Ultimately, the limiting factor may come down to what the late economist Julian Simon called the "master resource": energy. Simply put, is there enough energy that can be harnessed to provide a rewarding lifestyle to however many billion of us inhabit the planet? Those limits are already being pushed, as can be seen in the large increases in the price of everything from oil to food over the last decade. "The state of New Jersey's per capita energy consumption exceeds the photosynthetic productivity of the area even if it were pristine," noted physicist Klaus Lackner, director of the Earth Institute's Lenfest Center for Sustainable Energy at the Columbia event. Simply put, without fossil fuels, the New Jerseyans alive today could not survive on the bounty of the Garden State alone. That problem may spread as the 21st century moves forward, thanks to human population growth.
Energy is the key to modern economies, but it may be participation in modern economies that proves key to limiting human population. "If girls and women have the opportunity to generate income and jobs, you see a rapid decline in fertility," DeFries noted. Already, increased opportunity has driven fertility declines in many countries of the world or, as journalist Fred Pearce puts it in his book The Coming Population Crash (2010, Beacon Press): "The population bomb is being diffused. By women. Because they want to."
But it is not just economic opportunity; education also is key to restraining future birth rates. "Almost universally, women with higher levels of education have fewer children," wrote demographers in a paper in Science on July 29. According to Cohen, it would cost at most $70 billion to provide universal education to everyone young person on Earth right now.
Fertility rates are not declining everywhere: Indonesia's birth rate has stopped declining and started climbing. A subset of countries in sub-Saharan Africa, including Niger with the current top fertility rate of more than seven children per woman, still have rates above four children per woman. Even the U.S. has seen its fertility rate increase above two children per woman in recent years.
The biggest impact a U.S. citizen can have on global environment problems, such as climate change, is having fewer children. Every American child born will add almost 10,000 metric tons of CO2 to the atmosphere over his or her lifetime under current conditions. For comparison, that's five times more than a Chinese child and 160 times more than a Bangladeshi baby. According to researchers at Oregon State University, having one fewer child reduces a U.S. family's greenhouse gas impact 20 times more than driving a Toyota Prius, using Energy Star appliances and other lifestyle choices combined.
Demographic dividend
For the next few decades at least, the world as a whole will have more working age people than dependents (children and the old)—a global "demographic dividend" of the kind that has allowed rapid economic growth in the past. The ultimate question of the 21st century may be, as Cohen put it: "Is economic development the best contraceptive or is voluntary contraception the best [economic] development?"
See what we're tweeting about
61 Comments
Add CommentNot only CAN it continue, it WILL continue, like a slow motion train wreck heading toward disaster. What is coming are huge disasters of human misery the likes of which we've never seen before, such as African and Asian famines in which perhaps a billion people miserably die.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIronically several groups that on the surface seem kind are making the problems worse. The first is the Catholic Church, which opposes birth control for any reason. The second, ironically, are hand-wringing liberals who see unchecked population growth as merely a "personal reproductive right." The third is all those who support the status quo in US food policy, eschewing sustainable methods for agribusiness mega-farms. These forces combine in extremely dangerous ways.
Sub-Saharan Africa has the lowest agricultural productivity in the world, yet the highest birth rates. Hand wringers who respond by simply shipping them grain actually exacerbate the situation in two terrible ways. First it makes them dependent upon the food aid, which is dangerous given that it is vulnerable to future events such as a US dust bowl. Second, it enables the high birth rate to continue.
In order to avert the almost inevitable human disasters that loom, all nations must adopt two dramatic policy shifts. The first is a shift to sustainable methods of food production, the second is to determine what population size that production can sustain, and implement the very tough measures to limit their population to that number.
If you do not know how this happened, maybe someone should tell you about the birds and bees...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thispokerplayer asks: "why do people in the US think this is a problem for the US to solve?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe because in part, "Americans consume a full 25 percent of the world's energy despite representing just 5 percent of global population..."
"The first is the Catholic Church, which opposes birth control for any reason."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Catholic Church may oppose birth control, but that isn't the cause of large families in developing African nations. Subsistance farming takes a lot of strong backs, and historically high mortality rates require large families for the work force. This has been true since well before the Catholic church appeared on the continent.
"The third is all those who support the status quo in US food policy, eschewing sustainable methods for agribusiness mega-farms. These forces combine in extremely dangerous ways. Sub-Saharan Africa has the lowest agricultural productivity in the world, yet the highest birth rates"
You just answered your own question. The greatest solution to over-population is prosperity. Currently The US is the largest producer of food in the world, and it does so in the most efficient manner.
Mega farms would help to free the African people from the slavery of subsistence, and obviate the need for large families. The mistake is made when you ascribe words like unsustainable to methods that clearly have been sustainable, are now, and will be well into the future.
The apocalytic notions that you proffer have been around since Malthus and before. Every age has its panic merchants. But all of your Calamity and end o' the world forecasting will come to naught.
