More fallout from the population bomb

[Lionel Mandrake]

A story in today's LA Times dares to mention a forbidden topic:

" ... while scientists warn that humanity must dramatically slash future carbon-dioxide emissions to avert extended droughts, floods and other climate catastrophes, they have generally avoided a rigorous examination of how slowing population growth would help. Now, an international team of scientists has done the math."

Read the story: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/

[zazen]

1. k&r for daring to post about this sacred cow n/t

[Lionel Mandrake]

8. Thank you.

Many scientists dare to use the bad "P" word.

Politicians don't use the bad "P" word, either because they believe an obsolete religious message, or they are scared to admit that they don't believe it.

[earth mom]

21. What a sad country and planet we live on to have to worry about speaking the truth about

something so damn important like this!

:(

[Quantess]

34. It's not just our country that thinks this is not a "nice" topic.

[The2ndWheel]

2. All of our major instituitions need more people

Corporations need more customers. Governments need more tax payers. That's why immigration is such a big issue for the developed nations. They're aging, and need more people.

[MineralMan]

3. Population growth has been an issue as long as I've been alive.

That's why I decided not to have children...a decision I made in 1965. It was a hot topic then, and still is.

[southmost]

40. thanks

i'm a committed 'non-populator' too

[MineralMan]

41. Thanks to you, too.

It's always amusing to hear from people who are complaining about the population problem, but who think that their offspring aren't contributing to it. I don't usually bring that up, but there it is, staring everyone in the face.

I wonder who they think shouldn't have children. Somehow, I think I know the answer to that, and it's ugly.

[femrap]

52. I didn't reproduce either....

I would be worried sick if I had...knowing what our future holds. Third World America.

There are so many children living in foster care...and yet people keep reproducing. I believe it is selfish.

Also, there is nothing wrong w/ having an Only Child if the 'parental need' is so great.

I get the 'eye' when I say I don't have children. First, the person assumes I'm a lesbian. I'm not, but don't think that I haven't wished I were, given that lesbians enjoy the longest lasting relationships.

I've come up with a good answer. I tell people I'm a widow. It's sad that I feel I have to lie, but it gives me an 'out.' I end up with a tad of respect and I say he died long ago before we could reproduce. Or if the person is really bugging me, I say, my husband and child were both killed in an auto accident.

I am just so tired of having to justify my life choices to a bunch of willfully ignorant assholes.

[Le Taz Hot]

54. I just tell people I'm not into kids

and that I had other things to do, like climb out of poverty and get my ignorant ass educated. Occasionally, I'll get a "Well, THAT was selfish" to which I reply the obvious, "Well it's good I didn't have any children, then, isn't it?"

[stuntcat]

44. ditto

Horrible as it may seem to some, I am very proud of not adding more.
Resisting the constant pressure from my baby-boomer in-laws is part of my pride I guess. That's harder for women than men, especially with the sort of relatives I have now. But they don't know that I've had the operation :roffles:

[JuniperLea]

42. I bet you remember this popular poster from about the same time...

It had a profound effect on me... though I did go on to have three children, I often wondered what the hell I was thinking.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

4. Just like any other species...

overpopulation is damaging to the food chain and environment. People use resources and, (more recently in history, copious amounts of energy.At some point, the earth will not be able to support the energy/resource consumption of people. Its' going to get ugly in the next few generations. Could you imagine how overpopulated China would be without the population control measures they have had in place?

On the upside, overpopulation lends itself well to inexpensive labor rates.

[raccoon]

5. Part of the problem is how much of the world's resources people in first world countries use.

Probably between 25-50 times as much as the average third world citizen.

[antigone382]

10. The last figures I recall were around 20x as much, but that was about five years ago.

I certainly think population growth is a problem, but statistically, the best way to solve that problem is increasing women's access to education, economic opportunity, healthcare, and political involvement. It also helps to have a social safety net in place so that people don't have to rely solely on their children to support them in their old age.

I think it is neither just nor effective to legally limit how many children people are allowed to have, because it doesn't address the underlying economic and social issues that make having many children desirable. In the same way that outlawing abortion does not decrease abortion rates, but only makes them more dangerous, I feel that outlawing the bearing of a certain number of children would create more suffering than it would solve.

[Count Olaf]

18. [phone]

It is not the amount of people, it is the current way that certain people are using up resources.

That can and will need to change in order for the earth to continue supporting us. It is not about population numbers, it is about ignorance and the need to evolve.

