Image:
In an era of changing climate and sinking economies, Malthusian limits to growth are back—and squeezing us painfully. Whereas more people once meant more ingenuity, more talent and more innovation, today it just seems to mean less for each. Less water for every cattle herder in the Horn of Africa. (The United Nations projects there will be more than four billion people living in nations defined as water-scarce or water-stressed by 2050, up from half a billion in 1995.) Less land for every farmer already tilling slopes so steep they risk killing themselves by falling off their fields. (At a bit less than six tenths of an acre, global per capita cropland today is little more than half of what it was in 1961, and more than 900 million people are hungry.) Less capacity in the atmosphere to accept the heat-trapping gases that could fry the planet for centuries to come. Scarcer and higher-priced energy and food. And if the world’s economy does not bounce back to its glory days, less credit and fewer jobs.
It’s not surprising that this kind of predicament brings back an old sore topic: human population and whether to do anything about it. Let’s concede up front that nothing short of a catastrophic population crash (think of the film Children of Men, set in a world without children) would make much difference to climate change, water scarcity or land shortages over the next decade or so. There are 6.8 billion of us today, and more are on the way. To make a dent in these problems in the short term without throwing anyone overboard, we will need to radically reduce individuals’ footprint on the environment through improvements in technology and possibly wrenching changes in lifestyle.
See what we're tweeting about
159 Comments
Add CommentWhy not limit our numbers - We can all live like Americans if there were simply less people. Imagine a world where we can't use up all the resources because there isn't enough of us to do that. We can really go green if there are less of us.Besides we are out of balance with the rest of the system.Predators at the top of the food chain (yes that's us) are limited in nature by their food supply. At some point that will also be an issue for the billions that are here - especially if we don't curb our numbers soon. Everyone can have a really high standard of living and enjoy a fulfilling and happy lifestyle if we just have less people alive at one time.Why do all types of religious cultures insist on no birth control? Do they really think you can do that long term? No population decrease = INSANITY!! Is there no one that can see this?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre we really considering curbing our numbers before we consider limiting our wasteful consumption? By "our" I mean those of us that depend on industrial agriculture, individual transport and on cheap energy. The minority basically.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWill my children face limits to the number of kids they have because someone didn't stop taking that weekly flight?
Is there a bottom to our spoiled selfishness?
There is plenty for everyone to live with happiness and prosperity. Our problem is the concept of happiness and prosperity that rules the world today, based solely on a materialistic point of view, incompatible with the limits of Nature.
Our measure of success is material, our measure of beauty is material, our measure of environmental cost is material.
It's these concepts we have to change. Including the concept of "living like americans", whatever that is.
Of course people see this, but changing it is the problem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt isn't that people don't understand that too many people is a problem, there is just no easy solution to that.
So much of the world is ignorant and poor and/or bound by myth/religious dogma, that even with the best intentions, we are stuck with the consequences of that... lots of babies continuing the cycle of ignorance and poverty.
If children have not been raised to understand and care about the consequences of having so many children, and the support structures don't exist to reenforce the point, you can't change that overnight. Heck we don't have the will or resources to change that ever.
The fact is that the population will keep going until the damage to the environment tips so far as to kill billions upon billions of us (if not all). Whole populations will die out, and millions upon millions will migrate and the haves/verses have-nots will fight and many developed societies will collapse under the strain..., then eventually a much smaller population will be left in the mess that is all that remains of a once friendly ecosystem to pick of the pieces.
Have a nice day.
If we don't, nature will. Millions of people will die. But since people can't fathom self-control, and society, religion, and government are all pro-instant gratification, pro-breed-like-crazy, and anti-responsibility, I only hope I live long enough to observe the spectacle of humanity consuming itself in its own gluttony. What a thoroughly ridiculous waste, our dumb species is turning out to be.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere's certainly an ethical aspect that has to be considered. "limiting the population" ... limiting which population? limiting who? Sounds like a world where potentially only the rich or the "talented" can breed as they wish.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a very scary subject (debate), one that I feel has no acceptable human induced solution. The solution (I feel) lies in the natural world, what has controlled the wax and wain of all species since the beginning.
I definitely agree that our "ways" should be curbed before we consider curbing our numbers by means of government control ... that's just terrifying to me.
There are only a few options. For one, we can slow feeling the effects of population growth by reducing the use of limited resources (right now that's all of them) or changing the sources to something less limited; this change would be more simple for energy than for water, food, and building materials. This option only works in the relative short term if the goal is to keep people comfortable in life by Western standards.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe second, more direct option is to significantly and deliberately slow, stop, or reverse population growth. This action's impact would be felt nearly immediately in an environmental/resource-abundance sense, but it is sure to cause other problems (think of the structure of social security in which a dwindling working group supports a much larger retirement class). Perhaps the largest obstacle to success in this action would be ourselves. Humans have a storied history of being unable to plan for and enact plans for the future collective good of the species, for one, and for another, there are a number of religious organizations throughout the world that feel it is the mandate of God to be fruitful and multiply. That is certain to be one enormous hurdle because if believers in such notions can see that we are headed for self-inflicted negative consequences that cannot be prevented, they must also be willing to accept that God will not intervene to save the human race from itself. Understanding that, for some, would be an epic process in relearning reality. Society and government also support population growth, and people certainly will want more than 1.5 children. But since the love of a child is not genetically restrictive, adoption solves that. I mean, there will still be people who want no children, and none of this solves any problem of unwanted pregnancy.
Lastly, in my view, the only other option left is to get some people permanently off of this rock to lighten the load. If this were even readily a possibility, which I do not believe it is, it would require vast resource mining from earth to build whatever infrastructure is necessary to accomplish such a goal. That would leave those left behind at a disadvantage, at least initially. However, if we can employ the first two options long enough to develop the technology to make this option possible without detrimental resource extraction from earth, then the solution is win-win all around.
Between options 1 and 2 and option 3, the choice is ultimately whether we feel that it is important for the human race to expand without bound.
Hey loopsyel, if you have a set of options, none of which are workable since no one will ever do them, what's left?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClearly a lot of damage has to happen before anyone will be motivated to change, and billions of people are going to die as a result before the threat is sufficient to scare enough people into change, Then in a panic, governments and people in general will change their behavior, but of course, the damange to the environment and stable societies will already be huge.
It is going to get much uglier before we hit bottom. Hopefully there is enough of a cushion at the bottom for humanity to still survive after we finally scare enough people into changing.
Limits on population that do not apply across the board, will never work, of course.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLimiting who? Everyone. No one can be exempt.
While the solution to the problem by the natural world may be inevitable, since when have we ever tried to give in to the natural world? It is our entire existence that is based on resisting negative effects of the natural world on our own comfort and happiness.
If it comes down to us refusing to accept our natural fate (which is our natural state) and we must limit population deliberately, then who but the government do you expect to see the plan through? How terrifying does it have to be? If the plan is correct, it will call for application equally to all. And (not to put words in your mouth, but as an example) it's not like the punishment would be killing extra babies (how does that law ever get passed?). It would be more like an eternal fine or something a little less harsh.
At any rate, many of us are in democracies, and they still work to affect change if enough people want it bad enough.
You make the case for what's left very well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgreed. Very much agreed.
I don't know that *no one* will *ever* do them, though. Somehow I still have hope for reason to prevail, even if it is more likely that, as you say, "it is going to get much uglier before we hit bottom."
Maybe it just needs to hit the world's radar first.
Population control is one of many reasons to support world government. Compulsory sterilization is the only alternative to universal poverty. World population should be reduced to no more than 1 billion and held at that level permanantly. Courage is needed. Feel the fear, then support it anyway.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe need population reduction. I'm not going to repeat what has been said above, but I do offer this suggestion: Get a community of environmental responsible, open-minded (doesn't matter what religion), and non-dumb (yes, there are dumb people in this world) people and find somewhere on this planet where we can sustain a large community (50,000 - 200,000) without having "leeches" aka everyone except the young, ill, and elderly contributing. An island or out in the middle of the woods perhaps?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the moon. Where the environment would be manmade and managable. In fact, instead of sending all the intelligent, hard working, responsible people to the moon, and leaving the hordes to finish demolishing what's left of the good ecosystem here on earth, how about sending all the selfish hogs to live in the plastic lunar bubble instead.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTheodore,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI support your reason for world government, but why compulsory sterilization? Do you feel that people would rebel against authority by procreation?
And why 1 billion?
I'm truly interested.
That's interesting. Who decides who is responsible and who is a selfish hog?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe concept is interesting. How did you decide on that number? Are there other people still in the world? Where do the progeny of the group end up, and do you ship out the inhabitants when they are considered 'elderly?' What happens when you love the leeches?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe progeny (aka offspring) of the group would keep with the population, but there would be a limit to the number of children a couple can have (I suggest 2). The elderly would be taken care of, but there would not be the emphasis of "living 40+ years past retirement on a breathing machine at the expense of your family". There are many old people who still contribute to society after "retirement" age. For the leeches, use some techniques that many civilizations have practiced: reform them and if that doesn't work, exile them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI will. Like this:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyone who thinks the entire planet and all life on it exists ultimately for your species own private consumption, and assumes you can breed all ya want and the universe will bend to accommodate your most base biological desires, raise your hand. Congratulations, you're a selfish hog.
Also add to that criteria, people who are willing to sacrifice others for self-gain
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo there are other people. Apparently, they're like the Angel family in Judge Dredd. How do you control that population and what it does?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ loopsyel, that's the trickiest part. That's where governments and good morals/ethics come in. I'm only a mathematician, so those problems I will not pretend to know how to solve.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, these are fictional examples, but look at the settings of bioshock, fallout, and the new series of battlestar galactica for possible future problems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou don't control em. You don't sacrifice em. You just let them have their way and strangle themselves in their own space, where the harm they cause is contained, just like it is on earth, but away from earth, so as not to be so destructive. You're really removing the destructive element. They can breed and wreck up as much of the moon rock as they like and they won't be harming anything.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this...and if they build a vessel and try coming down, you'll be able to see them and with the slightest object glancing off of their heat shield, ensure they won't make it.
Toodaloo, primitive scum.
I see the beginnings of a beautiful sci-fi story here. And I've got just the ending...
Sure, right, that's what you say will happen if they're shipped to the moon. I was still on the original idea of everyone still being on earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat gets harder to deal with, but I will in no way be advocating for that scenario.
A few additional facts:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) World population has more than tripled in the past century. Yet the average human today is better-fed, better-educated, healthier, and longer-lived than the average human in 1900.