To Janera who states that the problems are in part due to "hand-wringing liberals who see unchecked population growth as merely a "'personal reproductive right.'" Um, not really. Unless you're part of the crowd that by default, blames everything on liberals. I've never heard that from any so-called liberal group; that's typically a conservative tagline. In fact, liberal groups have been warning the world about the problems of overpopulation for decades. Those warning have been drowned out by conservatives. Liberal groups have wanted to bring family planning to the "underdeveloped" world, but conservative Christian groups have stood in their way. And conservatives (of all religions) outlaw abortion, eschew the concept of sustainable development, promote large families, and proudly declare that that there are no limits to the number of people that the Earth can support.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdavmi - you are the first person I've come across who identifies as a liberal but acknowledges the problem. Otherwise liberals seem to be just out to accuse anybody who says that population is a serious problem of being misanthropic, fascist, eugenist, or a "culler" or whatever.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt requires real moral courage to spell the problem out like Janera, and it's very welcome that, on the substance, you seem to agree.
The population of earth has always been tied to human's ability to feed that population. As long as the food is produced, the population will increase. As soon as we can't produce enough food, the population will fall back down again. This has happened numerous times in the past and is pretty obvious.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs far as the liberal nonsense about the evil 500 million who supposedly produce the most CO2, well sorry but you people seem to completely disregard the fact that many of the 4 billion or so people living in Africa, Asia or other areas produce just as much pollution burning wood and coal for cooking, slash and burn methods to clear forests, have the most polluted rivers in the world because they all dump their raw sewage in them and the list goes on. Americans or the so called 500 million if anything have less of a total negative impact on the biosphere. Even if CO2 is more, which is doubtful in itself for both production and having any affect on the planet, at least we americans can find plenty of rivers and lakes to drink from among all the other clean things we have.
The population will continue to grow. What sort of author comes up with a comment like how did this happen?
Will we be able to support it, certainly. America alone only cultivates 40% of arable land. If the rest of the world would actually pay attention to America and drop their ridiculous tribal cultures and other nonsense, they could also get higher food production from less land in effect ensuring we could probably triple the population and still be able to produce food. Available land for most places is pretty easy. The fact most humans for some ridiculous reason try to pack into few cities does not mean we are out of space. Just driving down one freeway across california, arizona, new mexico will show valley after valley large enough to accommodate an LA sized city. The is plenty of space.
Water, plenty of that as well. Besides the great engineering done in places like california that brings water to a place like LA humans will create new methods to obtain water. Though for most places in the world, simply not using rivers for sewage, funerals and bathing would probably triple the water supply.
Bottom line humans will adapt and likely manage to accommodate any number of humans because we adapt. Population growth could be the catalyst that causes colonization of the moon and other planets or moons just because of the need to find space, water and resources.
www.overpopulationisamyth.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople, for the last (fill in the blank) years have been increasingly concentrating themselves in urban areas around the world. And the trend is only accelerating.If you live in New York city or Mexico city or Mumbai it must look to you as if the world can not stand to get any more crowded. I dare say the author lives in a place like that. If you live in Abilene,Texas or Billings,Montana you are likely to know that isn't true. I was a professional pilot for almost 40 years. Great view from the office window. Most of the world is empty. You just can't see that from the road.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPriddseren, you seem very optimist, but a little unrealistic. Sure there's enough space to accomodate millions of people between CA and AZ... But it's all desert land, and the only way you can use that land to grow crops -or just for people to subsist in those areas- would be providing tons of water (and other resources); add to that the already existing water crisis in CA and AZ. Just because we have vast amounts of land doesn't mean it would be a very practical idea to put millions of people there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour opinion doesn't seem to be based on the knowledge of facts. As far as the US agricultural model, what about land degradation, monoculture, extensive use of chemicals, GMOs? Are you taking these factors into account? The US agricultural model is anything but beneficial or sustainable.
"... at least we americans can find plenty of rivers and lakes to drink from among all the other clean things we have." ... Just the way you said speaks volumes about your lack of knowledge.
"If the rest of the world would actually pay attention to America and drop their ridiculous tribal cultures and other nonsense..." This is laughing material. Have you ever been outside of the United States? It doesn't seem so :-)
"Bottom line humans will adapt and likely manage to accommodate any number of humans because we adapt."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHistorically we have adapted to overpopulation and resource shortages with war, disease and famine. It works very well: the population is quickly restored to the appropriate size and is often strengthened against such hardships. The problem in the current situation is that killing billions of people is not a very humane solution.
Those who are bringing these issues up are not saying that we're doomed. They're saying that if we don't deal with these issues very soon a lot of people will die needlessly. They can reliably make this prediction because people are already dying from these causes in the parts of the world that are most stressed from overpopulation, drought and famine. Many civilizations throughout history have collapsed when faced with exactly the kinds of problems we see shaping up. Blithely saying that we'll just figure something out without figuring out what that something is invites disaster.
