The year is now 2007, it has been 16 years since the Kyoto Accord was offered up as a way for nations to jump on the bandwagon, and to alert the world of the truth about global warming.

We accepted then that it was a serious matter, not a conspiracy nutball idea.

Our emissions are still INCREASING. By now we could easily have stabilised them, with just the smallest effort. Governments have had no programs to get the public involved in solutions, like solar panels on homes to power electric cars and reduce the demand on the grid - home owner's money could have been used for these solar-powered homes as home owners would be the investors. [Corporate Electrical providers probably didn't like that solution...]. Someone killed the electric car, which was viable 15 years ago, they produced them, people used them and loved them - they were all crushed.

We could have made so much progress by now.

Instead, we spent the past 16 years debating the reality, again, again, and again. Well done Exxon, you managed to pay off enough scientists to keep the doubt alive. It is easy to do because msot of the public would rather believe "there are no problems that I would have to make changes for".

So that tells me that the corporate lobby powers have control of this nation, and almost all nations on earth. Now if only we could ask them to pay for the damages their product causes - the effects of climate change due to fossil fuel emissions - things might be a little bit fair.

"Democratic ideals" are out the window when the public is 75% agreed that we have to act to reduce our greenhouse gas emssions, but nothing happens because the oilmen and energy industry refuses to give up any part of the monopoly they enjoy in the current system where "everyone pays into a single corporate entity for something we all use" [electricity].

He says it is do-able. He spells out what has to be done, and it is all do-able.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TemporalHominid:
Emissions are going to increase for the next 50+ years according to current projections. Population growth, economic growth and industrial growth will ensure this. The challenge is going to be to reduce the % of that projected increase

---

quote:

---

The real challenge is to reduce population growth, economic growth and industrial growth. On the other hand we could increase growth of forests, open land, wildlife species, abundance of clean water, clean air and so on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karlin:
The book "HEAT" by G Monbiot says we must reduce emssions by 94% by 2030 to keep within the 2oC temp rise.

---

Hopefully, the worst prediction made by anyone out there won't be the one to come to pass.

***

There is one hope for change.

quote:

---

Either way we'll need to stop population growth. And that won't happen. People won't even talk about it let alone do something about it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Policywonk:
Population growth will be stopped either in a planned fashion (decreasing the birth rate to the replacement rate through significant increases in female literacy, an increasing economic role for women, advances in women's rights, better health care for mothers and children, and support of family planning by the religious and political leaders, not increasing the death rate of course)

---

Surely you're talking about the developed West and North? Lands of people who leave wasteful and damaging ecological footprints? Surely you're not speaking the tired old environmental racism line that it's those brown and black people's populations that are to blame?

quote:

---

Now if we could just deal with overconsumption by the rich.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:

Surely you're talking about the developed West and North? Lands of people who leave wasteful and damaging ecological footprints? Surely you're not speaking the tired old environmental racism line that it's those brown and black people's populations that are to blame?

---

Ultimately both the developed and the developing world are going to have to change their habits for the global economy to be ecologically sutainable. Both are currently to blame.

Brazil and Madagascar are willfully pillaging their own tropical rainforests, the two greatest ecological disasters out there right now, by a mile.

[ 04 August 2007: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

Surely you're talking about the developed West and North? Lands of people who leave wasteful and damaging ecological footprints? Surely you're not speaking the tired old environmental racism line that it's those brown and black people's populations that are to blame?

---

quote:

---

The book "HEAT" by G Monbiot says we must reduce emssions by 94% by 2030 to keep within the 2oC temp rise. Beyond that temperature, ecosystems will begin to die off and emit their stores of CO2, and then there is no hope whatsoever, everything collapses, oceans cover Manhatten and about 3 billion humans.

---

I believe that's what he prescribes for Canada, given how far we have missed the Kyoto targets by. His global target is 90% by 2030.

quote:

---

Hopefully, the worst prediction made by anyone out there won't be the one to come to pass.

---

quote:

---

BCG:
Surely you're not speaking the tired old environmental racism line that it's those brown and black people's populations that are to blame?

---

The problem is world wide. The world as a whole is overconsuming the ability of the planet to replenish its resources. Human life is not sustainable at the current rate of consumption. The fact that the developed world is grossly overconsuming is an issue, but fixing it would not fix the problem, only abate it somewhat. Should all of the people in Europe and North America be vaporized tomorrow, the world would still be over consuming if the average level of consumption, which influences if not dictates, the standard of living, were any greater than that of Turkey or Malaysia, about one fifth of that in the US or almost one quarter of that in Canada.

Playing the racist card on this issue is terribly misguided at best.

quote:

---

PW:
Ultimately both the developed and the developing world are going to have to change their habits for the global economy to be ecologically sutainable. Both are currently to blame.

---

True, but the most depressed people in the world should be entitled to a much bigger share of the pie, and that is only humanely possible by reducing population so that there is more pie to go around.

For those opposed to the idea that population numbers are part of the problem I would like them to present a proven math formula that shows the more that you dived something the bigger it gets.

quote:

---

PW:
a List of Countries and Territories by fertility rate

---

When all of those figures are below 2 the planet will be on its way to healing itself, not that other ecologically sound adjustments will still need to be made.

Note the Chinese numbers. Obviously the reproduction strategy in China is working.

quote:

---

quote: PW:
Ultimately both the developed and the developing world are going to have to change their habits for the global economy to be ecologically sutainable. Both are currently to blame.

True, but the most depressed people in the world should be entitled to a much bigger share of the pie, and that is only humanely possible by reducing population so that there is more pie to go around.