2) Birth rates are falling, often dramatically, worldwide. According to the latest United Nations reports, the world's "more developed regions" will see no appreciable population increase by 2050 (their populations would drop if not for in-migration from less-developed regions). In less-developed nations, the birth rate is continuing to fall, and is expected to drop from 2.73 children per woman today to a below-replacement level of 2.05 by 2050. The reduction in the least-developed countries is projected to be even steeper, from 4.39 to 2.41, over the same period.
3. The largest population growth will occur among the aged.
4. As a result, without any additional dramatic measures, the world population is expected to crest at around 9-11 billion between 2050 and 2075, then start a long, slow decline as the aged die.
5. Yes, there will be additional pollution/environmental pressures as world population continues to increase for the next few decades. Some of these problems will be difficult. Some will require changes in personal habits. We will need to lessen consumption and get smarter about how we use energy and deal with waste, in order to accommodate the growth to come.
The biggest problem in limiting population, beyond the need for responsibility and awareness, is conviction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe overwhelming majority of human beings on this planet subscribe to a belief system that not only encourages massive scale reproduction, but creates the belief in a perfect world which exists in the afterlife. In short, NO CONSEQUENCES. That is one of the pillars of our crisis, the fact that people will never accept that what they are doing is wrong because they are incapable of accepting the notion that this is the only world we've got and we're stuck with it, and as a result, their massive breeding is a direct cause for its destruction.
Or to put it more simply, humans are dumb, and many of them embrace styles of life which reinforce that dumbness.
I have long since come to terms with the fact that our species is destined for extinction, but even worse than that, we're taking the rest of the world with us.
Unfortunately, not all of us can think 100 years ahead aka how will our actions affect our descendants. I would have to say most people do not think more than a year ahead. There is some quote from Confucius about this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood information, relhager. The UN report that backs it up is here (at least for its mid- and low-level projections): www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe most interesting thing in there is the essay section, which tries to give reasons for the changes (many) and points mainly to the uncertainty in population forecasts, which dwarf that of climate prediction. That is, the difference between low end and high end population in 300 years is a mere 34 billion. Over 50 years it is a not insignificant 3.2.
With projections like this, it makes it hard to determine what to do next or to do anything at all, although having growth settle out at 9 billion, if not current levels, may be unacceptably detrimental.
loopsyel -- Yes, the 9-11 billion max is a mid-level UN projection. As far as food goes, Vaclav Smil at U. Manitoba estimates that humanity can squeak by without mass starvation if we all eat more vegetables and less meat. Pollution (including greenhouse gases), and national jockeying for resources (and potential warfare) will present more difficult problems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen are people going to face up to the clear and absolute distortion of facts being presented to us through the media and politics that HUMANS are not causing all the global malfunctions we are experiencing! And to realize their are going to be more and more humans perpetuating this global apocolypse is further daunting to the logical mind. The Chinese have taken the first steps to control the carbon human growth footprint by limiting the child birth rates. I think that the whole human race will need to plan this type of action on a national and global level if the human race expects to have a potential for equal opportunity for the future footprint of life on Earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ JJ. They did that mostly because China is overpopulated in certain parts. England and Japan already have much lower birth rates than China.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh really.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ calevenice. Are you implying that England and Japan should be exempt from any form of population growth reduction?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe that JJ makes the point that China has set the precedent for what may well become a global rather than national issue.
I don't think we can limit people's reproductive rights for the simple basis that they will protest. I find the idea of limiting who can and cannot procreate to be moraly ambiguous for the simple fact that there is no such thing as the "right" to reproduce. But as a species, we tend to hold the idea of reproductive rights in high regard, I doubt we could limit them with any degree of success.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would suggest that we give significant tax breaks for people having up to two children. Essentially, the government gives parents back up to a certain amount per child per year, but not exceeding the total amount they paid in taxes. Past that, there is no benefit for having children, no more tax breaks for them.
While we can't prevent people from having a ton of kids, we can stop supporting prolific breeders. The current system rewards people who reproduce beyond their means to care for those children.
@Nathaniel. I agree with your position as they apply to the world today. If we were to try to do anything today, ceasing the support of additional children is a great idea. It doesn't cover those who have children as part of a religious mandate, but it's a good place to start.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, at the breaking point, whatever that may be, more drastic steps may prove unavoidable, assuming the goal is to keep up comfortable resource supplies without having to be killed off by nature.
@loopsyel
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany poor people have large families to ensure their own security in old age. This is one of the big problems with the voluntary approach. It doesn't work because couples see the big family as a retirement plan. For this and many other reasons, the world's population will continue to grow far into the future without strong family planning incentives (aka compulsion) and solid financial security in retirement.
I'm an impatient idealist, unwilling to wait for voluntary anything, especially when it is likely that the goals will never be met with any sort of voluntary action.
In the US, we have about 5 times as many people per area as what I see (rather arbitrarily) as optimal. Therefore I conclude that the best population for the US would be about 60 million. Since the US covers about 6% of the world's land, the world should have about 1 billion, so as to provide approximately equal population density (on average) throughout the world.
People will almost always rebel against any limitations on family size or personal freedom. It's in their genes. In the past, those who tolerated that kind of abuse became extinct. Those who remain were bred to rebel. What's good for the group (population limitations) is not typically supported by individuals or irresponsible political movements that advocate the selfish individual perspective.
The best way to control population is to educate people within a secular society. The people reproducing are the poor, uneducated and religious. So it is not surprising that the US has one of the fasting growing populations in the west. We should invest heavily in our children, and I mean "our" children, as every child is a new member of human society rather than a possession of his/her parents. It does take a community. Ensure that every child born has access to nutritious food, water, clothing, shelter, healthcare, education and is free from physical and physiological abuse. Children are the best investment a society can make as the repercussions of failure last generations whereas success pays dividends. If Americans where to take even a small amount of the food they use to stuff their ever expanding waistlines and give it to the developing world, two of the great scourges of modern humanity, hunger and obesity, could be resolved. Over-population is a symptom of humanity not investing in itself and its future. It is not the result of fascists being prevented from culling humanity of undesirables .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA friend and I had been stuck in traffic. The sight of the traffic sparked a conversation about population. I looked on my phone for a traffic report to see how long we would be stuck. When I zoomed out so I could see all of New England, I noticed that all the major cities, there was a definite pattern. All the major cities were surrounded with yellow/red lines to indicate traffic and my friend made a good observation...that this is a type of cancer. The over populated roads were suffocating the motion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCancer as defined by wikipedia:
Cancer (medical term: malignant neoplasm) is a class of diseases in which a group of cells display uncontrolled growth (division beyond the normal limits), invasion (intrusion on and destruction of adjacent tissues), and sometimes metastasis (spread to other locations in the body via lymph or blood).
Humans have become the over-productive cells that are part of the larger organism we call Earth(Gaia). The system is shutting down, how do you provide support? In medicine they cut off the tumor developed, and hope it doesn't spread. Surely there must be a better way, but if we can't solve it on the micro scale, we will certainly not get it on the macro scale. Surely you can't leave it up to the cancerous cells to fix themselves! If the best we can do in medicine is to seperate the bad cells from the system, imagine what the Earth will do to solve the problem!
The article failed to mention what delaying a generation can do. Reproducing every 30 years instead of every 20 years significantly slows the population. Education is the easiest way to lower the birthrate and spread the generations apart.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisResource twitter. We discuss the availability and distribution of resources as we have always done. on a tribal level in terms of current strength.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll major historic change has been the result of climatic change and the adaptability of populations.
We are losing fresh water and the oxygen production of polluted oceans, as we inflict genetic changes in the polluted air we breathe.
You discuss this problem as if we can make a compromise with nature to limit the destruction we have begun.
And to think Carl Sagan spoke only twenty years ago about humanity surviving it'self with regard to nuclear weaponry and climate change. I wonder what he'd say now, seeing the opposition to decimation rushing in from every direction and life on earth rushing out to greet it with a smile.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLOOK UP!!! Space has unlimited resources and power.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBarryW - try living there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you study human populations you will find less educated populations breed faster than educated populations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat said, it is far too late to do anything now. Evolutionary pressures will continue to push the sixth extinction to its conclusion.
Homo sapiens can not survive without biodiversity. It is the multitude of species that negate the effects of each others damage to the environment.
Plant life is the primary generator of all food and fertility. This has been reduced by over 25 percent, the early shortfall of food has been borne by species other than Homo sapien. Their numbers are down, now we shall have famine.
Every large multicellular organism is a planet for billions of micro-organisms. As we reduce the numbers of non homo sapien multicellular organisms, the micro-organisms must migrate to a more abundant species. Homo sapiens will become the best available homeland, but it will take generations for the micro-organisms to adapt. This too will decimate our numbers.
Let us hope life post the sixth extinction evolves to generate life forms smarter than the idiot Homo sapien.
Through time man has came across shortages and overpopulation. They solved their problems by cannibalism. Birth control or cannibalism....? It is a tough decision.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I read some of these comments, I'm thinking "if this person's attitude were embodied in the laws of the land, what result would it give?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn nearly every case the answer is "none".
Wishful thinking and hot air are not a suitable substitute for physical action. To have a useful attitude, you must have a useful physical result in the implementation of that attitude.
I would just love for you to expand on that...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHuge amount of answers in this book : LIMITS OF GROWTH by Donella Meadows/ Jorgen Randers / Dennis Meadows ( Publisher www.Chelseagreen.com.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA fascinating eyeopener !!!!
I think the author mentioned one method of reducing population growth, i.e., providing women with information and materials for birth control. This will have to include not only information on birth control devices, but also free access to abortion for unwanted pregnancies. Unfortunately, the US in the past eight years not only restricted funds for family planning here and abroad, but also put controls that if family planning programs even talked about abortion, they could receive no money.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn some ways our exponential population growth is a more serious issue than the ones we are facing now, because when the growing populations come up against decreasing resources, it will be difficult for governments, democracies or otherwise, to remain stable and functional. Just consider what might happen in the Middle-East when those countries run out of oil and can no longer import their food materials from us and other countries. Right now their populations are strongly skewed towards the young. With no jobs, no resources, how are those young folk going to behave??
