Chris Hedges: We Are Breeding Ourselves to Extinction

[marmar]

from Truthdig:



We Are Breeding Ourselves to Extinction
Posted on Mar 8, 2009

By Chris Hedges


All measures to thwart the degradation and destruction of our ecosystem will be useless if we do not cut population growth. By 2050, if we continue to reproduce at the current rate, the planet will have between 8 billion and 10 billion people, according to a recent U.N. forecast. This is a 50 percent increase. And yet government-commissioned reviews, such as the Stern report in Britain, do not mention the word population. Books and documentaries that deal with the climate crisis, including Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth,” fail to discuss the danger of population growth. This omission is odd, given that a doubling in population, even if we cut back on the use of fossil fuels, shut down all our coal-burning power plants and build seas of wind turbines, will plunge us into an age of extinction and desolation unseen since the end of the Mesozoic era, 65 million years ago, when the dinosaurs disappeared.

We are experiencing an accelerated obliteration of the planet’s life-forms—an estimated 8,760 species die off per year—because, simply put, there are too many people. Most of these extinctions are the direct result of the expanding need for energy, housing, food and other resources. The Yangtze River dolphin, Atlantic gray whale, West African black rhino, Merriam’s elk, California grizzly bear, silver trout, blue pike and dusky seaside sparrow are all victims of human overpopulation. Population growth, as E.O. Wilson says, is “the monster on the land.” Species are vanishing at a rate of a hundred to a thousand times faster than they did before the arrival of humans. If the current rate of extinction continues, Homo sapiens will be one of the few life-forms left on the planet, its members scrambling violently among themselves for water, food, fossil fuels and perhaps air until they too disappear. Humanity, Wilson says, is leaving the Cenozoic, the age of mammals, and entering the Eremozoic—the era of solitude. As long as the Earth is viewed as the personal property of the human race, a belief embraced by everyone from born-again Christians to Marxists to free-market economists, we are destined to soon inhabit a biological wasteland.

The populations in industrialized nations maintain their lifestyles because they have the military and economic power to consume a disproportionate share of the world’s resources. The United States alone gobbles up about 25 percent of the oil produced in the world each year. These nations view their stable or even zero growth birthrates as sufficient. It has been left to developing countries to cope with the emergent population crisis. India, Egypt, South Africa, Iran, Indonesia, Cuba and China, whose one-child policy has prevented the addition of 400 million people, have all tried to institute population control measures. But on most of the planet, population growth is exploding. The U.N. estimates that 200 million women worldwide do not have access to contraception. The population of the Persian Gulf states, along with the Israeli-occupied territories, will double in two decades, a rise that will ominously coincide with precipitous peak oil declines.

The overpopulated regions of the globe will ravage their local environments, cutting down rainforests and the few remaining wilderness areas, in a desperate bid to grow food. And the depletion and destruction of resources will eventually create an overpopulation problem in industrialized nations as well. The resources that industrialized nations consider their birthright will become harder and more expensive to obtain. Rising water levels on coastlines, which may submerge coastal nations such as Bangladesh, will disrupt agriculture and displace millions, who will attempt to flee to areas on the planet where life is still possible. The rising temperatures and droughts have already begun to destroy crop lands in Africa, Australia, Texas and California. The effects of this devastation will first be felt in places like Bangladesh, but will soon spread within our borders. Footprint data suggests that, based on current lifestyles, the sustainable population of the United Kingdom—the number of people the country could feed, fuel and support from its own biological capacity—is about 18 million. This means that in an age of extreme scarcity, some 43 million people in Great Britain would not be able to survive. Overpopulation will become a serious threat to the viability of many industrialized states the instant the cheap consumption of the world’s resources can no longer be maintained. This moment may be closer than we think. ............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090309_we_are_breeding_ourselves_to_extinction/

[bluestateguy]

1. Thanks a lot Octo-Mom!

How much is that woman going to cost the taxpayers?

