Comments jdeely has made

still an overused word

John Fish said,

"In my view, it's an oversimplification to state that "Family planning is also one of the keys in helping to relieve poverty, which in turn helps to further reduce fertility rates as people climb the economic ladder." In some cases, improved economic prospects lead to larger families, as was the case during the post-WWII Baby Boom. The USA was riding high as a global superpower, manufacturing and the consumer/suburban economy boomed, and the total fertility rate rose, peaking at 3.5 births per woman in the late 50s before beginning to drop. "

Not exactly -  the fertility rate for USA was WAY higher in the 1800's and early 1900's ... the 50's were just a post war/depression blip in an otherwise steadily declining fertility rate.
see - http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/haines.demography

I actually feel that overpopulation is still an overused word. We hear plenty of this side of the story and much less  of the good news concerning population, poverty and the environment.
My example above is one of 1000's that could be cited.On Rethinking 'overpopulation' posted 3 years, 1 month ago 77 Responses

Just imagine

Just imagine how much cheaper food would be if we eliminated subsidies for farmers in rich countries and poorer farmers were allowed to compete.

Just imagine how much lower American food bills would be if they didn't eat out for lunch 3-4 times a week and for dinner 2-3 times  a week. Even meals at home are often pre-cooked meals from Whole Foods, Trader Joes, Safeway etc...  What if we acutally purchased fresh vegetables, fruit and cooked our own meals a little more often.

Although we still have many issues with how the global food supply is distributed we are definitely moving towards, if we haven't already reached, a world where the problem is too MUCH food not too little. Even in many so-called developing countries, obesity is becoming a growing problem. Imagine if we ate a little less.
On A food-politics writer expresses angst at the obscurity of his topic posted 3 years, 8 months ago 24 Responses

population growth is slowing

by the second half of this century... declining populations will be a bigger problem than overpopulation.On How many kids do I have to have to get your attention? posted 4 years, 4 months ago 11 Responses

power plant pollution

There is no doubt that coal-burning power plants should be forced to clean up their act. However, let's not go overboard here...

Air pollution has DECREASED dramatically in the US since over the past three decades and it will continue to decrease.

see - http://www.epa.gov/air/airtrends/aqtrnd03/pdfs/chap1_execsumm.pdf

We can help this along by capping coal plant emissions, switching to alternative forms of power generation and increasing efficiency.

 However, we will not be saving "tens of thousands of children every year".

"If it was common knowledge among the American public that a relatively small number of industrial facilities was generating a substantial portion of the nation's air pollution and killing tens of thousands of children a year -- aided and abetted by a friendly administration -- people would be pissed."

According to the CDC only 12,000 children between 1-14 died of all causes in 2002.

see - www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus04trend.pdf#topic
 - table 32 for the causes of death.On Politicians protect the industry from 'burdens' at the expense of the public. posted 4 years, 5 months ago 6 Responses

Bad math

Think 1st

Actually it appears that your math is bad... both the number of people being added to the world and the percentage growth for world population are shrinking.

The % growth peaked in the 60's and the number of people added peaked in 1989. The peak for percentage growth was 2.19% which is now down to 1.15%. The peak in people added was 87 million and this is now down to 73 million. By 2050 both of these numbers will be approaching zero.On Umbra on having kids, revisited posted 4 years, 8 months ago 17 Responses

facts about china

Actually many countries have had faster declines in fertility rates than China. Korea is one example going from
1960 - 6.33
2000 - 1.51
see - http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_detail.cfm?IndicatorID=138&Country=KR

Versus China
1960 - 5.59
2000 - 1.80
see - http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_detail.cfm?country=CN&indicatorid=138

Needless to say Korea did not have a one-child policy. Many demographers have speculated that China's fertility rate could have gone lower with a voluntary versus compulsory policy.