Mirena is the answer. An IUD that can prevent pregnancy for up to 5 years. It can be easily inserted by a nurse (with training) and removed any time the patient wishes. The American government simply needs to provide training for third world doctors + provide the IUD technology, and we could have stable (or decreasing) population levels within 6 months. This would especially be effective in larger cities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn addition to education women and giving them reproductive control, other options are available to reduce population. Legalizing euthenasia would reduce the strain on population. Legalizing all drugs would reduce the strain on population. Euthenasia is a bit self evident. People who no longer want to live are volunteering to go and directly reduce population. Legalizing all drugs have a 2-1 impact. By legalizing all drugs you stop the drain that the war on drugs has on our economy, destroy cartels and increase national revenue. One of the most common and recurrent side effects of drugs is the reduced ability to reproduced. Marijuana, the one we commonly hear, has been show to reduce the motility of sperm and the likely hood that a woman would get pregant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know, but a population crash would harm our economy more than it already is. When there are less people, supply would surpass demand, and it would force a couple of companies to go out of business. One of the problems of this approach is that it is difficult to tell people to not have kids because it is part of some cultures to have very many. Despite the single child law in China, their population is still growing, albeit slower than it would be if there was no law (although it is sad that the Chinese Government charges a fine for 2nd children and that fetuses are poked to death in some cases). It would be odd when Democratic nations would have to resort to such a law if the general public is not informed/recommended to reduce procreation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut what we observe so far is that the educated and those (esp. women) with high positions lose the desire to procreate. It's those who are poor and are not informed of the consequences of many dependent children who have the most kids.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRemember the utopian group called the Shakers in the U.S.? Probably not. They were anti-procreation and were soon extinct after they failed to convert more people. The way you're saying this is that all the Earth's land is for humans to dwell on: that can't happen. We cannot hog all the landmass to ourselves when there are other living organisms and ecosystems that just get pushed over/destroyed for the sake of our comfort and greed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, what a great oxymoron. "the idiot Homo sapien"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou may call me crazy, most will I am sure. We can worry all we want, but our population, World wide, is soon to be "thinned out". The H1N1 was the start of this created elimination. Unless the powers that be put a halt to the mass producing of vaccines; or people refuse to take these weapons of mass destruction, you will see people dropping by the hundreds of thousands, if not millions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt may already be too late; a pandemic situation has been called announced. The fearful and uneducated will flock to receive their WMD. Until now this variation of "lab manufactured Flu, has been relativly "mild", except to those who have compromised immune systems. Unless there is someone who can explaine to me how the N1H1 could possibly occur naturally [swine/2 human strains/avian] I will continue to believe as I do. They (whom ever) want us to believe "ground zero" was in a remote area of Mexico, several miles from a pig farm. This is rich......and the small boy who implamented this H1N1 is now recovered, and in his seclusion, spread this flu to large populations, exempting his father and mother. Hungry for an explanation and location, without a single question, the masses settled for this.
I know, I know, you must be thinking I am drinking my bath water!! I don't blame you one bit for thinking this old woman is looney tunes; I can accept that. Also, I am in no way advocating people should refrane from getting their flu shots. I just want to put out to you what I have researched and the conclusions I have come to. A seed for thought, so to speak.
A virus is such, that it must mutate to survive. It is usually done naturally, but may be of lab mutation........controlled.
Check out Population Connection for a group that promotes addressing the population issue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"No single energy strategy—whether nuclear, efficiency, wind, solar or geothermal—shows much promise on its own for eliminating the release of carbon dioxide into the air." - Engelman, this is either a lie or willful stupidity. A nuclear strategy quite obviously "shows promise on its own for eliminating the release of carbon dioxide into the air"; it's the radio active bogeyman that's the issue (but an entirely separate one from your claim)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this9-11 billion humans is in all likelihood far past the carrying capacity of the Earth to provide a reasonable and sustainable standard of living, it's beyond the tipping point. See (updated) 'Limits to Growth'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWorldwide, around 200 million women want to delay or prevent pregnancy but don't have access to effective contraception.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPreventing unwanted births through voluntary family planning, and guaranteeing individuals and couples the right to reproductive health, can help slow population growth rates and moderate environmental impactand it
might be one of the most cost-effective ways of doing so.
The demand for contraceptives is expected to grow by 40 per cent in the next 15 years, but funding for it has been declining over the years.
Effective family planning programmes targeted to meet the needs of poor populations can help curb population growth and make a powerful contribution to poverty reduction and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals.
A major point missing from the article that I've seen no one address so far. Our entire socio-economic system, American Capitalism is predicated on the notion of constant growth. That's why, although we briefly achieved zero population growth at the end of the 70's, the last movement to limit the population failed. Corporate America controls the media and, thereby, people's attitudes. Corporate America requires population growth to continue their profit growth. We'll die before we beat this one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat we're talking about here is strategic human resource management. The fundamental fact of human resource management in the 21st century is that human life has never been cheaper. Those who advocate secular education have rightly identified the long-term solution, as there is no higher-returning investment for human capital. However, as it looks like we'll have to weather some truly difficult times before that investment will mature, the question is can we do so?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDespite some hope that we can, I am worried about the near future. High supply and low demand for human life results in lots of uneducated, more or less idle bodies, so we can expect both war and disease Neither phenomena will do much for the environment, and would probably be insufficient to sufficiently curb population if the rich and powerful did not profit immensely from both. Today's power-brokers will invest in both war and disease to maintain their advantage in good conservative fashion. The ambitious poor will use the power of mass movement to force their way into those ranks. The rich will respond with ever-greater security technology, potentially making the myth of machine intelligence a reality. If that happens, for a variety of off-topic reasons, the prospect for continued human existence seems to shrink further. In the face of all this the rational man fiddles to a burning Rome --seemingly powerless to avoid tragedy, he might as enjoy life while he can.
To avoid a self-fulfilling prophecy, we've got act now. Educate your daughters (I have three). Change fertility laws and practices. Ban surrogate pregancy. Limiting women over 40 and the naturally sterile (including homosexuals) to adoption may be harsh, but is less so than forced abortions or sterilizations. Impose tax penalties beginning with the third child; give tax credits to those with no child or only one, and to voluntary sterilization. Provide low-cost safe, sure access to low-cost abortion. Tax churches heavily -- if they want to discount this world in favor a fabled future paradise, they can pay for the privilege -- and help offset the social costs they inflict, the Apocalypse they are creating. Fund environmental and population control efforts with the proceeds. Legalize euthanasia and gay marriage. Use Haiti as a model -- fix the problems there sustainably, and apply the knowlege gained worldwide.
Doing any one of these seems almost impossible. Not trying makes it so. Don't get down or give up. Buck up and get busy.
What a great idea - reducing numbers! Why not start reducing right away - but don't wait for others to do something, take action - go and kill yourself, you moron!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat a great idea - reducing numbers! Why not start right now? But don't wait for others to do something, take action - go and kill yourselves, morons!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have this nagging feeling....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligion is going to stop any sort of "managed population" plans that might arise. Sadly.
It's because those faithful nutters have been taught that EVERY life is sacred and EVERY life has a right to spawn new life.
I disagree. I think that people with genetic diseases that cripple them to the point that they need a healthy person doting on them constantly need to be sterilized, and at birth if possible. Autistics? Sterilized.
Yes, it sounds like a Hitler thing. But it isn't. Hitler believed in a master race of blondes with blue eyes, and hated groups of people for no justifiable reasons. What I'm proposing is simply a self-induced "reset" of the human genetic tree. Take the fit people that have good metabolism and no cancers or weird conditions and breed them. The rest of the world needs to be allowed to die, rather than prolonging the inevitable with medicine and expensive care. Also, I think it's time we implemented a "china" policy. HEAVY taxes on families with more than one child, EXCEPT if the children were born together. This still includes people like Jon & Kate + 8, because they used in-vitro to create what I like to call a cluster-f***.
The world needs to get over the fact that we aren't some sort of super-race made by a sky-man with magic powers. We're animals with tools. Nothing more, nothing less. If we don't learn to coexist peacefully with the rest of our planet, when the aliens come (slight sarcasm, I'm not insane) and they see us, I won't blame them for nuking the living s*** out of our rock.
Enter Your Comment Here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs comment to "Population and Sustainability" by R. Engelman.
Beyond the brink
Object’s definition.
With regard to the 5000 years of History, the last 50 years are no more than 1%, but this percent was much richer in events than all the others 99. One of these events, at global scale, was the inversion of the populations balance. This inversion was due to the fact that along those 50 years, the populations of the industrialized, rich states grew by 20–25 percents, while the population of the poorest states grew by 300–400%; this grew was called ‘the demographic explosion’.
At its turn, this paradoxical grew was due to the humanitarian aid offered by UNO, mainly corn, medical aid, used or out of fashion clothes. In order to be free for the receivers, this aid was paid by the tax-payer of the rich states, motivated by his spontaneous pity towards the hungry and the humanitarian speeches of high personalities.
Object’s description.
Since some time more and more specialists, journalists and writers are tackling the ecological consequences of the demographical explosion, but still too prudently and by using too many euphemisms. Sadly, a true debate of these problems needs a much more severe vocabulary because we are no more on the brink of extinction, but beyond.
Anarchical deforestations (by fire) destroyed more than a third of equatorial forests – the lungs of our planet.
Thousands of wild species vanished.
Fertile lands became deserts because irrational agricultural practice.
Not only were exhausted the fish-stocks of many great lacks, but even their water.
More than 3 billion people lack elementary sanitary conditions and half of them lack even potable water.
On average, every child of ‘the third world’ suffers 10 dysenteric infections till the age of 5 and 10% of them don’t reach this age.
From the 300 million inhabitants of sub-Saharan Africa, 250 million are sick of ankylostomiasis (water–transmissible) and 200 million suffer of sub-nutrition.
Into the urban agglomerations of ‘the third world’, the diseases of promiscuity (AIDS, tuberculosis, Ebola, etc.) and in the rural areas malaria, are killing every year more than 200 million people.
Many populations of Africa and South–East Asia are disputing their vital territories by horrible massacres.
If compared with this annual amount of suffering and death, the combined destructions and massacres of both World Wars, of fascism and Stalinism, look like games of little, naive children. Without the demographic explosion all this sufferings and deaths wouldn’t happen.
Theoretically, all 6.8 billion inhabitants of our planet have equal rights to live decently, but actually, more than 4 billion don’t have even the right to hope the means of a decent life, because all the natural resources of the planet and all the industrial equipment of mankind are not sufficient to satisfy such a demand.
A statistical study done by UNO made evidence that the 4.3% of world’s population (300 millions) that are living in USA consume 26% of the planetary resources. Even if, till 2050, their wasteful way of life will become perfectly rational, still they will need at least 13% of those resources only to maintain their actual standard. An elementary arithmetic is sufficient to demonstrate that all the planetary resources put together (100%) can provide an (actual!) American standard of life only to about 2.3 billion people: (300 x 100): 13 = 2.307. But the demographic forecast for 2050 is for 9.1 billion inhabitants! This mean a surplus of 7 billion people deprived since the very birth, of any chance of a decent life!
