Of course population is still a problem 53

Comments Post a Comment +

1. 
   • Rachel O'Neill 329663
   • 12 Jul 2010 5:18pm 1278980327 1279005527

   Thank you so much for this well-written, thoughtful response. I was appalled at Pearce's article and that such nonsense would be posted on a site like Grist.
   1. 
      • attoman 317383
      • 15 Jul 2010 9:24am 1279211097 1279236297

      @Rachel O'Neill
   2. 
      • attoman 317383
      • 15 Jul 2010 9:33am 1279211613 1279236813

      @Rachel O'Neill
      
      Did you abort and avoid having children? If not who approved your use of resources and certified that your children would not add the many mouth per child impacts of a developed country's citizen/consumer to world population?
      
      Sad, that you and others but especially Walker are so out of touch with reality that you support a basic call for fewer people in the developed world under the call for fewer unwanted pregnancies as if Pearce had called for more or for less contraceptive aid!
      
      Walker sets up a straw man and you Rachel, Biodiversivist and others on this blog make a meal of his straw.
      
      When a significant reduction in resource usage is obtained by the use of high efficiency lighting does that change get reflected in Walker's calculus.
      NO.
      
      If a family in the wilds of Mendocino County CA (these folks actually exist as stated) lives completely off the grid, without fossil fuels, or substantial foodstuffs and whose farming practice makes them net carbon sinks does this change get reflected in Walker's calculus.
      NO.
      
      Walker makes clear that his simplistic calculus is contained in this example: If the developed world was wiped clean by some great pandemic then this would offset a few billion lives in the third world and thus make a small difference but as he is clear not nearly enough.
      
      Walker wants the technology ONLY being developed in the first world, which has already brought viable and efficient lighting, methods for carbon free transportation and all these other things to disappear because the authors of these inventions are the problem as he sees it.
      
      Ah but after all Walker assures us. "Someday we will be able to declare victory" but he does not know how, nor does he know or begin to suggest what population size he would consider a "victory".
      Most notably you and Walker only call for the change but are afraid to say how it will be accomplished. You have no constructive ideas just the slightly hidden threat of force.
      
      I believe Walker and you and others on this blog that support Walker. I do believe you are willing to set up a world in which you will choose who will live and who die. You will tell us what is enough population for each part of our world and what isn't, what technology is allowed in any given place and what isn't. We've seen your kind of population control before.
      
      So talented, so important, like Gore you too can call for poverty and death under the gun you control while flying about in your private jet on the resources that would lift thousands out of poverty.
      
      Finally let me make clear I speak for myself, and the above criticism has nothing to do with contraceptive aid and supportive family planning in which without coercion (no threats, no rewards) families are encouraged to make a choice for themselves, the latter I fully support and have since the 60's when I came of age.   ...read more
   3. 
      • TurboDog50 357993
      • 18 Jul 2010 3:38pm 1279492713 1279517913

      @attoman
      
      You lost me at "Did you abort and avoid having children" ...
   4. 
      • attoman 317383
      • 18 Jul 2010 4:32pm 1279495920 1279521120

      @TurboDog50
      
      The meaning is clear in context. I am asking Rachel if she has chosen not to have children given her population views. If she has children then she and the rest of population is critical crowd need to defend their choice.
      
      Try reading the whole thing.
   5. 
      • TurboDog50 357993
      • 18 Jul 2010 5:25pm 1279499134 1279524334

      @attoman Clear in context? Actually it isn't. And why would someone want to read your opinion when it has such an offensive, illogical start? It's difficult to argue with someone who cannot put forth a coherent argument. That said ... you put forth a false choice: People who advocate for a sustainable population cannot have children? That's absurd. But the facts do bear out that people who understand this issue and believe in personal responsibility do have smaller families.
   6. 
      • attoman 317383
      • 18 Jul 2010 6:00pm 1279501205 1279526405

      @TurboDog50
      
      Being a two child dad I agree, I heard no one proposing to encourage more. I freely chose to limit. Not on the basis of some political edict, as Rachel and Walker would have it.
      
      This whole discussion is false. Enough already.
      
