Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Rebuttal: Saving Species From Extinction Is No Mere ‘Distraction’
In Besty Hartmann’s post The Great Distraction: ‘Overpopulation’ Is Back (8/30/11), she boldly charges the Center for Biological Diversity of undermining reproductive rights, letting the military and Monsanto off the hook, ignoring global warming, selling out to big advertising companies and distracting people while we subjugate women. Oh, and disrespecting victims of violence, worldwide.
In fact, the Center for Biological Diversity is probably the only environmental group in the country taking on Monsanto, the Pentagon, global warming while also working for environmental justice and reducing the human population to a sustainable level through public education and the promotion of women’s reproductive rights and empowerment. You could hardly ask for clearer proof that overpopulation is not a distraction from other issues.
The Center works on all these issues and believes that most people are equally capable of focusing on several problems at once. In this increasingly conservative time, liberals can’t afford Hartmann’s either/or thinking. We need to work on all fronts and build alliances with other progressive groups, not create false conflicts driving allies away.
We are witnessing one of the most rapid plant and animal extinction waves ever known on the planet. Every basic human need depends on the diversity that exists in the natural world. Our work is to stop the catastrophe sweeping over the planet, making life better for all species, humans included.
We cannot ignore the reality that explosive human population growth has led to loss of habitat, overhunting, overfishing, and pollution of air, land and water. It is critical that we speak out and speak up about this reality. For too long, overpopulation has been ignored by environmental groups and others, largely for political reasons.
Two hundred million women who want access to family planning resources don’t have it. The Center has and will continue to stand together with groups working to ensure women everywhere are empowered to make informed decisions and have access to the healthcare they need.
Every campaign we take on is focused on stopping the threats that imperiled species face. That is why we have fought the Pentagon’s bombing of critical wildlife habitat, killing of dolphins through undersea sonic booms, dewatering of rivers, and building of a massive military base in Okinawa, Japan against the wishes of local people. That is why we launched a massive nation-wide campaign to hold Monsanto and other pesticide manufacturers accountable for polluting our rivers with dangerous chemicals. And that’s why we are educating people about the connection between overpopulation and the species extinction crisis through innovative and creative media.
The Center has mobilized 5,000 activists to distribute over 350,000 free condoms, packaged in boxes with images of endangered species. The Endangered Species Condom project pushed the issue of overpopulation in a way that no environmental group had been able to do yet. Without distraction, we were able to bring the conversation of ecosystem protection straight to Americans, whose growing population is also the most consumptive. The United States has the highest fertility rate of the developed countries and is also the third largest population in the world.
We have experienced a global population explosion, doubling in one generation. The United Nations predicts we will top 10 billion before the end of the next generation. These are basic facts that help people begin to see that consumption at the root of our ecological crisis is shared by a secret bedfellow: overpopulation.
The Center for Biological Diversity will launch a new campaign this September focusing on the arrival of 7 billion people on this planet. We intend to further commit our organization to finding real solutions that will help us curb species extinction before it is too late. We know that raising the issue of human population growth is essential to this work.
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...
255 Comments so far
Show All"In your initial post you implied that this condition was sufficient to confer exponential growth, and now you say it's just one indication but not sufficient in and of itself. So what are all the "sufficient" conditions?"
Fucking bullshit. I clearly said "unless". I absolutely did not "imply", even implicitly, that it's a sufficient condition. All I had to say was that (based on UN projections which we referred to constantly) exponential growth has already stopped, and that is what I did.
What makes your ignorance even more obvious is that what I wrote is in fact clearly not a *sufficient* condition for exponential growth, because what I said can also hold true for polynomial growth (which is slower than exponential), afaik. You would have called me out on that if you actually knew what you were talking about, even remotely.
________
I never agreed with your definition in the first place, dumbass!! And so what, you offer us an "insufficient" condition, but fail to offer us the "sufficient" condition(s)?! Way to go, Einstein! That's pretty useful! And by the way "exponential growth cannot have already stopped" based on growth rate "projections". But anyway, thanks for all your help in clearing up the discussion on "exponential". Geesh!
You and your buddy, actualleftist, need to find a real job. You're both heavily polluting the CD website. For all our sakes, let's hope your posts don't continue to grow "exponentially"!
Yet another poster who doesn't understand the use of "exponential growth!"
Let's look at this another way so that you might begin to understand it. ALWAYS, IN EVERY CASE, DEFINITIONALLY, exponential growth leads to doubling.