When your car is hurtling towards a cliff you should put on the brakes, not assume that your kids in the backseat will figure out how to rig some kind of parachute to put on the bumper.
Any system running near capacity is extremely vulnerable to slight perturbations. To avoid massive die-offs of human populations we have to stop constantly pushing the engine of our civilization into the red. That means fewer people, cleaner technology, and less energy-intensive industry. And acknowledging that there are limits to growth as long as we are confined to a single planet.
Yes, once we have viable clean technology to get our resources from space and colonize other planets, there will be virtually no limits. But we're not there yet, and it's not obvious we will get there any time soon.
Just curious, have you ever heard of the Bolivia water wars, for example? Water (a very important resource) war privatized by Betchel (American corporation) in the 90s, and they ripped people off to the point that it was illegal to collect rain water. Bet you didn't know that ;-)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA barrel full of birth control pills and a free condoms on every corner of every third world street....the only foreign aid I suport.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEverything else is feel-good nonsense. These people are not our pets. If aKenyan mother wants to have 8 kids, she has a brain and it's her choice.
A barrel full of birth control pills and a free condoms on every corner of every third world street....the only foreign aid I suport.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEverything else is feel-good nonsense. These people are not our pets. If aKenyan mother wants to have 8 kids, she has a brain and it's her choice.
Sorry antob7, I have spent much of the last few years in Asia, China, Philippines, India, Japan and other places, even learning how to speak Japanese. I have also spent time in Europe and a few other places. So maybe you should take a walk down a polluted street in Mexico, manila or Mumbai before you declare I am somehow wrong in my assessment of pollution all over the place and then compare it to the relatively clean america. あなたの国を離れると、世界を見てみてください
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy are there starving people in Africa? It is not from a lack of food, it is tribal chiefs/thugs and the cultures that allow them to exist and steal food grown or brought in. If the rest of the world were to do as America did in 1776, which was throw away much of the old world traditions that impeded progress and treated humans as animals and adopt some of what America is, there would be few places starving and plenty of opportunity for all. This is the best way to manage population growth.
As far as the valleys of the American desert, last time I checked most of the food grown in America is in the Midwest, not in desert valleys. Why would you think we have to pack 12 million people in a desert valley and 100% of the food production. You increase food production in the Midwest where the farm land is and under utilized. I am hardly optimistic, just looking at facts. There is a lot of space for people to live and a lot of space to produce food. The only limiting factor is the water supply, which would be worked on, such as desalination.
It is not only Catholic Church which prevent to use contraceptives, but all the religions that are following the Bible; there is written of Onan which does something that God doesn't like, and religions say then not to use condoms or contraceptives. The Evil is not what a God could dislike, the Evil is to make damage directly or indirectly to other people, and growing so much in the World is a big damage.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt could be only a very capillary teaching of science, for example psychology, that could change – but very slowly – this kind of wrong thinking, but it is only religions that are taught everywhere in very large capillarity. And even cultured people are confusing Psychology with Psychoanalysis, thinking that it is all rubbish. And religions do nothing against the growing of the World population, saying that it is a God's will, and not noticing that in the far past this problem was inconsistent because in our epoch are men which broke the laws of Nature (that is the God' laws!), making life becoming longer. So now the Nature's laws must also be broken on the other side, using condoms and contraceptives. But who will teach that at the World?
It's distasteful to me to read comments which seem to consider the 7 billion people as consumption competitors. I havenʻt read that anyone is willing to help the situation by stepping off the planet or sacrificing a few of their own kids (even the one you know wonʻt amount to anything).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInstead of thinking of the multitude of people as liabilities we should think of them (or rather us) as resources. The relatively tiny proportion of the 1 billion people in 1800 set off a rather vigorous Industrial Revolution. Now, 7 billion people represents a wonderful cognitive surplus if there is such a thing. If we can get all of us fed and decently educated, maybe we can work together on how all of us can have lives worth living. Of course there are political obstacles to this sort of networked approach, but I notice big cracks appearing in some of the longstanding barriers.
We can do it. Cʻmon!
I know about pollution, and you say that the US has less than a total negative impact on the environment? Did you know that the US ranks second (after Brazil) in the world's ten worst environmental performers? Not only that, the US also ranks second (after China) in the world's most air polluting countries. As far as the water is concerned, more than 40% of the water in lakes, rivers and estuaries in the US are so polluted that you can't even swim or fish.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fact of the matter is that the US constitutes only 5% of the world's population and yet consumes one fourth of the world's resources. Do you see the disparity here? Where did you get the idea that America has less of a total negative impact on the environment?
But you're right, it's not only America, pollution is a global problem.
It's optimistic to think that we'll figure something out when the time comes, but at the rate that we consume and pollute the world's resources, we are going down the wrong path.
