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______________________________________
"This is what I fundamentally and completely disagree with. It is NOT a fundamental issue. It is an effect."
Sure, it's an effect that's derived from a multitude of factors. But it is a fundamental problem because ALL humans TAKE from and DAMAGE the planet. The planet can only take so much in terms of assault by humans on the air, land and water. The most highly populated, most highly consumptive, most highly polluting countries, and those that have the highest growth rates and TFR's in a land/water/resource area that is incapable of adequately providing for their projected population numbers are the countries that need to get together and have a serious conversation on this issue.
I know, richer countries do much more damage per capita, but their human growth rates are also one third to one fourth of the most undeveloped countries. Not only that, many poor countries simply do not have the natural resource base to support their populations. In addition, poor people/countries should be provided the opportunity to do things other than raise children, farm, and survive at subsistence levels. And part of a comprehensive global aid program would be to help them avoid excess reproduction by providing, in consultation/negotiation with the people themselves, economic development assistance, educational opportunities, female empowerment initiatives, family planning access and education, and probably others that I've not listed, all done on an unprecedented scale.
"..... it is already addressed as such by the largest centres of power......"
This problem is poorly, ineffectively, and incompetently addressed by global/international powers. It's been like rushing out to put a few band-aids on hundreds of big gaping wounds, all the while employing an overall strategy that guarantees that new wounds will continue to erupt.
".... 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..."
I'm in no way in favor of such ideas. It's a way to avoid doing the hard and time-consuming job of grand humanitarian work, which is essential for any population stabilization plan to accomplish its multifaceted goals.
"Sure, it's an effect that's derived from a multitude of factors. But it is a fundamental problem because ALL humans TAKE from and DAMAGE the planet."
And Westerners do this, on a per capita basis, at a rate of about one or two orders of magnitude higher than third world people, and the absolute levels of damage caused, directly or indirectly, is also much higher.
"The planet can only take so much in terms of assault by humans on the air, land and water. "
And if it is us who is doing the majority of the assault, which it is, we should start with ourselves. Basic human decency says that if I am doing the destruction, I should not make others clean up. The people breaking those limits are us. Nothing to do with third world countries.
"I know, richer countries do much more damage per capita, but their human growth rates are also one third to one fourth of the most undeveloped countries."
Rich countries do much more damage IN ABSOLUTE TERMS, and the difference is immense.
"Not only that, many poor countries simply do not have the natural resource base to support their populations."
A lot of them would absolutely have those resources, if we only let them use it for themselves.
"In addition, poor people/countries should be provided the opportunity to do things other than raise children, farm, and survive at subsistence levels."
Jesus fucking Christ. Let's leave them alone first and maybe provide opportunities by paying reparations (for environmental destruction etc). They absolutely do not need more of the type of "opportunities" the West provides them. You clearly have no fucking clue that what you wrote is incredibly disgusting and arrogant. The West mostly "provides opportunity" to subsistence farmers to go and work for nothing in a factory by destroying subsistence farming possibilities. A lot of people would prefer that but we do not let them do it. Jesus fucking Christ. This is possibly the most idiotic, arrogant and ignorant sentence in all of your posts, and that's no mean feat. I mean, what the fucking fuck. Destroying subsistence farming and driving peasants into cities is what we do and one of the things we're most hated for. As if we ever "provided the opportunity" to anyone beside working themselves to death for below subsistence wages in temporary work in factories (mainly young girls of course, because they can be paid the least for the most work). Fuck me, you're incredible. What ignorant, arrogant hubris.
"And part of a comprehensive global aid program would be to help them avoid excess reproduction by providing, in consultation/negotiation with the people themselves, economic development assistance, educational opportunities, female empowerment initiatives, family planning access and education, and probably others that I've not listed, all done on an unprecedented scale."
Pie in the sky, totally unrealistic, arrogant bullshit. It's unrealistic mainly because as things stand now, it's completely obvious that noone would profit from it but Western power concentrations, and there would be, without a deep change in the economic system, no development for these countries at all.
"This problem is poorly, ineffectively, and incompetently addressed by global/international powers. It's been like rushing out to put a few band-aids on hundreds of big gaping wounds, all the while employing an overall strategy that guarantees that new wounds will continue to erupt. "
/o\ The point I wanted to make was that there are technological solutions for overpopulation being prepared by centres of power that will be able to "solve" overpopulation in a forceful way, but they primary aim will be expanding control over global resources.
"I'm in no way in favor of such ideas. It's a way to avoid doing the hard and time-consuming job of grand humanitarian work, which is essential for any population stabilization plan to accomplish its multifaceted goals."
First, humanitarian work is as much of a solution for third world development as charity is a solution for poverty. It's bullshit. I mean, it's kind of nice if you can't do anything else, but it's in no way a solution or even a significant part of any solution. And the idea that the way to fix the world is by humanitarian work, charity from us rich folks is incredibly disgusting and arrogant. The only acceptable solution is this: let people handle their own issues. They do not need our direction and leadership and definitely not our control, they just need compensation for the damage we caused.
Second, it is not even a way to avoid humanitarian work (which at least may be good intentioned). It's a way to concentrate more power and control above other people, that's all.
_____________________
"Jesus fucking Christ. Let's leave them alone first and maybe provide opportunities by paying reparations (for environmental destruction etc). They absolutely do not need more of the type of "opportunities" the West provides them. You clearly have no fucking clue that what you wrote is incredibly disgusting and arrogant."
The above quote is just the beginning of a 500-word-plus tirade and ad hominem attack. You my friend have a mental & emotional PROBLEM!
Get this THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL:
I nowhere on these overpopulation threads stated, suggested, or implied that I was IN FAVOR, or APPROVED of past/current U.S. policy as it pertains to foreign policy, foreign aid, argo-industrial subsidies, or of our overall development assistance policy and actions. I'm advocating for a more humanitarian DEVELOPMENT policy (I've already listed what they are NUMEROUS TIMES!). We have the capability to "OFFER" real HUMANITARIAN DEVELOPMENT help, and we should do so. And of course we ALSO need to be friendlier to our own population, and take more responsible actions as it pertains to population growth and excess consumption.
"Pie in the sky, totally unrealistic, arrogant bullshit.......without a deep change in the economic system, no development for these countries at all."
Look, I already said that the the global economic/monetary system also has to be attacked simultaneously. And my comment is in NO WAY arrogant. And if you have a problem with my "unrealistic" solutions why don't you offer up some? Or are you just on here to be the resident ranter and cynic?
"The point I wanted to make was that there are technological solutions for overpopulation being prepared by centres of power that will be able to "solve" overpopulation in a forceful way, but they primary aim will be expanding control over global resources."
Well, I'm not sure how much of a threat this is, but you can count on me and about 99% of the rest of the overpopulation activists/organizations to do everything in our power to thwart it. And that's all we can do.
"First, humanitarian work is as much of a solution for third world development as charity is a solution for poverty. It's bullshit."
