country ends up with "extra" young men? The country almost always goes to war, and the young men end up as cannon fodder. Look for China to go to war with another country in about ten years. That will reduce population, all right.
We don't need to reduce our population. We need to be responsible toward the planet. They are not necessarily the same thing.
posted by : More Anon on 5/22/2009 at 4:38 PM Flag For Abuse
-
@ jana89 - Yes! Maybe some more proofreading is in order, Babble.
posted by : grammarian on 5/22/2009 at 5:45 PM Flag For Abuse
-
More Anon, you have no idea what you are talking. You have shown complete ignorance about both Islamic culture as well as what is going on in Europe as a whole. Sharia law is actually the exception and not the rule, it is not even in the Koran. And many European countries are not having problems with Muslims. For example, I can say from personally experience in Sweden, the country is very well known for helping people integrate into the country providing language classes and helping people find work. Part of the reason it was voted the best of the EU countries for foreigners to move to. Hence their lack of riots.
And you are expecting a lot to happen in twenty years. Try doing some research before making such inflammatory comments about an entire culture. You sound just as ignorant as Bridget Bardot.
posted by : Shana on 5/22/2009 at 7:37 PM Flag For Abuse
-
I would say that the CDC and all of our other government agencies have solved that crises with modern day medicine - vaccines particularly. They kill and seriously injure many babies daily.....they do know this too. It is all about profit and population control. Just take a look at the vaccine ingredients, SIDS cases (which are caused by vaccines), and the health of our children.
posted by : Dawn Crim on 5/22/2009 at 9:11 PM Flag For Abuse
-
I definitely agree with JillinVT about the easiest way to reduce our population boom: permit women to control their fertility. A shocking number of women worldwide injure themselves annually in an effort to end unwanted pregnancy.
But I also agree that ultimately, living in a more restrained manner is more important than bearing fewer babies. Interestingly, my mom and dad chose to have only two kids to "replace themselves", but I'm interested in having 3 or 4. Living lightly on the earth instead of controlling my numbers makes a lot of sense to me.
posted by : Annette on 5/22/2009 at 9:22 PM Flag For Abuse
-
Fewer kids. Not less. Fewer. Let's crack that Chicago Manual from time to time, Babble blurb writers.
posted by : Militant Grammarian of Massachus on 5/22/2009 at 10:42 PM Flag For Abuse
-
And Dawn Crim: Girlfriend, lose that tinfoil hat. It's messing up your head.
posted by : Militant Grammarian of Massachus on 5/22/2009 at 10:43 PM Flag For Abuse
-
Lilly, "unplanned" does not mean poor. All it means is that a pregnancy occurred while a woman was otherwise trying to prevent it or it was an unintended result of intercourse. Unplanned pregnancies result to couple of every social status. However it is wrong to say that every child born in this country is "wanted" regardless of if they were planned or not. Women who cannot afford abortion, birth control or feel pressured not to have an abortion also have unwanted children. It isn't wrong to say that women of every income level should have access to family planning services. I also don't see why it is incorrect to only have two children, to replace the parents. Some people see the population we are at as sustainable.
My partner and I have a daughter and are not planning to have any more birth children (we would like to adopt) partly for environmental reasons. However I think focusing only on population control, grossly underestimates other issues concerning global warming, including that China's economic growth is completely dependent on coal. I am really disgusted at environmentalist who point their fingers at women who already have children for being environmentally destructive. It is counter-productive to the environmental movement. Also we need some children to heal the damage we have caused and propel us into the future.
posted by : Brooke Johnson on 5/22/2009 at 11:24 PM Flag For Abuse
-
The author of this article co-wrote a book(?) called How Sassy Changed My Life: A Love
Letter to the Greatest Teen Magazine of All Time. I love that.:) Sassy was a big influence on me too....I can't wait to google it.
I have often wondered what environmentalists thought of reproduction. Very interesting article.
posted by : HappyMama1 on 5/23/2009 at 8:21 AM Flag For Abuse
-
FEWER! Aargh.
Rule: Use fewer to describe countable things. Use less to describe uncountable quantities, collective amounts, and degree. These terms are not interchangeable.
I found the above quote by searching for about 5 seconds on google, you can too! I have faith in you.
