EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Great Distraction: ‘Overpopulation’ Is Back in Town
What’s next to hit New York after Hurricane Irene? If you’re in the heart of Times Square during the month of September, you’ll get the chance to see a scary video about overpopulation playing every hour on a huge screen. Sponsored by the Human Overpopulation Campaign of the Arizona-based Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), the video aims to persuade people that the population explosion is the root cause of environmental destruction and that we need to stop it now.
The timing of the video could not be in poorer taste. September marks the 10th anniversary of the bombing of the Twin Towers. The tragedy of that very real explosion will no doubt weigh heavily on people’s minds and hearts. The period should be a time to commemorate lives lost and challenge the strategic use of violence against civilians, whether by terrorist groups like Al Qaeda or national militaries like our own.
Why then is CBD choosing this moment to launch its video? Ostensibly, it’s because world population is soon to pass the 7 billion people mark. But the real truth is that fears about overpopulation are trendy again -- and well-funded by rich donors. A “sympathetic advertiser”, for example, is bankrolling most of the video.
CBD is a relatively small player in a huge public opinion campaign mounted by the population lobby. Almost everyday, in a variety of media, we are being told that the world’s serious environmental and social ills are caused by too many people. This begs two key questions. Are we really experiencing a population explosion? And just who and what are wreaking the most havoc on the planet?
Unbeknownst to many Americans, the so-called population explosion actually ended in the last century as growth rates came down more rapidly than anticipated. Family size has fallen to a global average of 2.45 children and is projected to fall to two or less in the next few decades. The main reason why global population is projected to increase to 9 billion by 2050, and possibly 10 billion by 2100 (a high projection that is disputed by many demographers), is that currently a large percentage of young people are entering their reproductive years. High fertility persists in only a few countries, mainly in sub-Saharan Africa, because of deep class and gender inequalities and the failure of elites to invest in education, employment and health services, including accessible, high-quality family planning.
The real challenge before us is to plan for the addition of 2-3 billion more people on the planet in a sustainable way. Fortunately, that is possible, but only if we address the real causes of environmental pressures. Instead of blaming overpopulation, Americans need to get serious about climate policy, conservation, the transition to renewable energy, and mass transport. And we need to challenge the grotesque and growing inequality of wealth and power in our nation that fuels conspicuous consumption and weakens the government’s commitment to environmental regulation.
It’s also high time for environmentalists to stop turning a blind eye toward the role of the military in environmental degradation. The Pentagon is a major emitter of greenhouse gases, burning the same amount of fossil fuel everyday as the entire nation of Sweden. From weapons production to war zones, its ecological bootprint crushes and pollutes the earth.
Instead of lumping all people together into one destructive human mass, it’s important to carefully assess which human activities harm the environment and which enhance it. CBD blames overpopulation for the accelerated extinction of plant and animal species. Missing from this simple picture are the ways in which different systems of production yield very different environmental results.
Take the case of food. Industrial agriculture typically erodes biodiversity, while peasant farming often protects crop genetic diversity and creates a welcoming habitat for birds and other species. A Monsanto executive and a Central American small organic farmer may both be part of the human population, but there the resemblance ends.
Equally troubling about overpopulation propaganda is the way it undermines reproductive rights. While its purveyors claim they support family planning, they view it more as a means to an end – reducing population growth, rather than as a right in and of itself. The distinction may seem subtle, but it is not. Family planning programs designed to limit birth rates treat women, especially poor women and women of color, as targets rather than as individuals worthy of respect. Quality of care loses out to an obsession with the quantity of births averted.
The negative view of babies as future polluters and carbon emitters also plays into the hands of anti-abortion activists who are always seeking new ways to portray themselves as pro-life, and the pro-choice and environmental movements as anti-child. At a time when reproductive rights are under severe attack by conservative forces, the population lobby is playing with a fire it may not be able to put out.
So if you find yourself in Times Square in September, my advice is to walk on by CBD’s scary video. More worthy of a visit are Ground Zero or nearby Wall Street, the source of so many of our current financial woes. The focus on overpopulation is a great distraction from what really ails the body politic and the planet. No wonder it’s an advertiser footing the bill.
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...


483 Comments so far
Show AllBravo!
I am heartened to see a sensible article on "overpopulation" posted here.