"The world's richest 500 million people produce half the world's carbon dioxide emissions—the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change—whereas the poorest three billion emit just seven percent."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis, and all the other implications of this, is exactly why the rich in any population should be taxed way above the scale of the people in the lower demographics. They use up many times the resources of the poorer folk. A man who has two or more homes, and a private jet, not to mention a boat or yacht and who throws away clothes, and food, that poor people would utilize for years or would stretch into days of consumption; such a person is wasting the earths resources at about the rate of a hundred people on a subsistence level. They should be taxed commensurately.
pokerplayer asks: "why do people in the US think this is a problem for the US to solve?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe question fills me with despair, because it shows that even among literate Americans there is still a lot of ignorance concerning the issues involved. The answer, pokerplayer, is:
It's our problem, to a greater extent, because the US is still, per capita, the greatest producer of green house gases in the world and the greatest consumer of Earth's finite resources. China is the overall biggest consumer and polluter, but that is for their more than one billion people, and bear in mind that the birth rate in China, for some time now has been LOWER than that of the USA. Overall therefore, China is doing more than the USA in controlling green house gas emissions at the most fundamental level, reducing reproduction, whilst PER CAPITA they pollute less.
It's funny how people who complain about overpopulation never think of themselves as part of the overpopulation, or offer to kill themselves to reduce the population. Malthusians have warned about a population apocalypse for centuries and have been wrong 100% of the time. Yes, consume less, don't have huge families, but remember that humanity will adapt, as it always has.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMalthusian or not, there is no gainsaying the fact that the population of the earth is increasing at an increasing rate, i.e. on a chart concave to the point of origin which sooner or later, UNCHECKED, will go vertical on any chart, which suggests a paradigm shift, meaning we will have to use different units to get an accurate portrayal of the population as an event. Yes the earth can support 20 billion people, but at what level of subsistence, and at what cost to the environment. Far more likely is that the earth itself will change in the same sort of way that a few termites can do little harm to a building, but unchecked they can make it uninhabitable after a while. I frequently make the point that whether or not mankind is the main CAUSE of global warming doesn't matter so much as whether or not we can reduce its progress, or control it, or even turn it back. The figures say that we put out enough greenhouse gases to significantly change its progress. Water doesn't turn to steam at 99.9 degrees Celsius under normal conditions, but if you push the water that extra 0.1 degrees it will turn to steam. In the same kind of way, even a .1% of change might be able to stave off disaster, and we can do it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow did this happen? How do you think it happened! As another commenter alluded, this is a train wreck on its way. All environmental problems are really population problems. Same thing with food issues. Too many people chasing resources and fouling up the planet in the process. And no one could see this coming? Bummer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReduce the population only effective solution is give education to girls.My experiences of India teach me good lesson.Educated woman ready for birth control operation than man because she know by experiences how it is horrible delivery.How to rear more child difficult.There is old proverb one educated woman bring prosperity to whole family. Unfortunately Indian government don't giving importance to education of girls All poor countries spend more money on education of girl.we can slove the population problem
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess OWS needs to change their brand for the "99 percent" to "93 percent"—and a 93 percent of which they DO NOT belong.
Just another inconvenient truth—OWS is part of the 7 percent whose life style and expectations are fueling the environmental catastrophe unfolding before our eyes.
Although people are sometimes giving birth to more babies than they can take care of, there are also farmers who are getting paid off to buy terminater seeds. I am wondering who is concerned about over population, since terminator seeds mean that the plants cannot produce their own seeds. I realize that seed savers, many whom are farmers, are really trying to assist the world hunger problem and nutrition in variance issue. However, the terminator seeds are not like the regular old genetically modified or engineered seeds. They will kill off our food supply. I may be a little slow, but I think that less food and money to buy the limited and controlled food sources, along with more and more people and animals will be a problem period. There is no such thing as a little problem, but a big algabraic problem that nobody can get paid a lot of money to solve. You either do it or you don't.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMillions will survive this war
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we use mathematics we can calculate that at a certain moment birth rate will be the same as death rate. Than the growth will stop. Under ideal circumstances, no wars, no epidemics etc. the maximum seems to be between 12 and 13 billions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the circumstances stay as they are now, we are nearly at the top.
"If you do not know how this happened, maybe someone should tell you about the birds and bees..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for that seminal revelation...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Currently The US is the largest producer of food in the world, and it does so in the most efficient manner."
Measuring efficiency by what standard? What 'externalities' are ignored? What about the obesity problems? Are you lumping good food together with mass-produced garbage?
"It is only a very recent occurrence in humans philosophy that supports the claim that a nation is responsible for taking care of the less advantaged in other nations. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's a long-standing tradition to take care of problems elsewhere when it is in the common interest to do so. Sadly, it's also a tradition, followed by some vocal people, to shove one's head in the sand.
Re: 24. brerlou in reply to pokerplyer 11:29 PM 10/28/11
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are none so blind as those who will selectively see.