PS Millitant Grammarian: tinfoil hat HAHAHAHA
posted by : anon on 5/23/2009 at 8:28 AM Flag For Abuse
-
I love how the anti-vac nuts can jump on ANYTHING and make it all about their wacky conspiracy theories. Yes, yes, vacinations were totally designed to wipe out the human population, you're so right, dear. Run along and play now, that's a good nut.
posted by : AmberAnn on 5/23/2009 at 8:35 AM Flag For Abuse
-
"Fewer Kids" not "Less Kids." At least copy edit your headlines.........
posted by : copypolice on 5/23/2009 at 3:48 PM Flag For Abuse
-
why is it "a conversation that is happening about the relationship between women's childbearing choices and the environment."?
where are men in this equation?
also, i'd really like the word "choice" to be defined here.
there seem to be a lot of women in this world who don't have much reproductive choice at all.
thousands were born from the rapes in rwanda, for example
thousands were born because of lack of health care
lack of contraception
lack of education
women treated as second class citizens
their bodies treated as property
heck, some guy in kenya tried to sue over getting no sex just last week when the women went on a "no sex strike"
until men (i speak in VERY general terms of men on this planet) start taking responsibility for their own actions
and stop acting like overpriviledged whiners who think it is their god given RIGHT to come inside a woman whenever they damn please, and start treating women as equals with equal healthcare and rights then this conversation is completely useless.
posted by : ana voog on 5/23/2009 at 3:52 PM Flag For Abuse
-
also, i would like to point out that a very real and true eugenics is taking place every single day everywhere on earth.
and that is the eradication of people with down syndrome.
startling amounts of fetuses with down syndrome are aborted every year.
and autism will be next. they are getting closer and closer
posted by : ana voog on 5/23/2009 at 3:56 PM Flag For Abuse
-
"The issue, he says, is not influencing how many people there are in the world, but how those people are living. "It's not a population crisis, it's a consumption crisis," he says...
Connelly notes a study that found that large households generally consume less than small households."
Oh my gosh! Finally! I am always mystified by how my non-car-owning, 3- bedroom-Chicago-apartment-living family of 4-soon-to-be-5 is somehow "more responsible" for our terrible environmental state than the family of 3 I used to work for who lived in a fully furnished and heated 4-story home, drove an SUV and sports car in addition to their sedan. Their life, while gorgeous, screams of conspicuous consumption. I thought the last page of this article is great, where it speaks of the one-child movement being a sort of red herring for the fact of Americans' over-consumption of resources and almost an "instead-of" for new technologies. It seems that there are several people today who want to have only one or even no children in order to save the environment. Good for them, I say. However, I think that all one-or-no-child advocates out there need to have a little more respect for the fact that many of us with larger families simply DON'T consume as much as they think that we do, whether because we can't afford to, or we simply choose not to. Other people and the government need to stay the heck out of my uterus. Besides, aren't the futures of Europe and Russia looking pretty grim with their coming under-population crises? Not to mention the whole skewed sex ratio stats in China, the incidences of kidnapping and selling and the LACK of women's reproductive choice thru the mechanisms of forced abortion and sterilization. Underpopulation has its consequences, too.
Doesn't anyone else think that there's also a weird social famine going on here, where only-children don't learn about obligations to family, both immediate and extended? I think that the human race would learn a lot more about sacrifice and social interaction if they were "forced" to deal with people so close to them. Not that everyone has to have big families for this reason, BUT large families offer a social cohesiveness that I just don't think that small families can replicate.
And by the way, it should be "fewer children", not "less children."
posted by : ChiLaura on 5/23/2009 at 4:15 PM Flag For Abuse
-
Unfortunately, Hartmann and Connelly are promoting intellectual dishonesty in suggesting we shouldn't talk about overpopulation as it is. Total resource consumption is the product of population size and per capita consumption. There's no getting around it.
Sure, it's important to cut per capita consumption. But it's not enough. This article demonstrates that clearly:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/john_feeney/2008/05/return_of_the_population_timebomb.html
And that is actually a conservative assessment of how far into overshoot of carrying capacity we are. It doesn't even begin, for instance, to address our impact on other species. We're causing the sixth mass extinction of species in Earth's history, caused by the spread of our own species.
What does the vast majority of scientists who study these issues say? Here's a recent news item citing the faculty of environmental science at SUNY...
Worst Environmental Problem? Overpopulation, Experts Say
ScienceDaily (Apr. 20, 2009) — Overpopulation is the world’s top
environmental issue... according to a survey of the faculty at the SUNY
College of Environmental Science and Forestry (ESF)... “Overpopulation
is the only problem,” said Dr. Charles A. Hall, a systems ecologist.
“If we had 100 million people on Earth — or better, 10 million — no
others would be a problem.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090418075752.htm
posted by : JohnF on 5/23/2009 at 11:49 PM Flag For Abuse
-
Focusing on reducing per capita consumption is futile if we simply continue increasing the number of "capitas." It is total consumption that matters most to this small planet we share, and anything we can do to reduce that consumption is a step in the right direction.
That includes opening our eyes to the horrendous damage we are doing by overrunning this poor ol' planet with our sheer numbers. Once we get past Peak Oil, peak soil, peak water, peak fish, and so on, the next hurdle will be to get past peak denial when it comes to our place in the natural world.
posted by : RickS on 5/24/2009 at 1:11 AM Flag For Abuse
-
Soft-green idiocy was never better encapsulated than this classic line: "we (should) focus not on limiting how many children individual women have, but on raising those children in a green way. We should try to have a more positive attitude: yes, have children, but have a more healthy environment, a more sane lifestyle. That's a solution that sounds down to earth." (obviously she is not living on the same earth we are).
