Q. Dear Umbra,
You once replied to a request for some simple things all environmentally concerned individuals should do by pointing them toward some “Top Ten lists” for eco-minded people. Without a doubt, hands down, the number 1 action that should be followed for anyone concerned with the environment is to limit your procreation to 1 child per individual (2 per couple), i.e., replace yourself only. This dwarfs anything you might do in other areas, like using compact fluorescents or choosing paper over plastic, or weatherizing your home.
Stan B.
Williamsburg, Mich.
A. Dearest Stan,
The ten-foot pole gives reproduction another poke. In ‘03 and ‘05, the Royal We tickled all our reproductive clocks with brief reminders to consider childbearing and childrearing as ecologically significant acts. Since then I have followed my own advice and borne seven children, all of whom have grown up to work for Environmental Defense.
The right to bear arms ... and legs.iStock
As you know, this is a hot topic, and there’s a reason I poke at it only occasionally. I’m almost hesitant to do so now, but I feel strongly about one aspect, so here goes.
Environmentalists tend toward believing that our goal is preservation of the environment as it currently exists, with extra credit if we improve anything already destroyed by humans. Humans are the problem in this picture, and hence new humans are seen by some as an additional difficulty. The connection between population pressures and environmental degradation are logical and documented. People use natural resources to live, which is in part why we have deforestation, extinction, soil depletion, water supply problems, and excess greenhouse gases. High population growth is environmentally significant in areas with poor resource management, poor government, and poverty; it is also significant in areas with excess wealth and high resource consumption.
I’m not going to say too much about our personal reproduction today. Instead, I want to talk about a crucial role environmentalists should play in our local, national, and global communities.
It is very important for us to advocate for accessible family planning programs, for decent education for girls and women, and for women’s rights. We have all heard about the cause and effect of equal status for women. Women bear fewer children when we have access to affordable contraception and understand how to use it. We delay childbearing when we receive decent education, and are also better able to care for the children we do have. When we have better if not equal social status and rights, childbearing can be a choice.
Environmentalists need to advocate for girls and women at all levels. In our home communities, we need to be sure that girls are receiving equal opportunities, all youth are receiving substantial reproductive education, and teenagers are engaged in interesting projects rather than marking time with sex and drugs. Nationally and internationally, we need to actively advocate for family planning funding, the eradication of bogus abstinence-only programming, and policies that enrich the lives of women of all ages.
Social justice is inextricably linked with the natural environment. Choosing to limit the amount of children we have needs to be a realistic option for women worldwide.
Adieu, ten-foot pole!
Javelinly,
Umbra
More power, less roadkill: How one professor’s landscape has shifted
Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things
Comments
View as Threaded
Rachael Brownell Posted 9:46 am
13 Apr 2009
Choosing to limit the amount of children we have needs to be a
realistic option for women worldwide."Well said. It is insensitive and downright arrogant when people throw around advice about population control out of one side of their mouth and then fail to support the social programs necessary to create reproductive equity. Whether we like it or not, unplanned pregnancies happen. In my state (Washington) the reported rate is 59%... there is a correlation between informed intelligent sex education and unplanned pregnancy.
Permalink
hummingbird49 Posted 10:13 am
13 Apr 2009
Permalink
godfreye Posted 11:12 am
13 Apr 2009
Permalink
godfreye Posted 11:15 am
13 Apr 2009
Permalink
nico61 Posted 11:24 am
13 Apr 2009
Permalink
buddhafly Posted 12:47 pm
13 Apr 2009
writes: Environmentalists tend toward believing
that our goal is preservation of the environment as it currently exists, with
extra credit if we improve anything already destroyed by humans. Humans are the
problem in this picture, and hence new humans are seen by some as an additional
difficulty. The connection between population pressures and environmental
degradation are logical and documented. People use natural resources to live,
which is in part why we have deforestation, extinction, soil depletion, water
supply problems, and excess greenhouse gases. High population growth is
environmentally significant in areas with poor resource management, poor
government, and poverty; it is also significant in areas with excess wealth and
high resource consumption. This line of thinking, and the ideologies behind it,
are neither accurate or "logical," but are, in fact, very dangerous
as the material consequences of this "logic" often leads to violence
and the loss of the most basic of rights (i.e., the rights to subsistence,
health, reproduction, a livelihood, etc.). This way of thinking fails to
engage critically with its underlying assumptions. It does not take into account the global hegemonic power
structures that contribute to the unequal distribution of land, resources, and
capital, which often separate people from what they need to survive,
disproportionately effecting people of color, indigenous people, and people in
the Global South. If one fails to
include the underlying social systems (i.e., racism, classism, colonialism,
patriarchy, et al.) that continue to reproduce these neo-Malthusian narratives
regarding human-environment relations, then one is failing to see the broader
context of these social issues. I recommend looking into the work done
within the field of political ecology (see research done by Melissa Fairhead
and James Leach), intersectional feminists, and environmental and reproductive
justice activists. See http://popdev.hampshire.edu/projects/dt/40, www.foodfirst.org/12myths, www.cwpe.org/resources, and
http://www.sistersong.net for starters. Doing what I can to change the paradigm, Buddhafly<!--EndFragment--> <!--EndFragment-->
Permalink
gullyfourmyle Posted 1:00 pm
13 Apr 2009
To be a lucid environmentalist is to support and agitate for human population reductions world-wide. If we don't make the choice, Mother Nature is going to do it for us and that option is going to be gruesome to say the least. And yes, most of today's population will be alive to see it happen - for a short while.Despite the publicity the frog and honey bee extinctions and extirpations have attracted, the media is far from telling the true extent of vanishing species. Other species can all live without us. We cannot live without those species. The only truly expendable species on earth is the human race. We contribute nearly nothing and we take nearly everything that can be blasted loose.Environmental education is starting to come in schools but the people teaching the material are too young to have experienced what the planet was like when there was still such a thing as truly fresh air and water that didn't require chemical treatment before drinking it. As well intentioned as they are, they are making critical mistakes through lack of first hand information and passing that information on as real. To make matters worse, the non-environmentalists out-number enviros by thousands to one.The year 2050 is approaching but humanity has still not even begun to face the problem of overpopulation in anything like a serious manner. The other comments on this thread demonstrate just how deluded and hesitant even 'aware' individuals still and Umbra's political quasi-response to the original question doesn't help.