Much of the "humanitarian" work that is now done in poor countries is primarily charity. However, true "humanitarian development" is not charity, it is empowerment. There's a big difference. And again, I and many others advocate for a big change in that direction.
"The only acceptable solution is this: let people handle their own issues. They do not need our direction and leadership and definitely not our control, they just need compensation for the damage we caused."
No, I fundamentally disagree. Humans are social creatures. We need each other. We need to help each other, learn from each other. Believe me, there are plenty of things that we can learn from the poor, and some things they can learn from us in the developed world. We are all ultimately interdependent, and we need to start acting with more respect, dignity, and compassion. Our government has engaged in arrogant actions, but again, I and others advocate for a less presumptuous/dominant approach that treats other peoples' as equal human beings and not as commodities within a profit-at-all-cost paradigm. Call it pie-in-the-sky all you want, but as citizens of this democratic republic, that is what we should start to demand from our government in no uncertain terms.
"The above quote is just the beginning of a 500-word-plus tirade and ad hominem attack. You my friend have a mental & emotional PROBLEM!"
I never said anything about you, only about what you wrote (except when I said "fuck me, you're incredible", that's the only thing you can interpret as an "ad hominem attack"); the references to ignorance and hubris are about what you said, which were ignorant and arrogant things. I don't care about you. I never insinuated that you have mental and emotional problems or that you have a thick skull, I just said that what you wrote was arrogant and ignorant.
"Well, I'm not sure how much of a threat this is, but you can count on me and about 99% of the rest of the overpopulation activists/organizations to do everything in our power to thwart it. And that's all we can do."
Sadly, this is simply false. You will see a lot of well meaning overpopulation centred people supporting the Gates type of crap and pose third world overpopulation as the main global issue of our times. That is exactly the problem.
"Look, I already said that the the global economic/monetary system also has to be attacked simultaneously. And my comment is in NO WAY arrogant. And if you have a problem with my "unrealistic" solutions why don't you offer up some? Or are you just on here to be the resident ranter and cynic?"
It is arrogant and ignorant: you can't talk in terms of "offering opportunities" about people whom we've denied all reasonable ways of independent economic development. It's saying to people whose agricultural sustenance was destroyed by enclosure that now they have the "opportunity" to work in factories. This is how the West's "offering opportunity" has to be interpreted in reality. Of course this is arrogant and ignorant. Historically, the best "opportunity" we could give to different people was to leave them more or less alone to do what they wanted to do.
"Much of the "humanitarian" work that is now done in poor countries is primarily charity. However, true "humanitarian development" is not charity, it is empowerment. There's a big difference. And again, I and many others advocate for a big change in that direction."
I absolutely agree with the empowerment angle (which is why I always said that "help" that people can freely choose to take advantage of is nice). But this can be best done by giving people an opportunity of independent development and compensation for our destruction and robbery, not by "humanitarian work".
"No, I fundamentally disagree. Humans are social creatures. We need each other. We need to help each other, learn from each other. Believe me, there are plenty of things that we can learn from the poor, and some things they can learn from us in the developed world. We are all ultimately interdependent, and we need to start acting with more respect, dignity, and compassion. "
Ugh. Of course, humans are "social creatures", but this doesn't mean all human interaction between groups of people is good. Our history shows otherwise. We can learn a lot and science especially could help a lot in building a better world. But that's just theory. Nice, good intentioned stuff, but never ever supported by historical reality, which just shows that whenever we set out to "help" others, we mostly cause not very nice things, and whatever good comes out of it comes from self-help and empowerment.
"Our government has engaged in arrogant actions, but again, I and others advocate for a less presumptuous/dominant approach that treats other peoples' as equal human beings and not as commodities within a profit-at-all-cost paradigm. Call it pie-in-the-sky all you want, but as citizens of this democratic republic, that is what we should start to demand from our government in no uncertain terms."
The basic Western arrogance: that we know better and we can and have to "help" people still shows. It is unsubstantiated in reality, thus ignorant: we never "helped" - we just took what we wanted and that is all. The overpopulation argument, as soon as it goes beyond what I call help and what you call empowerment, will, in this historical reality, become a tool for control. (BTW I'm European not American, sorry about the misunderstanding.)
But of course I completely agree with your basic approach, that we should think of people as people, and not commodities etc etc. In fact, I think we agree on a lot of issues, but two things we seem to disagree on completely are these: that overpopulation is the single most important issue of our times and whose direct solution is the most immediate and important issue today - it is not the most important issue and it is not the "root" issue that has to be addressed directly (it is also an effect); and second, that Western "leadership" of this issue will in fact help and not abuse and exacerbate the problem - there is no chance in hell that our "leadership" will not make things worse. These are pretty important differences imo.
_____________________
Not only do the following excerpts from your previous post represent a direct attack on my intelligence & character as an individual, they are COMPLETELY unfounded and make numerous unwarranted and tangential assumptions. In short these comments are part & parcel of a narcissistic rant that callously runs roughshod over the entirely constructive views expressed by another commentator on this thread:
".....You clearly have no fucking clue that what you wrote is incredibly disgusting and arrogant......"
".... Jesus fucking Christ. This is possibly the most idiotic, arrogant and ignorant sentence in all of your posts, and that's no mean feat. I mean, what the fucking fuck....."
"..... Fuck me, you're incredible. What ignorant, arrogant hubris....."
"..... Pie in the sky, totally unrealistic, arrogant bullshit....."
"...... And the idea that the way to fix the world is by humanitarian work, charity from us rich folks is incredibly disgusting and arrogant."
GET A LIFE!
____________________
".....that overpopulation is the single most important issue of our times and whose direct solution is the most immediate and important issue today...."
But I NEVER said it was THE most important issue that global society is confronting at present. IT IS IN FACT one of probably the TOP TEN of major issues that must be confronted promptly and forthrightly to mitigate a major planetary catastrophe.
"...... it is not the "root" issue that has to be addressed directly (it is also an effect)...."
No, it must be addressed directly, and it is more than just an "effect".
" ..... that Western "leadership" of this issue will in fact help and not abuse and exacerbate the problem - there is no chance in hell that our "leadership" will not make things worse....."
But I've all along insisted that to alleviate the problem as opposed to "exacerbate" it would require the building of a massive citizen resistance movement. As I've noted, while difficult to accomplish, mass nonviolent conflict between the oppressed and their rulers has had a decent amount of success numerous times in the past. You call such things, "pie in the sky", I call it our only chance, and I happen to choose faith over fatalism. That said, I'm not sanguine in the least with leaving the problem-solving to elite powers. That we can at least agree on.
"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 proportio"
State clearly, what measures you would like to see. Population "overshoot" is already being dealt with. The global population is growing older.. It will stabilise, then start decreasing.
So, that clearly what targets you want to achieve. What level of population, when, and how you plan to go about achieving it.