Oh yes, I can see it now. 9 Billion people living in a “green way”, a “sane lifestyle”. What kind of people will those 9 billion be, I wonder, levitating breatharians ? How green can 9 billion people be? Will they need housing? Energy? Food? Jobs? Even the greenest consumer has a footprint. Get serious
If it is deemed a woman's "right" to choose how many children she should have, then it should be my right to light up a cigarette in a restaurant, drive over the speed limit or catch as many fish as I please. In a world of ridiculous overshoot, they can be no procreative "right". A woman has no right to lower her neighbour's share of resources (eg. land, water) for an ego trip. Nor do husbands, bishops or mullahs for that matter. The "choice" must be the collective will of all of us, or the choice of an avenging nature. Either we limit our growth, or nature will limit us. .We don't need "green" consumers, but fewer consumers.
posted by : Tim M on 5/24/2009 at 1:50 AM Flag For Abuse
-
The author of this article Kara Jesella arrives at an idiotic conclusion when trying to answer the question of: "Does it damage the environment if people reproduce excessively?".
Kara Jesella concludes that it doesn't matter how many people there are as long as every person is green (i.e. every person consumes close to the minimum amount of resources necessary for survival).
I think if Kara studied this formula, she would see that her conclusion is wrong:
Environmental Impact = Population X Per Capita Consumption
Environmentally, it does matter how many people there are and how much the average person consumes. And yes, you are helping the environment by not having children.
You can also help the environment by protesting against immigration. Fast-reproducing developing countries are spilling over into slower-reproducing affluent countries which is maximizing global overpopulation.
Sincerely,
Brishen Hoff
President of Biodiversity First
posted by : Brishen Hoff on 5/24/2009 at 9:23 AM Flag For Abuse
-
Gah! Sorry for the "less" typo! There are only two editors at Babble and Gwynne and I were both in a rush to get out of the office for the long weekend. We'll fix that error on Tuesday morning, first thing. Thanks for being such good readers, and glad so many of you are enjoying Kara's article! - Ada
posted by : AdaCEIC on 5/24/2009 at 10:49 AM Flag For Abuse
-
From Brishen Hoff: "Fast-reproducing developing countries are spilling over into
slower-reproducing affluent countries which is maximizing global
overpopulation."
Huh? What does the fact that developing countries spilling over into "affluent" countries have to do with overpopulation? Wouldn't global population stay the same no matter what country they're in? Sounds like the fact that they're migrating to "affluent" countries is really the key issue in that statement.............
posted by : mom21 on 5/24/2009 at 10:46 PM Flag For Abuse
-
"Affluent" countries are providing a safety valve so that developing countries don't have to deal with their own population issues. At the same time, migrants to affluent countries magnify their ecological footprint, and their consumption, by a factor of 5 or more. Trying to reduce the net consumption of the planet is futile if we allow this to continue. It is intellectual dishonesty to talk about trying to reduce consumption without at the same time addressing population issues, and population migration issues.
posted by : RickS on 5/25/2009 at 12:17 AM Flag For Abuse
-
Tim M and the Co, why don't you you all just kill yourself so that it would be easier for me to breath???
If we control the population in the developed countries, people there will be extinct soon, and the planet will be just as well overpopulated by representatives of the cultures who don't give a sh** about ecology...
posted by : DaintySplendor on 5/25/2009 at 1:16 AM Flag For Abuse
-
Thanks, DaintyS, for the typical redneck reaction to those who are truly concerned about the environment.
If we don't control the population in the developed countries, then there won't be any ecology left to give a sh** about. The developed countries are the worst offenders when it comes to use of resources, creation of pollution, emissions, contributing to the sixth great extinction of species, and so on. Each person added to the population of those countries has an enormous impact on the environment, whether that person comes through the border, or through the birth canal. Are you proposing that we just keep stuffing more and more people into countries which already use a disproportionate share of the planet's resources? That certainly doesn't sound like someone who cares about ecology.
posted by : RickS on 5/25/2009 at 9:10 AM Flag For Abuse
-
This debate comes down to how one views human life: is each individual a blessing with potential or simply a "consumer" who is a burden to the rest of society?
posted by : Amanda B on 5/25/2009 at 12:27 PM Flag For Abuse
-
Amanda B, that is an overly simplistic view of the argument. The debate comes down to how one views the place of human life on a living and finite planet. If this planet is "blessed" with larger and large populations, the evidence is pretty clear that it is really a curse instead. Or have you not read "A Brief History of Progress" yet, and cannot see the similarities between our "civilization" and past cultures. Perhaps it boils down to this question: how many people can this planet support, and still maintain a decent quality of life for everyone while maintaining a healthy ecosystem to support that "everyone?" The evidence is around us that we have already reached or surpassed the limits (the usual--collapse of ocean fish stocks, increasing water shortages, the Sixth Great Extinction of species caused by us, and so on). There are claims that we are far, far into population overshoot due to the temporary legacy of fossil fuels, but that is about to end. How do you propose to feed everyone without cheap fossil fuels for food production, transportation, and fertilizers? What do you see as a sustainable human population on this planet? And was Malthus wrong, or only a bit ahead of his time?