---

That was 500 Apples.

quote:

---

Also, it should be kept in mind that global warming and the increase in greenhouse gas emissions did not start with the industrial revolution. They started about 8000 years ago with the advent of agriculture and the ever increasing population that came as a result. Solving the problem of fossil fuels will not solve the whole problem, only abate it somewhat.

---

Agriculture developed independently in various locations over thousands of years. Until around 1800, the excess carbon dioxide emitted by humans was absorbed by the oceans and biosphere, and preindustrial concentrations were relatively stable at around 280 ppm (methane concentrations were also relatively stable before 1800, also because excess anthropogenic emissions were absorbed by various sinks). And population was not ever increasing, largely because of pandemics like the Black Death, and didn't really take off until the 19th and especially 20th centuries.

China and Brazil are *not* great supports for your authoritarian arguments either, as China has done more damage to its environment since its growth rate has stalled (which I'm sure you could turn around and blame on the average worker again) than when it was taking off under Mao, while Brazil's destructive policies have less to do with modest population growth than terrible land use practices "we" of course encourage. (since citizens are now being confused with countries here, even apparently non-democratic ones) So once again the question arises, why are those who use an average of twenty five times Less energy than us being asked to make most the sacrifices? I don't even want to guess the real motives here, as I really don't want to get caught up in another tangle here, but if I see this kind of thinking taking hold on the left I'm going to fight it tooth and nail all the way and I don't care who gets in the way. No different than my opposition to the Green party's class based "market solutions" except worse, because I still expect more from NDPers.

[ 04 August 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

quote:

---

Note the Chinese numbers. Obviously the reproduction strategy in China is working.

---

It's no surprise the Chinese numbers are below 2 given the one-child policy. The figure for Iran is more of a surprise compared to say Pakistan. The American number is a problem give that they also are high consumers of energy and other resources.

quote:

---

PW:
That was 500 Apples.

---

Oops!

quote:

---

Agriculture developed independently in various locations over thousands of years. Until around 1800, the excess carbon dioxide emitted by humans was absorbed by the oceans and biosphere, and preindustrial concentrations were relatively stable at around 280 ppm (methane concentrations were also relatively stable before 1800, also because excess anthropogenic emissions were absorbed by various sinks). And population was not ever increasing, largely because of pandemics like the Black Death, and didn't really take off until the 19th and especially 20th centuries.

---

No doubt agriculture developed independently in various places at different times, but most sources that I have seen put the dawn of agriculture at between 8-10,000 years ago.

William Ruddiman's research indicates increases in methane and CO2 starting about 8,000 years ago which he attributes to agriculture. His research also indicates that during periods like the Black Death these emissions dropped.

His book is well worth reading:

Ruddiman book review at Wikipedia

New Scientist article

Certainly there are those who challenge is thesis, that is what scientists do, but their appears to be a lot of merit in it, something that should not be dismissed if one follows the precautionary principle.

And population was ever increasing with a few short bumps around the time of pandemics. Granted it has exploded in the last 200 years along with industrial development and fossil fuel consumption. But, that should not blind us to the fact that the current problem in which has become extreme, may well have been slowly developing prior to the industrial revolution.

A better population chart

quote:

---

ETHR:
Wrong again. Fossil fuels just happen to go to the heart of global warming, case you haven;t been paying attention, ....

---

How aggressively male of you.

I don't recall arguing that fossil fuels are not the key element in our current state of global warming. What I have argued, though, is that global warming predates the current era. If the chart that I posted above is correct then that argument stands.

quote:

---

The destruction of rain forest is a growing factor too, but as I explained before, third world poverty is a far greater factor than third world wealth.

---

No disagreement there, or before either, so what is the point?

quote:

---

China and Brazil are *not* great supports for your arguments, as China has done more damage (which I'm sure you could turn around and blame on the average worker again) to its environment since its growth rate has slowed than when it was taking off under Mao,....

---

So you are blaming population decrease for an increase in environmental destruction? Strange.

The fact that China has successfully reversed its birth rate and will, if it maintains is, eventually reduce its population does not necessarily mean that destructive environmental policies had to follow.

Of course it may be that China is destroying its environment to support a population that is still probably double what is sustainable on its land mass.

quote:

---

So once again the question arises, why are those who use twenty five times Less energy than us being asked to make most the sacrifices?

---

And what do you mean by most? Everybody is going to have to make sacrifices, and those who use twenty-five times more will have to use less. However, as has been pointed out more than once, even with most of the biggest users gone, all of Europe and North America, there is still a problem. The consumption of the poor in total at this point is also a part of the problem.

quote:

---

I don't even want to guess the real motives here,....

---

As in if one disagrees with you they have bad motives?

quote:

---

....if I see this kind of thinking taking further hold on the left I'm going to fight it tooth and nail and I don't care who gets in the way.

---

I would advise that first you build a logical argument against it. Perhaps one that proves that the more people there are the less will be consumed?

It is not about rich people or poor people, it is about total consumption, plain and simple, and no matter who is consuming how much at this point the planet is being over consumed by about .4gha per person. (you can look up the WWF Living Planet Report 2006 which I have provided links to before if you want to read this and possibly find errors in my appreciation of it, I am sure there are some)

Equalizing distribution of resources would be the fair thing to do, a goal which I hope that you support. But, when we do that right now and keep within the bounds of sustainable exploitation we get a per capita consumption level like the average Uzbekistani.

This is certainly better than many third world countries, but less than one quarter of the standard of consumption in Europe, not to mention North America which is twice many European countries. And if one thinks that that level of consumption and the reduction of living standards that go with it are the ideal goal for the world, then population only need be frozen at the present number. Not freezing it means per capita consumption levels continue to drop.

If we are aspiring to a better world for everyone above that level, then population has to drop, and if we aspire to something for everyone in the world similar to what Europe enjoys, then they have to drop by about two thirds.

quote:

---

....we only said that population growth and environmental damage weren't one to one relationships,....

