Most Popular This Week
- Not to Worry, Rape Victims Who Want An Abortion: We Won't Charge You With Felony Tampering With Evidence, Just Your Doctor
- Obama Administration Compromise Would Implement No-Cost Birth Control
- The Paranoia of the Superrich and Superpowerful
- As Predicted, Austerity Policies Send US Economy Downward
- It’s All About Israel
- Don’t Put a Fork in It: On the Perils of Genetically Engineered Salmon
- The Paranoia of the Superrich and Superpowerful
- Five Possibilities for the Next Great Progressive Push
- An Economic Alternative to Exploitative Free Market Capitalism
- As Hurricane Victims Freeze, Billionaire Mayor Gives Away $1 Billion to Wealthy Med School
Popular content
Today's Top News
We Are Breeding Ourselves to Extinction
All measures to thwart the degradation and destruction of our ecosystem will be useless if we do not cut population growth. By 2050, if we continue to reproduce at the current rate, the planet will have between 8 billion and 10 billion people, according to a recent U.N. forecast. This is a 50 percent increase. And yet government-commissioned reviews, such as the Stern report in Britain, do not mention the word population. Books and documentaries that deal with the climate crisis, including Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," fail to discuss the danger of population growth. This omission is odd, given that a doubling in population, even if we cut back on the use of fossil fuels, shut down all our coal-burning power plants and build seas of wind turbines, will plunge us into an age of extinction and desolation unseen since the end of the Mesozoic era, 65 million years ago, when the dinosaurs disappeared.
We are experiencing an accelerated obliteration of the planet's life-forms-an estimated 8,760 species die off per year-because, simply put, there are too many people. Most of these extinctions are the direct result of the expanding need for energy, housing, food and other resources. The Yangtze River dolphin, Atlantic gray whale, West African black rhino, Merriam's elk, California grizzly bear, silver trout, blue pike and dusky seaside sparrow are all victims of human overpopulation. Population growth, as E.O. Wilson says, is "the monster on the land." Species are vanishing at a rate of a hundred to a thousand times faster than they did before the arrival of humans. If the current rate of extinction continues, Homo sapiens will be one of the few life-forms left on the planet, its members scrambling violently among themselves for water, food, fossil fuels and perhaps air until they too disappear. Humanity, Wilson says, is leaving the Cenozoic, the age of mammals, and entering the Eremozoic-the era of solitude. As long as the Earth is viewed as the personal property of the human race, a belief embraced by everyone from born-again Christians to Marxists to free-market economists, we are destined to soon inhabit a biological wasteland.
The populations in industrialized nations maintain their lifestyles because they have the military and economic power to consume a disproportionate share of the world's resources. The United States alone gobbles up about 25 percent of the oil produced in the world each year. These nations view their stable or even zero growth birthrates as sufficient. It has been left to developing countries to cope with the emergent population crisis. India, Egypt, South Africa, Iran, Indonesia, Cuba and China, whose one-child policy has prevented the addition of 400 million people, have all tried to institute population control measures. But on most of the planet, population growth is exploding. The U.N. estimates that 200 million women worldwide do not have access to contraception. The population of the Persian Gulf states, along with the Israeli-occupied territories, will double in two decades, a rise that will ominously coincide with precipitous peak oil declines.
The overpopulated regions of the globe will ravage their local environments, cutting down rainforests and the few remaining wilderness areas, in a desperate bid to grow food. And the depletion and destruction of resources will eventually create an overpopulation problem in industrialized nations as well. The resources that industrialized nations consider their birthright will become harder and more expensive to obtain. Rising water levels on coastlines, which may submerge coastal nations such as Bangladesh, will disrupt agriculture and displace millions, who will attempt to flee to areas on the planet where life is still possible. The rising temperatures and droughts have already begun to destroy crop lands in Africa, Australia, Texas and California. The effects of this devastation will first be felt in places like Bangladesh, but will soon spread within our borders. Footprint data suggests that, based on current lifestyles, the sustainable population of the United Kingdom-the number of people the country could feed, fuel and support from its own biological capacity-is about 18 million. This means that in an age of extreme scarcity, some 43 million people in Great Britain would not be able to survive. Overpopulation will become a serious threat to the viability of many industrialized states the instant the cheap consumption of the world's resources can no longer be maintained. This moment may be closer than we think.
