So . if the Earth can't sustain 6 billion of us without cheap energy

[UndertheOcean]

Maybe we can concentrate some of our efforts on ways to reduce our numbers in a non catastrophic manner if possible?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

1. we can start by using less energy and stopping waste

the world is out of balance

[UndertheOcean]

2. How ?

Get rid of all the extra stuff ? like TV, the internet , cars ? are we willing to really do that ?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

4. we are going to have to

countries like China and India which have big populations have come into the energy grabbing field. We have to cut down on wasting food, turn down thermostats, turn off AC etc. I wish I could bicycle.

[izquierdista]

21. How about rocks from China?

I was in the dollar store this week, and I noticed among all the crap imported from China, little bags of rocks. In the floral and crafts section, little bags of rocks to put in the bottom of a vase or in an aquarium or some such decoration. I guess it's too expensive for Americans to scoop up rocks and put them in little bags, some Chinese laborer has to put a handful of rocks into a bag, fold a piece of cardboard over the top, staple it, and send it on its way to a container ship bound for America.

It's this kind of crap that uses up energy like there is no end in sight. Take a walk through Home Depot some time and look at all the heavy crap that was made in China and loaded onto a container ship, stuff that really is not economical to ship any distance because of the weight.

Human civilization evolved to a remarkable degree using local materials until about the middle of the last century. Since then, globalization has made a virtue of stuff carted half-way around the world. There are plenty of marble quarries in the United States, but no, the architect has to spec out imported Italian marble; there are plenty of tile works in northern Mexico, but no, it has to be imported from China because they pay the laborers there less than the Mexicans make. Get rid of globalization and live on local materials like people did a hundred years ago, and there will be a lot more energy to go around.

[RaleighNCDUer]

33. But as long as the government gives tax breaks to companies that

ship from China instead of to companies that ship from Tennessee, it's going to keep happening.

I'm a strong believer in international trade, but I think that tax breaks should go to support local businesses. Most of the 'cheap production' overseas is due only to tax breaks. Want to import goods from overseas? Figure out how to do it without help from the government. No matter how cheaply things can be produced over there, it's hard to believe that it is cheaper to make them there, truck the goods to an Asian port, ship it across the Pacific, then truck it to its destination in the US, than it is to make it here and truck it to its destination. More transport costs, more middlemen at every stage - without government subsidies it just CAN'T be cheaper.

[Hannah Bell]

51. It's not, in terms of real inputs. Only in terms of labor cost. Which

should make us all wonder why the gov's giving out the tax breaks, & why big business pressured them to do so.

the system's seriously out of whack, & it has to do with over-concentration of capital & the resultant low profit margins.

the huge expansion of credit is another symptom of the same disease.

[muriel_volestrangler]

58. This winter, I saw an extension to a Scottish mansion being built with Chinese granite

:banghead:

Transporting tons of rock halfway round the world? It's absurd, and you're right, it's so wasteful in energy.

[RaleighNCDUer]

67. Shipping granite to Scotland is right up there with coal to Newcastle. nt

[screembloodymurder]

28. You don't understand.

We'll have no choice.

[AndyTiedye]

34. The Internet Saves More Energy Than it Consumes

[NYC_SKP]

3. if we don't take care of nature, nature will "take care of" us...

Climate change, famines, hunger, viruses, etc.

It often seems hopeless, but we must never give up.

[UndertheOcean]

5. Ha , its like we have power over our destiny!

[angrycarpenter]

6. The 70's would have been a good time to start.

I think that there is no way to reduce the world's population in time to make a difference. I think that one way of another, mass death is inevitable.

Any attempt at peaceful population control requires a trusted leader in world politics to inspire people to change their ways. GB blew that. He would rather do population control the old fashioned way.

[Hardrada]

8. I was convinced about saving the environment and ZPG etc.

by 1971. Too bad my comrades in these beliefs were only .0001 % of the US population. I recall Carter being ridiculed on SNL in 1977-78 for his views on energy conservation.

[angrycarpenter]

17. I was only 7 in 1971

We lived in Atlanta. There was about 6 honest-to-god San Francisco hippies living next door.

My dad was horrified. He said to stay away from them because they would grab me and do horrible things to me. Of course I had to talk to them. They were really nice people.