[katty]

56. she already has-i expect her to land a 'real life w/OctoMom'

series soon-good, let her pay her own bills.

[ComtesseDeSpair]

2. Bravo.

We non-breeders should get rewarded with huge tax breaks.

[Hello_Kitty]

5. LOL.

I agree but that particular subject really raised the ire of the parents on DU. Their tax breaks are sacrosanct, as far as they are concerned. I kid you not, some of them think we non-breeders aren't paying enough to subsidize their broods!

[polichick]

7. Absolutely - and those with many kids should be paying shitloads!

[Hello_Kitty]

9. Yeah, you'd think.

But we have it bass ackwards in the developed world. Non-parents get stuck with the tax bill, and you have leaders in some developed countries wringing their hands over a "low birthrate" and even proposing incentives to breed! :wow:

[Jokerman]

19. Good luck with that!

I used the word "breeder" here once very innocently and got my ass flamed.

The perceived "right" to be rewarded and revered for procreation is taken very seriously.

[Seldona]

37. I would support a tax break for you voluntarily taking

yourself out of the gene pool. Every little bit helps.

[polichick]

3. Some of us have been talking about overpopulation since the early 70s...

Neither Dems nor Republicans will touch it.

[Hello_Kitty]

8. Shit, it's hard to talk about it here on DU.

People freak out at the mere suggestion that we ought to be creating fewer humans.

[polichick]

12. I know - tried it once and you'd think I claimed babies should be shot.

[Lorien]

26. Yep; overpopulation is the last taboo topic

among both politicians and those here on DU. amazing how they can be oh so "logical' when talking about, say, deer overpopulation. "We must cull deer or it will hurt the species by causing starvation, disease, and damage to our property"! But somehow seven billion humans have zero effect on the planet? The planet will just "heal itself" no matter how much harm we do to it? Now I'm not in favor of "culling" anything, but we need to seriously consider limiting our own procreation if we want to have a shred of hope for living beyond the next forty years.

[Triana]

15. I have - no one's listening - populationconnection.org has been around for years

used to be known as ZPG or Zero Population Growth. I've been a member for decades...to no avail, of course.

Politicians won't touch this - just like healthcare - they won't address the problem - too many corprat profits at stake - too many people making too much money to address the problem - it's more profitable to IGNORE it - for NOW - until the problem takes care of itself, that is - and it WILL - and not in a very nice way, either. We COULD avoid such catastrophies - but we won't.

[progressoid]

51. Zero Population Growth.

In the 80's, it was one of the first groups I donated money to as an adult. (I was still doing kid stuff in the 70's :) )

Now called Population Connection http://www.zpg.org/

[Hello_Kitty]

4. Let the bombardment of this thread by Offended Breeders begin.

OMG U WANT US TO BE LIKE CHINA WHERE THEY DROWN THE GURL BAYBEEZ!!1!

WHY DO U HATE CHILDREN??1!?

CHILDREN ARE THE FYOOOTURE!!1!

:popcorn:

[Dr.Phool]

17. I love children!

But, I don't think I could eat a whole one.

[Sal Minella]

33. You're probably not cooking them properly.

Also, spawn of the very rich are better eating but of course more difficult to obtain due to electrified security fences etc. Worth a little extra effort though, I've found.

[msongs]

6. global warming will take care of the breeding problem - the earth would like to

get rid of humans. GAIA indeed.

Msongs

[stopbush]

14. Indeed. We think of these things in purely human terms,

as in, "what is the cost to humans?" But our planet's history is one of species going extinct. 99% of them, in fact. Some species went extinct because of the dinosaurs. Neanderthals went extinct because they couldn't compete with homo sapiens.

Yes, species are dying off due to man's influence at an accelerated rate, but there's nothing to say they wouldn't have died off eventually anyway. There's a case to be made to saving as many species as possible, but we need to realize that this is but a temporary solution and effort in the grand scheme of how long life has existed on this planet.