A world where 8 billion to 10 billion people are competing for diminishing resources will not be peaceful. The industrialized nations will, as we have done in Iraq, turn to their militaries to ensure a steady supply of fossil fuels, minerals and other nonrenewable resources in the vain effort to sustain a lifestyle that will, in the end, be unsustainable. The collapse of industrial farming, which is made possible only with cheap oil, will lead to an increase in famine, disease and starvation. And the reaction of those on the bottom will be the low-tech tactic of terrorism and war. Perhaps the chaos and bloodshed will be so massive that overpopulation will be solved through violence, but this is hardly a comfort.
James Lovelock, an independent British scientist who has spent most of his career locked out of the mainstream, warned several decades ago that disrupting the delicate balance of the Earth, which he refers to as a living body, would be a form of collective suicide. The atmosphere on Earth-21 percent oxygen and 79 percent nitrogen-is not common among planets, he notes. These gases are generated, and maintained at an equable level for life's processes, by living organisms themselves. Oxygen and nitrogen would disappear if the biosphere was destroyed. The result would be a greenhouse atmosphere similar to that of Venus, a planet that is consequently hundreds of degrees hotter than Earth. Lovelock argues that the atmosphere, oceans, rocks and soil are living entities. They constitute, he says, a self-regulating system. Lovelock, in support of this thesis, looked at the cycle in which algae in the oceans produce volatile sulfur compounds. These compounds act as seeds to form oceanic clouds. Without these dimethyl sulfide "seeds" the cooling oceanic clouds would be lost. This self-regulating system is remarkable because it maintains favorable conditions for human life. Its destruction would not mean the death of the planet. It would not mean the death of life-forms. But it would mean the death of Homo sapiens.
Lovelock advocates nuclear power and thermal solar power; the latter, he says, can be produced by huge mirrors mounted in deserts such as those in Arizona and the Sahara. He proposes reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide with large plastic cylinders thrust vertically into the ocean. These, he says, could bring nutrient-rich lower waters to the surface, producing an algal bloom that would increase the cloud cover. But he warns that these steps will be ineffective if we do not first control population growth. He believes the Earth is overpopulated by a factor of about seven. As the planet overheats-and he believes we can do nothing to halt this process-overpopulation will make all efforts to save the ecosystem futile.
Lovelock, in "The Revenge of Gaia," said that if we do not radically and immediately cut greenhouse gas emissions, the human race might not die out but it would be reduced to "a few breeding pairs." "The Vanishing Face of Gaia," his latest book, which has for its subtitle "The Final Warning," paints an even grimmer picture. Lovelock says a continued population boom will make the reduction of fossil fuel use impossible. If we do not reduce our emissions by 60 percent, something that can be achieved only by walking away from fossil fuels, the human race is doomed, he argues. Time is running out. This reduction will never take place, he says, unless we can dramatically reduce our birthrate.
All efforts to stanch the effects of climate change are not going to work if we do not practice vigorous population control. Overpopulation, in times of hardship, will create as much havoc in industrialized nations as in the impoverished slums around the globe where people struggle on less than two dollars a day. Population growth is often overlooked, or at best considered a secondary issue, by many environmentalists, but it is as fundamental to our survival as reducing the emissions that are melting the polar ice caps.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


123 Comments so far
Show AllChris Hedges is working for the elites.
"The overpopulated regions of the globe will ravage their local environments, cutting down rainforests and the few remaining wilderness areas, in a desperate bid to grow food."
All food, fuel and materials may be produced sustainably on 1/3 acre/person. This means a land area the size of the 48 contiguous US states may sustainably feed/fuel/material the current world population of 6 billion people.
Yes, there is excessive human population and population control should be part of the formula. But the higher priority should be reigning in the elites with their massive "economic growth at all cost" rackets.