Mother nature will step in and take care of things as she has done before. A virus is the only solution for a sustainable environment
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Hunger is a choice." Who's choice? Certainly not the Somalian neonate or the mother's.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this[ SOS ] Complaint about Human Rights Violations by IBM China on Centennial
Please Google:
IBM detained mother of ex-employee on the day of centennial
or
How Much IBM Can Get Away with is the Responsibility of the Media
or
Tragedy of Labor Rights Repression in IBM China
When I read comments like:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Bottom line humans will adapt and likely manage to accommodate any number of humans because we adapt. Population growth could be the catalyst that causes colonization of the moon and other planets or moons just because of the need to find space, water and resources"
(priddseren, No. 9), I am moved to respond:
Well, let's look forward to a delightful world without forest, tigers, elephants, most of the butterflies that we have today. How many species have we rendered extinct through destruction of their habitat to date? Let's have our brave new world containing just human beings, stacked each on top of the other like fowls in a poultry battery (along with our robots doing manifold tasks for us... delightful!
(But I thank my lucky stars that I am rather too old to reach that 'brave new day'!).
GSC
Apocalypse proposition
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.enzymes.at/download/apocalypse.pdf
The central problems have been known about for some time, and solutions have been formulated, though they haven't all been tied together. The public remains woefully misinformed about the extent of the mess that they are in (which seems to drive most people into complete denial) and this isn't helped by a scientific community which cannot seem to form a strong consensus about what should be done.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is what we should do:
The problem begins with energy. We have already adapted to many other problems (many of them driven by overpopulation) by exploiting fossil fuels. Atmospheric carbon, once sequestered many millions of years ago, is now released through energy consumption, but should we find ourselves exploiting too much of it, we risk driving our climate system into a state for which we are not well suited. Adapting to that situation will prove to be very costly, so we are best to avoid it completely. Furthermore, the liquid variant critical to transportation, petroleum, is approaching terminal decline, which in turn is driving us to exploit inherently more expensive unconventional sources (shale oil, tar sands).
In response to this dire situation, it has been proposed, and remains a semi-viable political notion, that renewables will lead the way to a carbon-free future. Those advocates are wrong. Though methods of renewable generation are improving, and the cost lowering, there will remain inherent physical limitations to these forms of energy that will preclude them from forming a viable solution when scaled.
The world consumes on the order of 16 TW of energy. Projected consumption in the coming decades is expected to more than double that number. Not only do we need to provide electricity, but we must also synthesize a cheap carbon-neutral petroleum replacement, desalinate water on a massive scale, and sequester a century's worth of carbon to safeguard our coastlines.
There is currently only one foreseeable viable technology to meet these needs. Back in the 60s, nuclear pioneers developed a very efficient form of nuclear fission based upon a liquid fuel configuration. 40 years after abandoning that approach, we have not come up with anything remotely comparable. We should immediately join China in the Thorium Race to develop this reactor so that we might have some chance to achieve a sustainable existence while keeping civilization largely intact. To do anything else is utter hubris.
http://energyfromthorium.com/2011/10/04/flibe-uk-4/
Once we've solved the energy crisis, the other problems become manageable.
Buckets full of free birth control pills and condoms on the corner of every village in developing countries. The only foreign aid I suppost...otherwise their choice and their consequences.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBuckets full of free birth control pills and condoms on the corner of every village in developing countries. The only foreign aid I suppost...otherwise their choice and their consequences.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't think all this doom and gloom is really necessary. As this article pointed out, we already grow enough food for 11 billion people. We do it now without even struggling. If pushed into it I'm sure we will find new and exciting ways to produce even more food. What really needs to happen is to find new technologies that can distribute that food more efficiently.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFood is just one of the needed resources. The other is energy. When you look at the nuclear energy we could have at our disposal if we just chose to push it, we would have far more energy than is needed. 20 billion people wouldn't be a problem. Neither would 40.
In addition to all of that, it's easy to forget that for the most part, we live in 2 dimensions. There is plenty of living space in the ground and more in the sky.
Human beings have more "non-human" cells in and on their bodys than human cells. these micro-organisms are essential to our existence but occasionally one gets out of control and ends up killing the host. Think of the earth as a living being. The "micro-organism" that lives on the surface that has gotten out of control is the "human cell". We are going to over populate kill our host: the earth. How sad that we could not have done better.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPokerplyer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProbably because outside of the US, their isn't another group of people bright enough and willing enough to meet the problem where it lay i.e. ignorance run rampant Africa.
Pokerplyer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProbably because outside of the US, their isn't another group of people bright enough and willing enough to meet the problem where it lay i.e. ignorance run rampant Africa.
Maybe we could take some of the billions in philanthrophic oil related profits and install and the required infrastructure in some of these countries so they'd have something else to do with their time. I know technology has screwed up more than a few relationships here in the US.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor some reason part of the post was stripped out. It should read "... and install web/gaming technology and the required infrastructure in some of ..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@kfreels
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are severely underestimating the scale of the problem we face.