Permalink
Rachael Brownell Posted 1:52 pm
13 Apr 2009
Permalink
JMG Posted 2:11 pm
13 Apr 2009
I think it's out of print but available through the Sightline.org website. Great book. Short, well-written, and on-target. I commend it to anyone who is concerned about population and the effect we're having on our resource base.
Permalink
Fenrir Posted 3:20 pm
13 Apr 2009
Permalink
gullyfourmyle Posted 3:42 pm
13 Apr 2009
Permalink
buddhafly Posted 4:07 pm
13 Apr 2009
to Rethink ‘Overpopulation’ By the Population and
Development Program at Hampshire College Fears
of overpopulation are pervasive in American society. From an early age we are
taught that the world is overpopulated and that population pressure is
responsible for poverty, hunger, environmental degradation and even political
insecurity. If we don’t get population growth under control now, the argument
goes, our future is in danger. Conventional
wisdom, however, is not always wise. Placing the blame on population obscures
the powerful economic and political forces that threaten the well-being of both
people and the planet. It leads to top-down, target-driven population control
programs that undermine voluntary family planning and women’s reproductive
rights. It reinforces racism, promoting harmful stereotypes of poor people of
color. And it prevents the kind of global understanding we need in order to
reach across borders to work together for a more just, peaceful and
environmentally sustainable world. Here are
ten reasons why we should rethink ‘overpopulation.’ 1. The population ‘explosion’ is over. World
population is still growing and is expected to reach 9 billion by the year
2050. However, demographers agree that the era of rapid growth is over. Population
growth rates peaked in the 1960s due to dramatic reductions in death rates and
increased life expectancy. Since then, with increasing education, urbanization,
and women’s work outside the home, birth rates have fallen in almost every part
of the world. The average is now 2.7 births per woman. A number of countries,
especially in Europe, are now concerned about declining population growth as
many women have only one child. The UN projects that world population will
eventually stabilize, falling to 8.3 billion in 2175. 2. The focus on population masks the complex causes of poverty and
inequality. A narrow
focus on human numbers obscures the way different economic and political systems operate to perpetuate
poverty and inequality. It places the blame on the people with the least amount
of resources and power rather than on corrupt governments and economic and
political elites. It ignores the legacy of colonialism and the continuing
unequal relationship between rich and poor countries, including unfavorable
terms of trade and the debt burden. It says nothing about the concentration of
much wealth in a few hands. In the late 1990s, the 225 people who comprise the
‘ultra-rich’ had a combined wealth of over US $1 trillion, equivalent to the
annual income of the poorest 47% of the world’s people. 3. Hunger is not the result of ‘too many mouths’ to feed. Global food
production has consistently kept pace with population growth, and today world
agriculture produces 17% more calories per person than it did 30 years ago.
There is enough food for every man, woman and child to have more than the
recommended daily calorie intake. People go hungry because they do not have the
land on which to grow food or the money with which to buy it. In Brazil, one
percent of the land owners control almost half of the country’s arable land,
and more land is owned by multinational corporations than all the peasants
combined. Globally, more than 1.2 billion people earn less than $1 per day,
making it difficult to afford enough food to feed a family. Many governments
have failed to make food security a priority. In 2002, when at least 320
million people in India were suffering from hunger, the government tripled its
rice and wheat exports. The U.S. is the largest food producer in the world, yet
more than one in ten American households are either experiencing hunger or are
at the risk of it. 4. Population growth is not the driving force behind environmental
degradation. Blaming
environmental degradation on overpopulation lets the real culprits off the
hook. In terms of resource consumption alone, the richest fifth of the world’s
people consume 66 times as much as the poorest fifth. The U.S. is the largest
emitter of greenhouse gases responsible for global warming—and the least
willing to do anything about it. And just who is destroying the rain forest?
While poor peasants sometimes play a role, corporate ranching, mining and
logging operations are chiefly responsible for tropical deforestation.
Worldwide militaries are major agents of environmental destruction. War ravages
natural landscapes and military toxics pollute land, air and water. Nuclear
weapons, reactors and waste pose the most deadly environmental threat to the
planet. Imagine what a different world it would be if all the resources
invested in producing deadly armaments went instead to environmental
restoration and the development of cleaner, greener energy sources and
technologies. Focusing on
population also blinds us to the positive role many poor people play in
protecting the environment. In many parts of the world, small farmers,
especially women, are the main preservers of plant biodiversity through
cultivating local crop varieties, preserving seeds, and forest stewardship.