[northernlights]

24. sorry but numbers matter too

the earth has a finite amount of resources and a finite ability to process/metabolize human waste products.

Numbers matter too. I'm glad I didn't have children and hope I'm not reborn to the increasingly crowded and miserable future. The good news is global climate change will trump all.

[raccoon]

55. Sorry, but I said, " PART of the problem is ..." nt

[northernlights]

56. I didn't reply to you....I replied to Count Olaf nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. Everybody remembers the punch line of 'Soylent Green', but nobody

seems to remember that the Harry Harrison story it was based on was entitled "Make Room, Make Room", and was a warning about uncontrolled population growth, not economic depression and a stratified society.

I wonder if part of it is because of our interstate system. Get out on the highway and you see mile after mile after mile of farmland, plains, forest, desert - America LOOKS empty, so how could there be a population problem?

It's like people saying the earth is flat, "because it sure looks like it to me".

[nightgaunt]

25. Its all linked. Don't separate what is connected

The 3 billion or so who consume 75% and more are the present problem. Now if we divided up the resources by the 6.9 billion everyone would know just what kind of problems we have. Food and water shortages, climate change, will lead to wars, overrunning of some countries who still have a decent life destroying them or they fight and kill millions to protect themselves. Food amounts are at precarious levels. If we should ever have food shortages protests in the streets would occur. We already have Depression and a stratified world. Anything that should interfere with the oil that lubricates and powers our whole agribusiness, monoculture food production could instantly cause chaos on its own. http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

The earth can't sustain what we have now. We could cut down all the forests and plant crops but it would only delay as long as more people are born and fewer die. Women controlling their ability to get pregnant is also a very good idea. We just need to fight against the religions like Islam and Christianity who will be fighting us tooth and nail. Also those secularists who think the very idea of controlling population is a plot to kill off every one but 500 million. I keep telling them that the rich like that we are overpopulated. It means they can have a cheap throw-a-way labor force. If we had 500 million or even 2 billion would be great. We could all live well and have a greater need for robots.

We will need to all work together, especially the rich countries learning to live more cheaply and less energy intensive, and up lifting the poor to live green too. Right now the best we can do is to ease the transition to a different kind of earth. One less hospitable to us after 10,000 years. Nature will be cruel, we don't have to be to our fellow beings and the earth itself.

http://www.overpopulation.org/

[MH1]

7. the comments on that article are pretty scary

yikes.

[SammyWinstonJack]

12. Yes, scary and ignorant. Mass exterminations, eugenics=Obamacare?

:wtf:

[laughingliberal]

9. K & R nt

[L0oniX]

11. I've been seeing population growth charts in every documentary about peak oil...

and water wars. It is shocking just how steep the curve is ...did I say curve ? It's like a vertical line at this point in time. There's no way this world can support this many people with finite resources and with what global warming is doing and is going to do. Of course you will find many here on DU who will attack and ridicule these things with "doomed" responses but those people only give comfort to the ignorant. The evidence of our impending collapse is overwhelming.

Growth and sustainability are impossible with finite resources.

[Lionel Mandrake]

13. Yes. Malthus had it right.

The food supply can grow like this for a while: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ....

Population can grow like this for a while: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, ...

Eventually something has to give. What will it be: wars, starvation, epidemics, or family planning?

[awoke_in_2003]

14. the first 3....

the 4th won't be accepted in this country because it is "unchristian"

[nightgaunt]

26. The Malthus Constant is a Dead Man's Switch

It is always waiting to engage if we fail to keep up. We are reaching the point to where our present system is too stretched out, too dependent on oil, too few types of crops (GMO's and suicide genes), GCC and population growth all play their parts.

If we falter it will come at us. Food riots have happened recently and can happen again. Whole countries could fall and chaos and a terrible death toll would automatically happen. We as a species have acted stupidly. A few more times and we could be extinct very quickly.

[Count Olaf]

53. that is so simplistic

Have we not evolved? Has science given us better ways to grow more food?

[Lionel Mandrake]

58. Yes and yes, but so what?

Yes, humans have evolved. Our distant ancestors were hairy, like the other great apes. Their muscles were stronger, their teeth larger, their brains smaller, etc. This evolution took place over millions of years, not over the 5000 years of recorded history.

Yes, science given us better ways to grow more food. The industrial revolution, including mechanized agriculture, has made it possible to feed billions of people.

