A rebuttal to " Human population reduction is not a quick fix for environmental problems"

[GliderGuider]

http://www.populationelephant.com/barrybrookrebuttal.html

The quick summary of the (Bradshaw & Brooks) article goes like this: Our current dramatic global population growth has so much momentum behind it that all plausible population reduction scenarios can be modeled to demonstrate that they will have very little impact on overall total global population growth over the next 100 years. Therefore, to solve our looming sustainability crisis, forget trying to manage population, and instead focus on efforts to reduce per/capita consumption.

I've written several articles about global population modeling, and I've extensively played around with the U.N. spreadsheets to explore various outcomes of these population strategies (my articles can be found at http://www.populationelephant.com). Bottom line: I understand and completely agree with the Professor's results from their models.

So...I agree, the professors facts are correct. Unfortunately, their conclusion is completely absurd. We all know the basic equation of worldwide total human consumption: the famous IPAT formula. I prefer a simpler function: Total consumption equals average consumption per person times the number of people. Pretty simple. The professors advise that we ignore reducing the number of people, and just concentrate on reducing average consumption per person. And of course, they don't give any ideas about how to do that.

The truth is that reducing total consumption to sustainable levels, in the face of a 50% rise in global population, is every bit an intractable problem as reducing population. We could easily write an exact same article as theirs that would describe the futility of reducing global consumption to sustainable levels using plausible 'consumption reduction' solutions! It can't be done without eliminating things like education, research, healthcare and transportation. That math proving this impossibility is every bit as doable as their population models.

A final thought: The real danger of this article, and others like it, is that it promotes false hope. The implied conclusion by the professors, is that we don't need to think about really onerous population solutions, we can just solve this by managing our consumption. False hope is always an easy way out for those who have a voice in this matter. "Don't worry son, it'll be all right, you won't have to sacrifice much, the smart people behind the curtain will take care of this for you."

Unfortunately, false hope is all that most people have these days. The brutal reality is that before any progress can be made we must give it up. We need to replace this false hope with straight talk about our challenges and choices. Only then will mankind shake off its apathy and its comfortable belief that eventually everything will be just fine. Only when this false hope is crushed, will we finally face the difficult choices that we have to make.

[Turbineguy]

1. The largest consumers are in the US.

The republican party has a plan to whittle that down. We won't consume less as individuals, there will be just less of us. With wars, an unsafe food supply, the NRA, no more healthcare, an epidemic or two, and a little help from Al Qeada and IS, they are in with a chance.

[chervilant]

2. Difficult choices are not our species' forte.

We're trained from birth to be voracious and rapacious consumers. (My personal narcissism manifests as profound relief that I'm in my twilight years, but I grieve for our younglings.)

[TreasonousBastard]

3. Neither is a "fix" much less a quick one...

there is no easy way to reduce human consumption and the Chinese have shown that there is no easy way to reduce population.

It's interesting to note that in the US, Europe and Japan, increasing wealth seems to track with fewer children, but also with increasing consumption, while less wealth tracks with more children but less consumption. Don't need arguing academics to see that happening.

And wars, famine, plague or whatever may reduce the population temporarily, but it bounces back as soon as the situation changes.

[GliderGuider]

4. It's a dynamic-equilibrium process.

The human tendency to overshoot our Earth habitat, over consume, and degrade ecosystems is a normal trait successful animals. All successful, dominant animals that we know of tend to overshoot their habitats. Nature encourages animals to reproduce to excess, and trains animals to gain survival skills and to consume. However, there are no natural mechanisms that train them what to do as they overshoot their habitat, so they all just blow past the carrying capacity. These successful animals, like humans, can do a lot of destruction in a habitat.

The typical re-balancing is the result of a die-back that is then followed by re-growth, then another die-back, etc. Humans are just entering the mother of all ecological oscillations.

[Gregorian]

5. Slowing growth is still the other most important factor.

You may recall that I posted the early version of this, in video form, which showed the scientist actually discussing the phenomenon of population growth versus a one child law.

Here's what Paul Ehrlich has to say this morning:

All scientists should be allocating a significant amount of effort to promoting understanding and action to deal with the major drivers of environmental destruction: population growth, overconsumption by the rich, and socio-economic inequity. The scientific community has understood for decades that Earth is becoming increasingly overpopulated, that biodiversity supplies critical ecosystem services to humanity and is disappearing, that sustainable growth is an oxymoron, that civilization must rapidly transition away from the use of fossil fuels, that toxification of the entire Earth has potentially devastating consequences (Cribb 2014), and on and on.

http://mahb.stanford.edu/blog/conservation-biology-and-the-endarkenment/

Population is one half of the equation at least. "Forget it" is sends a horrible message. Of course it goes without saying that with 7 billion people, and many of them just beginning to use energy and resources.