Recent research in Africa reveals that increasing population densities, if
combined with sound agricultural practices, can actually stimulate
environmental improvements. 5. Population pressure is not a root cause of political insecurity and
conflict. Blaming
population pressure for instability takes the onus off powerful actors and
political choices. In 1994, for example, top officials in the Clinton
administration blamed the Rwandan genocide on population pressure, diverting
attention from the tragic U.S. and U.N. decision not to take effective action to
halt it. Especially since 9/11, conflict in the Middle East has been linked to
a ‘youth bulge’ of too many young men whose numbers supposedly make them prone
to violence. Missing from this simple picture is how oil politics, the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the Bush administration’s war on Iraq are
causing unrest in the region. Ideas like the ‘youth bulge’ can have very real
and lethal consequences. A case in point is Chechnya, where the International
Helsinki Federation has charged the Russian army of abducting and murdering
young males in a deliberate process of “thinning out a population of young
men.” 6. Population control targets women’s fertility and restricts
reproductive rights. Population
control programs view women as ‘breeders’ of too many babies without
considering the complex circumstances of their lives and their reasons for
having children. All women should have access to high quality, voluntary
reproductive health services, including safe birth control and abortion. In
contrast, population control programs try to drive down birth rates as fast and
cheaply as possible through the aggressive promotion of sterilization or
long-acting, provider-controlled contraceptives like Norplant and Depo-Provera.
In addition to their side effects, these contraceptives pose greater health
risks for marginalized women in areas where screening and follow-up care are
inadequate or nonexistent. Unlike condoms, they do not protect women from
sexually transmitted diseases, such as HIV/AIDS. The 1994 UN
population conference in Cairo came out against the use of coercion in
population programs, but unfortunately it persists. Today, in India, a number
of states punish poor parents who have more than two children by denying them
access to government assistance, employment and election to public office. In
China, the one-child policy is still enforced through forced sterilizations and
abortions. In both countries, the strong preference for bearing at least one
son, coupled with restrictive population control policies, has led to
sex-selective abortions of female fetuses and skewed sex ratios. 7. Population control programs have a negative effect on basic health
care. Under
pressure from international population agencies, many poor countries such as
Bangladesh, Indonesia, and India made population control a higher priority than
primary health care. Especially in the 1970s and 1980s, reducing fertility was
considered more important than preventing and treating malaria and other
debilitating diseases, improving maternal and child health, and addressing
malnutrition. This shift not only took a tragic toll on human life, but left
countries without the strong public health infrastructure needed to face new
threats like HIV/AIDS. The World Bank and International Monetary Fund further
undermined primary health care by forcing countries to cut and/or privatize
health services, putting them out of the reach of poor people. This legacy
continues today. Two prominent international family planners recently wrote
that in Africa rapid population growth poses more of a threat than AIDS and
therefore population control should be a high priority in the region. In
actuality, while just over 10% of the world population lives in sub-Saharan
Africa, it is home to over 60% of all people living with HIV. 8. Population alarmism encourages apocalyptic thinking that legitimizes
human rights abuses. In 1968,
Paul Ehrlich’s famous book The Population Bomb warned that the world was on
the brink of massive famine and that in the 1970s “hundreds of millions” of
people would starve to death. Though not borne out in reality, such dire
predictions have long been popular in the population field. Today, population
funding appeals still play on fears of future apocalypse. Fear does more than
sell, however. It convinces many otherwise well-meaning people that it is
morally justified to curtail the basic human and reproductive rights of poor
people in order to save ourselves and the planet from doom. This sense of
emergency leads to an elitist moral relativism, in which ‘we’ know best and
‘our’ rights are more worthy than ‘theirs.’ Politically, it legitimizes
authoritarianism. Nowhere is
the negative effect of apocalyptic thinking more dramatic than in the case of
China. The decision to implement the draconian one-child policy was greatly
influenced by the 1972 Club of Rome’s Limits to Growth, a deeply flawed
computer simulation that incorrectly predicted impending economic and
environmental collapse due to population growth. 9. Threatening images of overpopulation reinforceracial and ethnic
stereotypes and scapegoat immigrants and other vulnerable communities. Negative
media images of starving African babies, poor, pregnant women of color, and
hordes of dangerous Third World men drive home the message that ‘those people’
outnumber ‘us.’ Fear of overpopulation in the Third World often translates into
fear of increasing immigration to the West, and thereby people of color
becoming the majority. Harvard professor Samuel Huntington argues that high
numbers of Latino immigrants threaten a unified American Anglo-Protestant
culture and identity. Anti-immigrant groups tied to white supremacists
strategically deploy population fears to appeal to liberal environmentalists.