This article does a serious disservice to the truth. It promotes denial. The earth is grossly overpopulated. The signs are all around us. Why can't people see them? It is not just capitalism or maldistribution. The oceans are overfished. Does that mean that the rich are gorging themselves on fifty pounds of fish every day? Or does it mean that too many people are eating fish? It is not a class issue, not a race issue. It is a numbers issue. Do the math. The earth has limits, and they were exceeded long ago.
Rich countries do use more energy and resources per capita and focusing on western consumerism first is probably a good idea, BUT, I agree with your overall point that making overpopulation a taboo issue for p.c. reasons like "reproductive rights," is nothing but hiding from the truth of a planet overlay full of humanoid apes, especially in first world countries!
A sustainable population level for Earth has been estimated at 1 billion. When most humans are having NO children instead of 2.4, then Earth will have a chance. But then those like Ms. Hartmann would feel they have no "purpose". Sad.
Who "estimated" that? What a remarkable coincidence that the figure arrived at is a neat 1 billion. Not 2.3, not 748 million, not 4.1, but a nice, even billion.
Do provide a link to that study, should be a good read...
What is the role of non human life in your studies? Do you give in tact eco-system with enough habitat for predators any value? We *might* be able to squeeze 10 billion people on the planet if we squeeze out all other life other than crops for humans, but that's not any kind Eaarth (to use Bill McKibbon's term) I would want to live on. Paraphrasing Thoreau In wilderness is salvation of the soul.
10 billion people living a WHOLE HELLUVA LOT more ecologically could be -temporarily- accommodated here on Earth.
Ecological lifestyles would obviously preclude destroying biosystems.
I dare say no one imagines endless growth of humans is possible. It is just that some of us are led by our inquiry into the question to conclude that this PEAK human population we are about to face can be handled without recourse to despotism, die-off, or destruction of the ecosphere.
We need to live more simply AND stabilize population, here is a hint the ecology of planet Earth is ALREADY drastically degraded, more humans only makes that worse!
Here is another hint:
No it doesn't.
"Ecology" means "the study of the home".
Non-humans don't "study".
More humans would upgrade the "ecology of the planet" as long as enough of them studied the eco.
Another hint: You mean to use a different word than "ecology". But I won't tell you what it is, since if you really know enough on the subject to dispute with me so visciously with any justice, you should know it, and use it, already.
More humans will NEVER upgrade the ecology of planet Earth that is an anthropocentric fantasy, even Native Americans drove Buffalos over cliffs.
Actually I was an environmental studies at a prestigious college, and took upper level ecological science classes.
Fail!
Appeal to authority.
Massive fail.
First you say I don't know what I am talking about, and then I demonstrate that I have in fact been educated about the science you call it an "appeal to authority" and YOU were talking about shifting gola posts?
Please spare me your hypocrisy and double standards!
Nope.
You still do not understand what "appeal to authority" means.
When you say someone / you has this or that qualification, and thus, that someone / you are correct because that someone / you has this or that qualification, that is appeal to authority.
For example, if you say that "the sky is purple, I have scientific training, thus, my claim that the sky is purple is true", that is appeal to authority.
No you don't get it, first you said I don't understand what I am talking about, and then when I demonstrated I do, you shifted the goal posts. Why do you LIE so much rfloh are you corrupt to the very core of your conscience?
I can't help but notice that everyone complaining about OVERPOPULATION is Alive!! How setting an example???? WTF let's have a show of commitment. Stage a die in! >^^<
It's not often that I denigrate someone with credentials like the author of this article, but frankly, this woman is delusional, having missed almost entirely the very thing her write-up says she specializes in:
"she writes and speaks on the intersection of reproductive rights, environmental and climate justice, and peace."
Manysummits
====
Who resurrected this hateful freak?
Complete denial of the facts, pseudo defense of human rights, lying in bed with those who do the most harm to people and planet.
Yes, overpopulation is a problem, but it is not the underdeveloped masses who are the problem, it is the rich over-developed masses. The average American uses 70 times the resources of the average third worlder. That means the effective population of the United States is 21 billion people.
We need to cut back on rich people, not people living at the sustainable range of resource usage.
Associating this issue with the criminal act known as "9/11" is pathetic at best, something the worst of Republicans would do in order to cloud an issue.
Thanks,
Richard Davies
author of "The Heirloom," a post peak oil novel
"We need to cut back on rich people, not people living at the sustainable range of resource usage."