The elites throw a monkey wrench in all attempts to serve the people's better interests, including birth control. The elites need to keep the people dumb and distracted with producing/consuming, in slavery to the elites. The people cannot be allowed to witness, or worst actively develop, public policies that serve their better interests.
The people are perfectly willing to reign in reproduction. Enlighten/empower the people, throw out the elites, and the people WILL TAKE GOOD CARE OF EVERYTHING.
I do not buy this.
It is precisely the industrial elites who WANT overpopulation.
Overpopulation drives wages low.
Overpopulation provides a ready replacement pool for your business. it is easy to replace people, even the most skilled, with people who are equally skilled and willing to work for less.
This is completely sustainable as long as people breed in complete ignorance.
Until they revolt, of course.
But such revolutions, born of hunger, pain, and desperation, have nearly always ended in brutal dictatorship. From which followed more pain, fear, and desperation.
The 'elites' might well need removal. But it is most assuredly not they are are advocating population control!
Overpopulation is just another tool to get you to give them more control over your lives and accept the need for global governance to reign in those irresponsible countries who allow excessive breeding. But once we get global governance, make no mistake about it, the herd will be culled. Wages will no longer be determined by market forces, so excess labour is not going to be needed to keep them low.
33 days after the very liberal Smiling Pope took office in 1978 he was assassinated. He was committed to lifting the ban on contraceptives, and very liberal. Pope John Paul II then was elected, by the same Cardinals. He was the most conservative of all candidates and an opponent of birth control. They went from voting for the most liberal Cardinal to the most conservative. Curious, no?
I Truth: you really should be in comedy. I really do laff when I read your posts. Such denial and conspiracies every where. You give the stupid more credit than they deserve.
I just reject out of hand that rich powerful families that have existed for generations and have IQ's 3-4 standard deviations above average are stupid and incapable of engaging in conspiracies. So I do not believe in the CIA (stupid) theory of history . CIA = Coincidence-Incompetence-Accident.
Some of it may be CIA, but not all of it. If it was, it would be like watching the three stooges. But the three stooges were an actual TV show. My view of the world is very funny to most, even me, so someone should make a movie or tv series and make some money from the laughs. I think it was Willie Nelson who said people only laugh at that which has some truth to it.
This article is pathetic. Why not just come out and it's time to cull the herd (anybody notice that H5N1 in flu vaccines sent to some East European countries by Baxter US that the Czechs caught, and Pansonic recalling families of workers sent outside of Japan for the pandemic they fear will hit this fall)
Paul Watson, founder of Greenpeace, 1982
"...instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds."
Some data from a book called "A Concise History of World Population"
Population of Developed Countries
1960-0.9 billion
1970-1.0 billion
1980-1.1 billion
1990-1.15 billion
2000-1.25 billion
Since fertility rates in these countries have been at or below replacement levels since 1970, immigration from poorer countries has caused the increase.
Population of Poor Countries/Developing Countries
1960-2.1 billion
1970-2.7 billion
1980-3.4 billion
1990-4.1 billion
2000-4.9 billion
Poor people have more kids, thats a fact, as is the fact that poor countries have the highest population growth. How about eliminating poverty.
From the web:
Fertility rates (replacement level 2.1)
US 2.1 (immigration reposnible for population growth)
China 1.8 (since immigration is minimal, and population is still growing, this number is suspect)
India 2.8
Ethiopia 6.17
Afghanistan 6.6
Most of the worlds population growth will occur in these countries India, China, Pakistan, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Zaire, and Iran.
Last I checked, we do not own these countries. But once these countries reach our standard of living, population would stabilize. Of course, NSSM 200 is all about keeping the 3rd world poor, and other policies are meant to lower our standard of living so the developing world can raise theirs, and we can be comfortably merged into one Global state (3rd world will just be exploited for resources). They are so poor in Africa that they live only 50 years and consume little over their lifetime, so a higher population is encouraged as this keeps them poor and destabilized and preserves the resources for the developed and developing countries.