posted by : RickS on 5/25/2009 at 3:48 PM Flag For Abuse
-
So glad to see the chorus on 'fewer' :)
The collapse of fish stocks is what pretty much gets me the most. Something is really off.
posted by : Shan on 5/25/2009 at 8:43 PM Flag For Abuse
-
Haven't people been predicting the end of the world due to overpopulation for ages? The message gets pretty boring after a while. Okay, okay, so maybe ecological Armageddon itself won't be boring, but environmentalists need to repackage their ideas for mass consumption. (Mass consumption! Oh, the irony!)
Male name + last initial commenters, are you all the same person?
posted by : end times on 5/25/2009 at 10:25 PM Flag For Abuse
-
RickS - Then how about all of you on the extreme environmentalist left practice what you preach and stop reproducing? If there really is some kind of climate "crisis" caused by humans and you think it's so dire, do something about it. Those of us who don't buy into this nonsense, however, will continue to live our lives as we see fit.
And no, I have not read "A Brief History of Progress", but I have read "The Deniers" by Lawrence Solomon. The notion that there is some kind of overwhelming consensus about human-caused climate change is simply wrong.
posted by : Amanda B on 5/25/2009 at 11:57 PM Flag For Abuse
-
end times,
Assuming Malthus more or less kicked it off, people have only been alarmed about overpopulation for the tiniest fraction of human history. (a minute fraction of 1%) It goes back a couple hundred years. And that's exactly the period in which the human population has really exploded. (though it did begin growing quite substantially with the advent of large scale agriculture 10k years ago) So the alarm has been quite appropriate all along. And now that we're reaching the peak of oil and natural gas, draining aquifers, causing the sixth mass extinction in Earth's history, etc., we're perilously close to the point when the earth's limits will become all too apparent. (See Richard Heinberg's "Peak Everything" or Derrick Jensen's "Endgame, Vol. 1," for example) There should be far, far more alarm about this now than there is. But we humans are nothing if not great at denial.
The population crash which will likely result from nature taking over to bring our numbers back to within carrying capacity promises to be the worst horror in human history. It is therefore just sad when people attack the messenger and suggest he eliminate himself. Folks, the messenger is trying to alert people to how we might save ourselves or at least soften the blow. Doing more to address overpopulation is the greatest humanitarian step possible at this time.
And no, I'm not the same person as the other male name + last initial commenters. Are you the same person as the others who use nouns as names?
posted by : JohnF on 5/25/2009 at 11:57 PM Flag For Abuse
-
AmandaB comments "RickS - Then how about all of you on the extreme environmentalist left practice what you preach and stop reproducing?" Already done, and I find it very interesting (and pretty typical) that you categorize concern for the planet as extreme, or on the political left. The planet doesn't care about politics, only about our total impact -- and that is clearly a significant impact if we care to look around.
posted by : RickS on 5/26/2009 at 1:27 AM Flag For Abuse
-
Oh, and AmandaB, I too do not buy into the climate crisis deception that currently distracts so many people from the real issue: human overpopulation. The evidence for that is much more substantial than Al Bores histrionics.
posted by : RickS on 5/26/2009 at 1:30 AM Flag For Abuse
-
To ana voog:
When I read the title, "The New Eugenics," I assumed it would be about Down Syndrome positive fetuses being terminated.
posted by : anonymom on 5/26/2009 at 5:01 PM Flag For Abuse
-
It seems as though for the Western world, we need to limit our carbon footprints and for the developing world, they need to limit their population growth.
If the people who are educated enough to be concerned about population growth all stop reproducing we are really in trouble. We need people who can afford education and to support their families to continue having children. Adoption is not as easy as many think it is and if every middle or upper class family lived more responsibly it would help a lot.
When I have visited very poor and overpopulated places like India, population control seemed more crucial than ever. It is not just because these people are poor that they should not reproduce, it is that it is impossible to provide the services that people need to lift themselves out of poverty in that sort of quantity. To me, population control becomes a humanitarian issue, not just an environmental one. If we really want to provide health care, education and other social services to every person on this planet, we can not continue to grow at this rate. When you are standing in a small town in America, poverty seems possible to tackle-when you are in the middle of the slums in Mumbai, where to start is daunting.