Pushed by the hopeless misery and the violence of tribal conflicts, more and more people of the ‘third world’ try to find a shelter into the civilized states; these poor people don’t want the culture, or the traditions, or the way of life of the civilized countries, but only a less miserable and violent place to live. As a result of this migration, the populations of the civilized states became an overcrowded promiscuity (a mixture of incompatible diversities) and inexorably their national cohesion disintegrates in tribal conflicts.
This brief description of the demographic crisis and of its consequences leads to the conclusion that, taking advantage of our spontaneous pity for the hungry and of our money allocated to UNO, the demagogues of humanism committed the most perfidious and cruel crime against humanity: not by stealing the vital means of some population, but by offering a population of 4 billion human beings to an irremediable lack of vital means. Local tragedies that were remediable by the historical evolution were transformed in such a practically irremediable, global tragedy, that only a cosmic cataclysm can re-establish the ecological equilibrium of our planet.
Now the same demagogues are trying to calm the public opinion by talking about an ‘agreed family planning’ – the liberal minds being allergic to the words ‘state controlled’. But, with regard to the emergency, even the state controlled family planning of authoritarian China is deficient. Even if it would have an optimal efficiency the family planning can reduce the global population only after 4–6 generations, too late to prevent the total devastation of the planet
Debate (instead of).
Let’s hope that some specialists will start a true one.
Not to sound racist (I am white and my wife is mexican and black), but unfortunarely, minorities are the least likely to comprehend the significance of this. While white couples have one or maybe 2 kids, mexicans have 5 0r 6 and blacks (especially unwed) are have even more kids than ever. It's sad to say but minorities are also least likely to "go green", buy a prius, pay extra for organic foods to reduce the poison we dump to earth or even to care about the future of the earth. All this explosive world population is African, Mexican, Chinese, etc. Say goodbye to green!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think we should limit the population, NOT by race but by who can AFFORD to raise their kids! On welfare w/ 8 other kids? Mandatory abortion! In a third world country while your 12 kids go around spreading a pandemic virus? FIX the problem... NO KIDS for them (Kids and parents). It should be illegal to bring kids into this world to suffer and starve. Anyone w/ disagrees with me... I am jealous of your naive outlook. It would be nice to walk around being oblivious to the facts and sit in your suburban home w/ AC and just spew idiotic BS. But facts remain whether you want to see it or not!
Broader population discussions aside, there is still the issue of over-consumption by however many people exist, and by one group in particular. I was struck by the comment "President Obamas pledge was somewhat more ambitious than the E.U.s was. Because of much more rapid population growth than in the E.U., Americans would be cutting their individual emissions by 26 percent under his plan and Europeans by 25 percent under theirs. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat 1% differential would be worthy of polite applause if American emissions per capita weren't currently around twice those of EU citizens. It shouldn't be too hard to trim a bit more fat when you are starting so high. If the quoted cuts were to be enacted on both sides of the Atlantic, the result would still be Americans emitting twice as much per capita as their European counterparts. Is this seen as some form of birthright? Even the European emissions are unsustainable in terms of the global population.
Amandine:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe irony of the educated and the highly intelligent not procreating: It is exactly these people who should be procreating. I have no children.
Evolutionary processes promote the lowest common denominator. Massive uneducated population growth lower this value further. China is the only nation on earth to act to control its population and they succeeded better than most think. India has gone from 350M (1947) t0 1.2G now.
Religion is the main driver of population growth.
Thanks for agreeing with my oxymoron, must have heard or read it somewhere.
Shasta:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't understand your thinking process. An IUCD will have no impact on population growth. Lack of education and religious bigotry drive population growth, aided by the ability of Homo sapiens to secure the bulk of the earth's available food supply for itself. Educated people create this technology.
What is the rational behind you demanding that the American government should provide the resources to solve problems that do not exist in their nation?
Now that they have a smart man for president the religious right will not be as powerful and not be able to enforce its "If you cant outsmart them out breed them" agenda on the population.
Marcel:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are right when you say aid fuelled population growth in backward nations. It was assumed that people provided with food and shelter would seek education. This turned out to be untrue in many regions. Earlier experience had promoted this belief. Asian nations provided with aid educated themselves.
With over 25% of the vegetative cover of the planet destroyed food will become expensive. The sun is the source of almost all our energy. Plants covert this energy to sugars which are our basic foods. Energy not converted to food heats up our planet. Chemical fertilisers generate food but kill off worms and other important life in the soil, the soil becomes unsustainable. Food grown on this soil lacks important mineral nutrients.
Early and current agricultural practises leads to desertification. Your Sahara desert and many others are the result of Homo sapien agriculture.
As food supplies dwindle populations sustained by aid will have to fend for themselves. We return to a basic premise: I before you.
The end result is extinction. It is too late to halt the sixth extinction. It began when man invented agriculture.
Check out on you tube "the most important video you willever see" and you will realize that limiting population will happened. Either we do it consiouslu, or nature will take care of it for us, and not in a nice way...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChina has going throuhg all of the problems that afflick the western civilization. Drugs, overpopulation and others. Against the overpopulation we know that they permited only two childs for a couple. I don't know exactly how that program has worked out. Has stop the population grow? It descend? It doesn't work?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't know, but I think that this kind of programs can help. China has an authoritarian government and it was easy for they to implement the two child by couple program, and it wil be very hard to do it in the western world but it's something that has to do it some day in the future.
Paul Ehrlich was right in his book The Population Bomb.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPaul Ehrlich was right in his book "The Population Bomb".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo produce 1 kilo of beef requires 50 kilos of cereals and soy beans. If people in the developped world only ate meat twice a week, enough cereals would remain to feed the whole world. Feed people in developing countries and they have smaller families. Small families put less pressure on world ressources, pollution and climate change. If we were to eat less meat, not only we would have solved the demographic humanitarian catastrophe, but we will also have less cancers in the gut, and all with our current agricultural practises. And no need for new laws, taxes or dissuasion. It only needs the will of each individual and we can change the world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf any other species numbered 7 billion, we (homo sapiens) would be screaming for "culling". All the techno advances in the world will not mean anything if we don't also control population. Unfortunately for the human population, they will not do it - we will need a good virus to take care of it for us. The only reason we are called "homo sapiens" is because we named ourselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree Hotblack, this is inevitable. I've had my two offspring many years ago and I was snipped afterword. (I'm Male) Prepare for the crash and try not to be part of the problem is all I can do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe author has done a good job of gathering the numbers and defining population as a problem in the face of deniers or procrastinators, but I've found no one who has gotten to the root of the denial and procrastination. We have a lot of new evidence from neuroscience and evolutionary neuro-biology about why this is happening.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, these neuroscientists can't speak out for fear of losing their hard earned position and practice. So it's up to concerned and skilled communicators like myself to dig up the new discoveries and present them. I simply have much less to lose than the discoverers of this new information.
Second, understanding this new evidence solves many other problems, not just population. It's the basis for conflict resolution.
Without further delay, here's why and what needs to be taught to everyone especially the young.
Because of how our mind builds a model of the world every idea we have is an attempt to freeze a constantly changing reality. It is like picking up a piece of tar and trying to shake it off. The buddhists describe this phenomenon well from a behavioral standpoint. Now recent theory in neuroscience along with improvements in fMRI imaging technology are making some directional progress in displaying evidence of this extremely important phenomenon.
According to Jeff Hawkins, the brain forms "Invariant Representations" to build a model of the world. I propose these Invariant Representations are formed in much the same way as motion stabilization algorithms are used in video tracking software now available in many consumer video cameras. The brain uses a similar algorithm with all our senses inclusive with the dimension of time.
Timed input of information is the reason the mind can compare and draw useful analogy and connections between stabilized input from different senses. The mind is not matching precise information but the cadence, rhythm and interval in which it arrives.
Furthermore it uses the same process of stabilization and timed analogy to classify phonemes into letters, letters into words, words into concepts, concepts into ideas and so on.
This essential cognitive mechanism has the caveat in that it creates attachments to things, ideas, people, etc.... Human behavior as all things lies on a continuum. Further along the continuum we have gluttony and other destructive addictions. These addictions can be chemically enhanced. Chemicals taken either externally or produced internally. Patriotism is an addiction just as is a heroin addiction.
Furthermore we have our reptile brain and mammalian brain interfering with the power of reasoning and logic the process that our neocortex grasps and maintains. The reptilian and mammalian brain functions evolved earlier. I classify them as lower cognitive functions that interfere with rationality. These areas release chemicals that are essential to elude danger but are also destructive to rational thought.
From the optimistic view, all this theoretical insight is less than a decade old, and has not been put to good use. Right now business, politics and individuals are using this information to manipulate rather than inform.
I believe we can internalize these new overviews of our rational versus irrational behaviors and make consistent reductions in our irrational consumptive behaviors. To use terminology from the book "The Tipping Point" by Malcolm Gladwell, I'm the Mavin. I now need Connectors and Salesmen. Maybe someone besides myself who is more influential and well known will make the same associations that I have and speak up.
Its time to use this information to inform rather than manipulate. It's time to use these new discoveries and to update our social codes.
All those 2050 predictions are rather silly. Who can predict how the technology and science can evolve in 40 years (from now)? Were there any correct predictions back in 1970 how computers will look like in our time? Or internet, medicine, technology, physics, etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven the climate changes predictions are based only on not-so-exact models (is there enough exact historic data to check the models?) using not-so-exact data. We are talking only about the probability of occurrence of one of scenarios produced by those models. Why spent money on reducing human produced CO2 (is there any widely accepted scientific evidence about significant affect on climate change?) rather than supporting development of new technologies, which can help much better than nonproductive reductions?
History of earth if full of large and small cyclic climate changes. Human kind was capable of survive till now. Why is this change so special? Because we can measure it for the first time and politicians can talk about it, spend more of our money and take more control over our life? Or just because we think that the environment should not change, because we built cities here, producing rice there and spending holidays on some small island overseas?
About "reducing" number of people, the problem is not about keeping birth rate low. Population is getting older, will there be enough productive people within reduced population to produce enough sources to keep alive nonproductive people (children, students, elders, disabled) . Will people 60, 70 or 80 years old be killed or what? Will there be some special committees to decide who can live and who not?
This topic is like any other that humans are confronted with. Common sense is a good way to start with...
The article became stupid with this question:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReward family-planning workers for clients they have sterilized?
Why not reward individuals who voluntarily sterilize?
They'd be lining up in the streets.