I was in puppylove with one of the girls. She said that they lived together and everyone helped out and no one took more than they needed. This had a profound effect on the way that I looked at things. They were happy smiling people who went out of their way to be good to each other. I wanted to be a hippie when I grew up.

The police eventually raided the place. They took them all away, my dad said that they had found a joint.

[Hardrada]

48. I was 27. I was a student radical rather than a hippy though

I did end up staying nights at some communal type places. One could just show up and be welcome. That all ended because of police or parental pressure or the fact, apposite to this thread, that a lot of countercultural people I know had a lot of kids and so they had to turn back to "normal Society" to get jobs to feed the kids etc. etc. and soon the Middle Class got them back again. But...surprise, surprise!! It wasn't the same Middle class their parents had known. It was the one we know now with both parents working because of the rising cost of everything and no job benefits etc. We should have all stayed out in the woods or our old off campus grotty rooms.

[Truth4Justice]

54. ZPG died a quick death after 1974. I saw the numbers so no kids for me.

[Bozita]

22. I read a book back in '70 by Paul Ehrlich. Scared the shit out of me.

[Extend a Hand]

7. Sharon Astyk did a really thoughtful post on population

last July on world population day. Sharon is an environmentalist with four kids ;)

http://casaubonsbook.blogspot.com/2007/07/talking-back-to-old-men-population.html

"Talking Population With the Old Men"

Today is World Population Day, and again, the laments from my fellows on the ecological left are singing out in semi-unison "But no one is talking about population." I always smile when I hear this, because if you are a woman in the environmental movement with four kids, it does tend to seem as though we *are* talking about population, and not just on World Population Day. About 1/4 of my mail is about population - mostly about my personal contribution to it. And every time this subject comes up on the blog I get my ass toasted by all the flames ;-)
Fortunately, I'm a pale sort and the only way I can get decent color for a bathing suit is to get my heinie roasted now again, so it serves a purpose. Heck, let's do it again.

And frankly, I think it is really important that I talk about population - which is why I bring it up so much, heat or no (although I really wouldn't hate it if I had a little company among the similarly imperfect - I keep hoping for Rob Hopkins to jump in ;-). Because if those of us who have kids, even too many kids, don't participate in this discussion, the population debate will go on without us. Up to now, most of the loudest voices in this discussion have been men, mostly old men - Albert Bartlett, Garrett Hardin, Paul Ehrlich, and, of course, the grand old man of the subject, Thomas Malthus. And I admire and respect these voices and think much of what they say is true - not all of it, but a good deal. But if all of us, who do speak from a different experience, especially (but not exclusively) those women whose bodies any policies will play out in don't talk, don't speak from our perspective, we're in big trouble.

So I write about this, knowing that my position is suspect, my limitations visible, and with the pitter patter of little ecological footprints running about, but also knowing that because of this, when I say "let's talk about population" at least a few people might just pause and think that we can have this conversation. That some of the people who think that a conversation about population is just going to be a long screed about how they or their religion or their gender or their politics is wrong might know that at least one voice isn't going there. Or at least they might feel like there's someone else there to take the heat.

At least, I hope that's what will happen. And I have the hope that people might think that if I came to the table, the table might seem less a place for two hostile sides to bang their heads against each other, but for voices from the ambiguous middle to start to find a ground to speak on. Perhaps I flatter myself. I want to see population on the agenda everywhere, and after I point out to the ZPG folks that I'm something of fraught advocate, I'm very firm on the fact that I will work with them to get the discussion to the table.

more at link.

[pitohui]

29. i don't understand what's "thoughtful" about that

"i'll make a career of being the environmentalist who didn't give a fuck and had four kids"

thoughtful, how, exactly?

it's a case of her actions speak so loudly that i really couldn't give a fuck about her words

she is here to exploit and to take and to cash in, next?

[Extend a Hand]

36. wow, I think

it's important that people with children join in the discussion if you want to ever have meaningful change.
Did you read the article?

exploit what? cash in what?

[chapel hill dem]

9. About a year ago, I heard an agricultural economist on a local radio program say that about 1-1.5 B

people are alive today due to genetically modified crops, enhanced fertilizers, more selective herbicides and insecticides and the cheap energy to move food from growing regions to non-growing regions.