posted by : EO on 5/27/2009 at 1:08 AM Flag For Abuse
-
What do you make then of the argument that the developed countries are also overpopulated? I'm not talking about space to stuff people into, but rather the support systems required to feed people, and to provide a decent quality of life. If any of the predictions about Peak Oil, peak soil, water shortages (yes, they are already happening in the developed world), collapse of ocean fish stocks, and so on are even close to the mark, then we are about to have a very difficult time even feeding ourselves. As well, the calculations from William Rees ("ecological footprint") and others say that we in the developed countries would have to reduce our footprint to parallel many Third World countries, which would have an enormous impact on our economy and our ability to look after our existing population. The frustrating part for me is when all the so-called "greens" and environmentalists say that overpopulation is a global problem, implying that there is no point in trying to address it locally. There is NO global organization which is dealing effectively with the issue, and we are only providing a safety valve for overpopulated countries by allowing high levels of immigration. At the same time, we are immediately magnifying the ecological footprint of those immigrants by a factor of 5 or more when they move to the developed countries. As long as we have even one unemployed and trainable citizen, why would we let this continue? The usual response to the statements I have just made is accusations of racism, but accusations of racism don't change the facts about the environmental impact of what we're doing.
posted by : RickS on 5/27/2009 at 1:33 AM Flag For Abuse
-
amen. it's also noteworthy that most experts believe the world population will start to decline sometime between 2050 and 2100, and even sooner in the western world.
posted by : chatty daddy on 5/27/2009 at 1:25 PM Flag For Abuse
-
The population of Japan is already in decline. They have extremely restrictive immigration policies, and are willing to accept the fact of an "aging population" as a necessary step toward a sustainable human presence on this planet, and as a demographic anomaly which will disappear within a generation anyway.
Without immigration, the populations of most Western countries would be in decline as well. We are told that we need immigration, presumably in never-ending quantities, in order to sustain our economy and our way of life. Some people label that as a fatal addiction to growth, and a pyramid scheme which will eventually collapse of its own accord.
I read with interest an analysis of the media's perception of the U.N. predictions about population trends. The media have picked up on the middle growth projection, not because it is any more valid than the high or low projection, but because it was the median. In fact, there are claims from demographers that the U.N. predictions about the rate of population growth are far too low.
posted by : RickS on 5/27/2009 at 3:01 PM Flag For Abuse
-
Rick S said:
"If we don't control the population in the developed countries, then there won't be any ecology left to give a sh** about. The developed countries are the worst offenders when it comes to use of resources, creation of pollution, emissions, contributing to the sixth great extinction of species, and so on."
How about we just stop the massively wealthy from reproducing? They're the ones running the corporations that are destroying all the trade barriers so they can go into all the nations of the world and loot all their natural resources such that nobody who lives in those nations can produce anything to sustain them economically. They're the ones destroying the middle class' jobs and living wages with exploitation of cheap foreign labor and the promotion of truly evil international lending practices. They're the ones who destroy the last of the family farms with agribusiness, while they hypocritically consume only organic food. If these people's kids can't inherit the giant corporate machine, maybe we'll all finally be free to reproduce ourselves in a sustainable way where we actually spend time taking care of the local earth, the local economy and the local community? After all, the corporate elite's kids will no longer be around to sell us garbage television, and glut our medical system with prescription drugs.
posted by : tweaked on 5/28/2009 at 2:28 PM Flag For Abuse
-
Tweaked, I think your comment above let's the rest of us off to easy. If you chose the cheaper tomato in the grocery store, you support agribusiness that destroys family farms. Indeed, people get rich by following trends that begin with the great mass of consumers, not be forcing down their evil ways from above.
Right now there does appear to be an inverse relationship between wealth and population growth -- rich western countries have contracting populations, and will eventually be competing for immigrants, if you believe George Friedman in his very interesting book, The Next 100 Years.
I have had this debate with my brother, a botanist, for years -- imagine the world as it exists today but without humans and their impact. Is that world a more beautiful place or a less beautiful place? I plead guilty to being species-centric -- I believe in protecting all species, but I prioritize our own. I think the world is more beautiful because human's are in it, and I think most of human history has been a very hard slog, with much less artistic and creative expression that we see today. It's dangerous to romanticize family farms -- farming was a pretty hard life that did not leave room for a lot of art and culture, and it was arguably the beginning of the process of our doing significant damage to planet.
I am a big believer is sustainability, but I am wary of the "Naturalistic Fallacy," the idea that what is natural is always good (poisonous mushrooms, naturally occurring forest fires, comets hitting planets and wiping out life forms, etc.), and that humans are not part of the natural world.
All this is to say that I agree with the writer's perspective -- we should be sensible but not shame those that chose to bring a few extra humans into the world, in light of current population trends.
posted by : prohumans on 5/28/2009 at 3:49 PM Flag For Abuse
-
prohumans writes "rich western countries have contracting populations." Unfortunately, that is not at all true for the countries with the highest levels of consumption, and the largest impact on this planet. The U.S., Canada, England, Australia, and a host of others have populations that are still increasing, and at their current rates will double in 70 years or less.