How many people are on Earth now? Let's say 7 billion.
OK, so we should be headed to 14 billion then, right? WRONG.
I DON'T KNOW OF ANY DEMOGRAPHER, EVEN ONES PROJECTING 300 YEARS FROM NOW, WHO CLAIMS THAT WE ARE HEADED TO 14 BILLION... AT ALL, EVER.
Instead we apparently have a topping-off at about 9.2 bn and then a slight population DROP FOR A QUARTER CENTURY.
I don't understand how people this IGNORANT of the literature and the projections and high school math terms have strong opinions on population. We need take nothing that you have to say on the subject seriously.
_________
You my friend are a blowhard, and have no idea what you're talking about. There's really nothing left to say.
cdresearch -
Atomsk and I have shown repeatedly that Earth's dropping rate of growth is by definition NOT exponentiial growth.
These are not "our" definitions but standard definitions. This is math we're talking about, nothing opinion-oriented about it. We repeatedly demonstrate to you some basic lessons from high school math and you repeatedly refuse to accept reality.
_______
The growth rate has relatively recently started to decline by "hundreds of a percent per year". The trends have not been long enough to make any definitive declarations on the "exponential" aspect of world population growth. And for all practical purposes it's irrelevant anyway.
The fact is we have major population centers/countries around the world that are still experiencing major exponential growth in their populations, and are indeed in population overshoot.
In short, population growth is a problem, "exponential" or not. As a result, you fail to see the forest through the trees.
_________________________________________
Thanks, cosmobilly, for talking some sense about the meaning of "exponential". Geesh!!
Your sucking up to cosmobilly despite your obvious ignorance is a bit embarrassing.
_______________________________________
Did anyone ever tell you that your disrespectful style is pathetic? I know, in one ear out the other.
Your posts are so incredibly dumb that I can't really bring myself to be respectful to you. Or even reply in detail, I wrote a pretty long reply to one of your posts, but deleted it, because I could foresee how incredibly retarded the conversation would become if you replied to it.
My point was that you clearly don't even remotely understand the arguments, your "solutions" are pie-in-the-sky unrealistic (to say the least) phantasies and your contributions are mostly about "congratulating" people you're on the same side with with nod-nod-wink-wink-we're-so-smart posts (and calling everyone you don't understand but disagree with ignorant know-it-alls), and that's embarrassing.
_____________
"..... My point was that you clearly don't even remotely understand the arguments, your "solutions" are pie-in-the-sky unrealistic (to say the least) phantasies ....."
Oh, and making any significant impact to mute the adverse effects of global capitalism is realistic? LOL!!
By the way, when someone proactively resorts to completely unfounded, arrogant, and ridiculous personal attacks you know that they're losing the argument. Looks like you've lost.
No, your sophistry and ignorance are just pissing me off. I never ever said that we have a decent chance on impacting global capitalism. My point is that at least we should not help its projects, some of which are behind this global overpopulation agenda, and that we should deal with our own shit first and that once we prove we can do that, we can start talking about handling other people's shit. And I made no personal attacks - that your "ideas" are unrealistic pie-in-the-sky phantasies is not a personal attack, and my statements about your ignorance are pretty well founded in your own posts.
__________
"..My point is that at least we should not help its projects, some of which are behind this global overpopulation agenda...."
This makes no sense. The global capitalist system (which is much bigger than Bill Gates!) WANTS increases in population! Stopping population growth is NOT a "capitalist" project. And also, the overwhelming majority of overpopulation activists/organizations have absolutely NO INTEREST in offering "sterility medicines" as a solution. Absurd!
".... we should deal with our own shit first and that once we prove we can do that, we can start talking about handling other people's shit...."
But overpopulation IS OUR SHIT!!! We are still growing exponentially, we have the 3rd largest population in the world, and we're number one in per capita consumption. I'd say we have a BIG population problem. We need to reduce our consumption AND reduce our birth rate. BOTH need to be done, and both can be done at the same time providing we have the political will.
"...your "ideas" are unrealistic pie-in-the-sky phantasies is not a personal attack, and my statements about your ignorance are pretty well founded in your own posts."
YOUR idea of "taking care of our own shit" (translation - capitalist inspired consumption, which you failed to even offer specifics on) is just as "pie in the sky" as my suggestions that we aggressively address overpopulation. Surely, even you see that contradiction.