The demonization of immigrants ignores their positive contributions to the U.S.
economy as well as the global economic forces that drive many people to
migrate. In Europe, nativist policymakers are urging white women to have more
babies to reduce the economy’s dependence on immigrant labor. In the U.S.
there is a strong link between negative images of Third World overpopulation
and racist views of African Americans as burdens on society. Eugenics programs
and punitive welfare policies have subjected African Americans and other
marginalized communities to sterilization and contraceptive abuse because of
racist assumptions that their fertility is out of control. Even though women on
welfare have on average fewer than two children, the image of the overbreeding
‘welfare queen’ remains firmly fixed in the white imagination. 10. Conventional views of overpopulation stand in the way of greater
global understanding and solidarity. In order to
solve the world’s pressing economic, political and environmental problems, we
need more global understanding and solidarity, not less. For all the reasons
cited above, fears of overpopulation are deeply divisive and harmful.
Population control programs distort family planning and diminish human rights.
In order to protect and advance women’s reproductive rights in a hostile climate,
we urgently need to work together across borders of gender, race, class and
nationality. Rethinking population helps open the way. For more information on population issues, see: · Population in
Perspective: A Curriculum Resource, by MaryLugton with Phoebe McKinney, http://www.populationinperspective.org · Population and
Development Program at HampshireCollege, http://popdev.hampshire.edu · Committee on Women,
Population and the Environment, cwpe.org · The Corner House, www.thecornerhouse.org.uk References 1. The population
‘explosion’ is over. For a review of
population dynamics, see Mary Lugton with Phoebe McKinney, Population in
Perspective: A Curriculum Resource, Amherst, MA: Population and Development
Program, Hampshire College, 2004, http://www.populationinperspective.org,
and United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population
Division, “World Population Prospects, the 2004 Revision,” February 24, 2005. 2. The focus on
population masks the complex causes of poverty and inequality.
Population in Perspective, Section Four, “Population and Poverty,” and Betsy
Hartmann, Reproductive Rights and Wrongs: The Global Politics of Population
Control, Boston: South End Press, 1995. 3. Hunger is not
the result of ‘too many mouths’ to feed.
Population in Perspective, Section Two, “Population, Food and Hunger.” and Frances
Moore Lapp, Joseph Collins and Peter Rossett, World Hunger: Twelve Myths, New York:
Grove Press, 1998. 4. Population
growth is not the driving force behind environmental degradation.
Population in Perspective, Section Three, “Population and the Environment.” On
military and environment, see Joni Seager, “Patriarchal Vandalism: Militaries
and the Environment,” in Jael Silliman and Ynestra King, eds., Dangerous
Intersections: Feminist Perspectives on Population, Environment and Development, Boston: South
End Press, 1999, 163-188. On the positive role many poor people play in
protecting the environment, see James K. Boyce and Barry G. Shelley, eds., Natural
Assets: Democratizing Environmental Ownership, Washington, D.C.:
Island Press, 2003. On gender and biodiversity, see Patricia L. Howard, ed.,
Women and Plants: Gender Relations in Biodiversity Management and Conservation,
London: Zed Books, 2003. 5. Population
pressure is not a root cause of political insecurity and conflict.
Betsy Hartmann and Anne Hendrixson, “Pernicious Peasants and Angry Young Men:
The Strategic Demography of Threats,” in Betsy Hartmann, Banu Subramaniam and
Charles Zerner, eds., Making Threats: Biofears and Environmental Anxieties, Lanham, MD:
Rowman and Littlefield, 2005, 217-237. For more on the youth bulge, see Anne
Hendrixson, “Angry Young Men, Veiled Young Women: Constructing a New Population
Threat,” Corner House, Briefing No. 34, December 2004, http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk. 6. Population
control targets women’s fertility and restricts reproductive rights.
See Reproductive Rights and Wrongs; Amy Oliver and Diana Dukhanova,
“Depo-Provera: Old Concerns, New Risks,” DifferenTakes, No. 32,
Population and Development Program, Hampshire College, Spring 2005, http://popdev.hampshire.edu/projects/dt;
Rajani Bhatia, “Ten Years after Cairo: The Resurgence of Coercive Population
Control in India,” DifferenTakes, No. 31, Spring 2005, http://popdev.hampshire.edu/projects/dt;
and Kay Johnson, Wanting a Daughter: Needing a Son, Minneapolis: Yeong
and Yeong, 2004. 7. Population
control programs have a negative effect on basic health care.
Sarah Sexton, Sumati Nair and Preeti Kirbat, “A Decade after Cairo: Women’s
Health in a Free Market Economy,” Corner House, Briefing No. 30, June 2004, http://thecornerhouse.org.uk; John Cleland and Steven Sinding, “What would Malthus say about AIDS in Africa?”
The Lancet, Vol. 366, Issue 9500, Pages 1899-1901 (November 26,
2005); UNAIDS: Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS, http://www.unaids.org/en/Regions_Countries/Regions/SubSaharanAfrica.asp. 8. Population
alarmism encourages apocalyptic thinking that legitimizes human rights abuses.
John Dryzek, “Looming Tragedy: Survivalism,” in The Politics of the Earth:
Environmental Discourses, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997, 23-44; Susan
Greenhalgh, “Science, Modernity and the Making of China’s One-Child Policy,” Population
and Development Review, Vol. 29, No. 2 (June 2003), 163-196; Larry Lohmann,
“Malthusianism and the Terror of Scarcity,” in Hartmann et al, eds., Making
Threats, 81-98. 9. Threatening
images of overpopulation reinforce racial and ethnic stereotypes and scapegoat
immigrants and other vulnerable communities.