Regarding the naturalistic fallacy, I do agree with you, but I believe that we humans have to come to terms with our place in the natural world. The (in my opinion) arrogant assumption that we are somehow above natural laws and limits to growth must be replaced by a sense of place within those laws and those limits. The biodiversity lost in crowding out other species (the anthropogenic "Sixth Great Extinction") undermines our own sustainability on this planet. And those species are disappearing from developed countries and other countries alike.
You can label me "prohuman" too, but, among other things, in the sense that I am concerned for the quality of life of future generations as well as our own, and do not wish to leave a polluted, crowded, resource-depleted planet for them to have to deal with.
posted by : RickS on 5/28/2009 at 7:55 PM Flag For Abuse
-
Rick, when you say "the US, Canada, England etc" will double their populations at currently growth rates in 70 years or less, you must be including the effect of immigration.
My understanding is that fertility rates are below replacements rates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate) in Europe, Japan, China, and Russia, among other countries. The US fertility rate is at 2.1 (an average of 2.1 children born per two adults), which is right at about our replacement rate (given that some people die before procreating). So the endemic US population is actually flat right now, and likely to contract looking forward in the several decades. Yes, the US population will increase because of immigration, which will reduce population growth / exascerbate contraction in other countries.
I think we have a hard time letting go of the idea that the world is becoming overpopulated, because it's a nice metaphor for our sins of indulgence, but based on everything that I have read the threat is at bare minimum much lower than it was a few decades ago. Now what we need to focus on is lowering our environmental impact and getting along.
posted by : prohumans on 5/28/2009 at 10:11 PM Flag For Abuse
-
Yes, I include the effects of immigration. The populations of the U.S., Canada, etc. are growing. Despite the fact that fertility rates ARE lower than the replacement rate, we seem bent on increasing our population by immigration, and that is driving up the populations of many developed countries, while magnifying the ecological footprint of the immigrants by a factor of 4 or more (often much more). If we continue with our immigration policies (and I see no sign that the growthists are backing away from them), then the populations will in fact double in 70 years or less at the current growth rates. No amount of discussion about endemic populations will change that.
As for letting go of the idea that the world is, or is becoming, overpopulated, the evidence for me says that the threat is much higher than it was a few decades ago, for the reasons I've already cited. Peak Oil, peak soil, water shortages, accelerated loss of biodiversity, collapse of ocean fish stocks, and a host of other problems lead me to think that Liebig's Law of the Minimum is about to be enforced, and perhaps on more than one front.
We cannot lower our environmental impact while at the same time promoting growth, even by immigration. A 30 percent reduction in consumption (often promoted by environmentalists, but extremely difficult in practice for most people in developed countries) will be negated by a 40 percent increase in population. That increase will happen within only a few decades at the current growth rates of most developed countries. The numbers don't lie.
posted by : RickS on 5/28/2009 at 11:45 PM Flag For Abuse
-
prohumans,
To add a bit to one of RickS's points, the possibility that global population growth *may* stabilize in this century (the UN's projections are not predictions; we really don't know what will happen, and a population crash may prevent our ever getting to the projected 9.2 billion) is no comfort at all once you realize how deeply we are into overshoot of the earth's carrying capacity for humans. There is really no evidence that we have ever managed to increase human carrying capacity. Rather, we simply learned how to overshoot it for an extended period with the aid of finite stores of oil, natural gas, groundwater, etc.
The minute we began the transition to large scale agriculture (the root engine of population growth) we began destroying habitat which is the basis for the web of life on which we and all other species depend. We also began "mining" limited soil nutrients. In this sense we first crossed into overshoot about 10k years ago.
We evolved over 3 million years to live at numbers in the millions, not the billions. The risk of overpopulation was huge at 1 billion (around 1830) and is absurdly so now as we approach 9 billion or more.
posted by : JohnF on 5/29/2009 at 2:58 AM Flag For Abuse
-
3 million years ago we were not homo sapiens, and there were not millions of our ancestors, there were tens of thousands most likely. evolution and the earth's carrying capacity are not related in the way you are suggesting, JohnF, but we may evolve in the future to adapt to the effects of exceeding the earth's carrying capacity, if we do so, although i guess carrying capacity isn't defined until we the population actually declines because we have hit a ceiling, which frankly isn't in sight at this point.
don't get me wrong -- i am not a big proponent of dramatically increasing the earth's population, but i think we have to approach the subject rationally rather than emotionally. in 1830 Malthus was entirely wrong in his predictions about the earth's carrying capacity, and most prognosticators have been wrong since. You can't blame Malthus -- London must have felt awfully crowded, and the effects of early industrialization were pretty ugly. But would you now say that you would like to snap your fingers and have 1 billion people on the planet rather than 6 billion? which 5 billion would you remove? is the world not more beautiful today because of the extraordinary cultural diversity, in addition to biodiversity? I value biodiversity, but i value cultural diversity and the diversity of creative expression every bit as much.