Life Expectancy
Africa - 51.4
South Central Asia-62.3
Brazil 73
China - 73
Japan - 82
Canada-80
US - 78 (lower if you include non-whites, but no time to look it up)
Sweden -81
France -81
As a result of low fertility rates and lower mortality rates, by 2050, the developed world will have 28% of it's population over 65 (14% now) if nothing happens between now and then. How about denying HC to people who reach 50, or make it too expensive,and make sure they don't make it to 65. Thats why you will never see single payer insurance. It's a plan, no? Many of you on CD beg for single payer but play into the hands of the neo-malthusians on issues like overpopulation, sustainability and CO2, which are meant to deny you this.
And watch the movie Children of Men if it's available in the US. It's about how the world looks 18 years after the last child has been born (vaccine sterilized everyone else?), although rumours were that the elites could still breed in their safe havens while the rest of the world descended into anarchy.
Until the ignorance of religion is banned forever from the planet. We will continue to have problems with overpopulation. Most here like to forget if the Fundamentalist Christian's, Mormons and Catholic's had their way all forms of birth control would be nonexistent and we would be breeding like flies. They would make abortion illegal and have anyone who got one executed. Most of the current problem in developing countries is caused by religious zealots who rail against all forms of birth control. They see the fetus as holy. Life in the womb is more scared than life out of it. It makes no difference if that human being dies of starvation, disease or war. The most important thing with them is to bring it into the world. They could care less what kind of a life it has after it gets here, as long as their religious belief's are being followed down to the letter. Until this ignorance of religion is banished the world is going to continue to have problems with overpopulation. Until we finally have succeeded in a human on every square inch of ground on the planet and the quality of life has been reduced to zero.
Sioux Rose
TUMBLE: The sickly ironic thing about the anti-birth control crowd is that they worship the other side of the spectrum, that of punitive measures. And so they are the FIRST to clammor FOR war, and FOR capital punishment... an evolution of witch burning or some of the other TORTURE tactics begun by the HOLY church when persons were resistant to casting out demons or professing their faith. Perhaps the most relgious are the ones hiding their hatred of mankind, behind a set of rules that make no sense at all, but give them cover in the illusion of some higher authority making up these fictions to live by. Ultimately they neither trust themselves (basic instinct, sensuality) or others. (There are exceptions, those so pure of heart that they could find holiness in the smallest of things, ferret out the singular best ideas from a book that mostly has "justified" one tribe killing another for TOO long.)
Microbiology Class: This is what happens during a bacterial bloom where the population explodes, eats up all the food and leaves nitrogen rich pollution. In the end the survivors have to eat the pollution and then finally resort to cannibalism. Then what's left smells and is very dirty and extremely unhealthy. Nothing to do but emigrate to a new petri dish full of food and start all over. Sometimes it is easier to tell the truth with a song:
"Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues" by Bob Dylan
"When you're lost in the rain in Juarez
And it's Eastertime too
And your gravity fails
And negativity don't pull you through
Don't put on any airs
When you're down on Rue Morgue Avenue
They got some hungry women there
And they really make a mess outa you"
"Now if you see Saint Annie
Please tell her thanks a lot
I cannot move
My fingers are all in a knot
I don't have the strength
To get up and take another shot
And my best friend, my doctor
Won't even say what it is I've got"
"Sweet Melinda
The peasants call her the goddess of gloom
She speaks good English
And she invites you up into her room
And you're so kind
And careful not to go to her too soon
And she takes your voice
And leaves you howling at the moon"
"Up on Housing Project Hill
It's either fortune or fame
You must pick up one or the other
Though neither of them are to be what they claim
If you're lookin' to get silly
You better go back to from where you came
Because the cops don't need you
And man they expect the same"
"Now all the authorities
They just stand around and boast
How they blackmailed the sergeant-at-arms
Into leaving his post
And picking up Angel who
Just arrived here from the coast
Who looked so fine at first
But left looking just like a ghost"
"I started out on burgundy
But soon hit the harder stuff
Everybody said they'd stand behind me
When the game got rough
But the joke was on me
There was nobody even there to call my bluff
I'm going back to New York City
I do believe I've had enough"
Copyright ©1965; renewed 1993 Special Rider Music
http://sites.google.com/site/apolloguide/
Gaia is indeed a "self-regulating system".
We are about to be regulated.