Elynor Lord, “The Huntington Challenge: Why “The Hispanic Challenge” Should be
Discredited,” DifferenTakes, Fall 2004, http://popdev.hampshire.edu/projects/dt;
Adam Werbach, “Hostile Takeover: Anti-Immigration Coalition Seeks Control of
Sierra Club,” In These Times, March 9, 2004; Binta Jeffers,
“Population Control Imagery: Stopping the Blame,” computer graphic
presentation, Committee on Women, Population and the Environment, forthcoming
2006; Jael Silliman and Anannya Bhattacharjee, eds., Policing the National
Body: Race, Gender and Criminalization, Cambridge. MA: South
End Press, 2002; Dorothy Roberts, Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction
and the Meaning of Liberty, New York: Pantheon Books, 1997; Elizabeth L. Krause,
“Dangerous Demographies: The Scientific Manufactureof Fear,” Corner House,
Briefing No. 36, July 2006, www.thecornerhouse.org.uk. 10. Conventional views of
overpopulation stand in the way of greater global understanding and solidarity.
See Jael Silliman, Marlene Gerber Fried, Loretta Ross and Elena R. Gutirrez, Undivided
Rights: Women of Color Organize for Reproductive Justice, Boston: South
End Press, 2004; Adam Werbach, “End of the Population Movement, The American
Prospect, October 5, 2005; and “Call for a New Approach” in Silliman and King,
eds., Dangerous Intersections, xx-xxi. <!--EndFragment-->
Permalink
Thea Posted 5:37 pm
13 Apr 2009
I'm very much in agreement with both Umbra, and Top 10 (above). I've felt that the population control people are simply flip sides of the folks who don't think we should be allowed to have an abortion. There is clearly nothing more powerful than procreation, and EVERYONE wants to control it.
Can we not go along the biomimicry route and try to learn how to live multitudinously on our earth? When I read Cradle to Cradle about the "overabundance" of flowers produced by the cherry tree to make the cherries, I felt the first lightbulb go off about humans living on this earth. It's not about repression and supression and subtraction, it's about living with nature, as nature does.
Permalink
maladapted Posted 6:56 pm
13 Apr 2009
Human Impact (I) on the environment equals the product of population (P), affluence (A: consumption per capita) and technology (T: environmental impact per unit of consumption).From this, it's clear that reducing the size of any of the three factors can contribute to reducing the aggregate impact. As individuals, we can choose to address any or all of them. We can limit our personal reproduction, to zero if we wish; we can limit our consumption by choosing to live simply; and we can use technology to minimize the impact of our chosen level of consumption. I'm sure we can all agree that Grist.org is a great clearinghouse of information on ways individuals can address their personal A and T. For myself, I've chosen to ensure that my personal contribution to future P will be zero -- hence my Darwinian nom de web 8^). I'll not judge anyone who chooses otherwise, in hopes that I may not be judged in turn.Mal.
Permalink
Rachael Brownell Posted 7:11 pm
13 Apr 2009
Permalink
squakmtn Posted 10:13 pm
13 Apr 2009
Permalink
billyrainbow Posted 10:14 pm
13 Apr 2009
i'm hanging your statement on my wall.Have a beautiful day,billy rainbow
Permalink
PermieWriter Posted 1:28 am
14 Apr 2009
Permalink
Disgusted Posted 6:35 am
14 Apr 2009
Permalink
PermieWriter Posted 8:05 am
14 Apr 2009
Permalink
gullyfourmyle Posted 8:32 am
14 Apr 2009
This is a comment that can only be believed by the mathematically challenged. When you do the math, it takes less than one second to realise that ‘the population explosion is over' point is completely wrong.Point #2
The bottom line, regardless of politics and corruption is that there are too many people on planet earth.Point #3Other species are going extinct because too much space, food, water, the lives of other species and other resources are required to feed human populations in relation to other species needs. That means there are too many people.Point #4Human populations are denuding the planet. No other species is doing this. China, not the US is the biggest emitter. The US is now number 2 and India will probably overtake the US within ten years. Human population definitely is the driving force in environmental degradation. No amount of rationalization can cover that up. The bottom line is that humanity in unsustainable numbers, not some other factor cause environmental destruction.Point #5Population pressure is always at the root of cultural disputes if you dig down far enough – particularly when water rights are involved. Everything else is window dressing and rationalization.Point #6When you have a planet that is over-populated, there can be no such thing as reproductive rights until the matter of over-population is addressed and remedied. There is no shortage of people and won’t be for some time.Point #7Population control programs so far have not worked. They are nowhere near strict enough and are merely a tool to salve our conscience, not address the problem. HIV and other such population limiters are being defeated at every turn. HIV and other diseases is Mother Nature trying to gently reduce population without having to take harsher methods such as those visited on the original population of Easter Island. If we don’t get our heads around this, the entire planet will become a second, much larger Easter Island. What is the point of our supposed intelligence if we can’t learn from this very basic lesson?Point #8The only thing wrong with the apocalyptic thinking was in not getting the date right. Right now, thanks to fossil fuel based emissions and pesticides, the organisms that form the core of the food chain in the planet’s water and soil are being annihilated to extinction. Water and soil to function have to be alive with micro-organisms. That’s right – healthy water and soil are alive with life. That is the natural healthy condition necessary to support life on this planet. Otherwise water is just H2O and sterile and soil is just clay and sand. They don’t and can’t support life without the micro organisms. Our water and soil are dying fast world-wide.