I really agree to this comment...the real problem is the selfish materialistic shit that has succumbed all the good in our times and thats all!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is so much hysteria on this subject I wonder sometimes what people are so afraid of. No one is advocating forced sterilization, but immediately people jump to this conclusion. What is being advocated is better education. As the article says, it is women who ultimately determine how many children to have, and the better educated they are, the fewer they have. In the main, it is the ignorant and benighted who breed uncontrollably. Dispell ignorance and superstition, provide education, contraception and better antinatal care, and population rates will naturally fall. Then we can all live effortlessly sustainable lives. What is so hard to understand? And what, may I ask, is so frightening about that?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is so much hysteria on this subject I wonder sometimes what people are so afraid of. No one is advocating forced sterilization, but immediately people jump to this conclusion. What is being advocated is better education. As the article says, it is women who ultimately determine how many children to have, and the better educated they are, the fewer they have. In the main, it is the ignorant and benighted who breed uncontrollably. Dispell ignorance and superstition, provide education, contraception and better antinatal care, and population rates will naturally fall. Then we can all live effortlessly sustainable lives. What is so hard to understand? And what, may I ask, is so frightening about that?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA couple of months ago some one proposed a GM virus that would spread and sterilize people. This is a crude and brutal method that could get out of hand and eliminate the human race totally.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever , a population explosion is a poverty and a criminality explosion with no hope of escaping from its consequences while it is continuing. It causes incalculable suffering to the entire population.
China is the only country with the guts and means to declare an end to their population explosion and to limit it by law: one woman one child and you have to apply for the next one and prove that you can provide for and look after all your children to obtain a license to have a second child.
This sounds draconian but look at what how China has lifted itself up out of poverty within a few decades to become one of the top world leaders with a vastly improved standard of living for all.
All the countries that wallow in poverty are in the grip of a population explosion. If they can get their populations back to that of 50 years ago they would have no problem at all and they would start to lift their standard of living by leaps and bounds. The suffering of especially the children will be reduced greatly and probably be eliminated completely.
The problem is how without causing distress, pain and suffering. The solution must also be applicable and used universally around the globe.
A variation to the brutal method above would achieve all of this. What is necessary is a weak but virulent bacteria that is sexually transmitted causing temporary infertility that can be easily reversed using an antibiotic.
Then anyone who really wants a child and can look after and support the child can apply to have the antibiotic treatment free of charge.
This will eliminate the unwanted, reckless and frivolous pregnancies which is the main cause of population explosions. Children should not be forced or just happen to have children just for the fun of it. In overpopulated countries you often see little girls with babies.
This method will help the whole world to focus on quality instead of quantity of life on the planet. It will not cause suffering - it will prevent it especially years from now.
A couple of months ago some one proposed a GM virus that would spread and sterilize people. This is a crude and brutal method that could get out of hand and eliminate the human race totally.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever , a population explosion is a poverty and a criminality explosion with no hope of escaping from its consequences while it is continuing. It causes incalculable suffering to the entire population.
China is the only country with the guts and means to declare an end to their population explosion and to limit it by law: one woman one child and you have to apply for the next one and prove that you can provide for and look after all your children to obtain a license to have a second child.
This sounds draconian but look at what how China has lifted itself up out of poverty within a few decades to become one of the top world leaders with a vastly improved standard of living for all.
All the countries that wallow in poverty are in the grip of a population explosion. If they can get their populations back to that of 50 years ago they would have no problem at all and they would start to lift their standard of living by leaps and bounds. The suffering of especially the children will be reduced greatly and probably be eliminated completely.
The problem is how without causing distress, pain and suffering. The solution must also be applicable and used universally around the globe.
A variation to the brutal method above would achieve all of this. What is necessary is a weak but virulent bacteria that is sexually transmitted causing temporary infertility that can be easily reversed using an antibiotic.
Then anyone who really wants a child and can look after and support the child can apply to have the antibiotic treatment free of charge.
This will eliminate the unwanted, reckless and frivolous pregnancies which is the main cause of population explosions. Children should not be forced or just happen to have children just for the fun of it. In overpopulated countries you often see little girls with babies.
This method will help the whole world to focus on quality instead of quantity of life on the planet. It will not cause suffering - it will prevent it especially years from now.
According to WWF "Living Planet Report 2008" earth biocapacity was (2005) was 13.6 billion gha (global hectare).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"a global
hectare is a hectare with world-average ability
to produce resources and absorb wastes"
In the western world usage of gha is approaching 10 gha/capita.
We should strive for prosperity everywhere requiring 10 gha for each individual, limiting the population to 1.36 billion.
That would stretch it, using 20% of the resources would herald paradise on earth, but only for 272 million passengers.
Not calculated in WWF's report is the decline of gha as ecosystems collapse, I hope to disembark from the journey before that effect gains momentum
According to WWF "Living Planet Report 2008" earth biocapacity (2005) was 13.6 billion gha (global hectare).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"a global hectare is a hectare with world-average ability to produce resources and absorb wastes"
In the western world usage of gha is approaching 10 gha/capita.
We should strive for prosperity everywhere requiring 10 gha for each individual, limiting the population to 1.36 billion.
That would strech it, using 20% of the resources would herald paradise on earth, but only for 272 million passengers.
Not calculated in WWF's report is the the decline of gha as ecosystems collapse, I hope to disembark from the journey before that effect gains momentum.
In addressing world overpopulation and overconsumption, the issue of burgeoning numbers of nonworking often ill (and expensively so) persons worldwide needs to be dealt with - I saw no mention of this in the article. As first world countries cut their birthrates to less than replacement numbers, they simultaneously increase the numbers of elderly, and there is already concern that too few young workers must toil to pay for the services rendered to elderly nonworkers. In the USA, vast amounts of money are spent on healthcare and custodial care of seniors. Perhaps a less aggressive approach to extending lifespan (or, some would say, extending the time period of dying) is in order.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe must do both! Limit consumption and population growth. Specifically we must end the tax credits to have more children. Presently the IRS tax code rewards births as follows: (1) one child $3500; (2) two children $5500; (t3) three chidren $6000. WE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, WANT MORE BABIES. We provide WIC for infants. The poor receive free childbirth at the public hospital to have more babies. Employers want a cheap labor source so they encourage illegal and legal im migration. Even Pres. Bush told the third-world the U.S. an't deport illegals. Immigrants when ask why they risked their lives almost alway state that their home country sucks and only here can one live well because here government service is FREE.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour predictions are accuarately based upon already existing trend, so I concur in your assessment. However, all is not lost. Survival also the basic motivating factor to our species. Using the electronic media education can occur in adecade or less. Brave leaders can assume the responsibility for educating the the medical, environmental and political consequences on creating no change versus positive change. The promotional scheme will be, "Reduce population or die!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour point is well made.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnlimited growth is a Ponzi scheme. People who advocate more population growth, or deny overpopulation, are simply hoping to hold off the day of reckoning until after they're gone. Unfortunately, growth also seems to be essential to liberty, because in a zero sum world those who control resources control everyone else. The growth of human liberty in the last 300 years is intimately linked to having new land to occupy (to the detriment of those already there) or real technological growth opening up new avenues for personal expansion. Population equals regulation and the only way I can see to assure liberty in a low growth world is a sufficiently low population density that people don't impinge excessively on one another.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree that we need to do something to curb the overpopulation but I can not even begin to come to some sound idea as to how to accomplish this. If it is not across the board it will never fly and how silly are we for thinking we can accomplish anything across the board?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLets get nanotechnology working and start making rocks into food then we can spread out and populate other planets and everyone wins.
We can start by not so agressively extending your life span, do you volunteer? Find a group of people who are willing to die off or let their parents loved ones die off to save the world and our problem is solved.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn reality the overpopulation problem will resolve itself, it may be a bloody violent or catastrophic resolution but it will normalize. Ecosystems tend to find a way to balance out populations or simply stop supporting them. I dont understand the concern comming from people who argue we should allow the elderly to die off sooner. Why care at all then? Let nature work things out and sure alot of people will die off but let nature decide who it is and take any degree of guilt off our hands? I want my parents around as long as possible so if your drawing straws start in your own family tree.
Finally someone is brave enough to talk about over-population, the root cause of all problems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFinally someone is brave enough to talk about over-population, the root cause of all problems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFinally someone is brave enough to talk about over-population, the root cause of all problems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have found that while love making, if the womans back is scratched in a pleasurable way at the same time, then during orgasm the lining of the womb is shed. Women who have had to have repeated D and Cs who use this new method once a month find that the most number of times that the method has to be repeated is three. And it is not intrusive. This artificial shedding of the womb lining appears to get troublesome periods back to normality. What is interesting is that because the lining of the womb is shed when this back scratching takes place we have a low tech and free form of contraception if carried out once every cycle. It works in a similar way to the coil method of contraception. While the number of women who have tried this method of contraception is low I would like to see it trialed. The population explosion needs a free and easy form of contraception and this could be it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis method should not be used if you want to remain pregnant.
And here's the weird part. Health insurance companies won't pay for birth control, but will pay for the "the little blue pill" otherwise known as Viagra.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHas the nature stopped working after making the final product called "human being" from its long process of evolutionary synthesis and given this job of carrying out further evolution to the human being itself?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy dear friends, the acquisition of latest modes of communications, methods of disease managements, exploration of space are all part of still going evolution and are akin to acquiring of bipedal locomotion, using hands for different purpose other than locomotion,concept of living in society, production of speech sounds for communication etc.
And all these steps have their purpose, " TO INCREASE THE NO. OF HUMAN BEING TO A CERTAIN LEVEL" which is just a step in this long evolutionary ladder!
In 1500 b.c. the Babylonian worried about increased population! In 16th century there were concerns about population. If population has not grown many of present continents would have remain uninhabited!
AND, did this nature knew that one day men would make steam and internal combustion engine so that it buried material at a "right time" and become available to us in form of fossil fuel again at "right time"?
In India I remember , in 70s I was just in early teens and there was scarcity of every things as milk and food. Now despite of active population control measures our population has grown to more than 2 folds and all these things are in plenty and I can have milk at any time!
The present apparent limiting factors may be substituted by more abundant resources.
The concern for the population is also natural but it may be for those who are hungry and not contributing to much to society.
MAY BE this force of population drive us to inhabit other planets.
Its a basic part of Ecology 101. When a population gets too big the environment does the limiting. Some people just reproduce to have an army for their god or something.. maybe they can start adopting for their brainwashing instead. That will balance things better.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcellent article, but I have a favorite bone to pick, about "Malthusian" limits. Contrary to what countless biology texts state, Malthus claimed there is no upper limit on food production or population. But the growth of food supply tends to lag population.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJoan,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't concern yourself with increasing life spans, they will soon be on the decline. The baby boomer is not going to have the same lifespan as their parents, principal culprit nuclear testing in the 50s. (C14 levels are 900% higher in life forms post nuclear testing)
Succeeding generations will have shorter life spans. Our planet now shines brighter than the sun in the microwave radiation band.