You are correct. Fortunately, our owners are already moving to solve the problem. The plutocrats will ensure that the rich in America are limited to much less than 1 percent, and the rest will live like third world serfs who produce little pollution. The environment should be pristine in no time.
Cherenkov, the underdeveloped masses are part of the problem. Deforestation and desertification are obvious problems. Too many ecological systems are being overwhelmed.
"the underdeveloped masses are part of the problem. Deforestation and desertification are obvious problems."
-- By this statement I am assuming you are linking the underdeveloped masses with deforestation. It is true that many poor folks living in underdeveloped nations will clear cut forests for money. So let me ask you a few questions...
Why would poor men and women living in an underdeveloped nation cut down a forest? Do they hate trees? Not likely but, sure, a few might. Why does a miner help blow up a mountain near his own habitat? Does he hate mountains and his environment? Again, not likely. And do you really think that these poor people freely choose these nature destroying jobs? If you do... you should come down out that privileged position of yours and get in touch with the poor working class folks to see why they do the jobs they do..
The better answer is that both of these poor working class folks are stuck living in an economic system that forces them to "act against their best impulses, even strongly felt natural values" in order to SURVIVE! If they don't do something to create an income then they and their family starves and becomes homeless. So, it is quite safe to say that poor people will choose nature destroying jobs because it "stems from need and, above all, they are the product of social arrangements over which ordinary people have no control." **
**quoted from Murray Bookchin, "Society and Ecology".
Seconded.
Shockingly obvious really, once one stops trying to find a way not to face the fact that one's own lifestyle is the problem. ;)
You misunderstood Eric's post. The miner, the logger, etc, do what they do to survive as wage laborers under capitalism. Capitalism likes population growth: more consumers, more "reserved army" of unemployed to keep down wages of those working. Capitalism is the driving force for both environmental degradation, poverty and population growth. There are many studies that show that when the standard of living is raised, better access to education and healthcare is provided, population growth decreases.
In terms of lifestyle changes, for example, only 2.5% of waste generated in the US is household waste, the other 97.5% is corporate, that is, industrial, construction and "special waste" (mining etc). So if all American households eliminate all of their waste (a lifestyle change) it would still be a drop in the bucket to the scale of the problem. Similarly, if you become a vegan, ride a bike, whatever, none of these things, even done by many millions of people, will not change the way capitalism operates globally: singular focus on short-term gain, maximizing profits and continuous growth forever - regardless of the costs to humanity and nature.
The problem is systemic behavior, not individual behavior.
Agree. Overpopulation in undeveloped lands has its own brand of environmental degradation, quite different from that inflicted by the wealthy North. Large populations of sheep, goats, and cattle overgraze the land, subjecting it to erosion. Aquifers are pumped out to water marginal crops in Africa and elsewhere. Forests are cut down for fuel. Animals are hunted to extinction. Charcoal fires pollute the air in urban slums. Untreated sewage fouls rivers and lakes. This is NOT to absolve those of us in the West who are taking far more resources than we need, but to point out that even those with few possessions can damage to the Earth.
Funny, drosera. My reply to GregR was a copy and paste of a previous comment I made to you! Which you decided to never answer.
"but to point out that even those with few possessions can damage to the Earth."
WHY do these people do this? I would love to see you finally answer the questions I asked GregR... they (were) are for you as well.
Look, Eric, these people cut down the forest to heat their food and to keep warm. On Easter Island they cut down the trees also to make dugout canoes. They cut down every damn tree and their civilization ended. There is no fancy thinking involved. A great many people are only focused on the here and now. I'm sure that if your children were hungry or freezing, you too might be part of this "problem."
Right... So, it is quite safe to say that people will choose nature destroying jobs because it "stems from need and, above all, they are the product of social arrangements over which ordinary people have no control."
Cultures are made up a learned behaviors. People are not born knowing their culture (ie: people aren't born knowing how to destroy their environment) Their culture shaped them and taught them how to destroy their biosphere. Some (not all) indigenous cultures did NOT teach their offspring how to destroy their biosphere - their cultures, in fact, taught them how to live WITHIN natures way...
So...should we as a species finally start working together to create better social arrangements to end this moronic destruction - like Evo Morales is doing in Bolivia? Or should we just continue to hysterically scream about over-population problems WITHOUT focusing on a socio/economic system that teaches us the wrong ways to live?