The fact that we are running out of oil is a good thing -- we will have to develop cleaner energy sources. We will also have to develop better water desalinization capacities. We wil have to reduce emmisions. 20 billion people could live on this planet with a smaller environmental impact than 6 billion people have today -- indeed, our great great grandchildren may be around to witness this.
On the other hand the population may hit a ceiling and decline in the next 100 years ... I don't think any of us are in a position to make a declarative judgment on this.
I do think, however, that in our conversations about the environment and biodiversity we should not be ashamed of saying that humans are beautiful, just as other species are, and the cities are beautiful, just as birds nests are beautiful, and that the diversity of creative expression is every bit as beautiful and biodiversity, and we should strive to encourage both.
posted by : prohumans on 5/29/2009 at 9:38 AM Flag For Abuse
-
"If you chose the cheaper tomato in the grocery store, you support agribusiness that destroys family farms."
Maybe I chose the cheaper tomato, because I have been sold the cheaper tomato relentlessly, from every possible angle by people who have billions in their advertising budget.
Maybe the "cheaper tomato" is growing in my backyard right now, because when I go to buy seeds, that's what kind of GMO seeds are in the packet. Whatever they can sell me that is cheapest (and legal) for them to produce right? If it was legal to put dog-sh** in a can and label it "beans", someone trying to make a buck would do it, but that doesn't make it right.
Throughout the 80s we've been sold the virtues of deregulation. But in spite of how too much corporate law-precident reads, corporations are not people. They do not have empathy, they serve the bottom line. They are not just going to do the right thing because they "feel like it". All you rabid environmentalists should be well aware of that. Just go re-read up on "Love Canal".
And maybe I chose the cheaper tomato because I'm broke, too. Because I have a crappy job that doesn't pay and I'm forced to compete with dirt-cheap workers in other countries for a wage (in spite of the college education these people also sold me).
The American dream is imploding due to the relentless expansion of "free trade", but all we do is sit around and pick at one another for not being "informed consumers" or "informed constituents". That's just giving in to divisive propaganda designed to give some of us an ultimately impotent infusion of smug self-satisfaction. We think if we know one or two things about which tomato is better that we "know something", and we are "smart". We don't know jack about what these people have planned...and they want to keep it that way.
I slave for a wage 40+ hours a week. I have children to try to raise which is a second job. I'm also studying for another degree so I can keep up with the decline of my middle-class wages. I have several friends who work two paying jobs and also try to raise kids. We're all working longer, and harder, and getting more and more educated, while it continues to get more and more difficult to achieve any real quality of life. I go to the store, and try to stretch my dollar...what are my choices? Can I purchase locally-manufactured goods? Not anymore. Every stitch of clothing sold in a mall was made in a sweatshop in Indonesia. Every non-organic food stuff is created with chemicals or GMO seeds. So I try to purchase local and organic foods...for FOUR times what it costs to buy a "regular" tomato. Then I'm forced to purchase my clothes at Target, because my budget is shot. Oops sorry, sweatshop workers.
In the copious spare time we (don't) have, we're supposed to save the Earth, avoid poisonous plastics, be relentlesslly PC, write letters to congress to thwart their constant attempts to destroy our liberty, and make sure to buy the right tomato. I might as well wash some prozac down with a bottle of JD and sit in front of propaganda television all day...it sure would be easier than busting my a** caring, and getting crapped on by people like "prohumans" who still think I'm not doing enough.
posted by : tweaked on 5/29/2009 at 10:48 AM Flag For Abuse
-
prohumans, I disagree that Malthus was wrong. He was only a bit ahead of his time. As for the planet's human carrying capacity, the fact that millenia-old aquifers are drying up, the fact that the anthropogenic "Sixth Great Extinction" is occurring now, the fact that ocean fish stocks have collapsed or are collapsing, and a host of other indicators tell me that we are at or well past the carrying capacity. Why in any case would we want to live right at the edge of carrying capacity, without a safe environmental margin of error?
As for your 20 billion people, the sheer numbers would contribute to biodiversity loss (loss of habitat, and so on), and the level of consumption would have to be reduced to 30 percent of our current level in order to maintain the same level of overall consumption (which is already unsustainable). Do you know what that would do to our economy, and our ability to feed and house ourselves? Why would we all want to live at a Third World standard of living, and kill off more thousands of other species, just so that we can crowd more people on this planet?
And I don't think you read JohnF's post very carefully. He did not say that there were millions of our ancestors three million years ago, as you seem to believe he said. I urge you to go back and think about what he did say.
Those who truly care about the future wellbeing of our children, and of all the other species on this planet -- those who truly value humans and every other species -- would be calling for a stop to our current devastation of this planet. According to James Lovelock and others though, we are already too late, and the best we can do is some disaster mitigation.
posted by : RickS on 5/29/2009 at 11:26 AM Flag For Abuse
-
hmm how about Americans accepting Kyoto protocol first..?
posted by : DaintySplendor on 6/1/2009 at 1:05 PM Flag For Abuse
-
I don't agree that more people automatically means a loss of biodiversity. People are capable of living in concentrated area of planet without despoiling other sections. Fish can be farmed, etc.