---

Who said that they were? The argument is that population growth is a part of the cause of environmental damage, and that given the current population and the average global per-capita consumption we are over consuming the planet's ability to replenish itself. That number can be remedied somewhat by reducing the consumption of the biggest consumers, but at what point do you want to say this is the level of consumption we should have for the kind of society that we want? If we want more for everybody than what the Uzbekis have then numbers have to go down.

quote:

---

....authoritarian restraints on one populace in place of more reasonable restraints on anothers habits is both ethically and practically wrong....

---

What is ethically wrong about protecting the planet and future generations from the destructive effects of over consumption and a future of poverty, particularly when restraints should be universally applied?

quote:

---

Certainly there are those who challenge is thesis, that is what scientists do, but their appears to be a lot of merit in it, something that should not be dismissed if one follows the precautionary principle.

And population was ever increasing with a few short bumps around the time of pandemics. Granted it has exploded in the last 200 years along with industrial development and fossil fuel consumption. But, that should not blind us to the fact that the current problem in which has become extreme, may well have been slowly developing prior to the industrial revolution.

---

I had forgotten about Ruddiman and the early anthropocene hypothosis. While the graphs are somewhat compelling there could be other natural causes for minor changes in methane and carbon dioxide concentrations (and these graphs are essentially flat compared to the changes since 1800, especially for methane). One could also say that rather than being a problem, preindustrial humans moderated conditions (not intentionally of course) so as to produce a relatively stable climate over thousands of years. This stability of course, eventually enabled the industrial revolution and the population explosion, resulting in the acute problems we have now.

quote:

---

authoritarian restraints on one populace in place of more reasonable restraints on anothers habits is both ethically and practically wrong and would no doubt be rejected anyhow, as it already has been in fact.

---

quote:

---

we only said that population growth and environmental damage weren't one to one relationships

---

quote:

---

PW:
One could also say that rather than being a problem, preindustrial humans moderated conditions (not intentionally of course) so as to produce a relatively stable climate over thousands of years.

---

That is a position that I would argue for, myself. However, despite the fact that pre-industrial rises in carbon emissions were small compared to the giant leap during industrial times, the fact still remains that increasing populations and increasing emissions can be correlated. Whether those ancient increases were good or bad is beside the point.

Of course with industrialization one could argue that the more people that there are the greater the demand for industrial goods might be facilitating more industrial output using more fossil fuels and so on.

More importantly, the carbon issue aside, the sustainable output ability of the planet is being overtaxed at present and aside from reducing everyone on the planet (if distribution is fair and equal) in perpetuity
to a consumption level far lower than any in the developed world, population must decline.

Whether we can do this or not is also beside the point, as failure to have the ability to resolve the problem does not negate the problem.

quote:

---

It is not about rich people or poor people, it is about total consumption, plain and simple, and no matter who is consuming how much at this point the planet is being over consumed by about .4gha per person.

---

This is too general, Jerry - it begs the question about what kind of "consumption" we are talking about, what energy sources and transportation nodes are used for production and distribution of consumer goods, who and where are the dominant economic and state players who drive the unsustainable extraction of fossil fuels, etc.

Apart from moral and ethical issues (who decides who can have how many babies? How would such a requirement be enforced? Isn't this the same argument about abortion - i.e. it is the woman's right to choose, period. ) making a sweeping statement about "we have to reduce population" without differentation obscures who the main culprits are when it comes to greenhouse gases , i.e. you could wipe out the entire population of sub-saharan Africa tomorrow with little or no impact on global GHG levels. It's not how many people on the planet - it's how we live and what our footprint is.

Historically, the rich industrial countries have been responsible for the vast majority of GHG emissions - so it is our ethical responsiblity to drastically reduce our own emissions and fund sustainable alternatives in developing countries to help them avoid our mistakes.

To speak of population control as a major strategy to address global warming - knowing that the birth rate is already below replacement level in most Western industrial countries - essentially amounts to saying "all those brown and black people have to stop having babies becuase us whites have made the current population level unsustainable". It's not only immoral but it evades our fundamental culpability in the West for having caused this problem in the first place. I'm not saying that is your intent, Jerry, but I fear that is where your arguments lead us.

quote:

---

Equalizing distribution of resources would be the fair thing to do, a goal which I hope that you support. But, when we do that right now and keep within the bounds of sustainable exploitation we get a per capita consumption level like the average Uzbekistani.

---

What's your baseline for that calculation, Jerry? If every indiviual living in North America reduced their footprint from the current 8 planets per capita to a 2-3 planet per capita, surely the rest of the world wouldn't have to make as great a sacrifice. Again, sweeping, across-the-board stats are not very useful as the consumption levels are so unequal on a global scale.

quote:

---

And if one thinks that that level of consumption and the reduction of living standards that go with it are the ideal goal for the world, then population only need be frozen at the present number. Not freezing it means per capita consumption levels continue to drop.

If we are aspiring to a better world for everyone above that level, then population has to drop, and if we aspire to something for everyone in the world similar to what Europe enjoys, then they have to drop by about two thirds.

---

Again, Jerry, what kind of consumption??? The McDonalds/SUV/oil/coal variety or local markets/hybrids+transit/solar power? To say that more consumption equals a "better world" is of course the very mentality that caused the climate change problem in the first place.

quote:

---

If we want more for everybody than what the Uzbekis have then numbers have to go down.

---

More of what??? Why does "more" equal better???