I'm only saying that people of any culture do what they do in order to survive. They will overgraze land, pump out aquifers, cultivate erosion-prone land, burn wood to cook their food, and overfish lakes to make better lives for themselves. These behaviors destroy the Earth every bit as much as an American firing up his Ford Expedition every morning. Certainly poor people do violence to the land because of their economic condition--who would argue that? I am just saying that people--all people, rich and poor, need to make sure they are not accidently destroying the ecosystem they depend on. And I would heartily agree that the poor need extra resources to avoid doing just that.
Wouldn't it be simpler to say that there should be no "poor" people?
The USAn in his SUV has his own kind of poverty, as well, more spiritual than material maybe, more emotional than physical (he is rather sick from excess physical wealth), but still real.
Both Rich and Poor destroy the Earth because they live together in the same Machine that some fool set to "Exploit" and "Destroy" 300 years ago.
If there WERE NO rich and poor people, would people still "accidentally" destroy the Earth? Impossible to say because we've never had such a society.
Spiritual is just pretend for starters.
We need to address western consumerism AND the overall population of the plant. Just as western people tend to have a blind spot about their bloated unsustainable lifestyles we need to address first as it does the most damage, many ultra p.c. people have a blind spot with "reproductive rights" and a noble savage view of the third world, that makes it impossible to discuss an issue like this objectively. I agree BTW that co-ops, wealth sharing, more windmills, etc, would help, but I think those co-ops should ALSO have free birth control, for too much of the biomass of planet earth is humans that is a fact, p.c. or not. We can't grow human population and economic output exponentially forever. Hint doubling time for economic output is two decades.
Your problem is that you are arguing against things that no one you are arguing with is arguing for! ;)
WHO THE HELL IS AGAINST "FREE BIRTH CONTROL" HERE!?!?
Certainly NOT me!
Hint: People are usually trying to say what they actually write, not things you are thinking about that share a few keywords with what they have written.
And then that birth control needs to be USED, this talking out of both sides of the mouth, free birth control is nice, but so is the "reproductive right," of women to have as many children as they desire ISN'T correct, it's a have your cake and eat it too fantasy, and women need to take responsibility for the impact of babies when they become future adults on the planet.
You should probably direct this thought at whoever is saying that then, yes?
Sorta pointless to aim it at me, who isn't.
But out of curiosity, how to you plan to make women take responsibility for this, and how do you plan to enforce use of birth control?
Because while it is great that you WANT certain things of the world, I am only interested in practical discussion. ;)
How will I get I get it, education AGAINST the pro fertility agenda that masquerades as "reproductive rights," like the CBD is doing. How about the rights of the non human creatures dying from the human swarm, do they have any rights in your anthropocentric view? Extra bonus points for directly addressing the question and telling the truth!
No, that birth control needs to be AVAILABLE.
Whether people use that is up to them
I know this is a difficult concept for fundamentalist atheist like you, who want to bomb people ostensibly to save them.
Do animals get any choice when they are driven extinct by poor human choices? And there is no coercion in the education the CBD is doing about population, who this author attacks from a position of pro fertility emotion, and not rational fact.
Double fail!
Poor human choices such as automobile usage? Throwing away food? Eating meat?
All of the above, it isn't either or as you simplistically suggest. I know it's hard for simple minds to conceive of a problem with multiple causes but do stretch your mind and try, mmK?
drosera:
Eric is saying something that is very important that is just blowing by you. Social systems, social relations are human constructs. They are not innate. The social relations characteristic of indigenous peoples (their relations to each other and the natural world) are very different than the social relations that develop within the dog-eat-dog, nice-guy-finishes-last social relations of capitalism.
Yes, people do what they have-to to survive. But "survival" manifests itself differently within different social relationships (future generations are part of the survival equation for many indigenous peoples, but certainly not for the short-term gain requirements of capitalists). Eric is gently coaxing you to move from the liberal complaint to the radical analysis.
And what about adding people NOW in the current system that shows no signs of changing soon? Advocating for adding people when we do NOT live in this fantasy world of a no environmental impact workers paradis is irresponsible in the extreme in my strong opinion. Yes it would likely help if more of the world were like Sweden, that isn't actually happening nor will it soon, so until then we need to halt the growth of the human hord and yes in the piggish U.S. first, get it?