We really are living beyond our natural means.

FWIW

[hendo]

19. Damn those people

and thier wanting to live. damn them..

[Heywood J]

82. Exactly. Selfish bastards! They should all die!

Oh, wait. You were being sarcastic...

[Truth4Justice]

55. I think the numbers are even higher then that. The more humans the more energy needed expotentionaly

[dysfunctional press]

10. like ask for volunteers to leave, maybe...?

:eyes:

or should we just start voting them off the island...?

we could use the gm method and just cut the bottom 10% loose every year. whatever "loose" would mean in those circumstances...:shrug:

[NYC_SKP]

13. The mother nature will take care of the "culling", it's already begun. nt

[BigDaddy44]

38. Really?

Some sort of mass die-out has begun? Do you have a link?

[NYC_SKP]

41. You betcha...not a mass die-out just yet,

just the macro-trends in environmental conditions that will lead to mass die-outs and displacements of species, including human beings.

Plant and insect species are already undergoing these changes.

Even the growing zones provided with packets of seeds have had to be changed due to shifts in climatic conditions in North America.

The villages that were once cool or at a high enough altitude to be safe from malaria-bearing mosquitos are no longer safe.

There are islands and parts of islands that have already been evacuated due to sea level rises.

snip:

The SPM states that "Anthropogenic warming could lead to some impacts that are abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the rate and magnitude of the climate change."

* "There is medium confidence that approximately 20-30% of species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average warming exceed 1.5-2.5°C (relative to 1980-1999). As global average temperature increase exceeds about 3.5°C,

model projections suggest significant extinctions (40-70% of species assessed) around the globe."

* "Partial loss of ice sheets on polar land could imply metres of sea level rise, major changes in coastlines and inundation of low-lying areas, with greatest effects in river deltas and low-lying islands. Such changes are projected to occur over millennial time scales, but more rapid sea level rise on century time scales cannot be excluded."

Here's a link, or two, and graphs:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm

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

[robinlynne]

11. works for me.

[NYC_SKP]

12. We CAN do this! Please visit this really cute but informative site, pretty please!

We often limit our thinking about energy use to automobiles and electricity.

The truth is that tons of energy and materials go into everything, just everything we use, buy, consume.

We are a nation of consumers, our economy is all about consumption (remember what bush said after 911?, don't stop shopping?).

The impacts on the environment and on other places and people around the world are considerable.

Please, please, please, visit this site and share with your friends and family if you like it, especially the young ones.

PS, I'd love to hear your thoughts after you watch the short video. Together, we can do this.

http://www.storyofstuff.org

Note, dial-up connection may be slow.

:hi:

[SmileyRose]

14. Get rid of the seatbelt law - that will do it in a decade

at least as far as the US of A is concerned. And allow guns for everyone and make all fireworks legal (preferably while drunk) -- seems like that would cull out quite a few of those with lesser grey matter before they manage to procreate.

(( only half snark to be honest ))

[LWolf]

15. Better late than never.

My family has done our part.

My mother was an only child.

I am an only child.

I had 2 sons, one who has no desire to procreate, and the other who has one son and no intention of any more.

Four generations away from my grandmother, there's still only one.

The trick is to get people to voluntarily reduce the number of offspring they produce, without interfering with reproductive choice.

That's tough. It would help if population was included in every conversation about global warming, food production, and destruction of ecosystems.

It's hidden. No one wants to talk about it, because of that biological imperative, on top of a culture that encourages population growth instead of decline.

Either we do it voluntarily, or we do it to ourselves anyway. Personally, I'd rather use birth control and family planning than drive the species into extinction or into massive die-off due to overpopulation.

The day is going to come, within the next generation imo, that it will no longer be a choice; it will have to be legislated and enforced.

Wouldn't it be better to legally limit the number of offspring each person could produce, rather than end up in "Welcome To The Monkeyhouse?"

We could start by giving the biggest tax breaks to the childless, smaller tax breaks to those who have only one child, a break-even for those who have 2, and an extra tax for every child beyond 3. A living carbon tax, so to speak.