And your statement about my so-called "ignorance" is not "well-founded in my posts". To the contrary, such an assessment is entirely a figment of your distorted imagination.
cd -
You are just plainly ignorant of current population stats and projections as well as math terminology. None of that would be problematic if you weren't using this forum to mock people who know that they're talking about in a demographic discussion.
__________
On the contrary, it is you that do not have a clue about what statistics actually mean in the context of a discussion about demographics. And it is you that is constantly adding personal and insulting attacks on the very people that know what they're talking about. You also clearly have a major problem with both math and logic. Perhaps it stems from your obstinance in holding on to your own particular ideology about the issue of overpopulation. Also, your arrogance about your views is way over the top, and without merit.
He wasn't talking sense, he was using weasel words to muddy the waters, and you have proven yourself too ignorant of the subject to tell the difference.
"Exponential growth" or "geometric growth" is a very specific term with a specifc meaning; it's growth that leads to doubling because of a constant or rising growrth rate.
WE DO NOT HAVE A CONSTANT OR GROWING GROWTH RATE, WE HAVE FALLING FERTILITY RATES. THIS IS NOT A STATEMENT CONTRADICTED BY ANY GLOBAL DEMOGRAPHER.
What your hero did was try to confuse people deliberately by stating that a description of world population growth from some point in the past up through now could be expressed with an "exponential FUNCTION." And that much is true, HOWEVER...
AT THIS JUNCTURE WE ARE PAST THE PART OF THE S-CURVE IN THAT FUNCTION IN WHICH GROWTH IS EXPONENTIAL. GROWTH RATES ARE FALLING AND FULLY ON TRACK TO GO NEGATIVE IN 60 YEARS.
You congratulate your pal only for confusing you.
______________
I've already addressed this numerous times. You have NO idea what you're talking about on this issue. I'll simply leave you to consider this:
YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE RISING GROWTH RATES TO HAVE EXPONENTIAL GROWTH!!
Once you figure that out we can have a discussion about "exponential". Until then I'm wasting my time on you.
You HAVE to have either rising or constant rate of growth, YES YOU DO.
WE HAVE NEITHER, WE HAVE A DROPPING GROWTH RATE - ONE THAT IS ON TRACK TO GO ***NEGATIVE*** IN SEVERAL DECADES.
READ SOME POPULATION PROJECTIONS, WILL YOU?
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf
____________
I've read plenty of population projections, clown!
For one, population "projections" are not CARVED IN STONE! And the farther away they predict, the larger the standard deviation in their projections.
Second, even looking at long-term projections, we're not expected to go "negative" on growth until sometime in the 22nd century! Wake me up when we get there. In the meantime, we're still adding people to a increasingly overextended planet.
http://www.geohive.com/earth/his_history3.aspx
Third, one can't in any practical sense rely on "projections of a substantial growth rate decline" and therefore proclaim that exponential growth of the population is over. It does not have any practical significance when we're talking about 7 BILLION people on a planet in overshoot. The fact is we're still adding 6.5 million people per month that we are unable to effectively assimilate or accommodate.
Also, there remains a slim chance that growth rates (which are only falling marginally at present) could in fact stabilize in the 1.0 to 1.2% range for quite some time, and then gradually decline again decades into the future. Professional demographers would be the first to admit that they don't own a crystal ball. If so, we could still see a doubling before the end of the century, but it would depend on discovering significant energy solutions over the next 20 years. I think that we're going to run into a significant problem there, and actually go the other direction on population at some point this century at the insistence of mother nature. That's why, regardless of the technical definition of exponential growth, we're still adding more people to the planet every year as of 2011, and that could spell tragedy.
In short, we have in no way clearly broken from our exponential growth pattern. You put too much faith in the long-term accuracy of "projections" in declaring that the exponential growth phase is officially over.
Double post, argh
None of these posters were talking about "expressing [human populaton growth] as an exponential function", the phrase they used over and over was specifically "exponential growth" (which we could also call "geometric growth" if you like), which is very much what isn't occuring.
Here's a telling line from the Wikipedia entry: "The exponential growth model is also known as the Malthusian growth model." Malthus. yep.
In point of fact the UN population people have human population not even keeping up with replacement levels in 60 years. We're at the point in the sigmoid curve (if we must) where exponential growth has stopped and slower growth than that has set in.
I notice that you are dodging the phrase "exponential growth" yourself in favor of "reference human population growth in relation to an exponential function." And I'm the one playing semantics games?