Chemical Winter is the term that describes what the oil and chemical companies are doing to the planet. The process profoundly alters genetic code of all life, not just humans. Altered genetic code means the ability of future generations to survive is severely impaired or non-existent. Destroying the core systems on this planet will mean that life as we know it will certainly fail and evolution will have to start all over again at the beginning.Point #9Race or country has nothing to do with over-population. Too many people means too many people regardless of which chunk of real estate they happen to be standing on. Economic might and geographic isolation will eventually decide whose populations survive, not racism. All populations are now mixed, so our genetic diversity is not in any danger from that direction.Point #10Conventional views of overpopulation do not stand in the way of greater global understanding and solidarity. What stands in the way of global understanding and solidarity is a failure to comprehend the math and a congenital aversion to facing harsh reality and pulling the plug on international aid that artificially props up populations in areas that can not sustain viable populations.
Permalink
buddhafly Posted 8:36 am
14 Apr 2009
Permalink
blackcat8 Posted 8:47 am
14 Apr 2009
Permalink
Fenrir Posted 8:59 am
14 Apr 2009
Permalink
barbiplease Posted 1:53 pm
14 Apr 2009
As Main Environmental ThreatIt’s overconsumption, not population growth, that is the fundamental problem: By almost any measure, a small portion of the world’s people – those in the affluent, developed world – use up most of the Earth’s resources and produce most of its greenhouse gas emissions.
by fred pearce
It’s the great taboo, I hear many environmentalists say. Population growth is the driving force behind our wrecking of the planet, but we are afraid to discuss it.
It sounds like a no-brainer. More people must inevitably be bad for the environment, taking more resources and causing more pollution, driving the planet ever farther beyond its carrying capacity. But hold on. This is a terribly convenient argument — “over-consumers” in rich countries can blame “over-breeders” in distant lands for the state of the planet. But what are the facts?
The world’s population quadrupled to six billion people during the 20th century. It is still rising and may reach 9 billion by 2050. Yet for at least the past century, rising per-capita incomes have outstripped the rising head count several times over. And while incomes don’t translate precisely into increased resource use and pollution, the correlation is distressingly strong.
Moreover, most of the extra consumption has been in rich countries that have long since given up adding substantial numbers to their population.
By almost any measure, a small proportion of the world’s people take the majority of the world’s resources and produce the majority of its pollution. The world’s richest half-billion people are responsible for 50 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions.Take carbon dioxide emissions — a measure of our impact on climate but also a surrogate for fossil fuel consumption. Stephen Pacala, director of the Princeton Environment Institute, calculates that the world’s richest half-billion people — that’s about 7 percent of the global population — are responsible for 50 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. Meanwhile the poorest 50 percent are responsible for just 7 percent of emissions.
Although overconsumption has a profound effect on greenhouse gas emissions, the impacts of our high standard of living extend beyond turning up the temperature of the planet. For a wider perspective of humanity’s effects on the planet's life support systems, the best available measure is the “ecological footprint,” which estimates the area of land required to provide each of us with food, clothing, and other resources, as well as to soak up our pollution. This analysis has its methodological problems, but its comparisons between nations are firm enough to be useful.
They show that sustaining the lifestyle of the average American takes 9.5 hectares, while Australians and Canadians require 7.8 and 7.1 hectares respectively; Britons, 5.3 hectares; Germans, 4.2; and the Japanese, 4.9. The world average is 2.7 hectares. China is still below that figure at 2.1, while India and most of Africa (where the majority of future world population growth will take place) are at or below 1.0.
The United States always gets singled out. But for good reason: It is the world’s largest consumer. Americans take the greatest share of most of the world’s major commodities: corn, coffee, copper, lead, zinc, aluminum, rubber, oil seeds, oil, and natural gas. For many others, Americans are the largest per-capita consumers. In “super-size-me” land, Americans gobble up more than 120 kilograms of meat a year per person, compared to just 6 kilos in India, for instance.
I do not deny that fast-rising populations can create serious local environmental crises through overgrazing, destructive farming and fishing, and deforestation. My argument here is that viewed at the global scale, it is overconsumption that has been driving humanity’s impacts on the planet’s vital life-support systems during at least the past century. But what of the future?
We cannot be sure how the global economic downturn will play out. But let us assume that Jeffrey Sachs, in his book Common Wealth, is right to predict a 600 percent increase in global economic output by 2050. Most projections put world population then at no more than 40 percent above today’s level, so its contribution to future growth in economic activity will be small.
Of course, economic activity is not the same as ecological impact. So let’s go back to carbon dioxide emissions. Virtually all of the extra 2 billion or so people expected on this planet in the coming 40 years will be in the poor The carbon emissions of one American today are equivalent to those of four Chinese, 20 Indians, or 250 Ethiopians.half of the world. They will raise the population of the poor world from approaching 3.5 billion to about 5.5 billion, making them the poor two-thirds.
Sounds nasty, but based on Pacala’s calculations — and if we assume for the purposes of the argument that per-capita emissions in every country stay roughly the same as today — those extra two billion people would raise the share of emissions contributed by the poor world from 7 percent to 11 percent.