[ 05 August 2007: Message edited by: West Coast Lefty ]

quote:

---

WCL:
This is too general, Jerry - it begs the question about what kind of "consumption" we are talking about,

---

What kind of standard of living to you want? That will determine what kind of and amount of consumption per capita necessary.

quote:

---

Apart from moral and ethical issues (who decides who can have how many babies? How would such a requirement be enforced? Isn't this the same argument about abortion - i.e. it is the woman's right to choose, period. )

---

The enforceability of a solution is totally separate from the fact that the problem exists. Is your point that we have a severe population problem but can't do anything about it?

And it is not the same as a woman's right to choose. It more in line with one person's right to choose to raid her neighbour's food supply or dump her garbage on her neighbour's property.

There is nothing ethical in what could be considered the immoral act of over populating an eco-system.

quote:

---

....making a sweeping statement about "we have to reduce population" without differentation obscures who the main culprits are when it comes to greenhouse gases , i.e. you could wipe out the entire population of sub-saharan Africa tomorrow with little or no impact on global GHG levels.

---

But it is not only about GHG levels. We could wipe out the population of Europe and North America tomorrow and only slightly raise the amount of resources per-capita available on the planet.

quote:

---

It's not how many people on the planet - it's how we live and what our footprint is.

---

No, it is all of the above. One should not be so naive as to think that the number of people does not affect the collective footprint.

quote:

---

Historically, the rich industrial countries have been responsible for the vast majority of GHG emissions - so it is our ethical responsiblity to drastically reduce our own emissions and fund sustainable alternatives in developing countries to help them avoid our mistakes.

---

True, but irrelevant to the issue of overpopulation.

quote:

---

To speak of population control as a major strategy to address global warming....

---

It is much more than global warming. Compare the fish populations of today with 50-100 years ago, or the amount of old growth forest land, or open spaces or fertile soil or clean rivers and so on.

It isn't only global warming that is screwing up the planet or responsible for the degradation of the eco-system.

quote:

---

....knowing that the birth rate is already below replacement level in most Western industrial countries - essentially amounts to saying "all those brown and black people have to stop having babies becuase us whites have made the current population level unsustainable".

---

Don't let your guilty feelings cloud your reasoning. The population level is unsustainable at current consumption rates because either too many of us choose to live a better life than Uzbekis, or there are too many of us. We could sustain the level of consumption in Uzbekistan if there were no more population increases.

And this is only incidentally about brown and black people since most white societies are also overpopulated, even though birth rates are dropping. The thing is it is not regional rates that matter as much as the human birth rate as a whole that has to drop below replacement level.

Bad policy and decisions on the part of the developed world are no excuse for bad policy and decisions elsewhere. Bad policy is bad policy wherever it occurs. Avoiding the issue of over population is bad policy.

quote:

---

It's not only immoral but it evades our fundamental culpability in the West for having caused this problem in the first place.

---

You are arguing that the West caused the over population problem? How? By industrial developments that increased the food supply (which may have been a mistake, ecologically speaking) and made life safer and easier for many people?

Were the Luddites right?

Should we have never industrialized?

quote:

---

What's your baseline for that calculation, Jerry?

---

A question that you would have the answer to if you had been following this and related threads with an open mind rather than defending a preconceived position. Not that the planetary gha and its relationship to population hasn't been cited more than once and even explained and noted with references.

Uzbekistan is a benchmark because of all of the countries in the world it is the one whose consumption level matches that which is sustainable on the planet given available sustainable resources divided by world population.

Personally I am open minded about changing my mind on population as soon as it can be proven that a growing population had no part in the loss of open spaces, forests, clean water, fish stocks, diversion of rivers, expanding cities, expanding industry and so on.

quote:

---

If every indiviual living in North America reduced their footprint from the current 8 planets per capita to a 2-3 planet per capita, surely the rest of the world wouldn't have to make as great a sacrifice.

---

Why should it be higher than 1 planet per capita? Anymore is overdraft. And where does the 8 planet scenario come from? The WWF report on the Living Planet puts US consumption at about 5 times the sustainable rate and Canadian consumption at about 4 times. Europe clocks in between 2 and 3 times.

Canada, by the way, has the resources to support its consumption, the US does not.

quote:

---

Again, Jerry, what kind of consumption??? The McDonalds/SUV/oil/coal variety or local markets/hybrids+transit/solar power? To say that more consumption equals a "better world" is of course the very mentality that caused the climate change problem in the first place.

---

Whatever kind you want, as long as the inputs required per-capita do not exceed the sustainable resources available. The more a society wishes to consume, the fewer people it must have to keep balance.

Local markets, hybrids, public transit, alternative power and so on all require resource inputs. If one is truly interested in improving the living standard of all the world above the Uzbeki level it will require a combination of improved methods of resource utilization and reducing the ratio of consumers to available resources.

quote:

---

Why does "more" equal better???

---

Why are electricity, indoor plumbing, and other conveniences better than candles, outhouses and so on? More doesn't always equal better, but when it does it usually requires more resources. In the case of population more at this point in history definitely does not equal better, less does.

quote:

---

The enforceability of a solution is totally separate from the fact that the problem exists. Is your point that we have a severe population problem but can't do anything about it?

---

No, that would appear to be your point, Jerry, as you haven't said what we could do about it either. I made it clear that the problem from my perspective is our footprint, not the total number of homo sapiens on the planet.

quote:

---

And it is not the same as a woman's right to choose.

---

Again, if you are actually serious about your argument, the only way to stop overpopulation would be to control reproduction and fertility, and that is very much the same as the right to choose, IMHO.

quote:

---

There is nothing ethical in what could be considered the immoral act of over populating an eco-system.

---

See my last point - the "immoral act" you reference is women giving birth to children. Again, who are you to say it is immoral for individuals to have X number of children? Who appointed you God?