For a really quick decline see Iran -
http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_detail.cfm?country=IR&indicatorid=138On Umbra on having kids, revisited posted 4 years, 8 months ago 17 Responses

Food

Michael you are correct in saying that I view your statement below as another example of alarmism.

"And I'm not going to get into the numbers on the population/hunger argument, but is Kristof seriously contending that huge numbers of people aren't starving to death every year?"

Hunger is a very tricky and emotional subject and we should all work towards the day when no human being suffers from lack of food. But the world currently has plenty of food and people are not "starving" as you imply, because of overpopulation.  

Over the past thirty years many environmentalists including the Ehrlichs and Lester Brown at Worldwatch  have kept warning about the impending wave of starvation that will soon hit the world because we wouldn't be able to grow enough food to feed everyone. This wave hasn't come and its not going to come.

Hunger is a political and governance problem and part of the problem as Dave suggested is distribution. There is more than enough food now and there will be even more in the future.

In fact, between 1990 and 2000 according to the FAO - see http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/docrep/006/y5143e/y5143e0a.htm
the world population has grown by an average of 1.5% per year and world food production has grown by 2.1% per year.  Between 2000 and 2010 population growth will slow to 1.2 % and food production growth will average 1.6 %.  

A few other comments in regards to food supplies... India now exports wheat and it also has the largest amount of acreage in the world devoted to cotton.

Many third world countries are now devoting land to growing biofuels. - a quote from PlanetArk at - http://www.planetark.com/avantgo/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=29737
" Faced with too many crops and not enough oil, Asian governments are promoting biofuels as a way to cut costly fuel imports." Brazil has huge amounts of land devoted to growing crops for ethanol.  Other countries are doing the same.  

Here in the US we are also growing crops for biofuels and we even pay our farmers money to NOT grow any food on some of their land. In short, there is enough food now and there will be enough in the future. The biggest problem the world faces today and in the future in regards to food is obesity not starvation.On An open letter to Nicholas Kristof posted 4 years, 8 months ago 19 Responses

consumption

Birdboy - I was at a lecture (Michael Braungart) recently where the speaker mentioned that the combined weight of all the ants on the Earth was equal to 20 billion humans. However, no one ever talks about them being overpopulated or not living sustainably.
You worry about ever increasing populations consuming resources.I do not think we need to "consume resources". The sun provides the earth with more energy than we could ever need. I think we are moving towards living more like nature in which we design things to function within a closed loop - see www.mdbc.com. In other words there is no consumption.

I agree with you about walking in wilderness and I think we need to make more progress in preserving wilderness. One interesting note on this... the United Nations latest study in population shows that the world is becoming much more urbanized. I think that urbanization is good for the environment and I also believe that more "smart growth" planning needs to be implemented. One other note - the US Forest Service recently reported that 10 million acres of forest has been ADDED in the US since 1990.

jdhlax - we are obviously on opposite sides of the fence. However, I do not believe as you imply that we should figure out how far we can go before we destroy the earth. I do believe that we should work towards the greatest possible wealth and comfort but I think that we can do this in a way that is compatible with nature.
It most be really tough reconciling your beliefs with the world around you. A lot of food that you eat has been grown in fields that were irrigated with "stolen" water, the building that you live in has wood from a tree that was "stolen" from a forest. The power that you use was generated by gas or coal that was "stolen" from the earth. Finally the computer that you are using to write these notes has a chip that used plenty of "stolen" water in its production and also contains copper and other minerals that were "stolen" from various parts of the planet.On Shrinkage posted 4 years, 9 months ago 13 Responses

Stealing

jdhlax - why do you say San franciscans are stealing water from the Sierra Nevada. Are they also stealing corn from Iowa, copper from Chile, shoes from Oregon/Malaysia, oil from Alaska, appliances from Mexico etc...

Do yo think we should all grow/make/mine/produce everything we use/consume/eat/drink in our own backyard?On Shrinkage posted 4 years, 9 months ago 13 Responses