When the colonists first came to the east coast of the united states they cut down pretty much every last tree (the only true old growth trees are in residential areas) ... it was said that you could walk from the atlantic to the mississippi river walking "from tree stump to tree stump." Many species were displaced. Today, there is dramatically more biodiversity in the Eastern United states than there was 150 or 200 years ago. The moose and other species have come back. AND there are dramatically more people. Why? Because forests have grown back where there were once family farms (because of the agribusiness that tweaked dislikes so much that cultivated dramatically more productive farming in the midwest (and yes, we all know there are many problems witht that farming style ... they should be reformed and follow more organic strategies).
Again, I am not trying to be the advocate for crazy population growth here, I am just encouraging a rational analysis of the issues at hand. The issues the planet faces are much more complicated than "more people = destroyed planet." We have done an awfully good job of damaging the planet in the last several hundred years, and population is only one part of the circumstances that lead to the despoilation of the planet.
Climate change may be irreversible, and its an extremely serious problems as we all know; the majority of other problems can be reversed with innovative policy, technology, and prudent action.
In the next twenty years we will see how a lot of this plays out, and I think the apocolyptic voices here will be proven wrong, much as most all others have been for millenia.
posted by : prohumans on 6/4/2009 at 6:01 PM Flag For Abuse
-
Tweaked, I would also follow up with the comments about food to say that not everything has gotten worse. I agree with much of what you say about agribusiness -- i read michael pollan's Omnivore's Dilemma which makes a very convincing argument that fruits and vegetables produced by modern american non-organic farms are missing many of the nutrients -- particularly flavanoids -- that humans need. I do think, however, that those mistakes are being corrected over time, and that for the most part life has gotten dramatically better for humans. We used to spend almost all of our energy trying to nourish ourselves and stay alive ... as recently as a few hundred years ago american families spent dramatically larger proportions of their household incomes on food. Yes, life is tough today, but it used to be a hell of a lot tougher. You can buy nothing but the most expensive organic nutritious food from Whole Foods and you are still paying a much smaller proportion of your income than most all humans did throughout human history. We have a made a lot of mistakes in the last couple hundred years; we are slowly learning to correct them. This attitude that there is a conspiracy of evil rich people, or that humans are inherently self-destructive and they must be neutered, is off base in my opinion. Robert Wright's book "non zero" presents a compelling counterpoint to that view.
posted by : prohumans on 6/4/2009 at 6:25 PM Flag For Abuse
-
This article is well meaning, but it is almost amusingly in error . I won't explain it in Environmental Science terms (Rick S did that much better than I ever could, and made his point pretty damn well), but merely in terms of simple logic.
Even if Americans live a "green" lifestyle as defined by the modern media, buy organic and all natural products, drive a prius or ride a bike, grow their own food, recycle, reuse, reduce, and all that jazz--which is all GREAT and absolutely neccessary-- they are still living a lifestyle which would be viewed as positively decadent by the most of the world's standards.
Being "green" is all well and good, but it is pure folly to say that is is "enough" to solve th environmental crisis that we are in. Do we need to pass on a healthier way of treating our planet to the next generation? Absolutely! Is it enough? Not by a long shot.
posted by : amalie242 on 6/11/2009 at 8:03 PM Flag For Abuse
-
interesting article... and comments )my .02 - in the "western world" we are already below replacement (US is just barely above) - most other countries as they "westernize" are following the trend.
when i got married 14 years ago (and i'll be transparent here, seven babies ago) - infertility rate was 10% - now it's 20%...
90% of women are on the Pill.
fish and amphibians are showing up increasingly "intersexed", gender confused, and i would argue we are seeing an increase in our human population as well. Ask a urologist how business is. Especially a pediatric urologist.
I guess my point is, this isn't necessarily about people having a lot of children. I have seven, but we use diapers, cook from scratch (and often organic), recycle, reuse, reduce - and i teach my children that ethic. where i live, there is a minority group that has a MUCH higher birth rate than the rest of the population, and of those babies, 80% are born with FAS/FASD. I am raising my children to *care* about other humans, to have soft hearts, and i see raising these little ones as a gift to the earth, to a country that is facing a crisis...
others see them as mouths to feed...
for those who want to impose limits - how would you like to be the mom dragged from the fields in China and forcibly aborted? Who decides and where are the lines drawn? Here in Canada, there have been lawsuits, because the government decided to "sterilize" the "mental defectives" in the late 50s... Not all of them were that defective i guess... what a shameful thing for a government to do.
posted by : mamazee73 on 8/18/2009 at 11:06 PM Flag For Abuse