Exponential growth requires at least a constant rate of growth, and our fertility rate is actually declining. A good deal of the net population growth (raw number of humans going up) is an artifact NOT of exponential population growth (RATE of growth risng or steady) but of people who are born already when there was faster growth living longer and having had less chance of dying as an infant (two things you would think left-leaners would be happy about)!
The obvious reason for this phrasing is not that they have advanced math understanding, but because THEY DON'T KNOW what current population growth rates are (the assumption is far higher than the reality) and because good liberals are taught that there are "too many" people in the world.
They simply assume that people are currently doubling (note that some posters have actually used the word "doubling" - try finessing your way out of that!) like cells in a petri dish.
I'm not aware of any projection calling for human population to hit 14 billion over even the next 300 years. Exponential growth has already ended.
"Actual leftist" my ass.
Yes, he is an actual leftist.
Unlike most of you ranters about population. But then, I'm not surprised really at the posts here on population on CD, given the large number of posters here who are sympathetic to the extreme right wing Ron Paul.
Most people here cannot even define what "left" means.
No, fakeleftist, but thanks for the laughs. You have become a reliable source of hilarity these past two days. Sorry i couldn't spend the whole day with you!
You simply cannot read anyone here with dignity or respect, you sit eagerly awaiting your chance to "pounce" and claim "victory" over your vanquished "opponent." But actually, you mis-read my statement.
i'm aware of trends in the rate of population growth and demographics. i'm aware of what the word "exponential" means. i'm curious, as the "exponent police," maybe you could clarify exactly what the law is that you imagine yourself enforcing here? Can one only use the term "exponential" for a purely consistent curve, in which there is literally a set exponent that is unchanging over time, like an unchanging interest rate on a bank account? Why is it in your mind some flag of stupidity for me to refer to the "population explosion" of the past century as "exponential"? The classic curve going up steeper over time, the relatively consistent doubling rate. Scientists regularly use the term "exponential" to refer to curves that are not literally tied to an unchanging exponent, but exhibit rough congruence with "exponential" behavior.
i did not say we are undergoing exponential growth. i referred to the past and the population explosion of the previous century. But you gleefully, pantingly, impose your image of your "opponents" on everyone here, you see your caricature of the person you imagine yourself arguing with. You are so eager to "gotcha" and shut down the possibility of any discussion that you can't actually look at the sentence you are attacking, the person you are attacking.
Keep it up! Thanks for the laughs!
"You simply cannot read anyone here with dignity or respect..."
So says a fellow who wants to strip poor people of the dignity and respect of deciding whether or not they want to have kids!
The writer of a piece has to EARN respect by writing something sensible.
Your new gambit that you were referring to exponential growth IN THE PAST is one I'm not buying, now that you seem to have some understanding of what the term means.
Currently we ARE NOT experiencing exponential growth and have not been for some time and continuing to refer to such is inaccurate fearmongering. It would be nice if some of the overpopulation people would read and understand some actual population projections by professionals.
Wheeeeeee! Stop tickling meeeee!
Whew! Ok, fakeleftist. Nowhere do i say any such thing. This is one of your most blunt cramming of words into another person's mouth that you have done here, that's quite an achievement on a thread full of such stuffing! It's not even tricky, it's just glumph!
And no, my "new gambit" is laughing uproariously at you and your "new gambits."
You have time to type that but you've steadfastly refused to tell all of us what you "know" is the "correct" number of people on the planet. We can assume that you have no opinion on this because I've asked a number of times and you make no attempt to 'educate' us on what the figure is and why.
Lacking a target range for the ideal number of people on the planet your claims that there are necessarily "too many" people on Earth can be safely ignored, as this too is an estimate apparently also pulled from nowhere.
Nope, that's precisely like the global warming denier blowhards who shout over and over "so if it's too warm then what is the precise ideal temperature for the Earth smart guy?"
In both cases it is a fake issue and a rhetorical ploy to derail discussion, which is precisely what you are here to do. KEEP SHOUTING AND INSULTING! YOU"RE DOING A GREAT JOB! KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK! NO RESPECT ALLOWED!
Self-righteous twit.
I guess you don't know about 350.org and Bill McKibben, then?
Oops, looks like he and his anti-global-warming organization actually do have a number that they and others can point to.
Oh well, don't be too embarrassed. I'm sure it's just too early for you.
Maybe a nap?
