This discussion is over a hundred years old. It has only evolved on from the predictions of Malthus to the glaring reality of it staring us in the face. A population not sustainable under the present consumption model. The consumer economy Have nations parasites on the rest of the world. We mine their mineral, pump their oil, corporate agriculture still follows the Banana Republic style of interacting with the third world and we leave them impoverished  rutting in the environmental mess. Rutting was not a typo!

The economic collapse that has encircled the world will be particularly devastating to the starving nations. This kind of desperations will make them grasp for any ideology that offers hope. We have seen it before, maybe not on the scale we will see in the future. If the ideology of 7th  Century Fundamentalism offers them food, water or just hope they will follow it. Especially if the dogmatic fundamentalist point to the source of their misery.

The development of sustainable renewable low cost energy for the third world was never more an immediate necessity than it is right now. Bio diversity and environmentally sound food production was never so necessary as it is right now. Desalination and clean water for the third world was never such an immediate emergency as it is right now.

Remember humans have no natural predators to check over population. The only species that kills itself in such mass numbers. Mother nature's little pressure valve for humans overpopulation. The natural innate agression in our old brain is sometimes masked by the cerebral cortex especially in the have nations with government sponsored education systems.  Third world populations have a different perspective on the world than what we do here in the U.S. and of course we are so arrogant we can't see it. The basic instincts of survival override any cognitive response to your environment every time.  

The situation can either be viewed as a ticking time bomb and a threat to civilization as we know it or mother nature's checks and balance for human overpopulation of the planet.

Renewable, sustainable low cost energy and help the third world feed itself or loose the dogs of war. That always leads to enough starvation and disease beyond the war dead to help mother nature do her job.

I would love to see the developed nations prove Malthus wrong but the smart money is on his solution of the population problem right now.

The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.

Lester Brown is an environmental guru, but this piece is totally anthropocentric and only mentions one problem caused by human overpopulation.  The extraction of resources analysis is the same flawed one put forth by leftist anti-environmentalists who worship humans to the detriment of all other life.  This analysis is correct as far as it goes -- if resources were properly shared, there would be enough to go around for humans -- but it totally fails to consider the consequences of human overpopulation on the rest of life on Earth.  Human overpopulation means there are not enough resources to go around for other species, regardless of how well humans share the resources among themselves.

The biggest problem is that with so many humans covering virtually every inch of the Earth, the rest of the species have nowhere to adequately live, and species that did not evolve to interact with humans are now forced to do so.  Humans have caused the sixth great extinction, in large part due to there being far too many of us.  There is no other large animal that lives in every ecosystem and on every continent.

It's way past time for humans to move out of some areas and leave them for others.  The best place to start is where humans could not even get to before engines were put on ships, namely Antarctica.  Humans should be restricted to the lower latitudes and areas with Mediterranean climates sot that they don't do so much destruction by consuming massive amounts of artificial energy just to stay warm.  And of course, this goes along with major population reduction, which should be accomplished by mandatory one-child-family policies everywhere except for nations whose human populations are already declining and therefore do not need this incentive (Japan, Russian, much of western Europe, etc.).

You gotta say "peak" in there somewhere to get it across Lester.  

They like peak, the mass delusional media.

But peak atmosphere, peak ice, peak water, peak biosphere?  No they like peak oil, peak coal, peak unemployment.

Is this obsession with peaks peaking.  "Mr. President,we can't allow a peak peak mass delusional media gap!"

Meanwhile global climate change represents an unprecedented national security problem, the chaos that is ensuing threatens multiple conflagrations in multiple theaters.   Conflicts which will threaten the stability of nations whose interests are intertwined with ours.

Recent pentagon studies and testimomy in congressal hearings have highlighted this global threat.  The climate going wrong is wrecking civil stability everywhere.  Remember New Orleans after katrina? Mutiply it a million-fold for different kinds of climate change related disasters around the planet.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

You guys actually published an article pointing out the environmental & social threats posed by exponential population growth!

How un-trendy of you to point out the elephant in the middle of the room.  Better to include another fluff article featuring Bono or Brangelina, don't you think?  So much less controversial.

But, controversial or not, the fact remains that we are adding 191,000 new people to the planet EVERY DAY.  Think about that.  The equivalent of a another Eugene, Oregon or Fort Collins, Colorado -- every single day.

Yeah, we'd better start talking about it.  Thanks for this article, Grist.