To say in a perfect world we could have ten billion people is nice and all, this is no perfect world, and acting if it is and then advocating for adding people when it's not a perfect world NOW has real consequences for ecological stability. The extinctions NOW are on YOUR hands fertility cultists, shame on you!
NOBODY here is advocating for unlimited growth. There are no fertility cults hanging on this thread advocating for unlimited growth. In fact, what Tom and I are both saying is that if humans addressed the socio/economic arrangements and created more equitable agreements for all (which in the long run requires getting rid of capitalism) we will be able to curb growth rates. I provided evidence to show that this claim is true, and instead of addressing that evidence, you went and made FALSE accusations about my message. You can squirm and try to deceive all you like, but both of our written words are documented and there for all to see. You are delusional person. You are a fucking pest... shoe fly!
So you are then against the bogus "reproductive right" to have a family of unlimited size in the current imperialist/capitalist conditions where population IS an ecological destruction multiplayer? If not you just talking out of both sides of your mouth and saying nothing of substance.
Note that despite the smears of "racism," I think the campaign should focus on the U.S., as a good way to cut down on consumerism AND population is negative population growth in the U.S.
I am for liberty. And not the faux liberty that right libertarians espouse... but the liberty that our left-libertarians espouse. By creating more equitable socio/economic agreements a person/family will be able to make better choices...
"Liberties, being socially produced do not exist because they have been legally set down on a piece of paper, but only when they have become the ingrown habit of a people, and when any attempt to impair them will meet with the violent resistance of the populace . . . One compels respect from others when one knows how to defend one's dignity as a human being. This is not only true in private life; it has always been the same in political life as well. In fact, we owe all the political rights and privileges which we enjoy today in greater or lesser measures, not to the good will of their governments, but to their own strength."
Left Libertarian good, so am I, here is what Chomsky has to say about population:
http://fora.tv/2009/10/06/Noam_Chomsky_Philosophies_of_Language_and_Politics#fullprogram
(Chapter 10)
Chomsky says that fertility decline in India for example is a good idea and can be achieved non coercively. He is not shilling for filling the world with more people.
ERIC: Young men like you, who possess a broad vision, truly ARE the hope of tomorrow.
Now contrast the wisdom of your post, and some of the points added by Drosera with the nit-wit, "CALEB" whose post is insidious, bent on destroying the author's points AND reputation. He uses words including: BS/nonsense/crack pot, and makes completely false assertions about her religious background and motives. (This is seen in a post further down the thread.)
Then, (as once again enacting the M.O. too often utilized in this forum) the "new" poster Rachkien shows up to validate every one of these false, and misleading talking points, and mischaracterizations.
There was a T-shirt sold in Key West that said, "If assholes could fly, this place would be an airport." I'm beginning to see an equivalent with respect to some of the dingbats that show up in these threads. Their purpose: to misappropriate others' beliefs, damage them, and CONTROL the conversation. In this case, they don't want the premise of resource usage (or what it says about those in privileged groups) to be taken seriously, or considered at all.
As is true of a great many things, numbers are always a factor. The author is pointing out that they are hardly the ONLY factor. And contrary to the lesser intellects seeking to damage her reputation, she is very much in favor OF birth control. The article reflects the mindset of those who block U.S. aid when it includes said item.
Evidently "Caleb" is on duty today.
The problem with the spiritual standpoint is it ignores mathematical realities like doubling times of populations, and the finite nature of ENERGY, and resources like intact forests eco-systems that provide for fresh water and clean ar, fish in the sea, etc. No wishing into a crystal will make the peril of our planet go away from a combination of endless war, obscene consumerism, and yes overpopulation. The left didn't used to be too p.c. gun shy to address this, anyone remember books like "The Population Bomb," which was part of Earth Day and the whole militant in the streets early environmental movement that latter became Greenpeace and Earth First!? I do!
Thank you, Siouxrose.
-----------------------
And, drosera... thank you for clarifying your position.
Yeah, because deforestation never happened in the US etc. Because aquifers in the US are not being drained dry to support personal swimming pools, manicured laws, golf courses, in arid and hot parts of the US. Nope.
There are too many people of all types. Allocating blame is not the answer. The answer starts with facing the fact that the planet has a serious overpopulation problem. When I was born there were 2.3 billion people; now there are 7 billion. That rate of growth is a recipe for disaster. At this point, any growth at all is problematic.