[pitohui]

32. if we do it voluntarily the intelligent will breed the least and we're outbred by idiots

that's our current situation, for a good 30, 40 years the intelligent woman has one child or no child, the religious hysteric or the mentally ill woman who can't control herself has multiple children, well, you do the math

the only fair way is a strict law, such as in china, ONE PERSON ONE CHILD, such that stupid people who have multiple children face strict punishment, otherwise they outbreed us forever

you will kill democracy if you insist on allowing stupid people, people who can't control themselves or think of the future, and religious hysterics to CONSISTENTLY outbreed people who are smart, people who use control/planning, people who aren't subject to the rule of the invisible -- you are setting up a system where the mass population will be idiots, out of control, or religious hysterics


choice would be fine if everyone was clear headed and intelligent, everyone isn't

you have to have a license to drive, you should have to have a license to breed in an overpopulated world

sorry, i know this isn't a progressive position, but the "progressive" who shouts out for choice is actually inviting herself to be outbred by mormons and fundies and drug addicts and the rest of the idiots who don't care about the earth or about the future

[Hannah Bell]

53. reversion to the mean.

the "idiots will outbreed us clever folk" was shown to be in error long ago.

us children per woman: 2.1 (replacement rate)

lower for those born in the us.

[The Stranger]

65. Reproducing at "the replacement rate" is prolonging and compounding the problem.

There are already too many people on the planet for it to support them.

[joshcryer]

71. Where do you get that stat from? It's alarmist and unsurported by the math.

[The Stranger]

83. Where do I get the "stat" that there are currently too many people on the planet?

Are you being serious? Have you been keeping up with current events?

[LWolf]

81. I understand what you are saying.

There is a part of me that agrees. The other part can't let go of that "choice" thing.

I'm conflicted, obviously.

I don't support the China solution. Besides all of the "off the grid" children, it led to atrocities, so that some Chinese families could ensure their one child would be a boy.

If we could regulate in some way that would not open the door to restricting choice to terminate a pregnancy; if we could ensure that the one baby born would be safe and welcomed, I'd at least consider it.

I think my tax solution would be great in the U.S.; of course, we're only a small part of the population on the planet, and there is no way in hell that U.S. citizens would back such a move, let alone a one-child per person rule.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

16. Relax, the Ruling Class has taken the liberty of working out all those...

...details for us -- we don't have to worry about a thing. Go shopping!!!

[WheelWalker]

18. the Great Path is not difficult for one who has no preferences.

[frog92969]

20. There's one simple solution

Feed the old to the poor.

My wife hates this idea, but I think it could work.

[UndertheOcean]

24. You've got something there ....

it actually makes sense

[WheelWalker]

26. Water Brother

[frog92969]

44. "Thou art God"

[WheelWalker]

46. All that groks is god. Never thirst.

[End Of The Road]

60. Looks like I'll be eating myself in no time! nt

[Tesha]

79. Be a little careful of things like Kuru, nvCJD, and the like, though.

o http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_%28disease%29

o http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creutzfeldt-Jakob_disease

Tesha

[frog92969]

80. I'm already trembling with pathologic bursts of laughter.

[csziggy]

23. I've done my part by not having children

[UndertheOcean]

25. Me too, although I love those cute little buggers

well

[screembloodymurder]

27. The ultimate question.

It's obvious that we can't, so what's the plan? They're gonna kill off the "useless feeders". It's coming soon. I can feel it.

[galledgoblin]

30. encourage sex education, birth control, and improve the health/living conditions

of the poor, young and elderly worldwide.

population will drop naturally.

[galledgoblin]

31. wait, forgot the easiest one: educate women!

that's all it takes, teach women worldwide to read and write.

[pitohui]

35. do you think mormon women, baptist women, etc. can't read and write?

it would be a beautiful world if all it took was education to put a spine into religious hysterics and make their women stop breeding but we already know it doesn't work

30 years of choice and the choice is that the most religiously extreme outbreed us in circles

as an intelligent non religious woman i'm not willing to become a walking womb and a walking milk bottle, i'm not willing to be the woman i saw this weekend wearing a tee shirt "mom of 14" -- most intelligent women aren't willing to be nothing but incubators and baby makers -- so the only way to even the score is to stop the religious hysteric babymakers from breeding over and over

i'll allow them one child but FOURTEEN?

we have to be willing to use the law not just "choice" or we'll be outvoted forever, there's a reason that fundies were a joke in 58 and had to be taken seriously in 88, they are outbreeding us and continue to do so

[galledgoblin]

39. oh, I didn't say that it would eliminate kooks

but it's still a quick and easy fix to drop worldwide population growth.