True enough, Pangolin.

But genetics will buy you desert-plants that return nitrogen to the soil, and need no irrigation.  GMO will get you salinity-tolerance and habitat-stabilization.

Lester Brown knows better than most, that we've been to this movie already.  Not to minimize the dangers - they are real - but we have dodged this bullet already.  I wish we were not getting set up to try pulling off the stunt yet again, but we are.  And yet again, going for the technology-fix - though a compromise & a delay-tactic - is (as LB kbtm) preferable to 'letting nature take its coarse'.

Note that what we can see we can do, best-favors the herder-model, culturally.  We can do much better improving the situation for browsing-animals, than we can for row-crops.  This time around.

It is beyond foolish to overlook that we know that Ethiopia's (in)famous trials & tribulations are largely energetically created and artfully managed, by humans, in service of human avarice.  This is not Mother Nature sighing, "Enough, already".  These principles apply far beyond Ethiopia.

You'll notice, we're not quoting Paul Ehrlich, who blazed this trail before us.

Start Loving,

I bottom-lined my previous comment with a reference to Paul Ehrlich, precisely because he 'gave in' to the impulse that you fault Lester Brown for not indulging.  

Ehrlich - arguably the founder of the modern form of population-environment studies - discredited himself by formulating conclusions & predictions that proved dramatically flawed.

There is nothing necessarily wrong in making a set of negative observations, without offering a corresponding set of solutions.

Describing the problem well is a legitimate role.  The fact that the bearer of the message delivers the message, and not the solution, is no reason to shoot him.

The security risk of economic turmoil was the lead in topic for our new Intelligence Czar, they usually lead in with terrorism but Dennis Blair points to the instability of the emerging nations over the next few years if the economic crisis continues.  The report to a congressional committee stated a prolonged economic crisis could lead to global violence and extremism.

"Social dislocation can be dangerous, too. Failing states tend to spawn refugees, ethnic cleansing, civil wars".

"Failing States open up vacuums for violence and extremism-and it does not take much for this to spill across national boarders."

"There are a lot of reasons for America to be afraid of other countries failing economies and shaky political system."

"America has never been able immune from the violent side of economic turmoil, and there's no reason we will be safe this time either."

Dennis Blair's message to congress last week.

Over population in certain parts of the world make them even more susceptible to destabilization. With the current economic crisis that is effecting every country in the world the fund to help over populated countries survive will be limited. One year into the crisis and the governments of Haiti and Iceland have already collapsed. Even countries such as Greece are on the verge of collapse. Greece owed Britain 4;1 billion and their GNP is only 2.1. The turmoil of the 20's and 30's that led to a World War will be magnified by the powers of 10 when the over population problem is added to the mix.

I think the current financial condition of the developed countries economies will fall short of the amount required to overcome the problems of overpopulation. Politically with the developed nations struggling themselves the will to help will not be there either.

If and the big if is that if the economic recovery plan being attempted here in the U.S. and looked at by the G-8 countries works it will be 12 to 18 months before the developed countries feel the positive effects of the recovery plan.  The under developed nations usually lag behind even in the best of times.

I feel we are headed for a population correction!

The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.

I am grateful for your response.

Plan B 3.0 is extraordinary because it BOTH identifies the problem in fabulous detail AND lays out the solution brilliantly!

Brown has the right to leave it there.  

But I stand by my post that his actions speak far louder than, and in vile opposition to his book - IF I correctly understand his actions CORRECTLY to be just comfortably traveling the speaking circuit - collecting the fees - and living normally while the worst he predicted unfolds - Civilization passes the tipping point and comes to a violent, excruciating end.

Nero fiddled while Rome burned.  What if instead of fiddling...?

... From your critique, Start Loving, that Brown does not offer Remedies ... Actions, etc.

Now you, me & we all know, Brother/Sister Lovin', that being the mild-mannered, supposedly non-risking messenger is actually by no means a reliably cushy (or even hazard-free) job ... that straddling the fence-top can be hard on delicate portions of the anatomy.

But, in the next little while I'll see about rounding up a few brief run-downs on Brown's Plan B 3.0 so I can have a minimal idea what I'm talking about, next time.  ;)

I used to follow the efforts of Paul Ehrlich & Co. in some detail, and weighed the various ideas & predictions they generated, with interest.  (Which is why, truth be, I pay little mind to Brown & Co.) It will be good to see how much novelty Lester Brown is able to produce!