A rebuttal to " Human population reduction is not a quick fix for environmental problems" [View all]

[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.