"Population "slowdown" is NOT enough! "
Why not, if we allocate resources better?
Are you advocating killing off people or what? That's the next step from "slowdown" being "not enough." I don't mean this in a flippant way, I mean quite literally that the only possible way to do better than "slowdown" is mass murder.
Or, y'know, mass suicide - and I darn well expect folks like you to volunteer first.
I don't think you even understand what you're saying. We had exponential growth in the past... because of WONDERFUL THINGS like food security and plumbing and anitbiotics. Now subsequent generations have ALREADY DROPPED AND ARE CONTINUING TO DROP fertility rates, but statistically it's going to take a little while before this manifests itself in a lower raw number of total people on the planet.
If you want a reduction in population by - what sounds good to you, 2020? - you'd better get killin', like that lunatic in Norway or NATO.
______________________________________
It's a long-term idea that could ultimately have a number of positive effects.
For richer, more consumptive/polluting countries it would help mitigate the effects of global warming, for example.
For poorer, low consumption/polluting countries it would help prevent literally millions of premature, miserable deaths.
Obviously the plan should not be and could not be autocratically implemented. It would require respectful dialogue and negotiation by many countries, in particular those countries identified as presenting the bigger problem based on consumption, pollution, population size, population growth, TFR, and "regional overshoot status". The U.S. would be one of those countries. So would China. So would Bangladesh. So would Mexico. That's just a few examples.
The approach would basically involve significant internal incentives (e.g., economic), probably more immigration restrictions in some cases (tied to significant development aid to the immigrant's country of origin), and more comprehensive and well-funded family planning assistance for the more developed countries. For the less developed countries, the approach would revolve around massive global development initiatives with unprecedented funding to assist, in consultation with the people (not just the despot in charge) to providing opportunities for economic development, education, female empowerment, family planning, etc.
The goal should be to halt the world population at about 8 billion by 2035, and begin to see a contraction thereafter of about 50 million per year from preventable births, not increased deaths. This would require substantial global resource allocation beginning within the next 5-10 years max (which is why the monetary system must be completely restructured as non-debt-based, and a form of debt jubilee must be implemented).
If instead we move ahead with BAU, and with the increased risks in time presented by fossil fuel and other important natural resource declines, and also the adverse effects from global warming, we could see hundreds of millions of excess deaths as a result of unprecedented pandemics and famines.
Jesus Christ. You're unhealthily naive.
The question is this: how the fuck do you propose that massive global development initiatives be organised in the current economic/social system - when America can't even rebuild a country (most of the money gets stolen) it has total military control of? This current economic system can't even hold its own fucking weight, so how do you propose to implement any of this without a massive overhaul? Did we ever achieve anything remotely like this? Simply put: there is no chance in hell for this to happen, and it's completely, utterly obvious.
___________________
"The question is this: how the fuck do you propose that massive global development initiatives be organised in the current economic/social system - when America can't even rebuild a country (most of the money gets stolen) it has total military control of?"
How do you expect to mute the adverse effects of global capitalism that you're so fond of ranting about as the problem everyone should be focusing on instead of population overshoot issues?
Obviously NONE of these major issues offers easy solutions. ANY of them will require a mass mobilization of ordinary citizens to engage in serious direct action campaigns persistently over a long period of time to demand fundamental changes in certain key laws policies. One of them would have to be monetary reform to free up interest-free monies for massive development and energy transformation projects.
What are your pragmatic & brilliant "solutions"?!
For overpopulation? I have none, because it does not require one. In fact, my entire point is that any proposed solution (that goes beyond what I call help) for overpopulation will have nothing whatsoever to do with it and will only be used to extend Western imperial control over third world countries.
And seriously. If you propose something of this magnitude, you'd better be sure that you have the capacity to do it, and we have already proven, several times over, that we can't and won't do projects like this, unless there's something in it for us (and preferably nothing in it for anyone else). That is the entire point. Not a single global scale Western project of this type was even remotely successful, but almost (probably a needless qualification) all of them were turned into tools of control.
Again, please answer this: why the fuck should anyone believe the honesty and competence of the West if it proposes a large scale population control program? Why would anyone trust us? And why should anyone trust us? We rob the world blind, threaten it with military technological superiority of violence, impose non-working economic systems on everyone, and can't even keep our own shit together, neither the EU nor the US, despite having all possible advantages and imbalances, so how the fuck does any decent and not completely ignorant person get the idea that we're fit to control the population of the world? It's the idea that "we" have to provide solutions FOR OTHER PEOPLE'S PROBLEMS that is arrogant and fucked up. Isn't this a big responsibility? Isn't it completely obvious that we are absolutely not fit to handle this responsibility? How the fuck do you know that the third world even wants our "help"?
If you want a "solution", it's this: let's fix our own much more important and bigger shit first and let's see if overpopulation really becomes an issue, and let next generations fix it if it is (which it most probably isn't) - and the way we can best help them is by handling the other, more immediate and clearly bigger problems, not by locking other people and future generations into some form of technological totalitarianism.
____________________
First of all, you have major cynicism and fatalism issues (not without reason, by the way - many of our government policies/actions are utterly disgraceful). And you clearly feel entirely disempowered by your own government to the point that you feel that "ordinary people" in the United States have virtually NO ability to influence the policy, law, and actions of its own government, despite it being at least in some respects, a democratic republic (that is partly the fault of us as citizens - we have to own up to that). As many people as possible that are citizen's of the U.S. need to divorce themselves from this mindset as soon as possible if sanity is to reign again on this planet.
Europe is better at this but they need improvement as well. Many parts of South America is coming more alive on this front. I hope it continues. The middle East is rising up in this regard as well. Most of Asia has a ways to go though, and they probably have more impediments to seizing influence over government powers then we do here in the States.
But the idea of addressing overpopulation is not to control other peoples' for selfish means; it's not to medically prevent them from having children; it's not to force our will on them for purely selfish purposes; and it's not to autocratically implement our ideas for stabilizing population on them; the idea is to "offer" help, and to also ask them what ideas they have that help us to reduce our consumption/birth rates. It needs to be in the context of a global partnership where ALL party's feel that they are mutually benefiting in the short, intermediate, and long term. Just because our government has not acted much like this in the past does not mean it could never present itself in this manner in the future. But the people of this country have to insist upon it.
And overpopulation is an issue if you want famines and pandemics in mostly poorer countries to be kept at an unprecedented 50 million deaths per year instead of 100 million starting in the next 20-30 years.
_________________________
"This current economic system can't even hold its own fucking weight, so how do you propose to implement any of this without a massive overhaul? Did we ever achieve anything remotely like this? Simply put: there is no chance in hell for this to happen, and it's completely, utterly obvious."
We do need a MAJOR overhaul, and it would have to be lead by the people themselves at the grassroots level. I know it looks bleak at this point, but it is possible. And what's our alternative? Just bide our time until global society suffers a major collapse? Because that's what's going to happen if the people don't rise up and stop it with a decades long struggle against elite powers.