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Historically, the rich industrial countries have been responsible for the vast majority of GHG emissions - so it is our ethical responsiblity to drastically reduce our own emissions and fund sustainable alternatives in developing countries to help them avoid our mistakes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

True, but irrelevant to the issue of overpopulation.

---

That's like saying the fact that 97% of child sexual abuse acts are committed by men is irrelevant to prevention and enforcement strategies, which we should apply equally to men and women becuase it's the "total potential offender population" that is important.

quote:

---

The population level is unsustainable at current consumption rates because either too many of us choose to live a better life than Uzbekis, or there are too many of us.

---

That's the central fallacy of your argument in a nutshell. What's unsustainable is the Western definition of a "better life" as owning 3 cars, 2 of which are SUVs, living in sprawl, car-oriented communities, eating food that travels thousands of miles to get to our plate, etc. That may be a "better life" to you, Jerry - but that's precisely the problem, as I argued earlier. As long as that mentality persists, it wouldn't matter if everybody on the planet was rendered infertile tomorrow, we'd still pass all the global warming tipping points that are just a decade or two away from us.

quote:

---

Avoiding the issue of over population is bad policy.

---

Continually repeating that overpopulation is the core problem without offering any solutions is tantamount to avoiding it. Since there is no "solution" which doesn't violate the right to choose and other fundamental civil liberties, and you don't want to cross those lines, then I don't see how your policy is any better than the one you are criticizing.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's not only immoral but it evades our fundamental culpability in the West for having caused this problem in the first place.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are arguing that the West caused the over population problem?

---

Jerry, if you can tear yourself away from your straw man long enough to read my post in context with the discussion on the thread (Hint: start with the thread title! ), I think it is quite clear that the "problem" I was referring to is climate change/global warming, which was indeed caused by the actions of the major Western economies, notably the US and UK.

quote:

---

if you had been following this and related threads with an open mind rather than defending a preconceived position.

---

Jerry, with respect, you've been making the overpopulation argument for many years yourself, so please don't lecture me about having my mind made up already. Can we stick to the substance of the issue please?

Speaking of substance, here's a statement by Steven Sanderson -- president and CEO of the US-based Wildlife Conservation Society, from the 2004 Beatty lecture at McGill University, which illustrates that focusing on overpopulation as the issue is ignoring class, inequality and global corporate power, and avoids the critical issue of reducing our consumption and changing our ilfestyle in the "developed world."

quote:

---

The Earth's population currently exceeds six billion; by 2050 we will have swollen to over nine billion. According to Sanderson, the issue is more about consumption than population; he referred to the African bush meat trade to emphasize his point. "One to 1.5 million metric tonnes of wild animal meat are extracted from the forests of Central Africa each year," said Sanderson. Although this depletion of wildlife is often blamed on the poor inhabitants of the forest, the meat does not go to feed them. Through the Wildlife Conservation Society, Sanderson followed African bush meat to its final destination -- the chic dinner plates of the foreign exotic food market. "Development of the bush meat trade has done nothing to alleviate poverty in rural Africa," he continued. "These activities simply satisfy the high consumption of the developed world."

Some countries are worse offenders than others. The United States is perhaps the best example of how not to conserve, a fact highlighted by Lord May in his explanation of ecological footprints -- a measure of the impact that certain areas have on their natural resources. North America has the largest ecological footprint on the planet, more than double the sustainable limit. But despite the disproportionately large impact of some regions, the fact remains that the entire developed world is guilty of over consumption. Even some developing countries are over-expending resources due to their tremendous population growth. "If the developing world could reach the standard of living that we enjoy, there would literally be no natural resources left," said Sanderson. "But no one likes to talk about a reduction of consumption in the developed world."

---

[ 05 August 2007: Message edited by: West Coast Lefty ]

quote:

---

WCL:
I made it clear that the problem from my perspective is our footprint, not the total number of homo sapiens on the planet.

---

And only in fantasy can you logically separate the two. Which doesn't mean that there are not other factors also.

quote:

---

Again, if you are actually serious about your argument, the only way to stop overpopulation would be to control reproduction and fertility, and that is very much the same as the right to choose, IMHO.

---

Society controlling reproduction to protect itself from destruction is a legitimate act, nowhere near the same as denying a person the right to choose to have an abortion under present social circumstances. The issue here is which is more important, the rights of the collective or the rights of the individual even if they harm the collective.

quote:

---

Again, who are you to say it is immoral for individuals to have X number of children?

---

In the same vein who is anybody to have the right to say anything? What is the point of your statement other than a petulant, personal attack?

quote:

---

That's like saying the fact that 97% of child sexual abuse acts are committed by men is irrelevant to prevention and enforcement strategies,....

---

Comparing apples to oranges? This makes no sense in the context of what you are responding to.

quote:

---

That's the central fallacy of your argument in a nutshell.

---

You apparently do not understand the argument then. Are you claiming that population and the per-capita limit of sustainable resource consumption are unrelated? No matter to what level you reduce consumption there is a limit to the number of people that it can support before the system goes into overdraft. Prove otherwise.

quote:

---

What's unsustainable is the Western definition of a "better life"....

---

It certainly is at present population levels or even at a greatly reduced population level, but there is a point at which it is sustainable, not that I am advocating reducing to that point, but it is there.

quote:

---

That may be a "better life" to you, Jerry - but that's precisely the problem, as I argued earlier.

---

A: It is not the kind of life I would advocate, particularly since I have been active for a more responsible one for about 40 years, and

B: It is only part of the environmental problem if we are talking about the state of the planet beyond single facets of the problem.

quote:

---

As long as that mentality persists, it wouldn't matter if everybody on the planet was rendered infertile tomorrow, we'd still pass all the global warming tipping points that are just a decade or two away from us.