Look at it another way. Just five countries are likely to produce most of the world’s population growth in the coming decades: India, China, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Ethiopia. The carbon emissions of one American today are equivalent to those of around four Chinese, 20 Indians, 30 Pakistanis, 40 Nigerians, or 250 Ethiopians.
Even if we could today achieve zero population growth, that would barely touch the climate problem — where we need to cut emissions by 50 to 80 percent by mid-century. Given existing income inequalities, it is inescapable that overconsumption by the rich few is the key problem, rather than overpopulation of the poor many.
But, you ask, what about future generations? All those big families in Africa begetting yet-bigger families. They may not consume much today, but they soon will.
Well, first let’s be clear about the scale of the difference involved. A woman in rural Ethiopia can have ten children and her family will still do less damage, and consume fewer resources, than the family of the average soccer mom in Minnesota or Munich. In the unlikely event that her ten children live to adulthood and have ten children of their own, the entire clan of more than a hundred will still be emitting less carbon dioxide than you or I.
And second, it won’t happen. Wherever most kids survive to adulthood, women stop having so many. That is the main reason why the number of children born to an average woman around the world has been in decline for half a century now. After peaking at between 5 and 6 per woman, it is now down to 2.6.
This is getting close to the “replacement fertility level” which, after allowing for a natural excess of boys born and women who don’t reach adulthood, is about 2.3. The UN expects global fertility to fall to 1.85 children per woman by mid-century. While a demographic “bulge” of women of child-bearing age keeps the world’s population rising for now, continuing declines in fertility will cause the world’s population to stabilize by mid-century and then probably to begin falling.
Far from ballooning, each generation will be smaller than the last. So the ecological footprint of future generations could diminish. That means we can have a shot at estimating the long-term impact of children from different countries down the generations.
The best analysis of this phenomenon I have seen is by Paul Murtaugh, a statistician at Oregon State University. He recently calculated the climatic It is the height of hubris to downgrade the culpability of the rich world’s environmental footprint.“intergenerational legacy” of today’s children. He assumed current per-capita emissions and UN fertility projections. He found that an extra child in the United States today will, down the generations, produce an eventual carbon footprint seven times that of an extra Chinese child, 46 times that of a Pakistan child, 55 times that of an Indian child, and 86 times that of a Nigerian child.
Of course those assumptions may not pan out. I have some confidence in the population projections, but per-capita emissions of carbon dioxide will likely rise in poor countries for some time yet, even in optimistic scenarios. But that is an issue of consumption, not population.
In any event, it strikes me as the height of hubris to downgrade the culpability of the rich world’s environmental footprint because generations of poor people not yet born might one day get to be as rich and destructive as us. Overpopulation is not driving environmental destruction at the global level; overconsumption is. Every time we talk about too many babies in Africa or India, we are denying that simple fact.
At root this is an ethical issue. Back in 1974, the famous environmental scientist Garret Hardin proposed something he called “lifeboat ethics”. In the modern, resource-constrained world, he said, “each rich nation can be seen as a lifeboat full of comparatively rich people. In the ocean outside each lifeboat swim the poor of the world, who would like to get in.” But there were, he said, not enough places to go around. If any were let on board, there would be chaos and all would drown. The people in the lifeboat had a duty to their species to be selfish – to keep the poor out.
Hardin’s metaphor had a certain ruthless logic. What he omitted to mention was that each of the people in the lifeboat was occupying ten places, whereas the people in the water only wanted one each. I think that changes the argument somewhat.
POSTED ON 13 Apr 2009 IN Sustainability On the one hand, Umbra from Grist advises that population dwarfs consumption as the greatest environmental threat. On the other hand, Fred Pearce from Environnment 360 advises that consumption dwarfs population as the greatest environmental threat. Curiously, both articles came out as front-page headlines on the same day.Not to suggest that this is an either/or proposition of population vs. consumption or vice-versa. I think that both arguments have some merit but are possibly partial in their treatment toward the issue. Suggesting perhaps that this is more a case of not "either/or," but rather "not-only-but-also." That is to say, " not-only-population-but also-consumption" (and vice-versa) is the most correct advice. But surely the way in which both arguments are framed so definitively or so decisively, only one or the other can be correct? Meaning, perhaps, that we should transcend duality and oppositional thinking and acknowledge both realities as serious environmental concerns affecting humanity. It may well be the case that one issue dwarfs the other, but at this point it is difficult to say, based on the merits of these arguments alone.
Permalink
Kelpie Posted 1:58 pm
14 Apr 2009
As for the Hampshire College folks, they are well-meaning but they are not seeing the whole picture. There are not enough resources on this planet to bring 9 billion, or even 6 billion people up to even a modest, European lifestyle (it's a given that the high-flying, SUV-driving American way of life has got to end). Also, it's not just the poor countries that are overpopulated. Look at the UK - more than 60 million people on a small island. Without fossil fuels, how could they feed themselves? Climate change, water scarcity and other kinds of environmental degradation are likely to reduce agricultural output well before 2050. That said, we can feed everyone today and we must end hunger now. It really is the first step to ending population growth. No argument there. But in their extreme denial of overpopulation as a problem, the Hampshire College group are a classic example of the thinking of Leftists stuck in the nineteenth century. Please see my article at Alternet http://www.alternet.org/environment/135518/have_we_hit_the_limits_of_human_population/?comments=view&cID=1186370&pID=1186301#c1186370
This article looks at the historical reaction of progressives to the Malthusian idea, showing why they were right to hate the man but wrong to hate his basic concept, which is what Darwin based his theory of natural selection on.