A quote from Bobby Kennedy:
"There are those that look at things the way they are and ask why. I dream of how things could be and ask why not?
It was true in 1968, and it's still true today. And that is, we can accomplish amazing things "together" if we believe in it, and are determined to seek it out.
I invite you to read, "A Force More Powerful ... A Century of Nonviolent Conflict". There is considerable precedent for major victories by the oppressed. Of course, in many respects today's task would represent the biggest one of them all.
Try letting go of the fatalist and cynic in you and see how it feels. You never know ....
"It's a long-term idea that could ultimately have a number of positive effects."
Eh? WHAT is a long-term idea? Who starts a thesis sentence with a pronoun?
If you are referring (as I can only imagine) to reducing popultion faster than it is projected to happen already the only way I see that happening is by murdering large numbers of people.
WHY do you want 8 bn by 2035?! What's magical about that number of people and year? What's with your number fetish and how did you pull those numbers from your ass?
______________________
"Eh? WHAT is a long-term idea? Who starts a thesis sentence with a pronoun?"
I replied to your post, numbskull.
"WHY do you want 8 bn by 2035?! What's magical about that number of people and year? What's with your number fetish and how did you pull those numbers from your ass?"
YOU ASKED ME FOR NUMBERS, so I kindly obliged with a good faith estimate of what the global community is probably capable of with the proper political will & commitment. But the PEOPLE would have to literally PUSH their governments persistently in this regard over decades.
I'll tell you what, since you think we can only get their (stabilize & then decrease population within 30-40 years) by "murdering people", I now understand why you think we should just let all the excess births over the next 40 years starve and die from premature illnesses as a result of unprecedented and massive famine & pandemics starting in the next 20-plus years. With continued BAU on population, if you don't see this happening you really are clueless. We WAY overshot on population, and foolishly thought key natural resources were infinite. Nature's not going to treat us kindly.
OK, so your answer is then that you are just making numbers up. That's what we all thought.
Currently because of a number of factors (related to math I won't begin to try and explain to you - the ABCs of the issue are already over your head), total population IS GOING TO increase for several decades even as growth rate slows and slows.
There are only a few possible ways to hit your (randomly selected) target numbers:
A) mass suicides and/ or murder
B) mass die-offs by withholding medical and food aid to vunerable populations
C) making childbirth generally illegal
My, that's a freakin' veritable buffet of left/liberal policy stances, eh? It's a good thing Bush isn't president anymore or else something BAD would happen... good thing there's a "liberal" in the White House and that the "liberals" come up with policy such as this! The planet is saved!
I certainly hope that if A) is your option of choice that you'll be leading the suicide parade; that'd be only fair.
__________________________
You are both extremely arrogant, and interminably dense. What a horrific combination, and a scary one at that. The world should thank their lucky stars that you don't hold any real influence or power in the world. Because if you did the likelihood of experiencing ultimate catastrophe on planet earth would be 100%.
YOU don't seem to ever get it through your thick skull that effective government policies can relatively quickly have substantial effects on population growth.
Perhaps you're unaware of the example set by Iran, of all countries, in the 1986 to 2001 period in particular:
http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2001/update4ss
"This strong pronatalist stance led to an annual population growth rate of well over 3 percent. United Nations data show Iran's population doubling from 27 million in 1968 to 55 million in 1988.
During postwar reconstruction in the late 1980s, the economy faltered. Severe job shortages plagued overcrowded and polluted cities. Iran's rapid population growth was finally seen as an obstacle to development. Receptive to the nation's problems, Ayatollah Khomeini reopened dialogue on the subject of birth control. By December 1989, Iran had revived its national family planning program. Its principal goals were to encourage women to wait three to four years between pregnancies, to discourage childbearing for women younger than 18 or older than 35, and to limit family size to three children.
In May of 1993, the Iranian government passed a national family planning law that encouraged couples to have fewer children by restricting maternity leave benefits after three children. It also called for the Ministries of Education, of Culture and Higher Education, and of Health and Medical Education to incorporate information on population, family planning, and mother and child health care in curriculum materials. The Ministry of Islamic Culture and Guidance was told to allow the media to raise awareness of population issues and family planning programs, and the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting was entrusted with broadcasting such information. Money saved on reduced maternity leave funds these educational programs.
From 1986 to 2001, Iran's total fertility-the average number of children born to a woman in her lifetime-plummeted from seven to less than three. The United Nations projects that by 2010 total fertility will drop to two, which is replacement-level fertility."
Now there's an example of what reasonable government policies can do to dramatically reduce population growth and fertility rates. It may not have been democratic (and thus perhaps not the exact prototype for a global strategy), but most would consider the moves as ultimately benevolent for the long-term welfare of the Iranian population.
"Because clearly overpopulation is one of the fundamental issues of our time"
Then show us all the numbers that prove it.
Until then, I will consider overpopulation to be the "supply-side" economics of the left, a theoretical movement with many rabid adherents but which has no grounding in reality.
Seriously, in my last post on this thread I compared overpopulation to the deficit-reduction craze as both "theories" sound really reasonable at first - the government's gotta balance its budget just like a family - but then when you actually think about it, it's complete nonsense and horsesh*t.
However, also like deficit reduction, overpopulation does indeed provide cover for the elite to further consolidate their wealth and control by allowing them to hide their rapacious greed and crimes against humanity under the guise of science.
Nah, it wasn't all the money we spent on wars and the bankers that got us into trouble, it's government spending on entitlements.
Nah, it's not the pillaging nature of our economic system which we introduced that is killing and enslaving billions of people, it's just that they breed like rabbits, huh?
Remember, just because you think you're savvy doesn't mean you're immune to propaganda.
" the "supply-side" economics of the left"
Thank you, yes! Population curbing is the ultimate in austerity programs, pushed by people who think it's "liberal!" When one demonstrates that fertility rates are dropping already and that "isn't good enough" I'm reminded of corporate hacks who get rebates and still complain that their taxes are "too high."
polycarpe,
Taking your own numbers--but excluding the ones after 2011 which are obviously mere guesses--I see an additional billion added in 15 years, then 13, then 11, then 13. Maybe that's a slowdown--but not enough of one. Hartmann's key claim is that 7 billion, or 9 billion, humans is sutainable, or would be with redistribution. But it's estimated that we are ALREADY 23 % past sustainability, that we need another half a planet to support those of us here now at current styles, never mind the demands of 1.3 billion Chinese and 1 billion Indians for American lifestyles. And never mind the evidence that we have been able to sustain what we now have only because of the subsidy provided by cheap oil--now a thing of the past. Not to mention the evidence that current lifestyles and populations are creating climate change at a rate which may doom most of the biosphere to extinction. Redistribution would be justice, but likely there are enough people living in deprived circumstances that perfect equity--reducing the obesely rich to subsistence levels of consumption and sending the released resources to the poorest--would at best break even in terms of total consumption of resources and emission of wastes.