On the subject of food:
Perhaps you are unaware of a major scientific controversy surrounding the physiological mechanism of fat accumulation. The short of it is that we actually have much less food than we think we do because the quality of those calories vary. Also, energy serves as a fundamental input into food production (primarily machinery, NG->fertilizer, and transportation).
We currently do not have the infrastructure for synthesizing low-cost fuels, so it is of vital importance that we R&D the technology ASAP so that we can start building thousands of fuel factories.
Energy also serves as a fundamental input into the economic system, and we are not likely to experience economic recovery without first solving the fuel synthesis problem- which we have not yet begun doing.
Really, nothing is more urgent than for us to start developing the technology that will facilitate the cheap energy we need to start dealing with the problems of overpopulation. Anyone who tries to minimize the importance of this or the difficulty of transitioning to a sustainable existence has not really taken a survey of the scale of the problem we face. We should take notice that there have been scientists thinking and working on this issue for decades, yet our society has persisted in resisting responsible action.
It is not only Catholic Church which prevent to use contraceptives, but all the religions that are following the Bible; there is written about Onan which does something that God doesn't like, and then religions say to not use condoms or contraceptives. The Evil is not what a God could dislike, the Evil is to make damage directly or indirectly to other people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe human kind is the species more invasive than any other one. For the economic interest this is very good, because more people means more commerce and so more money, but making money greedily is a strong drug that can't be stopped and is blocking the brain to think about all the consequences, like every other drug does. It could be only a very capillary teaching of science, for example psychology instead of religion, that could change – but very slowly – this kind of wrong thinking, but it is only religions that are taught everywhere in very large capillarity. And even cultured people are confusing Psychology with Psychoanalysis, thinking that it is all rubbish. And religions do nothing against the growing of the World population, thinking that it is a God's will, and not noticing that in the far past this problem was inconsistent because in our epoch are men which broke the laws of Nature (or for religions broke God' laws, but they are not noticing!), making life becoming longer. So now the Nature's laws must also be broken on the other side, using condoms and contraceptives.
So religions and economy, this kind of imperfect economy of today, are bringing happily our Planet to Death, without any possibility to stop them.
But who will teach that to the World?
Well, reading all the comments thus far was certainly depressing. Start with the global warming denial by someone who's probably an employee of a public relations firm working for either Exxon or the Koch Brothers. And then all these denials that there's any problem at all, or if there is, a dash of technology and redistribution will solve all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI realize that most of us have a powerful motive to deny that there's a problem. No one wants to give up anything at all on behalf of our children and theirs, despite the grand show we make of caring about them.
Leftists (don't call them liberals because they aren't actually liberal) refuse to face overpopulation because they're like the 10 year old girls who bring stray cats home, and they regard China's One Child policy as a "human rights violation."
Rightists (don't call them conservatives because they aren't actually conserve-ative) refuse to face overpopulation because they're like six year old boys who can only think about about their rights and not at all about the responsibilities that accompany them--and they regard China's One Child policy as a com-yew-nist interference with their God-given right to crank out all they babies they want to prove their virility by cranking out.
Best case the world will end up like Bali, which I just returned from visiting for the 6th time: every square foot of arable land, just about, is being used for agriculture, replacing its once abundant rain forests with rice fields, and its animal diversity with farm animals and rats. Nobody's starving, but very few have much beyond subsistence levels. One scooter for a family of five is the norm.
But Bali is inherently agriculturally productive and Bali's cohesive society promotes sustainable practices.
A more likely model is Haiti, which is rapidly losing what biological viability it had under the crushing weight of its overpopulation--inhabitants have now chopped down 97% of its trees for firewood, and desertification is consuming its farmlands.
Women's education helps overpopulation greatly, but the crisis is now, as only the Chinese Communist government has acknowledged, among all the world's governments, democratic and otherwise.
Overpopulation is the biggest Inconvenient Truth of all, and denying it unites Left and Right, unfortunately. I've traveled in 17 countries and scuba dived in a dozen and seen it firsthand.
All nations should adopt China's One Child policy--even ones that are losing population. That way no one can accuse others of genocide yada yada.
www.blogzu.blogspot.com
A simple solution is for men to get vasectomies once they have had two children. Cheap, hygenic and suitable for poor countries!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMandatory vasectomies-after-2-kids is a good start.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, native-born Americans are already having smaller families. The huge increase in our population is coming mostly from immigration--legal & illegal--& most of that is coming from the subset of immigrants who are uneducated.
Putting a stop to the immigration of people without college degrees or the equivalent would not just help America but also the world, since each America consumes & emits so much compared to most other country's citizens.
So leftists who think America should be a responsible world citizen should oppose immigration of nearly all Mexicans who want to come here, &should promote a universal biometric ID database for America--the only "fence" that would really work, as well as providing a mechanism for ridding ourselves of the many millions of people residing here illegally.