Once humans are gone - and the odds are pretty strong that we will be gone at some point in the Earth's not-too-distant future - other life will flourish and die, just as it always has. Who knows? A new species could arise that obliterates other species at a more-dramatic rate than even humans.

[BrklynLiberal]

45. I believe that it was Kurt Vonnegut Jr who likened humans to a virus...attacking Mother Earth.

She is in the process of working to rid herself of us.

Even George Carlin said that it is only the humans that will perish..the planet will survive and rebuild itself.


"When the last living thing
Has died on account of us,
How poetical it would be
If Earth could say,
In a voice floating up
Perhaps
From the floor
Of the Grand Canyon,
"It is done."
People did not like it here.''"
— Kurt Vonnegut Jr.


George Carlin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

[YOY]

10. I'd say the biggest perps in this are religious nutbags.

Just a guess.

It's not just how many but exactly WHO is breeding.

I shouldn't feel guilty for having 1 or 2 kids that I can send to college.

[DUlover2909]

48. You should be proud. That's what we're supposed to do.

If everyone only had 2 kids there would be a zero growth in population. If those 2 kids go to college, then that's a great bonus. The problem is too many people that can't afford children are having 3 or more for whatever reasons.

[YOY]

52. Ah yes but someone here has to pull out the "breeders" line,

I see someone already did. Insinuated anyone who has kids is of lesser intellect.

Nothing says "bitter", like someone throwing the word "breeder" around and making anyone with kids feel guilty because they have been so "noble" as to chose not to reproduce.

Call me a eugenicist...but it's not how many kids people have...it's who has kids.

[JAbuchan08]

53. You're a eugenicist

Who gets to determine which parents are "entitled" to have children? I think we are all outraged by Nadya Suleman and others whose reproduction outstrips their own resources, not to mention the planet's, but I also get annoyed at the well-heeled mothers and fathers who feel they are entitled to reproduce. They are almost as disgusting as Nadya Suleman, but instead of getting their self-actualization from the sheer number of children they produce they recieve it from their ability to "customize" their child and turn them into a little version of themselves: entitled consumeristic brats.

So yeah, it offends me when people say things like, "it's not the number of children it's who has them." No, it's the number of children, and I'm not going to excuse the well-heeled as they have done just as much as anyone to turn the act of reproduction into a consumeristic system. Nadya Suleman may be the most extreme example of our consumeristic culture of feel-good babymaking, but she's just on that path she didn't build the road.

I sometimes think that I would like to have a child, but I realize that it is a selfish instinct and is in no way a neccessity. More people should be aware of this instead of reproducing children as if we are running out.

[pokercat999]

60. You can have ours.

He's thirty-one this month..:rofl:

[YOY]

61. That was totally my motivation for having a child!

You totally read my mind! I was thinking, "Hey honey, lets pop out one or two smarties because we have to keep up with the Duggars!"

Yeah I'm totally a Himlerite! That guy rocked.
:sarcasm:

Comparing folks like myself and dare I say a couple of the head mods to the Octomom is fucking sick and insulting. LEt's not go there OK?

[truedelphi]

11. Within Twenty years, the fertility rates for human beings will be .01%

Checkout Warren Porter's comments on this. When you start seeing reptiles born with hermaphrodite features, the males (Like the Florida 'gators) with such miniscule members that reproduction is not possible, then you realize that with pesticides, GMO's and other poisons contaminating our air and water, human beings will not flourish.

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. You can't extrapolate alligator sex determination to human - they depend on egg temperature

The temperature at which American alligator eggs develop determines their sex. Those eggs which are hatched in temperatures ranging from 90 to 93 degrees Fahrenheit turn out to be male, while those in temperatures from 82 to 86 degrees Fehrenheit end up being female. Intermediate temperature ranges have proven to yield a mix of both male and females.

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Alligator_mississippiensis.html

It's a completely different system from the XX/XY chromosomes determining human sex. I hope Warren Porter had some other evidence for his thesis.