The entire argument is irritating stupid: we need to cut our numbers AND change our lifestyles, get capitalism under firm control--or just get it small enough to drown in a bathtub, how's that?) AND make the unpopular arrangements that will allow us to get through the next few decades without billions of premature deaths. Those are the REAL either-or choices: limit births or accept a skyrocketing death rate. We are no more immune to the laws of population dynamics than any other species. People don't want to hear that they don't have the right to as many babies as they want. They also don't want to hear that they don't have the right to unlimited airplane flights, meat at every meal, incandesent bulbs blazing all night, etc. But our refusal to face reality will have consequences, and our children will not forgive us.
Until Western economies stop this incredible waste and until Western politicians stop sabotaging attempts to put environmental shit in order, let's just shut the fuck up about third world overpopulation. We have no fucking right to discuss other people's problems until we solve our own much bigger ones.
Those aren't polycarpe's numbers, those are the UN's numbers.
And you don't seem to understand math well enough to be participating in this debate in a meaningful fashion.
Look at the UN population projections through 2300 and you'll see that professional demographers have demostrated no particular concern that we'll be adding people at the rates we have in recent decades forever.
The population growth has been driven by medical care and food availability, not by increases in fertility (fertility rate has in fact been FALLING). THIS IS A GOOD THING.
"Maybe that's a slowdown--but not enough of one."
... and you know this how? You seem to have a target number of people in mind if a particular set of numbers displeases you. What is that number and why?
And why is the number of people your focus instead of the numbers on the resources that a variable number of people can use?
_________________________________________
Excellent argument, mwildfire. I couldn't agree more.
Ms. Harwood,
Thank you for a superb essay, and thank you to your organization for all the hard and important work you do!
The overpopulation issue IS, in fact, mostly bullshit. It is around one billion people: the developed West and Japan, and especially the United States, that wastes and destroys most resources and it is our economic system that is historically responsible for the social circumstances that lead to overpopulation.
Overpopulation is not the cause behind this waste and destruction. It is a result of a fucked up, extraction and waste based economy (which is "growth" based as much as cancer is "growth" based). And remember this: even if you killed off six billion people now and only left the West alive, the Earth would be destroyed at about the same pace (roughly, give or take a few decades) - because our "way of life", especially the "American way of life" is based on growth and waste.
Overfishing, destructive, unsustainable agriculture, destruction of fresh water resources or of biodiversity or more sustainable agricultural systems, global warming: you know, the real faces of destruction, are all caused by US - the wealthy few (and yep, most Westerners, even most of the poorer ones (not all of course, and less and less of them), are pretty fucking rich and have no fucking clue about real poverty and need). As long as this continues, it WILL NOT MATTER how many people there are, because OUR WAY OF LIFE WILL KILL THEM ALL ANYWAY. As long as we don't change that, we have NO FUCKING RIGHT, with our fucked up history and our ongoing destruction of everything worth anything, to say anything. Help, yes. Donate money to poor countries. Pay reparations we owe them. Free all information and knowledge they need to build a sustainable world. But nothing else, because we have NO FUCKING RIGHT to even discuss the "solutions" to this kind of shit, having caused most of the bad stuff.
What is killing them is NOT some trend that will come in the future, but our current activities. It's not the additional mostly poor 6 billion. It is our undeservedly rich and wasteful one billion which is destroying everything. Westerners, with our history of eugenics and ethnic cleansing and systematic destruction of every alternative but technological and growth-based, talking about overpopulation and its solution is just the most incredibly fucked up and disgusting thing ever. Fuck off.
Hell, we can't even deal with CO2 emissions - in fact, we do everything to stop a solution. We can't deal with energy needs. Can't deal with culture. So where the fuck do we get the arrogance to say that we can tell others how many children to have not to be wasteful? As soon as the US starts doing anything reasonable to stop the immediate and global threat of global warming, as soon as Europe stops overfishing and driving Somalian fishers to piracy etc etc, we will have some right to say something. Right now, let us put OUR OWN SHIT IN ORDER before telling others what to do. Basic morality, assholes.
If we recognize that overpopulation in overconsuming countries is a particular concern, then it's worthwhile to consider how our laws, here in the most overconsuming country, could be changed to discourage overpopulation.
Why not get rid of the tax-exemption for any child after the second?
Most importantly: wealthy countries should immediately decrease their material economic production and consumption (and thus environmental impact) before whatever we do. A lot of the work we do in "service economies" is absolutely worthless, non productive fake and shitty work anyway. And the best paid is usually the most destructive and fucked up. Before this happens, let's just shut the fuck up about overpopulation in the third world.
Atomsk,
Should we shut the fuck up about child marriage, resulting pubescent pregnancy caused by 40+ year old men having sex with (e.g. raping) 13 year old girls? Should we shut the fuck up about marriage by abduction, where a man can abduct a girl walking to school, rape her and then claim her as his bride? Or, should we shut the fuck up about the 200+ million who want to avoid pregnancy but don't have access to modern contraception? Should we shut the fuck up about the fact that of the world’s 776 million illiterate adults, two thirds are women? Or how about the 100-140 million girls and women alive today have undergone female genital mutilation/ cutting, with more than 3 million girls at risk for the procedure in Africa alone? Or maybe that of the 380 women who become pregnant every minute, half of them do not plan or wish the pregnancy? Should we keep quiet about that too?
Women without access to family planning are likely to be younger when they have their first child, and less able to space or limit subsequent births. The early initiation of sexual activity and unwanted pregnancies curtails education for those girls who do begin to get an education. In sub- Saharan Africa, between 8% and 25% of girls who drop out of school do so because of unwanted pregnancies. Early marriage, as in Afghanistan or Ethiopia, deters parents from investing in female education, or curtails the education of the few girls who do start school.
Or my "favorites" -- Poor reproductive health is the leading cause of death and disability among women 15-49 in developing countries. More than 350,000 women die each year–one every 90 seconds – from complications of pregnancy or childbirth. Nearly all these deaths (99 percent) are in developing countries, and nearly all are preventable. Complications of pregnancy and childbirth are the leading cause of death in Africa and South Asia among girls age 15-19.
You see, despite your strong and accurate analysis of the madness going on in western economies, all of the above are population related issues.
Have some compassion and decency.
Well, these are "population related issues" but most of them are not really deeply overpopulation related at all, afaics, so I don't thing all of them are really that relevant here. Some are related in that they can help slow down population growth in the long term, but imo these are general economic, gender etc justice related issues more than overpopulation issues, and imo they're way more important that way. If this makes any sense. Illiteracy, genital mutilation, and all forms of abuse are imo way more important because of the personal suffering they cause than because of their relation to overpopulation.