Mass famines and disease will bring world population down considerably. Eventually the progressing extinction will destroy almost all existing life and the planet will have a fresh start.
OneMarbleLeft
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIndia tried rewarding people for sterilisations. It was a radio something they determined everyone wanted.
Their population is near 1.3 billion now!
Arunkagg:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolutionary forces continue to influence all forms of life and will not stop. When things go wrong extinction follows. We are 5k years into the sixth extinction. Biodiversity is essential for life, we destroyed that.
You may have plenty of food, but in your country starvation is rampant. Perhaps your media does not keep you informed.
No there are no more abundant resources, the ultimate resource is the sun, now we can use this resource but existing resource businesses seek to hamper its use to ensure their own survival.
Open your mind, realise there is no creator, no purpose, no overall design. Death is a natural part of life, don't do anything to extend life beyond its natural limits. This will make the planet a better place in human terms till we all die.
This was a most thought provoking article. It seems to me the most significant thing we can do is invest in the development of a low cost, safe orbital spacecraft. In a cosmos that is to all intents and purposes infinite the notion there ought to be some sort of Malthusian limit to human population is not merely absurd, it is also brutally misanthropic. Low Earth Orbit, as Robert Heinlein observed, is half way to anywhere in the Solar System.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, of course we must come up methods of population control and limiting the size of families along with compulsory sterilization are a good start. The main problem is that the world population haas already passed the earths' sustainable numbers. Now we must start worrying about what with all the excess people, now and to come. These will all end up as bodies to be buried should we have a catostrophic natural event such as a cataclysmic volcano explosion that darkens the sky for years. Or perhaps a pandemic like AIDs
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisor a recurence of Small Pox. Then, of course, the wars between neighboring countries over resourses, perhaps with atomic weapons.
What we need is a Messiah come to earth and lead the people in a religious experience except that instead of preaching to 'go forth and multiply', teach that God made the created the world as an Eden that has been destroyed by the population explosion. Something like that. He could preach that population control is good in His sight and everyone living on earth has a duty to preserve the earth. Maybe go so far as to say that anyone that becomes a part of the problem would be eliminating from earth.
Hey--it works with Muslims-- Praise Allah
Thank you for the response. For Science the artificial political boundaries are of no use. They serve the purpose of ruler class people only! In India, the eg. I gave, the present starvation is not due to scarcity but is due to maldistribution and underutilisation of available resources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust think who control the population of Dinosaurs? Had they not been vanished would there be mammals including us on Earth?
Instead of too much concerning about population and blaming it for all ills will definitively deviate our mind to those issues as terrorism, nuclear weapons, health, education, corruption etc. which are affecting the whole world!
And it is confirmed that raising the standard of living automatically decreases the no. of children per couple.
And if we incorporate some genes which can form chloroplast in our skin cells........... may be a lot of such ideas in future.
It is truly sad when one hears pseudo scientists talk. This world has the capacity to hold double its population if everybody learnt to consume within their means and to respect the environment. My God, it is always evil people who look for quick solutions. No wonder you fight with all your might humans of reason. You are the same evil that talked in Rome and 3 years later there was AIDS, Please kill yourself first, you whelp of evil.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI will decide who is selfish and deserves to be sent to the moon; I am the decider.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJoking aside, we shouldn't give into fearmongering or believe that some catastrophe will have to happen before we motivate change. There already are many people trying to limit lifestyles and have fewer children... What is desperately needed is a more democratic media and the surgical removal of the vocal cords of the 500 billion dollar a year marketing industry that insanely invites us to consume even more!
I also think one thing we should not attempt is Hardin's selfish and unethical "lifeboat ethics" and have mandatory ethics classes and free education systems.
The reason, I believe, that there is less being done for population control than is needed to avert a global catastrophe is not the stupidity of the human race, but its relatively new development as a distinct species. We are still "adolescent" in our evolution, and if you know adolescent behavior, it is high-risk prone with no concern for the consequences_they think they'll live forever. The developments in the species that we have evolved into began 50,000 years ago. Perhaps if the human race survives another 50,000 years, we will be grown up enough to know how to be proper stewards of the planet. I've written a novel set 25,000 years in the future in which a new species of humanoid--Hom0 Terrestrial--now inhabits the planet. The novel is called "Intelligent Design: a Fable" and might prove amusing and perhaps instructive to any interested commentator. None of us reading this will live to see the more catastrophic aspects of our immature behavior, but evolution can be both a harsh and necessary instructor: it's just a matter of when the human race will "grow up."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo....Theodore, how many people have to die immediately to get the average world citizen's ecological footprint up or down to the average American's ecological footprint? Right now it would take several planets with Earth's resources to do that for the current world population.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat's your solution? No babies to be born until X number of people die? Or are you suggesting the world population be reduced the way we reduce numbers in our flock of chickens... kill excess roosters.
Population Control: One really significant way to reduce population numbers is to limit the number of children a woman has in her lifetime.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat's the best way to do this? Get men to stop having sexual intercourse with girls, and especially, girls they have not officially married. Let girls go to school through college years in every nation of the world before they become mature women willing to marry. Encourage married men to be caring husbands and fathers who will nurture their families... rather than leaving them for "greener pastures."
I would like to applaud the individuals and groups of people who are workimg so hard to educate us in the need to save the world from ourselves. These folk really beleive in what they are trying to do. This generation is the most invironmently concience of any the world has known and it is not just America--it is largely world-wide. Never before has the public been so unified in a common cause as todays goal of saving the world for furure generations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith the guidance and wisdom of our environmentalist helmsmen we are attacking the earths ills from every vantage.
They are pounding 0n the coming of the green house effect and probably rightly so, with all we humans are doing to bring it about. We are burning too much fossil fuel, destroying the rain forests, ruining the oceans annihilating wildlife, poisoning the planet with our chemicals--the list goes on and on . But, alas! all their teaching and preaching , all the zeal and fanaticism, all the effort and money spent is for naught! It is not that we do not want to live with nature or show more respect to the earth. The problem is that there are already too many people making too many demands on the earth . The sad thing is that the population has most likely passed the point of Earths ability to sustain us.
I read one time that the worlds population is growing at a rate of 100,000,000 a year. That would be about 8,000,000 a month--all new people. That means every month--every time you flip a calender page, enough new births are added to the world to populate another city the size of Los Angeles.
Most of this growth in in the emerging nations, the very ones that can least afford the increase. Of course, these people would allso like to brcome 'civilized' , to be able to enjoy all the goodies our own polution producing 'civilization luxuriates in and no morally sensitive fellow man will want to deny them their share. If we think we now have a problem with polution and all the other ills, just wait till these folk get their cars and air conditioned houses and fast food.
If the morally correct and righteously indignant zealots really, really want to save the earth,they must start emphasizing and practicing strict--very strict-- birth control.
Otherwise, we will leave our children and grand children a terrible, terrible legacy and they will will be forced by us to become severe regulators of births and other means of population containment. They will wonder why, we--a caring and intellegent generation did not do more to to help with the overpopulation of the world.
The key figure here is the comparison between the number of unwanted pregnancies and the number of people added every year. Eliminate unwanted pregnancies and you eliminate population growth. So why are there unwanted pregnancies? It simply comes down to male (especially the Catholic male hierarchy) desire to control women. Eliminate patriarchy and you eliminate overpopulation. But how do you eliminate patriarchy? What will it take? That is the most important question.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKelpie, as I tried to indicate in the article, it's not quite as simple as eliminating the 80 million estimated unwanted pregnancies to eliminate an equal number of births and immediately stop population growth. A lot of these unintended pregnancies end up in abortions; others are just mistimed and the births would happen a bit later if timing were ideal. But I do contend that allowing women to determine for themselves when to become pregnant would quickly end population growth -- it's just a somewhat more nuanced reasoning. You're point about patriarchy is on target. See my book -- More: Population, Nature, and What Women Want, http://www.islandpress.org/more for details.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm really not a contrary guy, but it seems this is not a binary issue : the article asserts that increased population (demand) must inexorably yield reduced resources (supply).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think our real problems include (but are not limited to):
1) lack of imagination
2) fixation on conventional definitions of the features of personal life and social co-existence
There is more than enough space on this planet for all of us, and there are more than enough resources for all of us if we engage in wise redesign of the way we live together.
We can live rich, full personal and social lives with even some extras without limiting anybody's right to live.
This "limit the population" craze is usually sponsored by those who wish to limit someone else's rights and opportunities in order to maximize their own, and I have a problem (well actually a lot of problems) with that.
Until we can all willingly see and consider ourselves as part of the whole, with an obligation to make decisions that benefit the whole, we will continue to make sub-optimized decisions like this. How sad.
Why are you people blaming men for overpopulation? One poster says the way to stop overpopulation is to get men (???) to stop having intercourse with women (!!!) not even thinking the women are at the very same time having intercourse with men (duh!). Another poster says its men who cause all those unwanted pregnancies. Do you really believe most unwanted pregnancies result from forced sex? As for the author's allegation that patriarchy is a root cause of overpopulation, I need only point to Octomom, a woman who suckered this country into supporting her 14 children and paying for her record-setting IVF while she was unmarried and unemployed. No MAN forced her to have even one child. She CHOSE to have 14. Do I really need to point out the increasing use of "baby daddies" and anonymous sperm donors so women can make babies while minimizing mens' contribution to microscopic levels? The fact is most women seem to like the idea of making babies and raising children without benefit of "patriarchy". The fact is reproductive potential is dependent almost entirely on the number of women; you could eliminate more than 90% of the men and the number of new babies would not go down. Therefore, all efforts to control overpopulation based on blaming men are guaranteed to fail. Successful population control must include getting women to understand the global consequences of their individual reproductive choices.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I'm really not a contrary guy, but it seems this is not a binary issue : the article asserts that increased population (demand) must inexorably yield reduced resources (supply). "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYurthlr, I agree with you. People who are otherwise intelligent too often forget that Malthusian arguments do not consider the effects of technology and market forces, much to their embarrassment and to their causes' detriment; Paul Erlich's bet with Julian Simon comes to mind. And when was the last time anybody complained of a shortage of whale oil? Of course, I don't imply Malthus is wrong, only incomplete in regard to human societies.
Whenever people use limited resources as a reason for limiting population, they seem to forget the problem involves a ratio, which means there are multiple solutions. The U.S. model of high consumption, cheap energy and unregulated waste is simply unsustainable if applied to everybody in the world using existing technologies, something China and India are doing at this very moment. Do we choose to fight oil wars and watch whole countries held hostage over food? What good does it do to limit your own population while your neighbors post record population growth?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe world population crisis results from death control that
is not balanced with birth control. The man who saves lives
is praised to the sky, whereas the man who prevents birth,
even though he does more for mankind and the planet, is
ignored or even persecuted. The murder of abortion doctors,
for example. Most of our charitable giving goes to death control and very little to far more important family planning.