[truedelphi]

39. He had help from his brother & also inserted data from egg attachment rates 4 mammals

December, 2002 - Coastal Post

Insects' Revenge: World Population To Shrink
By Carol Sterritt

On November 11th, the environmental community in the Bay Area received a rare treat: that of a visit from noted scientist/researcher Warren Porter, Ph.D.

Against a backdrop of incredible edibles at Larkspur's renowned restaurant "Roxanne's", local activists heard Porter deliver a remarkable detailing of his knowledge of pesticides.

Knowing Warren as I do, I expected him to drop one or two bombshells during his evening talk. What I did not expect was the overwhelming nature of the problems that his research on pesticides would expose.

For example, his brother, Dick Porter, works for Allen Greenspan. One of his assigned jobs is to develop population models to use in creating a framework of the future world economy. Several years ago, he approached Warren with the news that data from various target points all across the globe indicated that levels of fertility were facing extreme declines. In fact, accumulated data suggested that within fifty years, most places on the Earth would have a negative birth rate. A huge drop in the world's population was thus expected. Did Warren know anything about this and would he care to comment?

Porter, whose most recent work on pesticides indicates that a mixture of weed-killing toxins, even at low doses, prevent mammalian fertilized eggs from attaching to the womb, was ready to reply. But his answer was not comforting.

"Dick, I think that the fifty year scenario in which you are framing the rise of this problem is simply overly optimistic."

Indeed, Porter opened his talk with a graphic cartoon of an adult male alligator searching for his gonads. The cartoon was not simply a humorous segue into science: it is unfortunately fact that all over the globe, reptilian and amphibian creatures are being born with deformities and anomalies previously unknown in such large numbers. Minuscule genitalia, hermaphroditic sexual organs, and shortened forelegs are all commonplace defects that researchers now attribute to pesticide use. Scientists also note that what happens today in the reptilian population foreshadows what will occur a generation or two hence in the human population.

Additionally, studies released in Porter's home state of Wisconsin show that high numbers

[Triana]

13. We absolutely ARE. Sawing off the very branch upon which our existence is perched...

....like idiots.

I'm glad to see this becoming a more talked-about issue - though not talked of nearly enough, still. It ought to be headlined on every corprat-pwned news outlet - except they are too beholden to their own profits to tell people anything useful so they don't.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

16. Which is why I chose not to have children n/t

[marmar]

18. Same here......

And one of my co-workers, who has children, suggested that I was "selfish" for not having or wanting children.

[Dawgs]

25. You're not the only. How can you be "selfish" against something that doesn't exist.

It's crazy, but that's an argument that gets used quite a bit.

[CrispyQ]

27. A fundie type called me a freak for not wanting to have a child.

That was just one of many jewels that came from her lips.

[Lorien]

29. What could possibly be more selfish than bringing a child into this mess:

Earth 'will expire by 2050'

Our planet is running out of room and resources. Modern man has plundered so much, a damning report claims this week, that outer space will have to be colonised

The end of earth as we know it? Talk about it here

Observer Worldview


Earth's population will be forced to colonise two planets within 50 years if natural resources continue to be exploited at the current rate, according to a report out this week.

A study by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), to be released on Tuesday, warns that the human race is plundering the planet at a pace that outstrips its capacity to support life.

In a damning condemnation of Western society's high consumption levels, it adds that the extra planets (the equivalent size of Earth) will be required by the year 2050 as existing resources are exhausted.

The report, based on scientific data from across the world, reveals that more than a third of the natural world has been destroyed by humans over the past three decades.

Using the image of the need for mankind to colonise space as a stark illustration of the problems facing Earth, the report warns that either consumption rates are dramatically and rapidly lowered or the planet will no longer be able to sustain its growing population.

Experts say that seas will become emptied of fish while forests - which absorb carbon dioxide emissions - are completely destroyed and freshwater supplies become scarce and polluted.

The report offers a vivid warning that either people curb their extravagant lifestyles or risk leaving the onus on scientists to locate another planet that can sustain human life. Since this is unlikely to happen, the only option is to cut consumption now.