And as I said in my first post in this thread, I have no problem with helping people. Definitely donate money and give out free condoms, establish schools and go teach in them, fight against female genital mutilation etc etc. It's all awesome. But to me, in terms of the actual effort (money) invested in overpopulation issues (not from a moral point of view), these appear to be fringe issues, addressed with what amounts to pocket change (compared to the effort that goes into the neoliberal side of the argument) while ignoring the actual root causes. Most "free speech" (aka money) behind the overpopulation argument is concentrated on decreasing population/population growth of third world countries, and these issues (especially female genital mutilation) just sound like (and are or will be used as) pretexts for implementing another agenda.
The large problem, that really infuriates me, is pretending that overpopulation is the single most important root cause of all the most important global (environmental, resource and waste related and political) issues. People accepting this point of view (and conflating injustices you listed with the imperialist interests behind population control) are ultimately helping to implement a control-centred technocratic agenda, and afaics the temporary and local good this enables one to do is not really comparable to the evil shit that will result from its ultimate implementation. Of course the issues you listed are very important. But when we are speaking about species extinction, about destruction of arable land and drinking water, overfishing, global warming - the stuff that actually, not theoretically, is destroying the world, I don't think we should be bringing up other people's mostly unrelated problems, as long as our interests are behind the overwhelming majority of these core issues. Help is ok of course. But please, keep these issues separate from the population control argument. They are not the biggest threats to survival by far and they should be in no way associated with the population control agenda. (Which, btw, in its neoliberal form, won't actually give a flying fuck about this type of stuff. It will happily go on without addressing any of the issues you listed as long as it achieves its goal of controlling population of resource-rich third world countries (or countries where the populace poses any other type of danger.)).
And of course while helping is great, most of the real money that goes into this issue has nothing to do with help, and much more with forceful, externally imposed control. As for compassion and empathy, they're all awesome, but I think you should be careful with this stuff and not allow them to be used as a pretext for extending Western control. Because, you know, that is what they're mostly used for.
And finally, as long as the West can not solve its problems, which are the root causes of what might become a general global collapse, all of our activity focused on other people's problems, which are not going to be the root cause of such a collapse, seems hypocritical to a pretty large degree. Help, ie. giving resources and knowledge to people for use based on their own free decisions and needs is great. But the ultimate and most powerful motivation behind this issue is externally imposed population control in third world countries: not help based on your own free decisions but control based on external interests. So yeah, on balance, unless/until we can address the root causes of the evils we are causing, I think it might even be better to shut the fuck up about other people's shit, because compassion and empathy just doesn't sound believable any more from our part and will be used and abused by people and thus turn to shit.
Basically: as long as you are helping, enabling people to understand the world and make their own choices, it's all awesome. As soon as we're talking about imposing external control (which IS in fact what this ultimately boils down to), we should in fact shut the fuck up.
Exceptionally well stated!
"As soon as we're talking about imposing external control (which IS in fact what this ultimately boils down to), we should in fact shut the fuck up."
How do you figure? What "external control" is a problem? Would you have a completely natural state of uncivilized human behavior where anything goes? Must the only alternative be a tyrant's regime? Do you rely upon the notion that calmer heads always prevail? And just how do heads become cultivated enough to become calmer and wiser? How do families and communities benefit from learning if not for benefit of an enabling structure with a desired order to it?
We all, well maybe not all, want a beneficial, proficient and secure order to our lives and society, which absolutely necessitates some control. The issue isn't whether we should have control, but who gets to decide what. And whether "they" might be telling us to shut up and put up.
I'm not talking about principles and theory. In practice, any global initiative that uses technological control under Western leadership will unavoidably be just a tool in the hands of corporate imperialist power. I mean, that's just a given. It never happened otherwise and it never will until we address our own problems.
"Must the only alternative be a tyrant's regime?"
Looking at Western history, this is the only realistic choice. If you can't see the trends towards unaccountable totalitarian control, I don't know what I can say. Of course there are theoretical choices for other outcomes, but those are just theoretical. Which is why we must first change our societies to even have a chance of avoiding the worst outcomes. There is no fucking way our current corporate-imperialist economic system will not abuse such a powerful mechanism of control.
"We all, well maybe not all, want a beneficial, proficient and secure order to our lives and society, which absolutely necessitates some control. The issue isn't whether we should have control, but who gets to decide what. And whether "they" might be telling us to shut up and put up."
Yeah, some concentration of power is necessary. But what we have now is already way too much, and technological population control systems would (or rather, will) totalitarianise (is there such a word even) it a lot more.
Atomsk,
At least we agree that helping people to be able to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy is a good use time.
Let me try to clarify the rest: you think female genital mutilation, reproductive health, gender equity and the like are stand alone issues which can be ethically worked on as "goods in themselves". However, if the initial motivation for studying these issues and trying to solve them is their quantifiable and proven relationship to falling societal fertility, then that is no longer a good thing, but rather corrupt?
If this is a reasonable proximation of your position, then you believe that a dollar given to such causes is only a good dollar dependent on what the person who is giving the dollar is motivated by?
I think you, who undoubtedly have access to western health care, rule of law, and contraception are not the appropriate voice to be making that moral judgment, but instead it is the recipient of the dollar's effect that should decide if there ought to be a moral filter on that dollar getting to them.
For instance, the women in this film:
http://www.populationaction.org/Video/Empty_Handed/Summary.php
They are the ones should should decide if a dollar spent to help them is to be withheld if a person is concerned with bringing down fertility or just wants to lend a helping hand to the individual women.
Which leads me to another question: should Population Action International stop its work and start to lobby for the overthrow of corporate crony capitalism as the best use of its time? Is PAI an imperialist organization? Is that why people work for PAI, because they are admittedly and knowingly imperialistic -- or they just too stupid to realize their imperialism?
The question is not individual motivation at all, but whether our help will increase our control over a group of people or is based on free choice and whether the projects we are supporting further the agenda that's behind the corporate overpopulation argument (increasing control of resource rich third world countries).
"I think you, who undoubtedly have access to western health care, rule of law, and contraception are not the appropriate voice to be making that moral judgment, but instead it is the recipient of the dollar's effect that should decide if there ought to be a moral filter on that dollar getting to them."
Absolutely. This is my main point. Of course, this doesn't mean that we can lie to people in order to make them accept our point of view (not saying you're doing that but it happens) and our decisions or force them into making uninformed decisions, so their own acceptance shouldn't be a "decide NOW whether you want our help in this particular form", but rather a long process over which they ultimately have complete control. I mean, very often our "help" comes with a lot of strings attached, in a "take it or leave it" fashion and turns out not to be help at all.
Anyway, what I'm saying is pretty simple, and your trick questions are unnecessary and mostly nor relevant. If our "help" and "charity" leads to increasing control over and exploitation of other people, we're in the wrong, even if it's often necessary for poor people to "happily accept" this "help" because they couldn't survive otherwise. If we really help, ie. we give control over these decisions, including planning and details of use of resources, timing etc to people involved, it's awesome.