_________________________________________
Will you PLEASE stop spouting off about what "exponential" means? You obviously do not have a clue what it means yourself. You even think you know more than a long-time university physics professor!
I've been talking about the phrase "exponential growth", which is a math term with a fixed meaning with very specific consequences, especially in population terms.
"Exponential" or "exponential function" does not mean the same thing as "exponential growth." Similarly "hand" does not mean the same thing as "hand-off" or "hand job."
Try a few sentences... "He gave me a hand." "He gave me a hand-off." "He gave me a hand job." See?
It's not that I know more than the professor, it's that I know enough (incidentally I worked for several years professionally neck-deep in socioecomic and demographic stats including population projections! Is THAT good enough for you, or..?) to know when someone is using weasel words to mislead people.
You, unfortunetly, do not seem to know when someone is tricking you with a semantic switcheroo. So maybe you want to tone down the intellectual triumphalism a bit. You are wrong.
_________________
I have a masters degree in the social sciences and have been thoroughly trained in statistics and demographics.
I know what "exponential growth" is, and we have had, and are still experiencing it.
In addition, we are in "population overshoot" right now, and yet we continue to add 6.5 million people to the world population every month, a world that is heading into a period of peaking and subsequently declining natural resources that are essential to sustaining a "decent" quality of life for all it's inhabitants (not to mention a population that is wreaking havoc on all the biodiversity factors).
What don't you get about these basic facts?!
"the way we enabled the most recent two doublings of human population over the past 100 years..."
... was through plumbing, antibiotics and food security. Oh the horror, the horror...
You people are "progressive", are you?
Wheee! Thanks for the laughs, friend!
You have time for these comments, how about taking the time for I've asked for at least 5 times in 2 threads from your side of the argument:
How about ANY reference to ANY number of humans that you think is the magical sustainable limit. If you think 7 billion or 9 or 6 billion is "too many" then you must also necessarily know what lower number isn't too many. If you don't have a number in mind you are necessarily talking out of your butts.
This should of course include a massive amount of calculation behind it, but since you're all so certain that this number exists and that it's quite lower than 6 or 7 billion I'm sure that you have this at your fingertips.
Amazing that two entire articles and almost 400 comments into a debate on population trends and polycarpe and I remain the only people who have referenced population studies with actual numbers (including the authors of both articles)! I suppose there's a reason the site is called CommonDreams and not CommonFacts.
Oh you poor girl! Are you stuck still playing this boring game? Here, i'll play along, using precisely the same brilliant logic on you that you are using on me!
This will be fun! OK fakeleftist, you seem absolutely sure that 7 billion humans is a perfectly wonderful number of humans for the living Earth, and could easily go up by another 3 or 4 billion without approaching anything to be concerned about, you must have a very clear idea of what the precise number of humans it is that WOULD be a problem for the Earth? Could you outline for us the specific calculations you used to come to such a profound understanding of the Earth's ecology?
Thanks!
Are we having fun yet?
Not a single person answered the reverse of this question posted half a dozen times by actualleftist - even though it's way more important to know what the maximum number is if it implies, you know, population decrease, while what he says does not. I mean, the overpopulation side to this issue does have a harsh and totalitarian consequence (ie. population control), which makes it a bit more important to substantiate than what he is saying, which does NOT imply imposing population control.
But the real answer is, imo, this: as long as we have oil, we can support (in terms of food at least) the foreseeable population peak for a while. We have to use this resource, as little of it as possible, to make the transition to a higher labour intensity and more resource efficient agriculture. After that, the responsibility is not ours. In fact, making any decisions for those generations, unless absolutely unavoidable, is immoral. We have to enable next generations to make that choice, which we can do NOT by controlling the populations of other countries, but by stopping waste and environmental destruction on our part.
Nope, it's a fake issue that fakeleftist keeps raising, a rhetorical ploy to derail discussion.
As is the fake assertion in your post that if you believe overpopulation of humans is real therefore you demand imposition of totalitarian measures.
You and fake leftist are both fake, here to derail discussion with pompous self-righteous insults and deaf repetition of false frames. Congratulations on your excellent work!
This isn't a "boring game", this is a specific numeric case that should have been made on both of these population threads by the overpopulation people starting with your very first post. If you're going to claim there are "too many" people then you implicitly claim to know what "enough" people is and should be able to prove that. If you don't have a range in mind then any claim that 7 billion is "too many" is just a load of BS.