Engleman and O'Conner are correct in pointing out the importance of female education and empowerment.
th
OUR FAILURE TO STABILIZE OUR POPULATION HAS ALREADY INSURED AN ERA OF DANGEROUS INSTABILITY WHICH MAY INDEED END IN AN APOCALYPSE FOR THE HUMAN RACE.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEducating women that "it's mens' fault" solves nothing but the educator's bank balance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEncouraging people here and abroad to have no more than 2 kids per family, or reducing immigration to a level that would not add more jobseekers, students, users of energy, health care and other expensive social services should not be political hot as long as the messenger is credible, has positive arguments and know how to explain the issues to the audiences so that they understand that it is in their interest that we do so. People of child-bearing ages should be warned of the time, money and energy needed to raise good kids, from birth to college graduation. Pro-birth activists shoud know that it is crual to have kids die of starvation if parents live in utter poverty. Legal immigrants should be told that more immigration essentially means more people competing for jobs and other resources. Americans who are truly thoughtful should encourage foreign government and the world's billionaires, U.S. and foreign-born, to join forces to curb their own countries' population growth for the good of mankind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeh Ling-Ling
Oakland, CA
I'm extremely encouraged to see this article appear, in Scientific American no less. It is far beyond the time when this issue should have been in the public eye, but better late than never. Ironically, it is not a problem requiring solutions - we have those already. The only thing needed is consciousness, a public awareness that this IS a problem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTed Toal, Nevada City, CA
People ARE resources. Limit population and you limit the number of Einsteins, the number of Salks, the number of global warming kooks like you all seem to be. Right now human population is heading for an average density approaching that of Pennsylvania. Do you know what Pennsylvania is? It is Philly and Pittsburgh separated by Alabama. Not too dense that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd world government? Are you kidding me? World government is synonymous for "enabler for tyrants". Read some history you blockheads.
I am really disappointed in the quality of the readership. Your minds have been warped in the worst way. You aren't empiricist any any of this blather.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLimiting breeding to the talented is not a "scary" proposition at all. It sounds WONDERFUL! Your logic and common sense has been inverted by political correctness.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCurrently nearly ALL population growth is in non-white non-European populations. The white Europeans are actually rapidly going extinct at much less than replacement reproduction levels. In 2020, London will be majority non-white. In 2040, the USA will be majority non-white. Compare this to 90+ percent white populations in both areas just 20-30 years ago.
Population control should be aimed squarely at 3rd world and non-white immigrants to European countries who do not plan ahead and irresponsibly have massive amounts of offspring. Further, white Europeans should be encouraged to reproduce so that they do not disappear off the face of the Earth..
At least we are recycling ideas! This same song has been played in previous era's. And look... we survived. In future, before writing this sort of material please familiraize yourself with history.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReading the comments, I get the impression that most people have missed the point of this article. The major part of it is taken up by explaining the necessity for a smaller world population, certainly, but the conclusion is that the most effective way of achieving what we all need (fewer people, thus using fewer resources) is not to use draconian methods of controlling people. Instead, it can and should be done by educating women. This is obviously desirable in itself, and it also leads, as the numbers show, to each woman having fewer children, so long as she has access to effective contraception.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you, Lesley. That's my feeling about most of the comments as well. You've done well at boiling down the essential messages of what it took me a few thousand words to try to express.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"You've done well at boiling down the essential messages of what it took me a few thousand words to try to express."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLesley wasn't paid by the word.
In many poor areas of the world having children and alot of them is still a method of protecting yourself at an ederly age. The problem does not come down to ignorance. It is much more complicated then simply giving out contraceptives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo one will stop having babies on their own, there is no way in a free society to enforce birth rates. Nature will deal with human overpopulation like she deals with everything else, very indifferently.
In a perfect situation we would have a stable world economy, food, medicine, shelter, education and stability for the poor, I think it would be desirable in such a situation to have a smaller family. If a small family could prosper under tax law more than a larger family and if the poor nations can obtain this kind of stability then maybe we have a chance at slowing the population growth. But unfortunately when living on a planet with a fixed area, ANY growth eventually becomes exponental.
"The problem does not come down to ignorance."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with you. To say that education is all that's needed is just too superficial and simplistic an answer to take seriously. What education alone does is show women new ways to make babies. This doesn't help population control. Example: Nadia Suleman was educated. She had access to birth control. She wasn't "controlled" by any man. All the pat answers given in this article simply didn't address her emotional needs. And if you insist Octomom is just an aberration, then what about the many educated professionals who helped, encouraged, dare I say it "empowered" her? What's their excuse? I submit Ms. Suleman's case is an admittedly extreme example of a characteristic attitude, held by most women regardless of their education, that they should have as many children as they want, period. "Wants" are emotional and not addressed by education alone.
I read the article hoping that there was some gem of an idea on how to approach speaking on sustainability and population management. Instead I found more of the same entitlement rhetoric that merely outlines a belabored point on first and third world disagreements on consumption. Important info, but I think it naive to assume access to contraception and education will end population growth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI also find it interesting that people think education drives down fertility rates rather than an increased childhood dependency ratio caused by the need to educate and prepare for information driven societies.
Part of the solution resides in understanding the power of women in acting responsibly as a race, but the solution is not merely a reaffirmation of the Tehran Proclamation or anything else that tells people they have a right to grow the human population further. As if a more peaceful world would lack a reason to have large and strong families.
On a brighter note we should recognize that when societies are ready to tackle the problem, the changes can be implemented quickly over a couple of generations.
All this brings a very strange feeling of sitting on the wrong end of a branch we are sawing and yet we bicker like hens on crystal meth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy impression now, after reasing, pondering, studying, more pondering, is the same Dr. Lovelock concludes : it's too late, what we are trying to do equals reorganizing deck chairs on the Titanic, and we better sit back and enjoy the little time left before it all comes crashing down.
My real despair comes from an acute conscience this is the ecological inheritance I'm leaving to my 4 grandchildren. It spells nausea.
Wow, you guys posting here really take the cake! I bet all of you voted for the Fearless Reader Obamasama.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou condemn the US and western civilization as though you don't benefit from its' accomplishments. Whaaaa! It's all "OUR" fault. Well, you are right that with Barry in the White House, he is setting up the scenario where all our technological advances will be curtailed so the "dark ages" will return. Rather than encourage and facilitate solutions to problems, we will simply ignore them and put things on a slow burn.
I live in the Philippines and have traveled to places like Mexico. These folks, who are largely uneducated, drop children like candy. Kids everywhere with no thought to how they will survive, much less, what kind of future they awaits them. But noooo, American pushing Democracy and new ways of thinking ... well, Our Dear Leader does not want to "meddle." Before you condemn mankind, why don't you take a good look at what is the real problem and why action isn't being taken. Ha! Materialism! Oh we are soooo bad for enjoying life with the things that have been devised. Go beat yourselves up if you want. What a bunch of gutless turds!
I
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am still hoping to deal with the conception that educated women are less likely to reproduce based on choice rather than cultural constructs that limit their options. The dependency of children in information driven societies is vastly greater than those children who nearly immediately contribute positively to the economies of their families. I guess what I am eluding to is that it is much more an economic decision than an principled ethic being displayed by the women of the first world. Education should still happen, but it is superficial to claim that third world knowledge bases can be extinguished, and the overall dilemma of overpopulation is likely to be lessened by more first world consumers (specifically what we are calling educated women).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do agree with the comments that many people still depend on children when they are old. Much like the childhood dependency, there is also an elderly dependence. Society must account for the critical needs of all people for human rights or freedom to truly exist, let alone a fundamentally sound approach to reproductive decisions.
Population concerns are most likely not going to be addressed without first coming to a consensus that people should feel that society is constructed to meet their safety needs not only when they are productive in a capitalistic sense.
For those who think that draconian measures include controlling populations directly, I would say the policies of reproductive liberty in this regard are exceedingly harsh on all those who will come to live in an overpopulated world lacking the chemical composition to maintain their existence. In a perfect world resources would also be endless.
PEG - I think there are cultural considerations for parents wanting to have many children to help support them in old age. However, what I have seen is that in places like the Philippines, the large family depends on one, maybe two, children leaving to a foreign country to get a job which pays enough for them support the rest of the family back home. Admirable of them to make these efforts and basically sacrifice their own lives for the rest of the family. Very UNLIKE America in its' early days when the whole family contributed to daily living.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAdd corrupt governments, poor to no education for many, and no jobs to speak of, especially when they are mostly Chinese or Korean concerns who abuse their employees. The government is in their pockets so that employees have no benefits, lo pay and long "probationary" period before benefits kick in. Guess what? They get fired just before their probationary period ends and because there is an "unlimited" labor pool (you have to have a college degree to be a janitor) and the new round begins. No government protections, just payola.
What most people on this site fail to understand is that of the earth's 6.5 billion people, less than 1 billion live any kind of "good" life. It is not our fault (the USA). But we will not change anything by reverting to the stone ages in our own lifestyles in a futile effort to "change" the future. That kind of perpetual motion is unstoppable and I fear, as others have stated, that nature will be the one to handle the problem. Or rather it should be the one to handle it. Too many people, like our Dear Leader, are too willing to take the Nazi approach and "eliminate" the undesirables because they view themselves as the elite, the ones to carry the future forward.
The author is correct: leaders are fearful to use the phrase "population control". However, humanity, and the Earth, cannot hope to preserve the future unless we insert the dynamics of unchecked population growth into any discussion or planning for containing and reversing "human accelerated climate change" (stop calling it "global warming", because politicians and industry love to jump all over that).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor the USA perhaps one solution (among many that are needed), albeit a thorny one, is to "kill 2 birds with one stone": welfare and illegal immigration.
People living on welfare all their lives is bad enough, but to allow 2nd and (even) 3rd generation welfare families is irresponsible and reprehensible. To over-simplify, it is as though we are "rewarding" people every time they have another child by giving them more money. It is not fair to the new babies, or to further burden the mother, but it is, also, not fair to the "rest of us" who have to pay to raise these children.
Instead, I believe the government should reduce the amount of money they give them, and require that they take one of these jobs that currently attract illegal immigrants. The government could help subsidize day care for the children while their parent is working. Also, provide education - finishing high school and/or taking classes at community colleges, so that they will garner more skills.