Systematic overexploitation of the planet's oceans has meant the North Atlantic's cod stocks have collapsed from an estimated spawning stock of 264,000 tonnes in 1970 to under 60,000 in 1995.

The study will also reveal a sharp fall in the planet's ecosystems between 1970 and 2002 with the Earth's forest cover shrinking by about 12 per cent, the ocean's biodiversity by a third and freshwater ecosystems in the region of 55 per cent.

The Living Planet report uses an index to illustrate the shocking level of deterioration in the world's forests as well as marine and freshwater ecosystems. Using 1970 as a baseline year and giving it a value of 100, the index has dropped to a new low of around 65 in the space of a single generation.

It is not just humans who are at risk. Scientists, who examined data for 350 kinds of mammals, birds, reptiles and fish, also found the numbers of many species have more than halved.

Martin Jenkins, senior adviser for the World Conservation Monitoring Centre in Cambridge, which helped compile the report, said: 'It seems things are getting worse faster than possibly ever before. Never has one single species had such an overwhelming influence. We are entering uncharted territory.'

Figures from the centre reveal that black rhino numbers have fallen from 65,000 in 1970 to around 3,100 now. Numbers of African elephants have fallen from around 1.2 million in 1980 to just over half a million while the population of tigers has fallen by 95 per cent during the past century.

The UK's birdsong population has also seen a drastic fall with the corn bunting population declining by 92 per cent between 1970 and 2000, the tree sparrow by 90 per cent and the spotted flycatcher by 70 per cent.

Experts, however, say it is difficult to ascertain how many species have vanished for ever because a species has to disappear for 50 years before it can be declared extinct.

Attention is now focused on next month's Earth Summit in Johannesburg, the most important environmental negotiations for a decade.

However, the talks remain bedevilled with claims that no agreements will be reached and that US President George W. Bush will fail to attend.

Matthew Spencer, a spokesman for Greenpeace, said: 'There will have to be concessions from the richer nations to the poorer ones or there will be fireworks.'

The preparatory conference for the summit, held in Bali last month, was marred by disputes between developed nations and poorer states and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), despite efforts by British politicians to broker compromises on key issues.

America, which sent 300 delegates to the conference, is accused of blocking many of the key initiatives on energy use, biodiversity and corporate responsibility.

The WWF report shames the US for placing the greatest pressure on the environment. It found the average US resident consumes almost double the resources as that of a UK citizen and more than 24 times that of some Africans.

Based on factors such as a nation's consumption of grain, fish, wood and fresh water along with its emissions of carbon dioxide from industry and cars, the report provides an ecological 'footprint' for each country by showing how much land is required to support each resident.

America's consumption 'footprint' is 12.2 hectares per head of population compared to the UK's 6.29ha while Western Europe as a whole stands at 6.28ha. In Ethiopia the figure is 2ha, falling to just half a hectare for Burundi, the country that consumes least resources.

The report, which will be unveiled in Geneva, warns that the wasteful lifestyles of the rich nations are mainly responsible for the exploitation and depletion of natural wealth. Human consumption has doubled over the last 30 years and continues to accelerate by 1.5 per cent a year.

Now WWF wants world leaders to use its findings to agree on specific actions to curb the population's impact on the planet.

A spokesman for WWF UK, said: 'If all the people consumed natural resources at the same rate as the average US and UK citizen we would require at least two extra planets like Earth.'

The world's ticking timebomb

Marine crisis:
North Atlantic cod stocks have collapsed from an estimated 264,000 tonnes in 1970 to under 60,000 in 1995.

Pollution:
The United States places the greatest pressure on the environment, with its carbon dioxide emissions and over-consumption. It takes 12.2 hectares of land to support each American citizen and 6.29 for each Briton, while the figure for Burundi is just half a hectare.

Shrinking Forests:
Between 1970 and 2002 forest cover has dwindled by 12 per cent.