And your point is ... ?

[JCMach1]

15. Growth is coming down

The world population is the population of humans on the planet Earth. It is currently estimated to be 6,874,500,000 by the United States Census Bureau.<1> The world population has experienced continuous growth since the end of the Black Death around the year 1400.<2> The highest rates of growth—increases above 1.8% per year—were seen briefly during the 1950s, then for a longer period during the 1960s and 1970s; the growth rate peaked at 2.2% in 1963, and declined to 1.1% by 2009. Annual births have reduced to 140 million since their peak at 173 million in the late 1990s, and are expected to remain constant, while deaths number 57 million per year and are expected to increase to 90 million per year by 2050. Current projections show a continued increase of population (but a steady decline in the population growth rate) with the population expected to reach between 8 and 10.5 billion in the year 2050.<3><4><5>... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

[felix_numinous]

16. It is difficult even to discuss with many progressives

because people take it personally, while it is is global humanitarian issue, and very complex.

World population is a problem because of the distribution of resources. If women were allowed an education, had access to birth control and felt safe in their communities to make personal choices, the world would be much more balanced. This is not an issue criticizing women for wanting and loving children, because they are making the world a better place. It is an issue that stems from sheer ignorance and domination by greedy men.

All the major religions' outdated dogma of the past, and their brutal vision of the future provides nothing to work with in the present, and enables this overpopulated scorched Earth to manifest.

[Count Olaf]

17. WE can change- and the planet can support more people

There are so many possiblities in alternative energy, we have only begun to explore.

We can put gardens on every rooftop and fruit trees in every park.


WE have pristine fresh glacial lakes pouring pure drinking water into the ocean every day, water that could be shared with the lower 48 and elsewhere.

If everyone is so concerned about CO2, why isn't there a world wide mass tree planting effort? Why aren't we developing the microorganisms that scientists discovered will eat CO2 and produce Oxygen? Why do we even consider 'cap and trade'? Shut down the polluters. Make them spend the money to filter their crap.



There are solutions to these problems. If we put one percent of the time and money we spend on war into finding these solutions, we would not be talking about overpopulation.

[SoCalDem]

19. Because most "modern" humans think small/now/2 years from now

It's too scary to think long-term, because to do that is to have to grapple with reality....and for too many Americans, they like their reality in one hour segments...on tv every week.l

[The2ndWheel]

23. "why isn't there a world wide mass tree planting effort?"

Because the planet might be able to support more people, but not more life in general? The more people, the less of some other form of life?

"WE can change- and the planet can support more people"

And obviously this wouldn't be changing. This would be increasing our control over the environment. What we've now been doing for thousands of years. That's anything but change.

"There are solutions to these problems."

If every time we come up with a solution to a problem, that solution helps shape the next problem, you can't really call that a solution. Every solution we've come up with, from as far back as you can think of, has resulted in at least one unintended consequence(but certainly more than one), which has then required another solution. There is no end. There is just a different set of problems. I'm not even sure you can call them "problems". A different set of circumstances.

[Count Olaf]

27. are you just messing with me? I am trying to make sense of what you wrote but...

????

There is plenty of space to plant more trees. They take CO2 from the air and provide oxygen. Humans don't need to provide them with resources, they pretty much take care of themselves. It is not an 'us against the trees' thing.

Changing for the better would be good for the environment whether or not it is 'increasing our control'??

All of our solutions will have equally bad unintended consequences? Oil gushes into gulf for two months, kills everything....windmills, kills a few birds.



I just finished watching Planet Earth from the BBC which coincidentally has this exact discussion and the program ends with the very same thing I said. WE have the technology, we have the intelligence, the solutions have already been provided by science....we just have to do it. We have to demand our government spend the necessary time and energy making the changes.


No matter how many people on the planet, if we keep going the way we are, the 20% using 83% of the resources will ruin the earth all by themselves. This bullshit about population growth in developing nations- they are not the problem. WE ARE!

[The2ndWheel]

29. "There is plenty of space to plant more trees."

Except when we need a road. A building. A farm. A city. Etc.

"Changing for the better would be good for the environment whether or not it is 'increasing our control'??"

It's not changing anything if we just attempt to increase our control. That's business as usual.

"All of our solutions will have equally bad unintended consequences? Oil gushes into gulf for two months, kills everything....windmills, kills a few birds."

We don't have enough history with the windmills we want to know what the consequences will be.