As it turns out it was my job to address these questions as the research department manager at an NGO from 1993-2000. I was instrumental in collecting more data on production, consumption and demographics in one place than anyone had before, including the UN itself (we used data from all of their publishing departments plus data from dozens of other sources; not even the UN collected it all in one database before). We had started collecting world resource and population data in about 1967 with the aim of showing everyone that wiser and more humane distribution of resources would lead to every person on Earth *sustainably* clothed, fed, housed and educated, etc.
Why do this? To counter the notion that there isn't enough to go around for everyone thus there isn't any point in trying to do so, and that we live in a world of scarcity in which people should continue making selfish short-term decisions.
What we found time and again was that by cutting waste and applying sensible methods of sustainable agriculture, wise energy usage, so forth and so on... that there was more than enough being produced already to meet the needs of more people than the UN is projecting us to have to deal with over the next few hundred years and then some.
The systems of economics, agriculture, transport etc are the problem, not the number of people on its own, by itself. Why would that even be the case?
That's just using resources the way we know how to now. Amazingly people seem stuck in the idea that over the decades there WON'T BE ANY FORM OF SCIENTIFIC ADVANCE AT ALL IN ANY FIELD to help us deal with any issue. That's quite a negative (and stupid) prediction.
The burden of proof is on you to prove that X amount of people is impossible to sustain on the planet, since this is what you announce loudly and repeatedly, with no reference to any data whatever.
Nope, your deaf repetition of your phony issue does not make it any more true the 27th time you repeat it than it was the first time. You are absolutely equally implying what you claim i am implying, and your refusal to give a hard number is precisely the same as my refusal to give a hard number.
Also, maybe you could tell me something: your hero Fuller, was he an "actual leftist"? He loved high technology and elegant design, as reflected in your delight in the inevitable SCIENTIFIC ADVANCE that will "help us deal with any issue," but he was very certainly no "leftist" and neither are you.
You technological fetishists ignore the fact that the scientific and technological advances that you find to be such a turn-on actually keep raising the stakes and digging the ecological hole we are in ever-deeper, because the science is not applied holisitcally, not embedded in whole-systems thinking but still imposing the false mechanistic view of the cosmos that incidentally the capitalists love so well, since it allows them to exploit every narrow aspect without regard to the whole-system consequences. You are "actually" a shill for capitalism you loud-mouthed arrogant phony.
OK, so you have a bag full of nothing but rhetoric.
Let's say that I am a "shill for capitalism" (?!?!? - one who is calling for radical reordering of our food and energy systems in a fairer direction, riiiigght...), how does that remove any intellectual responsibility from you to have a "correct" number of people in mind when claiming that another number is "too many"?
"Humans in healthy relationship to the living Earth do NOT reach such numbers, and moving from the system that produced this unsustainable distortion to a system that works in harmony with natural living systems, is pulling the plug on the system that fed that growth."
Wrong. Go read the agroecology article that was posted on CD just a few days ago:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/08/21-1
Productivity per land area CAN be sustained, even increased. Labour would need to increase, as productivity per unit labour would decrease, but then that is would mean more jobs, that would only be a bad thing if you are an uber capitalist. Are you?
What's amazing is that the population fetishists envision a world in which the planet is dying and resources are stretched ever-thinner... and for some reason the human numbers keep growing, in some versions even exponentially!
It makes no sense at all. The worse conditions they envision, the more they have humanity thriving!
________________________________________
Very well said, webwalk.
"How about creating a system where children aren't needed to work for the sustenance of a family in the first place? "
The implication of this statement (which is very common) is that the poor have lots of children because they are poor - and need the income from lots of kids to sustain the families.
But people like Amartya Sen claim that that is wrong. That, in fact, the poor are poor because they have lots of children - and have a hard time feeding them all.
So passing out condoms is not a joke. In fact, it won't work in many places where it is needed - because of the culture which condones large families. But the idea is sound.
As noted in the specific study of over 40 developing countries I've posted into these comments twice, both fertility rates and family size are already dropping.
A lowered growth rate following the faster increase in population we had in previous generations is still going to result in net absolute growth for a while, save mass die-offs. That's how the numbers work, that's reality. Only by killing off a lot of people and/or by making reproduction generally illegal could one hope to reverse that.
As it stands the growth is tapering off and we are slowly pulling into a situation where around 2075 we'll have about 25 projected years of slowly SHRINKING population as old age catches up with many in larger birth cohorts.