      The real issue is about the focus of the environmental movement. On what should we spend our limited time and resources? Our movement is about inside the U.S., and its actions in the greater world. In the US we do not have to focus on population. We need to try to address green consumption, alternative energy, water, and green transportation.
   7. 
      • TurboDog50 357993
      • 18 Jul 2010 7:53pm 1279508001 1279533201

      @attoman
      
      Of course we can agree consumption is part of the issue, and alternative energy and green transportation are great and part of the mix. They will all help -- if there is a sustainable U.S. population. Your statement, "In the US we do not have to focus on population," is incorrect. We have a growth rate higher than China's, the most populated country on Earth. Most of our population growth is due to immigration and births to immigrants; we have mass unchecked illegal immigration. So you can do all the "green" technology you want, but the benefits will be wiped out by sheer numbers if there's no reasonable limit on growth.
   8. 
      • attoman 317383
      • 18 Jul 2010 8:02pm 1279508578 1279533778

      @TurboDog50
      
      Want to work on immigration issues? Its a political hot potato but that one issue illegal immigration is rife with political collaborators. Labor Unions, Tea Party, Arizona citizens etc.
      
      Between all the interests and the loss of jobs in this depression-it will take care of itself. We certainly will know soon if illegal immigration is not nearing a solution.
      
      I still think US population is not the right place for us to focus. Its a waste of our energy and resources.
   9. 
      • TurboDog50 357993
      • 18 Jul 2010 8:09pm 1279508951 1279534151

      @attoman
      
      I agree ... if the country continues shedding workers -- and the only "growth" is in the gov't sector -- yes, illegal immigration may take care of itself for a time.
      
      There certainly are others who believe in focusing elsewhere, but some of us will keep plugging aware on building awarenes about population issues ... enjoyed our exchange ... have a good evening!
2. 
   • Biodiversivist 1550
   • 12 Jul 2010 6:10pm 1278983414 1279008614

   Well said, sir. Thank you for taking the time to compose a timely response.
3. 
   • Johnny Mack 305043
   • 12 Jul 2010 6:48pm 1278985729 1279010929

   Yes, thank you, Mr. Walker, for responding so well and so quickly.
4. 
   • TheProphetNabob 357903
   • 13 Jul 2010 3:41am 1279017694 1279042894

   Thanks for this response.
   
   The problem is, no one can prevent people from reproducing. Nature will, however.
   1. 
      • kayakpatty 2453
      • 13 Jul 2010 11:56am 1279047369 1279072569

      @TheProphetNabob - you beat me to the post. I was going to say basically the same thing.
   2. 
      • GoodCheer 2009
      • 13 Jul 2010 12:26pm 1279049205 1279074405

      @TheProphetNabob
      
      I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who would advocate preventing people from reproducing. The point, as I understand it, is simply to give them the option to use contraception.
      
      (or, put another way, your "problem" is a ludicrous straw-man)
5. 
   • Ladybug 129052
   • 13 Jul 2010 4:44am 1279021486 1279046686

   I'm not sure why the author finds it helpful to adopt a sneering tone. Earth to Robert: Fred Pearce already mentioned the problem of increasing resource consumption, and he already stressed the need to provide adequate family planning services to world's rich and poor alike. If you have a further point to add to his, I'm not sure what it is.
   
   Yes, Robert, there are a lot of people on the planet, and it is trivially true to point out that people are the source of environmental problems. But everyone already agrees that preventing unwanted pregnancy is a good thing. Beyond this obvious measure, what opportunities do we have to address environmental problems via population control?
   
   Sorry, Robert, rattling off a list of problems does not amount to a substantive critique. Failed states are not primarily the result of high birth rates. Neither, for that matter, is lack of access to drinking water. These problems are vexing, long-term development challenges, and they won't be solved via lazy scaremongering about population growth.
   1. 
      • Biodiversivist 1550
      • 13 Jul 2010 9:01am 1279036869 1279062069

      @Ladybug
      
      A case of the pot calling the kettle black, in a sneering tone no less?
      
      --"Failed states are not primarily the result of high birth rates."--
      
      I did not see the word "primarily" in his sentence, suggesting that somebody inserted it on their own recognizance. High fertility rates exasperate poverty, which does little to facilitate effective governance.
      
      And a lack of access to drinking water is also exacerbated by the number of people seeking it. Powerful word, exacerbate.
      