Here's another issue on which the right-wing has got everything all twisted around. The concept of the act of giving birth, the state of pregnancy, the role of motherhood have been elevated in theory to be more important than anything else. We worship the above. Yet the "mothers," the real persons, the babies and children, are of so little significance that they are allowed to live on the street and die of starvation.
I would suggest that pregnancy, childbirth, and mothering are of no more social significance than any other human acts. If we deflate these things, stop treating it as some silly madonna tale, then we can make intelligent decisions. And stop giving young girls these false messages that if they are pregnant, if they give birth, they have done everything the world could ever require of them, and they will be worshipped forever. It's so not true.
Why don't we set the example for the rest of the world by beginning a one child per family goal inside this country. To counter the breeders in the Christian right who believe 20 is not enough. And at the same time, we should promote birth control in the rest of the world, along with economic advancement.
The answer is so simple, and the right-wing always gets it wrong. We know that we need to fix our dogs and cats, and the failure to do so causes suffering. We need to apply the same common sense principles to ourselves.
it is nice to know that is all Christians fault that the population is getting to big. Must be all those Christians in India and China. The Middle East too. At least Europe is doing its part, they have to bring workers in due to the adults there are not having kids! Especially in France and Russia!
It's also nice to know that Russia is in Europe!
Thanks for the geography lesson, dipshit.
Russia West of the Urals is commonly considered to be part of Europe. Or at least, the Russians who live in that area like to think so.
Suck it, pedant.
Excuse me?
I have long been advocating one child per family, worldwide, for two or three generations. If we humans don't control our populations, then nature will do it for us and it won't be a picnic.
Someone else has noted that the emancipation of women leads to lower birth rates; just give them additional information regarding the level of population that can be maintained sustainably with a good standard of living and humans might just manage a soft landing. Barack - are you listening?
Here is one of my ways to look at this situation.
Consider moss that grows an the trunk and limbs of a tree. It puts its roots into the bark and extracts just enough nutrients for itself to thrive. The tree is little effected. This leads to more moss which in turn leads to more roots which leeds to less nutrients for the tree. Eventually the moss is so successful that it grows to the point that more is taken from the tree and it dies. The moss dies.
My question is this: Will mankind be more intelligent than tree moss?
High birth rates in the Third World are directly related to poverty. Take people out of poverty and their birth rates decline. To address high birth rates as a problem in itself, without tackling the problem of poverty is useless and suggests that the impoverished must try and control this problem themselves. This is the capitalist perspective.
A more sane approach is to share the wealth of this planet in a more equitable manner. This will raise the poor people's standard of living to the point that they will not require larger families and would reduce the overconsumption that the rich world enjoys simply because it has so successfully exploited the Third World all these years.
This can only be accomplished by changing the economic system that the global economy uses. It means doing away with capitalism and replacing it with socialism.
-----------------------------------------
What Is Marxism? - a short primer on a subject the working class needs to know.
http://www.marxist.com/Theory/what_is_marxism.html
Many of the comments here seem to say that for "developing" nations, high birth rates are not really a concern, because the poorest people in the world don't consume nearly the resources that those in America, Europe, etc. do. It is absolutely true that they don't. Their carbon footprints are infinitesimal compared to mine. However, there are still negative impacts on the environment from extremely high population levels in these parts of the world. Look at water quality in these areas. Look at deforestation and its subsequent impacts in Haiti. Most of this deforestation was for producing charcoal in an area with limited geographic resources and increasing birthrate. The charcoal was/is used as an energy source for Haitians, not to fuel excess consumption of Americans, etc. I can hear some saying now that "As bad as the reduction of Haiti's forests from a level of about 60% land cover in 1923 to around 2% in 2006 is, it in no way comes as close to harming the planet and contributing to global warming as what the US has done." And I agree. This viewpoint is correct. Even with massive deforestation like this, the impact is still not as bad as that done by Europeans, Americans, et al.
However, the point is that even when the overall impact to the planet might be somewhat small, high birth rates can have negative effects even in areas where people don't consume that much. Global warming is just one environmental problem. We need to look at issues of population growth on macro and micro levels.