That even the best intentions are regularly hijacked and our control-obsessed "charity" approach doesn't really work (even if we discount the fact that it works pretty well for us) is imo quite obvious from our record. And my big fear is that this overpopulation scare will be used to implement higher levels of technological control over other people in the name of helping them. I think it's just an ideology used to rationalise expansion of control. And I have this suspicion because a) it's pretty clear how practical technological population control is for imperialist goals and b) big money assholes like Gates are behind it and c) this issue is more and more often posed as the primary problem in the world today in a lot of media and d) its structure is in a lot of respects pretty similar to other ideologies used to achieve the same goal.
Interesting. I see how you are delineating this issue in your mind, and I am definitely following your aversion to imperialism; we definitely seem to disagree on the propriety of slowing down and halting human population growth as a fundamental task in the struggle to achieve a sustainable living scenario with the planet. Regardless of what system of economics we settle with, my contention is that a steady, stable population is better than a growing population, (I am not yet sure you ultimately dismiss this contention?); therefore I find validity in working on the "peripheral" issues of access to family planning, gender equity, reproductive health, etc., because they are the only human rights enhancing methodologies I am aware of to reaching my objective. Admittedly, my objective is a sub-component to the meta-task of achieving sustainable living in relation to the planet, but so are any others you might name. Its a complex dynamic system in flux that we are dealing with, and our task is likewise complex dynamic. Capitalism's crisis seems upon us, so your advocacy against imperialism and control is much needed, else global fascism will make its attempt to reign again. Likewise, there *are* utter lunatics who cling to population reduction as a panacea for all the world's woes, and they are supremely dangerous; but I can't let their existence retard the on-the-ground work I do on those "peripheral" issues. And, Betsy Hartmann and her criticisms are without merit in this instance because she knows damn well CBD, Population Action International and a handful of other legitimate organizations are not "population controlers" but are doing honest work to help people where they need it. She is just being a bitchy attack dog and riding out her tenured gig up there in Massachusetts. I contend that corporate crony capitalism and the urge to hegemony can pollute any discourse, ruin any good intentions, and mimic the most benign efforts to extend its reach -- this is not a problem that only those working in the population field face. Any foreign aid efforts are vulnerable to this dynamic, and in fact, so are domestic aid initiatives. So, yes, we have a rot, traceable to global corporate crony capitalism that we know will fight to the death to maintain its life. As much as we are able, barring execution or being "disappeared" we try to throw stones at this steel plated behemoth when we are able. Meanwhile, there are other tactics we can employ for triage on a dying planet. Slowing down and stopping population growth via human rights enhancing methods are one suite of such tactics that many people gravitate to and thereby accomplish a lot of positive outcomes in the world.
Cheers.
"More than 350,000 women die each year–one every 90 seconds – from complications of pregnancy or childbirth. Nearly all these deaths (99 percent) are in developing countries, and nearly all are preventable."
Right... NEARLY ALL ARE PREVENTABLE. That's an issue of lack of access to medical care, not of population. Access to a doctor in Malawi isn't going to get better or worse if the population of India rises. Frankly it doesn't have much to do with the number of people in Malawi either; you might note that infant and child mortality in the US are better with 300 million than they were with 200 million and better with 200 million than they were with 100 million.
As I stated in the previous thread, rates of infant and maternal mortality WERE A LOT HIGHER WHEN WE HAD FEWER PEOPLE ON THE PLANET. In fact this is a large reason WHY we had fewer people on the planet.
Ms. Harwood:
are your forecasts regarding population based on a world that contains a Fukushima meltdown situation, or one that does not?
our does...
do you believe this ongoing nuclear meltdown will have any impact on the projected numbers you have put forward?
what is your position on the use of electricity?
Again, I repeat from another thread.
The First Nations peoples of our West Coast in Canada have resided in that area for a period of time that is estimated as high as 20000 years. Even if one takes the lower estimates, they still predate organized agriculture in the "Old World" and Europe.
They had an abundance of food. They had more sources of food then they could possibly eat which led to a surplus of the same and which they used to trade for other goods.
They ate healthier diets then the peoples of Europe. Most of the diseases known to Europeans and the peoples of Asia did not occur in the Americas. This is because most of those diseases originated amongst animals and jumped the species barrier when they were domesticated.
Given this abundance of food. Given the fact they expended less time to gather this food then peoples in Europe did theirs. Given they lived continously on the Western Coast for over 10000 years. Given they were not subjected to mass outbreaks of diseases as the peoples of Europe. Given they did not suffer the large scale warfare as occurred in Europe.
Why did their population not explode.? Why was it that even BEFORE struck down by the diseases brought from Europe, did single cities in Europe have larger populations then the entire peoples of the West Coast?
They did not have "the Pill". Why were there not 12 and more children families?
I am going to suggest it was not because there not enough food. I am going to suggest it was because the Societies they created and the underlying economics of the same did not give an incentive to having a large family.
It is the economic systems we have created that give an "incentive" to have ever larger families. This having at its core the concept of private property and intergenerational wealth. This having at its core the belief that in passing more "Material Goods" down to ones offspring or in acquiring more such goods for the self, ones relative POWER in a society is increased.
The root cause is thus not the NUMBER of people. It is the DESIRE of those people to acquire material goods because our economies are all built around the concept of acquiring material goods.(thus wealth, thus power)
Now to be accurate the First nations people of the first coast did practice the concept of some form of "property rights" based upon extended clans and families but it was never taken to the extreme that it was in Europe. It my firm opinion that in transfroming our economy from the model of "Material wealth means power" and removing the concept of ownership of land and resources wherein individual members of any given society have an equitable share of its true wealth and political power, population growth will slow.
We have to rid ourselves of the Consumption model first and foremost and suggesting others have less Children does not address that if it only means those remaining consume and acquire more.
In the other thread I linked to a study which shows that "ever larger families" is not what is going on in the world.
Here it is again:
http://www.popcouncil.org/pdfs/wp/144.pdf
The population of Earth has grown because people who used to starve or die of certain problems as an infant or as a mother have been reduced greatly, which should be I would think great good news for a liberal, progressive, leftie or what have you.
Or so I thought!
The population is NOT growing because of an increase in fertility (dropping) nor family size (dropping). This is statistical residue (if you will, basically numeric entropy from previous population gains that happened faster BECAUSE OF WONDERFUL THINGS THAT HAPPENED FOR HUMANITY) of the gains made earlier, and they are projected to top off. RATE of increase is dropping.
Why am I the only person in either these articles or in their comments who links to actual population studies, instead of referring to what I "feel" is happening?
Population reduction advocates are advocating something that is happening anyway... and thinking that this is solving pattern of consumption problems, which it does not address.
"Population reduction advocates are advocating something that is happening anyway... and thinking that this is solving pattern of consumption problems, which it does not address."
They know this. Those population studies have been linked on CD, by multiple posters. The population ranters just ignore them, since it does not fit their worldview, their mantra which they have memorised of "exponential" growth.