---

It is obvious that continuing to exploit resources in the way that we do will cause just that, but what is your point here. Continuing that kind of consumption is not being advocated here. In fact we are going to have to drop average global consumption to the level of Uzbekistan given the current population, and it can only rise or fall to whatever sustainable level future population permits.

quote:

---

Continually repeating that overpopulation is the core problem without offering any solutions is tantamount to avoiding it.

---

BS. Pointing out a problem is certainly not avoiding it.

quote:

---

Since there is no "solution" which doesn't violate the right to choose and other fundamental civil liberties, and you don't want to cross those lines, then I don't see how your policy is any better than the one you are criticizing.

---

A: What is my policy? I have pointed out a problem to which the solution is obvious, reduce numbers. How that is done, even if it can be, will come from a number of policies.

B: I don't mind crossing those lines because the right of society collectively to protect itself trumps the rights of an individual.

quote:

---

Jerry, if you can tear yourself away from your straw man long enough to read my post in context with the discussion on the thread....

---

Mea culpa on the thread drift, but climate change, pressing as it is, is only part of the eco-disaster facing us, and population is one factor in climate change, as well as more importantly in total over consumption of resources. Climate change aside, we are still over consuming and destroying the foundation of our life support system.

quote:

---

Jerry, with respect, you've been making the overpopulation argument for many years yourself, so please don't lecture me about having my mind made up already.

---

You asked questions whose answers had been presented more than once. What should one infer from that?

quote:

---

here's a statement by Steven Sanderson.... which illustrates that focusing on overpopulation as the issue is ignoring class, inequality and global corporate power, and avoids the critical issue of reducing our consumption and changing our ilfestyle in the "developed world."

---

But overpopulation is not THE issue, it is an issue, one of THE issues, so of course there is truth to his statement as far as it goes. It also does not deny that overpopulation is an issue, which is my point.

quote:

---

Sanderson:
North America has the largest ecological footprint on the planet, more than double the sustainable limit.

---

Actually about four times or more according to the WWF.

quote:

---

Sanderson:
Even some developing countries are over-expending resources due to their tremendous population growth.

---

No kidding? Population growth is a problem.

quote:

---

Sanderson:
"But no one likes to talk about a reduction of consumption in the developed world."

---

I found Ms. Kates arguments to be very persuasive. In the conflict of rights, the "right to life" for living humans trumps any "procreative rights" one may think they should have. In an already overpopulated planet, there is no absolute right to reproduce.

I wish I could find it online. You might need to look in a university library.

REPRODUCTIVE LIBERTY AND OVERPOPULATION
Carol A. Kates

Abstract:
This essay argues that 1) there is an imminent threat to survival posed by the human environmental deficit, and sustainability will require population reduction as well as changes in consumption; 2) reproductive liberty should not be considered a fundamental human right, or certainly not an indefeasible right; 3) a global agreement to address the “tragedy of the commons” should include the option of coercive measures to reduce population to a sustainable level.

[ 06 August 2007: Message edited by: greener ]

[ 06 August 2007: Message edited by: greener ]

quote:

---

2) reproductive liberty should not be considered a fundamental human right, or certainly not an indefeasible right; 3) a global agreement to address the “tragedy of the commons” should include the option of coercive measures to reduce population to a sustainable level.

---

Am I the only one who finds the implications of these statements terrifying? "Reproductive liberty should not be considered a fundamental human right" is right out of the Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson playbook - goodbye right to choose, hello back alley coat hangers. This would be a good topic for the feminist forum as well.

"Coercive measures to reduce population" would that be gas chambers or forced sterilization???? It literally sounds like state-sponsored mass murder. I can't believe this kind of thing is being seriously discussed on a babble thread - speaking specifically about the statements above, not the topic of overpopulation in general.

Jerry, I do agree overpopulation is an issue, but the solution is education and economic empowerement of women everywhere - rising living standards and education levels have been proven to reduce birth rates time and again. Our challenge is to increase living standards in a sustainable way without copying the Western fossil-fuel based economic model.

[ 06 August 2007: Message edited by: West Coast Lefty ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by West Coast Lefty:

Jerry, I do agree overpopulation is an issue, but the solution is education and economic empowerement of women everywhere - rising living standards and education levels have been proven to reduce birth rates time and again. Our challenge is to increase living standards in a sustainable way without copying the Western fossil-fuel based economic model.

---

WCL,

My impression is you're making the assumption that if women are more educated, and have more choices, a fertility rate of around 1.5-2.0 will eventually result. That's certainly been the case in the occident the pst fifty years. But are you sure that's solely an artifact of women's emancipation? Countries such as France and the United States both have higher birthrates around 2.1.

I'm not denying that the successes of feminism are largely responsible for the drop in fertility from 4.5 or wherever it was. I do think, however, that there were other factors, economic factors. Median income has not risen in North America in decades, even as lifestyle expectations and demands have skyrocketed. It's possible, and I think likely, that if many of these issues get adressed fertility will rise again. In Quebec, we had a little nudge last year (ostensibly) due to better maternity leave. It'll take a few more years before making a conclusion.

quote:

---

Am I the only one who finds the implications of these statements terrifying? "Reproductive liberty should not be considered a fundamental human right" is right out of the Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson playbook - goodbye right to choose, hello back alley coat hangers. This would be a good topic for the femnist forum as well.

---

Ummm..Jerry Falwell and those guys say "go forth and multiply" I believe. You don't need coat hangers to stop population growth. We have have birth control pills and condoms, and morningafter pills....

quote:

---

"Coercive measures to reduce population" would that be gas chambers or forced sterilization???? It literally sounds like state-sponsored mass murder. I can't believe this kind of thing is being seriously discussed on a babble thread - speaking specifically about the statements above, not the topic of overpopulation in general.