      ---"These problems ... won't be solved via lazy scaremongering about population growth."---
      
      Lazy? Scaremongering? Nice, an insult followed up with yet another strawman ...
6. 
   • Colin David Butler 358433
   • 13 Jul 2010 4:52am 1279021969 1279047169

   Thank you, for challenging Pearce, who, I have to say, should not be given this publicity for his unbalanced and very limited views. Pearce paints a straw man. I know of no credible environmentalist who blames our global predicament on population alone (does Pearce quote anyone?) In fact, until recently, only a very few very brave people (eg Lester Brown, Paul Ehrlich and Maurice King) even mentioned that population was part of our problem. And people who villify them do so from a position of ignorance, as none have ever claimed population is the only issue (eg Ehrlich and Holdren's I=PAT formula from 1971; Brown has for decades campaigned to promote a global energy transition; King, a father of primary health care, has campaigned for social justice and public health since the 1960s). More importantly, Pearce (and his ideological ally George Monbiot) don't seem to understand or acknowledge how rapid pop'n growth in low income countries makes economic takeoff so much harder, thus perpetuating poverty. Norman Borlaug warned the Green Revolution would permit a short respite if pop'n growth was not lowered; Reagan became the first in a line of US presidents to dismiss Malthus, and for that matter to dismiss Borlaug. Reagan's policies (excessive faith in the market) led indirectly to the Global Financial Crisis and BP's Gulf Oil calamity. It may also lead to irruptive population growth, at the global scale (ie a large crash). Pearce does this issue a disservice, as does Grist - though a quick glance at the comments suggests virtually no commentator supports Pearce.
7. 
   • Jennifer Dolan 331823
   • 13 Jul 2010 5:19am 1279023562 1279048762

   Seems to me that fertility is only a small facet of the population dynamic. The majority of people on the planet may be having less children, but it is not significant enough to counter increases in longevity. It is remarkable how much longer people are living, pretty much everywhere, but of course, most notably in the developed nations where people tend to consume the most. It is great that people are living longer, of course, but that does come with a price. No matter how many people choose not to have children or decide that having one child is enough, we in the wealthiest of nations must curb our consumption.
   
   Of course population plays a big part in sustainability, but there is a bigger reason why we discuss the issue and it all boils down to this basic question: How much do we need to lessen our dependency on natural resources before 6 billion + becomes a sustainable number? How much do we need to lessen our dependency before 8 billion + becomes a sustainable number? Reframed, how much do we have to lessen the population before our current consumption becomes sustainable? Now, which of those three questions would you like to answer? Not too many would chose the last one.
   
   That is all I have to say. Now it is time for the trolls to launch their attack at me *ho hum*
   1. 
      • Tod Brilliant 2019
      • 14 Jul 2010 12:20pm 1279135245 1279160445

      @Jennifer Dolan
      Great that you brought this up, as I too rarely see longevity mentioned as part of overpopulation discussions. Likely because we can talk about preventing people in far away lands from breeding with fair detachment. . . but talking about limiting our lifespan, that's far too close to home to consider even for a moment.
      
      I like the way they run things in Logan's Run. Maybe we can adopt a similar program? :)
      
      Also, what's with the smiley next to my icon? Anyone know?
   2. 
      • RealTimeHistory 291942
      • 15 Jul 2010 9:31am 1279211476 1279236676

      @Jennifer Dolan
      
      It is obvious to me that lessening our consumption is an absolute requirement for attaining a sustainable ecology, whether we are 6 billion, 8 billion, or even 4 billion.
      
      It is also obvious to me that curbing our consumerism need not be the cause of a lowering of lifestyle, but could actual increase our level of comfort and satisfaction. Of course, such a change will require some redesigning of what it means to have a good lifestyle. For instance, do we really need individual packages around our ketchup servings? At one time, we used returnable glass bottles for milk: Is that so inconvenient? Does 90% of all of the purchases we make have to be useless within a year? The trappings of our throw-away culture are a much bigger hindrance to the spread of a better lifestyle to the developing world than anything else I can think of.
   3. 
      • attoman 317383
      • 15 Jul 2010 9:56am 1279213016 1279238216

      @Jennifer Dolan
      
      I think this is an excellent point! I'm not sure that calculations of population and its impact include longevity or for that matter actual regional energy consumption. There is certainly a way to make a careful model that reflect these things. A simple example if the average age at death in the west is 70 and in another third world country its 35 then the basic consumption needs of each region is 2 to 1 i.e. two third world people consume as much water as 1 west region person. Because of health care and its burdens at birth ad death the actual resource, water and energy burden is much more complex but certainly something that can be calculated.
      