"I just finished watching Planet Earth from the BBC which coincidentally has this exact discussion and the program ends with the very same thing I said. WE have the technology, we have the intelligence, the solutions have already been provided by science....we just have to do it. We have to demand our government spend the necessary time and energy making the changes."

I've seen programs that say we don't. And so here we are.

[Count Olaf]

32. do you live in the city by chance?

there is plenty of wide open space for tree planting- take a drive sometime.

Even in the city, trees can be planted in public spaces...between buildings!


So since we can't see the future, alternative energy won't work because we might fuck up worse than we already have? WE can't do anything about the problem anyway, because that would be 'increasing our control'?

There is no solution, there is nothing we can do but pat ourselves on the back for being so smart and not having kids?

That is so selfish, and irresponsible and sad.

What happens if the intelligent people stop having kids and opt out of our future, giving up hope and not contributing to the solution? Have you seen the movie idiocracy?

[stuntcat]

33. it's "selfish, and irresponsible and sad" to not give an innocent child the rest of this century...?

noted. thanks.

[Count Olaf]

37. "pat ourselves on the back for being so smart and not having kids" is sad

There are solutions and we need to be demanding them for the future of humanity.

[The2ndWheel]

38. "there is plenty of wide open space for tree planting"

Wide open spaces are nice though. Maybe we could take down a few buildings instead, and plant the trees there. Now I'm talking crazy.

"So since we can't see the future, alternative energy won't work because we might fuck up worse than we already have? WE can't do anything about the problem anyway, because that would be 'increasing our control'?"

That's basically what I'm saying, yeah. It's not a problem with a solution. If alternative/renewable energy were to be limitless, what would we do with that? Civilized humanity, with limitless energy. Would we decrease our impact? Have we ever done that with more energy? Would we manipulate the global environment for the benefit of a single species less? Would there be a point where we stopped because we had enough energy? Would we essentially privatize the resources of the entire planet for the wants of a single species?

We can download our collective and/or individual brains onto a computer on an intergalactic starship, or go back to hunter/gatherers, or anything else, neither will solve a problem. It'll just be different circumstances to which we have to adapt.

"There is no solution, there is nothing we can do but pat ourselves on the back for being so smart and not having kids?"

At this point in time, I'm not sure one less here or one more kids there really makes any difference.

"What happens if the intelligent people stop having kids and opt out of our future, giving up hope and not contributing to the solution? Have you seen the movie idiocracy?"

I'm not too worried about that.

[stuntcat]

20. k & r bigtime

those who think humans more than quadrupling in half a century is 'natural' make me sick, sick and afraid. Yes, it may be possible for humans to live sustainably, but to do that we'd have to go back in time and start the industrial revolution over again. As it is, the rest of this century will be a sad mess- beautiful wilderness wiped out, growing ocean dead zones, the saddest extinction event in history, poor people continuing to suffer and starve.
I'd kill myself before I gave an innocent girl the next 80-90 years. I pity the babies I see, but considering their selfish parents they'll probably have harder hearts than mine.

To me, educated 1st worlders making new little babies is like an act of War.

[Panaconda]

22. Here's a much better article on the topic

...

* We see from the U.N. statistics on consumption distribution (on the first consumption page; that the world's wealthiest 20% consume 86% of the world's resources while the poorest 20% consume just a miniscule 1.3%), that it is not most of the world consuming the resources.

* While growing populations naturally place more demands on resources, it is not as simple a reasoning to say that we are overpopulated, or that the poor and heavily populated poor nations are the causes of the environmental degradation, as some automatically conclude.

* Much degradation may be occurring in the poor countries, but global trade and economic models include a lot of enforced export out of poor nations to the centers of capital, where, as per the above U.N. statistics, most of the consumption is done.

...

Hence, even other issues, such as population-related issues should consider the impact of consumption on the planet more importantly and analyze where that consumption is taking place. Of course, if the entire world's population were to consume in similar ways to the wealthiest, then we would no doubt have even more environmental problems than we are already facing and in relation to how we consume we would have a serious over population issue. Yet, the roots of this would be in how resources are consumed etc, rather than just population growths and declines.

Consumption modes, the political and economic models that support certain ways of consumption therefore have a far greater impact on the environment than “over” population, alone.

...

http://www.globalissues.org/article/242/wasted-wealth-capital-labor-and-resources

[Count Olaf]

28. +100000

The BBC Planet Earth series came to the same conclusion.