Endangered wildlife:
African elephant numbers have fallen from 1.2 million in 1980 to half a million now. In the UK the songbird population has fallen dramatically, with the corn bunting declining by 92 per cent in the past 30 years.

[Hello_Kitty]

31. It's hysterical when they call us selfish

As if no one has selfish motivations for having a child. I'd say the number one reason for procreating is pure narcissism, with following societal or family expectations coming in at a close second. I got beat the hell up for saying this on a previous DU thread, but I submit that a lot of parents out there don't really like their kids very much and probably regret having them.

[Skittles]

47. I agree

[Lady Effingbroke]

59. It is projection.

They realize that they are the selfish ones, but refuse to admit that their motives for reproduction were based upon anything less than the most noble and selfless ideals.

I am childfree and have actually had several childed friends state very bluntly their admiration and jealousy of my lifestyle and their regret at having children (using those exact terms). :shrug:

[Lady Effingbroke]

58. No, in fact, you are very, very selfless.

Your children-never-to-be will never use increasingly scarce resources desperately needed by others.

I am also childfree-by-choice. :hi:

[Triana]

21. Same here - that's one huge reason. n/t

[Peregrine Took]

36. My ex Jehovah's Witness boss said that women who don't have kids aren't

really women at all.

For a boss he wasn't vicious (for which I was grateful) but he had some terrible ideas.

He was an ex Catholic who converted to JW by his daughter who went to one of their summer camps and fell in love with the religion.

Weird.

[mimitabby]

20. the worst line in the bible: go forth and multiply

And the absolute insanity of MILLIONS of people who believe that they are supposed to follow EVERY word
of whichever part of the bible their ministers tell them is important is reflected here.

How can they POSSIBLY believe that God was talking to THEM here? He was talking to a tiny band of itinerant
desert dwellers. NOT THE BIG FAT GREEDY BILLIONS OF modern human beings!!!

Isn't it OBVIOUS? Haven't they noticed, the lines, the traffic, the slums, the refugee camps?

and yes, I think fertility rates are plummeting. Another "good" thing is that as the younger generation gets less socialized (from living behind computer monitors) there will be a whole lot less of good old fashioned sex happening, which, of course leads to less children.

[Jim Lane]

34. I heard a Christian speaker make sense on this subject

He said: "The Bible tells us to be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the Earth. May I now announce that the Earth has been replenished?"

Of course, my bias as an agnostic is that this is a problem with relying on sacred texts. There's no readily apparent mechanism for updating them when necessary.

[raccoon]

22. The problem isn't just the Third World family having 6 or 8 or more kids.

The other side of the coin is the First World citizen using about 30 times the resources that the Third World citezen uses.

[zipplewrath]

23. It presumes constant trends.

Over population will be an issue, but this analysis presumes constant trends, and none of them will remain constant. The very forces to which they allude will cause reduced birth rates, elevated death rates, and shifts in the population growth patterns in the least industrialized nations. To some extent I suspect the primary problem will be water. It is both necessary and yet an agent of the spread of disease. We can reduce the amount of oil and energy we consume by whole integer multiples. But I strongly suspect our ability to reduce our consumption of water, world wide, will be limited. There have been regional "resets" on population in the past, I suspect we will have global epidemics coming as well.

[Karenina]

28. The primary problem is already water.

Whether it's rising, disappearing, polluted, become a commodity, subject to privatization, what-all-have-you, it is NOW, TODAY, a BIG ISSUE.

[BrklynLiberal]

46. Yep. They say water is the next "oil".

Did you ever see the movie "Tank Girl"? It is over the top..but I did enjoy it...and the premise is a worldwide water shortage.

[truedelphi]

41. Watereverywhere - if only the salinity of the

Sea water could be cheaply reduced.