Amy,
Thank you for your efforts to try and make this world a better place. I misjudged your organization yesterday, and I apologize. Now that I know more about your organization I applaud your efforts.
With that being said... I also want to add that I wish your organization would also choose to focus on creating more equitable socio/economic agreements for ALL people of this world - this in itself might also help lead to environmental justice.
And guess what? This focus on a more equitable socio/economic agreements for everybody on this earth doesn't even have to be a RADICAL departure from the status quo. (although I would eventually love to see capitalism disappear, it probably won't happen in the time we need it to happen)
But check this out: Some of the Democratic/socialist countries of Europe have provided us with EVIDENCE that creating more equitable socio/economic arrangements naturally leads to zero-growth and even negative growth rates. The socio/economic arrangements are not even that radical... but they seem to be working quite well.
For ex: Germany, as of 2011, has a negative growth rate (-0.208%). Are they running around handing out free condoms to accomplish this? Maybe in part, but I think more importantly they are providing guaranteed healthcare and education up to the college level. This has lead to an educated populace - which then lead to them being the world's leader in sustainable food practices (they hate Monsanto too - even banned many of their products!). The educated (and healthier) populace also lead them to be the world's leader in converting to renewable energy (17% of electric power is from wind turbines, hydroelectric plants, solar cells, and biogas digesters). And now because of Fukushima they are demanding an end to nuclear too. They also have good to very good water quality and have working agencies that protect this water supply.
In short, they are leading the world towards a better more sustainable future. Is it perfect? No! But they are trying in earnest to create a better world. And they managed to accomplish the exact thing you wish the world would accomplish - negative growth rates.
So... it is safe to say that the German government has a fairly equitable socio/economic agreement with their population - compared to most countries. Look at the results!!!!!
Now take a look at the top 52 countries who have a growth rate of 2% or more and look at the socio/economic arrangements of these countries. **http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate **
Are these nations as equitable with their socio/economic arrangements as Germany?
No. They all have HORRIBLE socio/economic arrangements.
See the point? By advocating and focusing our attention on creating a more equitable socio/economic arrangements for ALL of the world... we would actually be MORE PRODUCTIVE in trying to REDUCE the world's population, rather than just advocating for birth control measures.
Now, I also get that the task of creating more equitable socio/economic arrangements for ALL of the world is a DAUNTING task (most likely not even possible in our lifetimes), but why not at least try? Sure, we could just admit defeat and call this task of creating more equitable socio/economic arrangements for ALL of the world 'pie in the sky', or 'Utopian dreams'... but what good would THAT type of thinking do us? Would that type of thinking have worked for the Civil Rights movement?
And, honestly, I don't have all of the answers on how we would go about accomplishing this task. But if more people chose to focus on this solution then maybe this movement would grow. I would rather try then just continue putting band-aids on horribly inequitable socio/economic situations - - the same situations that CREATE unsustainable growth rates. And, like Atmosk said... let's start with OUR CULTURE first. It would seem to be the prudent thing to do...
This entire thread suggests that humans will never agree on anything and we will continue to propogate ourselves into extinction at some point. Sooner or later. Or we'll poison ourselves first.
And the last 2 left will be arguing over whose fault it was.
Nope. The last people will be descendants of the few rich fuckers who can afford to build small, self-sustaining technological "paradises" in the aftermath of global destruction that will happen despite harsh population control measures.
Maybe Ms. Harwood could answer how it is that the number of people on the planet directly causes species destruction. (Among other things it seems we might need a baseline measure of how quickly the Earth loses species without humans before we could ... never mind, that's a conversation for adults and not internet chat boards...)
It seems that what the people here do is the problem, not how many people there are. Three billion people or 2 bn or 1 bn would have no problem destroying many species making the wrong choices. (Heck, the ancestors of today's Native Americans hunted most of the large mammals of North America to oblivion with small numbers and without modern technology.)
Conversely 8 bn or 10bn could do better than we do now by making the right choices. Behavior is 100% independent of the number of people on the planet.
Unless of course one believes (which I do not because there's no evidence for it) that there simply isn't enough to go around for 7 bn people, in which case all of the efforts of the left to feed clothe educate and shelter the masses are a fool's errand.
"(Among other things it seems we might need a baseline measure of how quickly the Earth loses species without humans before we could ... never mind, that's a conversation for adults and not internet chat boards...)"
Are you suggesting that you are a wise and mature adult and the rest of us aren't? I'd like to know where you are going, because you are talking about mass extinction events, yes/no?
"(Heck, the ancestors of today's Native Americans hunted most of the large mammals of North America to oblivion with small numbers and without modern technology.)
Prove this. It is a weakly asserted explanation at best, about par with a second-order predation hypothesis attributing the oblivion you reference to overcompetition with nonhuman predators - which by the way relates nicely to your next presumption:
"Behavior is 100% independent of the number of people on the planet."
Nope, wrong again. Simply study the difference between agrarian and industrial societies, or rural versus urban lifestyles. And there is so much more available on social behavior, madness of crowds, etc. Behavior may not need to be affected by numbers, but it is. You're statement cannot be proved, but it can be disproved.
"Unless of course one believes (which I do not because there's no evidence for it) that there simply isn't enough to go around for 7 bn people, in which case all of the efforts of the left to feed clothe educate and shelter the masses are a fool's errand."
There is overwhelming evidence and plenty of common sense to indicate the globe cannot support current human behavior over the long term. Doh, what do you think the whole issue of sustainability is about?
Which is it, we need to moderate our behavior and make correct choices, or not? The insightful, meaningful intelligent discussion goes to realizing the criteria and conditions upon which we can make good decisions. Assuming we are not adults, that you can easily assume dubious facts, and disregard other evidence contrary to your own established beliefs is not, well, adult.
"There is overwhelming evidence and plenty of common sense to indicate the globe cannot support current human behavior over the long term. Doh, what do you think the whole issue of sustainability is about?"
Well yes, there is overwhelming evidence that the globe cannot support current human behaviour.
There is not overwhelming evidence that the globe cannot support current human population levels.
Your point is well-taken. The original point went to the correlation between numbers and behavior, and the ability of the planet to sustain large numbers accordingly - all in context.
Anyone who makes the claim that behavior is "100%" independent of the numbers is not realistic.
It should be simple and obvious that numbers and behavior are related - we may think they shouldn't be, or that behaviors (as well as numbers) may be determined with wisdom and purpose - like in choosing to have a large family versus considering how a large family might be an irresponsible lifestyle choice - clearly a choice based on an awareness of the consequences between behavior and numbers.
Well yes, in general numbers and behaviour are related.
HOWEVER, and this is the key part, what types of behaviour? Humans behave in many ways. You cannot generalise saying that numbers are related to certain types of behaviour, and thus, they are related in the same way to other / all types of behaviour.
huh huh