---

No, but you could give tax breaks to people who don't have children, instead of those that do. You could hand out free condoms. You could penalize people financially for having more than one child.

quote:

---

Jerry, I do agree overpopulation is an issue, but the solution is education and economic empowerement of women everywhere - rising living standards and education levels have been proven to reduce birth rates time and again. Our challenge is to increase living standards in a sustainable way without copying the Western fossil-fuel based economic model

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
Anyhow, where does your position go if, even in a society where women are freer, birthrates still crop up to ~2.5?

---

The possibility exists, of course, that there aren't enough resources worldwide to make conditions right everywhere, in which case we might have to look at these disturbing ideas, but until we have good evidence that this is the case we shouldn't be introducing coercive measures.

[ 06 August 2007: Message edited by: Agent 204 ]

quote:

---

Ummm..Jerry Falwell and those guys say "go forth and multiply" I believe. You don't need coat hangers to stop population growth. We have have birth control pills and condoms, and morningafter pills....

---

It's the same philosophy applied to opposite objectives - Falwell and his ilk want to force women to have babies, and the more extreme "coercive" version of the "must reduce population" argument leads to forcing women not to have babies. Either way, the fundamental civil right of reproductive freedom is annihilated.

quote:

---

No, but you could give tax breaks to people who don't have children, instead of those that do. You could hand out free condoms. You could penalize people financially for having more than one child.

---

No, but you could give tax breaks to people who don't have children, instead of those that do. You could hand out free condoms. You could penalize people financially for having more than one child."

That's where the coercion part comes in again and thats the part most would be opposed to. What if financial penalties fail, prison time, gulags for those who oppose it politically? Even the much cheered one child policy in China has had some serious negative side effects for both young and old that the dictators in charge were of course too thoughtless to anticipate or address. Authoritarians tend to be that way. The problem is always someone elses.

Yes, I too find these assertions rather disturbing, particularly coming from a fellow leftist, but I'm fairly confident that most progressive thinkers will see both the dangers and futility of it and reject it in favour of more positive ideas. We may go off on some strange tangents at times, but in the end most of us do come around to the lighter side again.

[ 06 August 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Policywonk:

No, but the relationship between greenhouse gas concentrations (especially methane) and global population is pretty striking.

---

No again, actually it isn't. Not unless we lump everyone in together without regard to which nations are emitting the vast majority of green house gasses, in toto as well as per capita, and which ones finance and encourage most other environmentally destructive activities. We are most definitely not one aggregate total which benefits and pays equally, so the question then is who should sacrifice the most, those who can afford some adjustements on largely unnecessary consumption habits or those who can barely put clothes on their backs as is?

[ 06 August 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

quote:

---

What has a bigger impact on the area of a rectangle: the length or the height?

---

quote:

---

No again, actually it isn't.

---

quote:

---

As can be seen in Figure 1, the world's population grew very slowly until about 1750. There was a long period of stationary growth (no growth) until 1000 B.C.E., when the world's population was approximately 300 million; this was followed by a period of slow growth from 1000 B.C.E. to approximately 1750, at which time global population was an estimated 800 million. Until this time, the world's population was kept in check by high death rates, which were due to the combined effects of plagues, famines, unsanitary living conditions, and general poverty. After 1750, the world's population grew substantially; by 1950 it had tripled to around 2.5 billion. In this 200-year period, the doubling time was 122 years. Growth from 1950 to 1985 was even more dramatic; by 1985, the human population was 5 billion. World population had doubled in thirty-five years. By 2000 global population was 6 billion and is projected to be 9 billion in 2050.

Population growth did not become exponential until around 1750

---

For the purposes of our argument I think it does. It's taken off mostly in places where industrialization and consumption peaked first, not where the population has been booming since. Coincidental population increases meantime are supposed to based largely on lower death rates via modern medicine, without the following adjustment of lower birth rates -yet.

Edited again to save more time.

[ 06 August 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

quote:

---

It's taken off mostly in places where industrialization and consumption peaked first

---

quote:

---

It's taken off mostly in places where industrialization and consumption peaked first

---

quote:

---

It's taken off mostly in places where industrialization and consumption peaked first

---

quote:

---

WCL:
Jerry, I do agree overpopulation is an issue, but the solution is education and economic empowerment of women everywhere - rising living standards and education levels have been proven to reduce birth rates time and again. Our challenge is to increase living standards in a sustainable way without copying the Western fossil-fuel based economic model.

---

I agree, but the problem we face is that at this point equalizing consumption to the sustainable level takes us to a standard comparable to Uzbekistan. If that is what we want, then we only need to equalize resource consumption. But, the question does rise if equalizing at that level is enough of on increase in standards for high birthrate countries to reach the point where the improved conditions are sufficient to kick in the scenario where they reduce birth rates.

It also means about an 80% drop in consumption for the US and about 50-60% for Europe. I wonder what unintended results that will produce?

quote:

---

ETHR:
Voluntary population control is always preferable to mass starvation, of course, but "voluntary" for most people has to be just that.

---

Voluntary is good, but what about a situation where increasing population is leading to insufficient resources to support everyone, an while some voluntarily cut back, others refuse to, thereby condemning the whole society to destruction?

quote:

---

ETHR:
You keep repeating that, but we don't have to "equalize" to the "level of Uzbekistan" so much as find ways to cut back on our emissions and look for more efficient processing of essentials.

---

According to the WWF living planet report if all resources were equalized and we cut back to sustainable levels of utilization the average per-capita amount available would be that which is currently being consumed by Uzbekis.

It is not just about emissions when it comes to population, it is about total resources available.