[CrispyQ]

30. I have a bumper sticker:

SIX BILLION MIRACLES IS ENOUGH

It's out of date. :(

http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html

[cascadiance]

32. The ONLY tax deductions allowed for kids after the 2nd child...

... should be if you ADOPT a kid, not birth a kid! We need to remove the incentive to get more people into the world, and instead take care of those we bring into it. By keeping credits for adoption in place (and hopefully trim away all ways of "scamming" this), we can allow those who want to have more than two kids and are good parents to use their talents, but at the same time not push more of a human population burden on the planet.

[8 track mind]

35. the fundies

are always telling me that the Bible says "be fruitful and multiply"

I think the fundies have to share some of the blame for this for pushing the abstinence nonsense

[mikelewis]

42. Well, the operative directive is of course to be fruitful first and then multiply...

The line isn't... be desolate and multiply... or be flat broke and multiply... or here's a mayonnaise samwich and a house on wheels now go have twenty kids... the order is first, be fruitful... be bountiful... have an excess so you can provide for your family first... and then multiply.

The words aren't bad advice... it's the ignorant RW ideology that says a person should multiply even when they are not fruitful, even when they can't even provide for themselves... that ignorant interpretation of scripture when their inane attempt at forced abstinence fails, is what is ridiculous and should be focused upon.

[8 track mind]

43. interesting

You see we always had it pounded into our heads that we were supposed to bear fruit (kids). Thats an interesting way of looking at it

[The2ndWheel]

38. Think of each species as a corporation

Think of the planet as the government. The government regulates the corporations, not the other way around. Humans don't get to write the rules, or else we end up like Exxon, Wal-Mart, Monsanto, etc.

[Shireling]

40. It would be nice

if we could promote adoption. Making it a cool thing to do. But it is too expensive for many people. Still promoting adoption seems like the only answer.

[BrklynLiberal]

44. Too many people might be the source of virtually every problem we have today...

That...and greed, of course.

[DUlover2909]

49. An interesting group, if nothing else:

http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/

[HamdenRice]

50. Hedges, like most Malthusians, gets it wrong. Over population is not an urgent issue.

I generally respect what Hedges writes, so I'm shocked that he has gotten sucked into this neo-Malthusian nonsense.

Over population is a big problem, but it is not an urgent problem in the way he says it is, for two reasons.

First, we have largely solved the population growth problem. If we continue our current population development, health and women's rights policies around the world, population will level off at around 10 billion and then decline without any drastic new interventions. The main policies that reduce population growth are women rights (right not to have children, right not to have sex), free or very cheap contraception, and infant health care (no need to have many children to ensure survival). Every major demographic study shows estimates of peak population happening more rapidly at a lower number than the prior estimates. Population growth is falling off a cliff worldwide, and replacement rates are likely to be reached within most of our lifetimes.

Second, he is confusing the number of people with the ecological impact of people. The remaining population growth is going to be in Africa and underdeveloped parts of Asia where the footprint of each person is 1/60th the footprint in North America. The continuing growth of population in Africa will be damaging, but will be trivial compared to the continued lifestyle of people in the developed world, and the expanding lifestyle of people in India and China. The places in the world that have achieved zero population growth ironically do more damage to the environment than the places were population is still growing. The key to a sustainable global environment is changing the way the developed countries consume resources.

Let's keep in mind that in the part of the world where population growth has not leveled off, there are still massive populations of megafauna, like wildebeest, elands and lions, and rivers filled with crocodiles. There are still baboons and springbok 20 miles outside Pretoria and Johannesburg. It looks like population will level off in such places with much of the wild environment still in tact.

Can you say the same thing about zero population growth zones like Paris, London or Moscow?

[crikkett]

55. Good comment.

:applause:

[crikkett]

54. Another hateful rant by a seasoned pro.

[tomreedtoon]

57. There's always the Oyzmandius solution...

...assuming that you watched Watchmen. For readers of Batman, you could also call it the Ras Al Ghul solution. Just kill off massive amounts of the population. Heck, the OP should be thanking Al Quaida for coming up with a wonderful solution to overpopulation, chastizing them only for their severely limited range of results.