We need to take a better look at history and realize that in the ancient past, pre-patriarchy, women did control their reproduction and societies everywhere had population limitation programs. See also my feminist population manifesto, The Lysistrata Strategy, originally published by Wild Earth and available at my website:
http://www.kelpiewilson.com/1998/01/the-lysistrata-strategy.html
This topic is so gnarly and deep that I have also turned to fiction as a way to grapple with it. My novel Primal Tears is about a human-bonobo hybrid girl who saves humanity from overpopulation. More info here: http://www.primaltears.com/
And I have some interesting stories and myths about abortion and overpopulation at http://www.earthislandangels.com/. OK, that's all for now!
Permalink
barbiplease Posted 5:04 pm
14 Apr 2009
Permalink
maladapted Posted 5:40 pm
14 Apr 2009
Mal.
Permalink
barbiplease Posted 5:49 pm
14 Apr 2009
Permalink
sandrawillson Posted 12:21 am
15 Apr 2009
Permalink
Fenrir Posted 5:45 pm
15 Apr 2009
Permalink
gullyfourmyle Posted 8:19 pm
15 Apr 2009
The point is planet earth needs to shed billions of people unilaterally to restore balance.
The year 2050 was the drop dead date for us to get it right and shed the numbers and the fossil fuel emissions. That ain't happening. All this nonsense about changes by 2050 is delusional. Population reductions and eliminating fossil fuels are the real changes that have to happen way faster than that.
By then the US midwest (lifespan approximately 10 years or so left before its water is gone) and most of Australia will be re-desertified (water gone in the south-east seven years ago). What do you suppose those people from drought ridden locations all over the world will be eating and drinking - the non-existent food and water that used to grow there? We still can't deal with Haiti's natural resource collapse and that is one half of one small island.
What about the 20% of arable land we grow food on now that will be under water then? Do you all think you can live on the Canadian Shield? Canada has lots of water. But the land around most of it is exposed granite from the Atlantic to the Pacific. What isn't solid rock is floating Muskeg full of mosqitos, black flies and blowflies. You won't want go there, never mind live there. The Soviet Union's north land is much the same. You cannot farm solid rock. Most of the farmable land is being farmed now. So what we lose to climate change is a net loss that can't be replaced to feed growing populations. We can't take more from the oceans because we are fishing them out as fast as the fish can be hauled out of the water. What's left is being poisoned as we change the chemical balance of the oceans and all of our fresh water. Ground water everywhere is being drained or polluted by landfills, broken sewer pipes and chemical spills. These things are accelerating, not slowing down.
So far, not one nation has implemented legislative environmental restoration policies needed to save the planet. Until legislation changes to defeat development and resource extraction are implemented, we are on a collision course with extinction.
Chemical Winter, the chemical equivalent of nuclear fallout is right now setting us up for an ugly surprise ending you definitely won't like. What part of the continuing destruction of your genetic code and that of every other living thing on the planet are you not understanding? Every breath you take, you sustain a micro chemical burn that eventually breaches your immune system.
Do you not get that chemical destruction of your immune system and the contamination of your genetic structure and that of other species means no future generations once the destruction destabilizes enough species?
The frog and honey bee situation is a product of Chemical Winter - not fungus, not viruses and not cell phone towers - those are merely contributing factors. The immunological breakdowns are a direct result of solvent based destruction of immune systems. The fungi and viruses act once a breach occurs in the immune systems. In humans we call it Asthma and Multiple Chemical Sensitivity when it happens by accident. When it happens in war, we call it Agent Orange and Gulf War Syndrome. The stuff that causes those injuries is the same stuff in lower concentrations that comes out of your chimney or your tail pipe. It's collectively called Benzene. More people, more emissions, more Chemical Winter. Forget Climate Change. Forget Global Warming. They won't cause our extinction. Chemical Winter certainly will if we don't stop it.
Somehow you people are not getting that the combination of over-population and Chemical Winter plays no favourites and has no interest in politics or human rights.
Permalink
myiarchus22 Posted 6:47 am
16 Apr 2009
Permalink
Fenrir Posted 6:47 am
16 Apr 2009
Permalink
sindark Posted 1:34 pm
16 Apr 2009
Perhaps the world would be a better place if governments became significantly more lax in their efforts to discourage sexual abstinence, while simultaneously shifting towards encouraging reproductive abstinence. Given the degree to which our gross over-use of the natural resources and adaptive capacities of the planet is threatening the future of the human species, it seems quite rational, in the end. Obviously, governments with some respect for personal liberty cannot actually curtail reproduction. Of course, they couldn’t curtail sex either. The idea is to shift from efforts in the latter area to efforts in the former one. That need not involve anything too restrictive: just making sure that those who don’t want children have the tools required to avoid it, while reducing the degree to which society at large helps finance the reproduction of those who choose to undertake it.
More at: http://www.sindark.com/2009/03/31/rethinking-abstinence/
Permalink