They should also support free abortions on demand nationwide, no questions asked, along with free distribution of various contraception devices & drugs & day-after pills.
All this would be tough for rightists to swallow, except for opposing illegal immigration. I do note, however, that the Bible most of them tout says exactly nothing about abortion, & in fact only accords born babies rights after they've been born a month.
And if they're truly conserve-ative, they should recognize that our way of life isn't going to survive continued population explosion.
And no, desalination is no panacea. It's enormously energy-intensive. Moreover, our wells are starting to dry up due to irreversible collapse of the porous aquifer, caused by overpumping (it's an even bigger problem in China BTW).
With nations servicing their own overpopulaton by grabbing more & more water that flows through their nations to other nations (mostly via dams), water wars are just around the corner. We already destroyed Mexican farmlands in the Colorado delta this way (both from lack of Colorado water & from the saltwater that flowed up from the Sea of Cortex to replace it), but Mexico was too weak to attack us. Now China is doing this to the Mekong, with probably similar results impending.
I find that overpopulation denialists are generally ignorant of facts on & in the ground here & abroad--or they're ideologues whose beliefs only let facts supporting their beliefs into their locked minds, while contradicting data gets rationalized away.
Human overpopulation is affecting the Earth like cancer is affecting individuals. After all, the philosophy of endless growth is the philosophy of cancer. Is it yours?
overpopulationisamyth.com is a Christian Pro-life site, I also know that you are a pro-lifer...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh Lord!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think I hear singing.
Can it be? Is that... Barbra?
Yes yes yes, it's DEFINITELY Barbra!
And... she wants us to join in!
All together now:
People,..... people who need people
Are the luckiest people in the world
We're children..... needing other children
And yet letting our grown-up pride
Hide all the need inside
Acting more like children than children
Lovers are very special people
They're the luckiest people in the world
With one person,..... one very special person
A feeling deep in your soul
Says you WERE half now you're whole
No more hunger and thirst
But first be a person who needs people
People, .....people who need people
Are the luckiest people in the world.
With one person, one very special person
A feeling deep in your soul
Says you WERE half now you're whole
No more hunger and thirst
But first be a person who needs people
People,...... people who need people
Are the luckiest people in the world.
Of course, on the other hand....Sartre claims that Hell is other people.
While we in North America have a lot of natural resources we are squandering them at an alarming rate. The Oglala aquifer is dropping rapidly because cities are being expanded in the desert and hay land is being irrigated. Climate change means declining rainfall in the west and midwest and that makes the problem worse.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHydrocarbons are getting harder to find without destroying the environment in oil sand and gas-shale deposits. I think we need to reduce not only our hydro carbon consumption, but also our water consumption, and our consumption of the natural habitat that preserves the essential parts of the biosphere that we depend on.
The developing world is going to figure this out on there own especially if we engage in trade practices that allow them to build healthy economies. Most of our aid should go to increase literacy so that populations can understand and hold their governments to account a la Tunisia,Libya, Iran, etc.
These kinds of changes take decades, so things are going to get a lot worse before they get better.
Some people think that because we in the northern hemisphere consume more energy than they do in the tropics that we are evil. However, the harsher climate means that it costs more than 15% more to operate the same enterprise in Canada than the USA, for example. That does not mean that we cannot become more efficient, we can, and do. Our houses are more energy efficient, and we tend to drive smaller cars because our fuel is taxed, so changes can be made if the political will is there.
Good points everyone, including the article of course.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's pretty simple in one way. Obviously overpopulation
is a problem and we're getting there fast.
Solution: Choose to have fewer - or NO - children.
No matter what else is done, what other values and
nuances are debated, the buck stops there.
Just use contraception, folks. That's enough, even if
you do nothing else for the planet - ever.
As the article says,
"The biggest impact a U.S. citizen can have on global
environment problems, such as climate change, is
having fewer children.
"According to researchers at Oregon State University,
having ONE FEWER CHILD reduces a U.S. family's
greenhouse gas impact 20 times more than driving a
Toyota Prius, using Energy Star appliances, and
other lifestyle choices COMBINED." (My caps.)