      In the end we expect to go to a world where the average per year and per person resource impact is the same world over. The average not the individual we hope to continue to live in and benefit from the freedoms which certainly mean that every person will not have the same resources as every other person.
   4. 
      • RealTimeHistory 291942
      • 15 Jul 2010 12:21pm 1279221696 1279246896

      @attoman
      
      Estimates of longevity are usually included in calculations of population birth/death rates.
      
      The consumption of energy obviously varies from region to region, but I don't think one can make the assumptions that you have made (that a 70/35 longevity rate comparison translates directly to a 2/1 energy consumption rate). There are simply too many other factors that would be involved for it to be that simple.
      
      Different regions of the world will necessarily have different energy requirements, if only because of variations in the local climates. How convenient that we happen to live in, and benefit from freedoms that give us more resources than many others on the planet. However, since one can not give up what one does not have, so it falls upon those that have to give up their excesses, so that those who have not might have enough. As for the freedoms we so enjoy in the U.S.A., how many of those benefits derive from the absence, or our exploitation of the absence of those same freedoms, in other parts of the world?
      
      I hope you did not intend to indicate that one group deserves more resources more than any other group. Perfect distribution of resources, while a lofty goal, is probably unattainable, but I would hope that access to resources will eventually be made more equitable on a world wide basis, so that everyone will at least have a sufficiency. Without such goals, how can we have the audacity to trumpet any claims to building a better world, no matter how fantastic some of the world's lifestyles may be?
      
      I recently read a report which said that simply giving the poor more money (not micro-loans -- but monetary grants) actually lowered starvation rates, and improved the area's health and economy. For instance, this tactic was shown to be better than giving, agricultural food products which ultimately just enriches the producers of those products, and ends up undercutting the ability of the local agriculture to produce their country's own food. This was because the poor could invest the money where they needed to, which supported the local economy by starting a cascade effect as that money circulated in the community. Doing this on a consistent basis allowed people to build up their ability to take care of themselves. Thus, our attempts to help by sending OUR products can actually hinder ability of the poor to help themselves.
      
      Hence, a reliable dole can actually help to bring people out of poverty. This is anathema to many conservative "Ayn Rand" capitalists, because it is so easily labeled "socialism" or "communism". That money DOES come from taxing the rich, but moving that money to the bottom actually ensures that it percolates back to the top, because poor people MUST spend it in their local economies, while the wealthy have the luxury of not spending it. It is not a matter of working hard for one's money or success. People will do that, or not, because of their own personal motivations, not because of the increased monetary rewards of a lower tax rate. I would guess that they will still complain about their high tax rates, but they will actually be making plenty of money, but so will many others.   ...read more
8. 
   • cathybettoney 8131
   • 13 Jul 2010 5:44am 1279025066 1279050266

   All you have to do is fly across the U.S. during the day and see what humans have done to the planet.
   
   Then look at animals housed under crowded conditions.
   
   Either we control our population or it will be controlled for us.
9. 
   • MidBosque 331573
   • 13 Jul 2010 7:22am 1279030932 1279056132

   A cooler head has prevailed.
10. 
    • sstaff 358513
    • 13 Jul 2010 8:16am 1279034174 1279059374

    A man whose job depends on there being a "population crisis" takes issue with an article suggesting that population growth might not warrant the "Everybody Panic!" mentality he needs to exist in order to earn his daily bread.
    
    And the sheep he shears bleat approvingly. Just like Hal Lindsey's did every time he needed another dollar.
    
    Color me unsurprised.
    1. 
       • Biodiversivist 1550
       • 13 Jul 2010 8:34am 1279035241 1279060441

       @sstaff
       
       One could make the same arguments for Fred Pearce, who keeps garnering media attention by hawking decades old fertility data as something new, and making the ridiculous illogical leap that the numbers of people consuming is irrelevant.
       
       And your "Everybody Panic!" statement is a yet another strawman defending an article built on them. I see no signs of panic in the comment fields.
       
       His perspective isn't novel. It has been borrowed from the religionists and repacked. And you won't find a bigger flock of bleating sheep (being fleeced) than that one. Read "Republican Gomorrah."
Comments Page 1 of 3 pages |  1 2 3 >