Having established that, what more do people want?
For me it's something of a red herring to suggest that in a world which already has a slowing fertility rate that attacking the fertility rate more is the best (or even an effectivce) way to approach what are consumption and socioeconomic issues. It also smacks to me of dumping on the poor.
polycarpe is of course 100% correct - all professional demographers agree that fertility rates are already slowing and that population growth is already slowly levelling off.
The author writes that 7 billion people on the Earth is by itself "unsustainable", a remarkable claim that one might expect to have some form footnote or explanation attached.
There is a HUGE difference between stating that 7 billion is too many people in absolute terms and noting that what those 7 billion people are doing now is what isn't sustainable. Those are two separate statements that require entirely different plans of action.
If 7 billion is "too many" in absolute terms then we can state that there simply isn't enough food and so forth to go around - case closed, time to do for you and yours and screw the poor, die-offs are even welcome - and that there isn't any point in trying to feed and shelter everyone.
If 7 billion people are living with stupid economics and agriculture and so forth then our course of action is to change those. These are not small points.
If someone claims to know with certainy that 7 billion is "too many" people than I would ask what I asked in the other thread MANY times with not even a decent attempt at an answer - how many is not too many, and how do you know?
I want a number and I want to see some math.
The more frightening other shoe dropping for the population fetishists is how they propose to reduce all this "excess" human population. I don't see anyone volunteering to take themselves out of the picture... someone else is always the "too many", someone without internet access.
_________________________________________
"So, population slowdown IS already happening.
Shall we devote/waste MORE of our energy on a non-problem?
OR should we all start demanding the reallocation of resources - by force if necessary - to save the planet? "
Population "slowdown" is NOT enough! Proactively working to stabilize the population AND demanding wider resource allocation is absolutely necessary. It is NOT an EITHER OR proposition. Presenting it as such is a grave mistake. We have a plenty large enough pool of people to effectively challenge the status quo on both fronts. The question has always been, do we have the requisite will, courage, steadfastness, and moral righteousness to roll are sleeves up and really get to work?!
It is not a COMPETITION between seriously confronting CAPITALISM and aggressively confronting POPULATION OVERSHOOT. They are both part & parcel of a potentially powerful and integrative movement for mitigating a human and planetary tragedy of massive proportion.
But we need to "build alliances" among such groups (anti-globalization, anti-fed monetary system groups, global warming, anti-war, peak energy/resource groups) in order to create a true resistance movement that stands a shot at ultimate victory against elite powers.
Such a resistance would require groups to do more than apply "band-aids". The band-aids are fine and needed, but it's not enough. We need mass organizing and funding from large numbers of ordinary citizens, and we have to be willing to take risks by engaging in serious forms of direct action (e.g., civil disobedience, obstruction/disruption, occupation, general strikes, etc.).
But individual/group proponents of overpopulation as a problem should be welcomed with open arms under the umbrella of such a movement providing that their sentiments/philosophy is humanitarian in nature, anti-racist, anti-xenophobic, and anti-jingoist. Because clearly overpopulation is one of the fundamental issues of our time, and it must be seriously addressed on planetary and humanitarian grounds to mitigate a burgeoning catastrophe.
_________________________________________
The above post was in reply to the following comment.
Posted by polycarpe
Aug 31 2011 - 11:02am
I'm not quite sure why my comment landed way down the thread from the post I was replying to.
"Because clearly overpopulation is one of the fundamental issues of our time, and it must be seriously addressed on planetary and humanitarian grounds to mitigate a burgeoning catastrophe."
This is what I fundamentally and completely disagree with. It is NOT a fundamental issue. It is an effect. And it should absolutely NOT be addressed in this fashion imo. Its individual aspects (family planning, availability of contraception and abortion, education), yes. As a problem in itself that has to be solved, absolutely not - it is already addressed as such by the largest centres of power, and what those centres need is countereffect and control, not help.
Second point: does anyone really believe that if Bill's plan with the temporary sterilising medicine works, it will need the Left's support to be tried and introduced as a mandatory part of population control, and will not happen (first in some third world country, later everywhere else) simply because of pressure from different components of the corporate empire(s)? That we will need to (and will be asked) to help convince people about the advantages of this? And that it will be used ethically and not abused? These things, all these technological solutions, are being developed anyway. We need to be able to control and monitor them and act as a counterforce, because they will get enough support from everywhere else.