AK
We can all be thankful that the 30,000 plus generations that humans have supposedly been on planet earth that there was virtually zero population growth over all that time, until the last 6000 years, in spite of rampant mating and no means of birth control. Considering the exponential like growth shown by population growth charts covering the last 6000 years we can thank our ancestors for this truly amazing zero population growth miracle over the 30,0000 generations. Had it been any other way we would have long ago been stacked as high as the moon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe world's population reaching 7 billion on Monday is a reason to celebrate, not decry humanity. Yes, there are still problems of starvation and lower standards of living for many on the planet, but neither history nor mathematical logic bears out the conclusion that population pessimists reached - which, btw, only views humanity as consumers and not producers. Where there are these problems, we need to go about creating more for everyone, rather than curbing our numbers. In the Victorian times, the world's population was a small fraction of what it is now, yet there were still problems of poverty etc. What changed these problems and improved our lives, especially in the West, was not going down from 1 billion to less, but by improving sanitation infrastructure, healthcare, breakthroughs in science and improving our general standards of living through economic growth. There are many reasons to celebrate 7 billion on the planet. It proves how ingenious we are, that we're better at keeping people alive more now than ever before, more brains to solve more problems and it is a private moment of happiness. As I read somewhere else, a mother of a child born yesterday in South Africa said "where there is life, there is hope". That is absolutely the way we should see it, humanity is a solution not the problem. I came across a brilliant spoof recently that parodies the Malthusian outlook on humanity and its ridiculous assumptions, it is hilarious, brilliant and a refreshing breath of fresh air from all the myopic doom and gloom! http://www.worldbytes.org/get-off-my-planet-happy-birthday-7-billion/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Sir,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA study by the London School of Economics found contraception is five times cheaper as a means of preventing climate change than investing in green technologies. But as this is hugely controversial with religious groups, the UN took it off the agenda at the Copenhagen, pointing out that the population will control itself as countries develop, women become better educated and families shrink. And pigs will fly.
The study showed that spending $10 on family planning would save one tonne of CO2. A similar reduction would require a $20 investment in tree planting, $40 in wind power, $80 in solar energy and $150 in hybrid vehicle technology. This is not about saving the planet, but humanity itself. The planet will survive long after we have gone. It won't care a jot if it is populated by human beings. When we are extinct, other species will replace us. If we don’t control our population natural forces will, as usual, take care of the situation. And with dreadful consequences for us all. This is not Malthusian hysteria, it is fact.
Surely, as intelligent beings, we must accept this brutal truth, and put aside our religious and other prejudices. We need to urgently address the problem of overpopulation and its accompanying evils before it is too late.The global population is now 7 billion, and will rise to 11 billion by 2050. If fertility rates continue, the threats are not only world climate, but food and water shortages, conflict and increasing human misery. Does religion really believe this is God's will? Why can’t we instead use the intelligence we were given, face the facts, and solve the problem before it is too late?
Dear Sir,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA study by the London School of Economics found contraception is five times cheaper as a means of preventing climate change than investing in green technologies. But as this is hugely controversial with religious groups, the UN took it off the agenda at the Copenhagen, pointing out that the population will control itself as countries develop, women become better educated and families shrink. And pigs will fly.
The study showed that spending $10 on family planning would save one tonne of CO2. A similar reduction would require a $20 investment in tree planting, $40 in wind power, $80 in solar energy and $150 in hybrid vehicle technology. This is not about saving the planet, but humanity itself. The planet will survive long after we have gone. It won't care a jot if it is populated by human beings. When we are extinct, other species will replace us. If we don’t control our population natural forces will, as usual, take care of the situation. And with dreadful consequences for us all. This is not Malthusian hysteria, it is fact.
Surely, as intelligent beings, we must accept this brutal truth, and put aside our religious and other prejudices. We need to urgently address the problem of overpopulation and its accompanying evils before it is too late.The global population is now 7 billion, and will rise to 11 billion by 2050. If fertility rates continue, the threats are not only world climate, but food and water shortages, conflict and increasing human misery. Does religion really believe this is God's will? Why can’t we instead use the intelligence we were given, face the facts, and solve the problem before it is too late?
If you put all 7 billion people in Texas, each family of five can fit in a 500 sq.m. lot with a spacious house and outdoor garden. And the rest of world would be uninhabited. Nevada alone receives more solar energy than the output of all the power plants in the world. With the available arable land and current agricultural productivity, the world can feed 100 billion people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat said, humans consume much more than what we actually need. We only need 145 watts to stay alive but we drive a 373,000 watts (500 hp) sports car.
The Catholic Church has a wide array of policies and an even wider span on their applications, and there is a major policy drift from top to bottom. If you choose to adhere to the strict teachings of Mother Church (I am Catholic by the way), let´s say like an Opus Dei member of a former presidential candidate in the U.S. you may have ten children. But most Catholics have the same size families as their peers in the same economic strata...two children. And those who have more usually seek the elusive gender, either the missing girl or boy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCaucasian Catholics face the same "below replacement" levels as those faced by Caucasians across the world...and gradually by most highly urbanized groups. The day may arrive when the concern will be with population decline, not population growth.
By the way, as an agriculturalis who has worked around the world, rest assured food production is not an issue. We could eradicate food security with current production if the political will were there. The issue is the business model. In the U.S. and other industrialized nations, if you do not have the purchasing power to engage the market, you might as well not exists. Many Catholic friends, for example, support measures which will impose financial euthanasia on our elders, on the growing number of our poor people, and on vulnerable populations at large.
Neither population nor food security problems, but a major ethical crisis.