We can cut emissions all we want (a good thing that we have to do anyway) and it still won't change the total amount of resources available. Only concentrating on emissions and thinking that solving that issue will save us misses the elephant in the room. Emissions are only one part of a bigger problem.

More efficient processing will help make things go farther, but population increases would probably eat up efficiencies quickly.

And the question remains, how much is required per-capita to support the kind of society one wants? We know that current resources divided by the current population gives us per-capita resources which the Uzbekis now have. We know that totally vaporizing the populations of North America and Europe lowers the population enough to put the rest on par with Turkey or Malaysia which are about half of what Europe now uses and four times less than Canada, more or less.

Can you give us a direct url to that report? I'd like to take a closer look myself, as that looks awfully low. I get your other point but perfect "equalization" may not be essential for sustainability either, least not if it's what I think you mean, but rather a significant closing of the energy gap (mostly but not entirely downward) and much better distribution everywhere. Uzbekistan itself is considered one of the most unequal of countries, with limited natural resources, but so low that too maybe insignificant. Questions of resources available, what's it to be invested in or spent on itself, and the emissions allowed may have to be treated somewhat separately at points, but I'll just add for now that other cleaner energy sources like solar, wind and geothermal are on the horizon now and most scarcely tapped sources. Most are not only much cleaner but make little added demand on the biosphere, only largely unused elements. None enough by itself, but together -maybe. That may even be an added advantage, politics wise. Maybe what this Mathuseanism fails to account for, but I'd like to see the report first before commenting further.

[ 06 August 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

quote:

---

ETHR:
I get your other point but perfect "equalization" may not be essential for sustainability either,

---

Equalization is a goal, and one can hardly expect it to be perfect. It is not essential for sustainability, we could have people extremely well off using many resources, and others barely surviving as long as the average use stays above the sustainable line.

My Uzbekistan example is based on average consumption. There are a lot of areas that consume less, like Haitii, almost all of Africa and much of Latin America. If we do not improve the situation there Europe and North America could have a consumption average somewhat higher than Uzbekistan and the planet still be within sustainable limits.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:

Equalization is a goal, and one can hardly expect it to be perfect. It is not essential for sustainability, we could have people extremely well off using many resources, and others barely surviving as long as the average use stays above the sustainable line.

My Uzbekistan example is based on average consumption. There are a lot of areas that consume less, like Haitii, almost all of Africa and much of Latin America. If we do not improve the situation there Europe and North America could have a consumption average somewhat higher than Uzbekistan and the planet still be within sustainable limits.

The WWF piece is titled Living Planet Report 2006. It is a pdf file on line. I've linked to it here in these threads a couple of times, but don't have time tonight to look it up again. A google search should turn it up.

---

quote:

---

ETHR:
but if the goal is more equality, then your proposed path definitely isn't the the way either.

---

Equality should be a given goal for a leftist.

I don't propose equality will solve the problem, however. I use equality here to show what life would look like for all of us if things were divided fairly. For many people the choice between an Uzbeki consumption level and reducing population levels for a bigger piece of the pie would come down in favour of dealing with population.

There is a lot to be said for the population level of over 50 years ago. I can remember what things were like then, and in many ways life was better and everywhere was less crowded.

I am interested in your take on the WWF report. I haven't read it as carefully as I would like to.

[ 07 August 2007: Message edited by: Jerry West ]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12513004&sc=emaf

In Some Circles, Four Kids Is the New Standard
by Tovia Smith

Weekend Edition Sunday, August 5, 2007 · The newest status symbol for the nation's most affluent families is fast becoming a big brood of kids.

Historically, the country-club set has had the smallest number of kids. But in the past 10 years, the number of high-end earners who are having three or more kids has shot up nearly 30 percent.

Some say the trend is driven by a generation of over-achieving career women who have quit work and transferred all of their competitive energy to baby making.

quote:

---

Originally posted by greener:
"competitive birthing."

---

http://www.panda.org/news_facts/publications/living_planet_report/index.cfm

From what I've seen over the years, transnational capital lurks behind most of the present day disasters, from the wanton destruction of fisheries, to increasingly wasteful profit-seeking farming practices, to the opening of precious rain forest, even the encouragement of fundamentalism worldwide.

Of course equality should be a "goal" to the left but this isn't the way to it IMO, rather it would just be replacing one form of in-equality with another one based on nationality. Very dangerous area for the left to even approach, as rationality diminishes with distance from the "other".

The way I prefer to look at it is where the margins and surpluses are actually located, how are they connected to each other in our economic structures, and how these effect the appropriation of resources and for whom. More I go into it all though the more my head starts to spin, as there's still too many unanswered questions and too much shifting ground.

I'll just say in response to your question, in the other thread on this, that yes, limits on consumption are generally preferable to those on population, especially when it's so clear whose consumption is so far in excess of physical needs. But no, I have never argued for unlimited population growth for-ever either, but rather encouraging trends which tend to negate it and the already understood causes for it. Slower perhaps, but probably more sure in any sort of democratic society, which is the only kind I recognise beyond the tribal level. (where issues of institutional power over individuals remain largely nonexistent)

Even limits on economic growth should be approached as a series of interconnected inputs and outputs, wherever possible, IMO, and be encouraged or discouraged via already accepted mechanisms (eg: more secular education, more taxation on luxury goods, more progressive taxation for more social investment, more culturally sensitive development models, etc etc) to achieve certain bottomline aims, rather than arbitrary cutoffs imposed on everyone across the board without regard to relative income or needs.

[ 12 August 2007: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

From an old American movie, Three Days of the Condor
Higgins: It's simple economics. Today it's oil, right? In ten or fifteen years, food. Plutonium. Maybe even sooner. Now, what do you think the people are gonna want us to do then?
Joe Turner: Ask them?