People who think it is just about the population numbers are living in denial.

It is about what we are doing to the earth, not our mere existence. What is being done to the earth is by a small percentage of the population for mostly the benefit and profit of an even smaller few.

American has a HUGE responsibility here. At a time when our politicians pretend to care about global warming with their 'cap and trade' bullshit, almost ALL American goods are made in countries with no environmental regulations.

The first step would be to end 'free' trade and enter into trade agreements with companies in countries that follow environmental laws. Next would be ending the pollution in our country. If you cannot afford to purchase filters to keep your crap out of the air, you are shut down. End of story, no 'trading' pollution.

When we get our priorities straight, the earth will be just fine. Population growth is just a red herring thrown out by the elite who would rather we all die(and are perhaps coming up with ways for that to happen) than them having to change their ways or lesson their profits.

[maryf]

51. +100

[stuntcat]

30. Humans quadrupled in half a century.

period.

[Swamp Rat]

31. Malthus, anyone?

Maybe he deduced correctly, despite many flaws? :shrug:

[Lionel Mandrake]

35. Malthus was very influential.

His ideas were convincing to Darwin, among others. His Essay on the Principle of Population is certainly worth reading.

[Naturyl]

36. Be careful...

Malthusian thinking was also instrumental in the development of social Darwinism. And that's not a good thing.

[Lionel Mandrake]

47. But Mallthus is not to blame for Social Darwinism,

and neither is Darwin.

[Naturyl]

48. Agreed. Their work was misused - but that same misuse can happen again.

[Count Olaf]

39. Fascinating to all interested in Eugenics

I can see the Republicans being into this philosophy...

"Social Darwinism is a pejorative term used for various late nineteenth century ideologies which, while often contradictory, exploited ideas of survival of the fittest.<1> It especially refers to notions of struggle for existence being used to justify social policies which show no sympathy for those unable to support themselves.

Some pre-twentieth century doctrines subsequently described as social Darwinism appear to anticipate eugenics and the race doctrines of Nazism. Critics have frequently linked evolution, Charles Darwin and social Darwinism with racialism, imperialism and eugenics, contending that social Darwinism became one of the pillars of Fascism and Nazi ideology, and that the consequences of the application of policies of "survival of the fittest" by Nazi Germany eventually created a very strong backlash against the theory.<26><27>

Nazi Germany's justification for its aggression was regularly promoted in Nazi propaganda films depicting scenes such as beetles fighting in a lab setting to demonstrate the principles of "survival of the fittest" as depicted in Alles Leben ist Kampf (English translation: All Life is Struggle). Hitler often refused to intervene in the promotion of officers and staff members, preferring instead to have them fight amongst themselves to force the "stronger" person to prevail - "strength" referring to those social forces void of virtue or principle.<28>



What of us evolving for the better?

Since the time of these philosophers...
We have made advances in science that should put us in a place where we can raise plenty of food for growing human populations. We have plenty of water and available alternative energy.

The problem is CO2 and global warming? Stop the polluters. Stop buying products made by polluters. It is not us little people changing light bulbs and not having kids that is going to make the difference.

[DireStrike]

45. It really doesn't matter, eventually there has to be a limit.

Even if the limit is physical space. We will hit other limits before we hit that one, but it is definitely possible to have too many humans.

We have two options. We can make reproduction laws, or we can have resource wars.

[Lionel Mandrake]

49. When you borrow from Wikipedia

(or any other source) you should provide a link, like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

Also, when you emphasize a phrase (e.g., by putting it in boldface type), you should mention that the emphasis is yours.

[underpants]

43. Feminism - women with careers have less children

they produce for their families they don't have children (and expect some losses) to produce- like on a farm or in a city wage-earners type situation.

[LostInAnomie]

46. That's why I've invested serious resources into...

... pulling out.

:yoiks:

[The Straight Story]

50. More control over womens' bodies will solve the problem

and educating people about abstinence before marriage and forced abortions for more than one child.

It is all so simple....control others and their lives for a better future, more freedom, and savings in $$.....

The nanny state, it is like the religious state but people can feel good about it because there is no religion involved.

[Scurrilous]

57. Kick

:thumbsup:

[Count Olaf]

59. PLANETARY PLUNDER: It's NOT OVERPOPULATION so Much as it is The LIFESTYLES of THE WEALTHY

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9310476