This sense of accomplishment, and some degree of economic freedom, will help to lift them up in a way that welfare has never been able to. And, as the article stated, when women have greater control over their lives, they tend to have fewer children.
Now if we could just do the same for the men who seem to shirk their responsibility as soon as the sex act is done...
As long as people are given a handout they will not exert themselves, or become accountable and responsible for their own actions. Having children is not a right; it is an honor and a privilege, as well as a great responsibility. And young people - teenagers - must be taught that their urges and desires carry consequences beyond a few impassioned, heated moments.
Again, there are no easy answers or simple solutions to the problems our world faces. But by helping these people on welfare to learn to stand on their own, to contribute to society, and to accept accountability & responsibility for their own actions, we may yet see a positive close to the 21st Century.
Of course, that entails accepting accountability and responsibility, which, along with "population control", are some of the dirtiest words.
Population is always a worry for Country...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthanks for sharing...
___________________
Andrew
<a href="http://www.directstartv.com/jump.html?referID=oa-0-173189">#1 Satellite Television Service Provider</a>
If we don't make the sacrifice now nature will make it for us later at a greater cost of lives and all around misery. It is unfortunate that it has to be that way but someone will have to make the tough choices. Maybe we can release a virus into the population that sterilizes the sperm. This can be reversed with a vaccination. This vaccination however would have to be very expensive. Not prohibitively expensive but expensive enough that individuals would have to plan for it. Exceptionally smart or gifted individuals would be given an incentive to procreate. I know this sounds evil but it would be equal. There are just way to many poor and uneducated people diluting our population with idiots. These idiots are creating more idiots perpetuating a vicious cycle. We are on a path towards destruction. One way or another our population will be controlled. Lets do it the easy way shall we. :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBirthrates fall below the replacement rate in prosperous countries, and the necessary modest prosperity is enabled by inexpensive, nonpolluting energy. Energy cheaper than from coal can not only check global warming, but also raise global prosperity and lower population. This is more fully presented at http://rethinkingnuclearpower.googlepages.com/aimhigh
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust a note to all you world government and eugenics loving greenies; here's an alternative scenario.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe world's FREE PEOPLE may just scoop all of you up in Adam Smith's invisible hands, skin you and eat you. Problem solved. In your world domination fantasies, remember that at some point you will have to kick off your Birkenstocks and lace up your combat boots. If you want a totalitarian world government you must establish it by force. By my estimate, about one half billion people were killed outright or as a result of poor governance by totalitarian regimes in the 20th century. Is that what you want??? Besides, if you are mainly good at sipping lattes and can't weld pipelines or something else useful, what makes you think the new Gosplan won't just send YOU to the mines??? Remember what Mao did with intellectuals????
Theodore & H204400. on the 30th os Sept 2009 you are expected to report to headquarters for you date with destiny, to put an end to your lives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow did that feel & what ugly will determine this.
However you have your minds in such limited boxes what point is there to your living. WAKE UP & START LOOKING INTO QUANTUM PHYSICS & metaphysics & you might start being useful on this earth.
It's too late anyway. The "Big Chief" in the Sky will make appropriate adjuxtments to our numbers at the appropriate time; and, hopefully, it will be the meek (not humans) who will inherit the earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou people all out of your fricking mind. A bunch of left wing fascist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSterilization? (Theodore) Most of you are bordering on declaring your allegiance to Eugenics...which of course was the springboard for the National Socialist in Germany and their program of "clearing away" inferior people for the greater German people.
13 Million people dead.
Of course "religion" is the problem (tharriss).
If all you retards have not noticed, the "western" countries are not having any problem with population growth. A huge chunk of humanity lives in China and India and third world.
So how do you suppose we stop them from having children? Mmmmm? How do we sterilize people in China?
How about I give all of you a plane ticket and a pair of scissors?
Plus large populations allow us to have large companies who spend a great deal of money making equipment and processes more efficient.
We live in a country (USA) where our biggest farm problem is the government has to pay farmers NOT to grow food, or they make so much it becomes worthless.....
And of course we are all filled with spoiled selfishness (Nom_de_Guerre). I am sure you think so until some faceless government official tells you that you cannot have children and they take away your computer and cell phone because you are consuming to much for the earth to support .
Idiot.
You are all long on stupidity and short on any good ideas.
Planet is buckling under weight of people
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0730/1224251670456.html
Anyone who has dared venture into the public domain to discuss population issues can expect to be pilloried by all sides. On a recent discussion on Newstalk, I (DAVID ATTENBOROUGH) was instantly labelled a “Malthusian misanthrope” by another guest. My crime? Daring to suggest that, yes, population is an issue, and no, the world cannot sustain an infinite number of people. And in the brisk online discussion that followed last week’s column, the lowest ad hominen insult one contributor could think of was I “advocate reproduction control and am one of the main dangers to your liberty”. Quite.
I wish to throw the following population controlling/enhancing factors into the mixture
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIMMUNIZATION
ANTIBIOTICS
WATER TREATMENT (CLEAN AND WASTE)
UNNATURALLY (in $'s) CHEAP ENERGY
The first 3 allow nearly all of a woman's (historically normally) 6-10 children to survive to reproduce. Historically 2 survived.
Is the key the omission of immunization etc to the second, third and fourth child? (but immunizing babies is a onetime CHEAP feel good). Similarly so for antibiotics and clean wells/septic tanks BUT education and conception/population control programs are long term and not so cheap (but good value in the long term) and heaven forbid (sic) it might encourage more dirty sex!
Would it be fair to withhold vaccines and medicines? We already withhold natural recreational drugs and is not creating/maintaining children recreation in its purest sense?
IRRESPOSIBLE ADVICE
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRobert Engelman leaves the impression that a population control cant control population. Maybe science and history will prove he is right. Then he sees the solution of the population problem in handing the control over to the women.
This solution has been discussed since Adolphe Landry in 1934 republished his 1901 doctoral thesis under the title The Demographic Revolution. After 75 years of abundant cheap energy, there is still no trace of a stop in the global population growth, still less a population reduction to a sustainable post oil level. To the contrary, the world has more people suffering than before and another 78 million mouths to feed every year, with no relief in sight.
For several reasons The Demographic Revolution will remain only wishful and political correct thinking until our civilization collapses. Just to mention three: The process of giving all women the living standard called for will run out of fuel, food, and water. The major religions call for large families and show no sign of a turn to low breeding. If one group or region succeed in the revolution , like Europe, there will soon be an invasion of high breeders to continue the population increase.
It is highly regrettable and irresponsible of the Worldwatch Institute to publish false hopes, providing reasons for the great majority of voters and politics to neglect the discussion we owe the posterity: How can local population control and migration stop providing a place for our grandchildren to live?
Visit skil.org
It's a problem with multiple causes. We have a way of life that excessively pollutes water, air and soil; we waste food, water, energy on a daily basis, thus we distribute these elements inefficiently to population; we don't recycle; we don't build "greener" buildings, industries, transports; we still base our economy and life on oil; we deforest and don't reforest; we as humanity just don't care about us and them. There's no natural selection on us, because we are at the top of the food chain and we still can cure most of the diseases. Poorest countries have the highest birthrate index and richest ones are the most pollutants. What's the solution to this problem? We simply cannot sterilize compulsorily (men or women?). We can just do the opposite I have mentioned. It depends on every single one of us all at the same time to care, to recycle, to not waste, to not pollute, to educate our children, others and ourselves to do this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo population control is back...again. Huh. I guess we keep graduating uncreative thinkers with liberal-leaning zombie tendencies. Here's a good idea. Let it be. Too many tricky moral issues and you end up looking like a Nazi in the process.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf it makes you feel better, populations are naturally self-limiting for all kinds of reasons. Some are easily understood like war, famine, and disease. Some aren't. Most of the populations of wealthy, healthy, developed countries are either in decline or slowing, whereas the birthrate in poor countries is burgeoning. Go figure.
Here's another idea. Let's help poor countries become free, secure, and wealthy and they'll natural slow their population growth. I don't know how or why, but that's how it works.
By the way, those of you who are stuck on the excessively pollutionary, piggishly resource-consuming lifestyles of Americans, take a deep breath. The America I live in has cleaner air, cleaner water, and more protected parks, forests, and species than the one my parents grew up in. We recycle much more than even the hippies did. It's a really nice place to live.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is the nature of prosperous countries to protect their natural resources, even to extremes. For example, we're the only country on earth that refuses to further exploit its abundant oil resources (though it's more environmentally-friendly than coal). We also make it extremely difficult to develop the cleanest viable energy technology currently available: nuclear fission. Weird.
Perhaps the American-lifestyle-haters should give their soot-fogged glasses an occasional wipe and let some sunshine in. We live in a great country. It would be a great thing if we helped other countries less fortunate to enjoy the same privilege.
Compulsory population control, like in China, may be worse for the human species and the advancement and freedom of ideas than the laisser faire or even breeding encouragement policies in many western societies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWars, extintions, crowding contitions, illnesses and accidents, despite beeing fatal for most of the individuals, has proved the driving force behind the evolutionary building we now enjoy as individuals.
So, the previsible human holocaust is not but a natural proccess we can not stop without damaging our very roots of democracy, science and human evolution.
Compulsory population control, like in China, may be worse for the human species and the advancement and freedom of ideas than the laisser faire or even breeding encouragement policies in many western societies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWars, extintions, crowding contitions, illnesses and accidents, despite beeing fatal for most of the individuals, has proved the driving force behind the evolutionary building we now enjoy as individuals.
So, the previsible human holocaust is not but a natural proccess we can not stop without damaging our very roots of democracy, science and human evolution.
Well Theodore, I suppose you will be the 1st to volunteer to be culled for the benefit of the world government population control you so fervently desire. In which case I wish you all the courage you will need to "feel the fear". It was nice not knowing you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere's nothing terrifying about that. People have to 'man up' and do what's right. It's a new moral, population prudence, and that should be done individually. Do the right thing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHELLO/// Anyone ever heard of the U.S. Constitution? Bill of Rights, maybe? 13th Amendment...guaranteed right to personal autonomy. For those of you dummies who don't know...it means the government can't interfere in my personal life! I have the freedom to decide!! There's other avenues the gov't can take to allow for my constitutional rights to stay intact. For starters, stop PAYING these women to have kids!! With every kid, their entitlement check grows fatter. Seems more logical..more AMERICAN???...to start there first.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would gladly support a bill that would limit the number of children per couple to two. The best thing I can think of now is limit the number of children per woman to two then increase penalties for any over. If anyone has a better idea please share. Mine is just the best I could think of at the moment. Also, I am interested in donating to organizations that support a limit on the number of children that can be had here in America. Please inform if anyone knows.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this