[Enthusiast]

57. God doesn't want birth control.

<sarcasm>

[joshcryer]

76. Gapminder shows that this is happening already, and will stem population growth...

...in only a few more decades. And by stem population growth I mean an reduction because young women in undeveloped parts of the world will be in developed areas and will be able to get that birth control that they simply have no access to.

[BigDaddy44]

37. You first.

[WheelWalker]

47. Exactly. Join the Coalition of the Willing.....

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

40. I think it will take international leadership

I don't believe in forcing people to reduce their numbers but instead appealing to their intelligence. I think world leaders need to speak out as one about the need for birth control, sex education, and abortion.

Unfortunately, we've had a chimp in office who has absolutely zero leadership qualities and who follows a fanatical religious agenda.

[Lorien]

42. I've done my part; I haven't reproduced

and I never plan to. We should focus on making birth control available to everyone. We used to distribute condoms in Africa, but of course the Bush administration killed that. Offering women education in third world countries so that they won't need to become chattel would also help, as does programs like Heifer International, that give livestock to women so that they can become self sufficient. Where there is greater equality and education there is also a lower birth rate.

[WheelWalker]

49. I believe there's a more efficacious approach. Combine DNA. Reproduce. As early and as often

as possible (as Democrats are said to be taught to vote). Then visit the core of a nuclear reactor and kiss it's rods for an hour or two. This will strengthen the specie through recombination and diversity, while eliminating the dreadful waste that over mature trees .... sorry, I mean, humans, create within a rational management plan,.....and I'll have the blue pill, please...

[NYC_SKP]

43. Overconsumption, Energy, and countries emulating the US (like China).

First, take a moment: http://www.storyofstuff.org for some excellent insight to the OP concern.

Then, understand that forces are at work already that place us all at risk:

Already, macro-trends in environmental conditions are developing that will lead to mass die-outs and displacements of species, including human beings.

Plant and insect species are already undergoing these changes.

Even the growing zones provided with packets of seeds have had to be changed due to shifts in climatic conditions in North America.

The villages that were once cool or at a high enough altitude to be safe from malaria-bearing mosquitos are no longer safe.

There are islands and parts of islands that have already been evacuated due to sea level rises.

snip:

The SPM states that "Anthropogenic warming could lead to some impacts that are abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the rate and magnitude of the climate change."

* "There is medium confidence that approximately 20-30% of species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average warming exceed 1.5-2.5°C (relative to 1980-1999). As global average temperature increase exceeds about 3.5°C,

model projections suggest significant extinctions (40-70% of species assessed) around the globe."

* "Partial loss of ice sheets on polar land could imply metres of sea level rise, major changes in coastlines and inundation of low-lying areas, with greatest effects in river deltas and low-lying islands. Such changes are projected to occur over millennial time scales, but more rapid sea level rise on century time scales cannot be excluded."

Here's a link, or two, and graphs:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm

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

[DCKit]

45. Spoilsport,,,n/t

[scheming daemons]

50. The problem is not in the West... we've achieved population balance

Most western countries have a birthrate of 2 per couple or less (even or negative population growth).

In the U.S..... the rate is down to 2.1 per couple.... just about even.


The problem is the third world countries of Asia and Africa (and S. America to a lesser extent).

Some African countries have a 5 or 6 birthrate per couple. This is not sustainable.



MASSIVE birth control efforts need to be put in place in the third world.

[morningglory]

63. In desparate conditions, the poor have as many children as possible to

take care of them when they are old. You can see it in the USA, too. Couples who both work with good jobs, have a retirement (hopefully)and social security to look forward to, do not reproduce like the desparate poor. If there were a safety net for the elderly poor that could be counted on, the population numbers would fall. Education helps.

[Deja Q]

74. More reasons for support real globalization (expansion), not mere 'offhsoring' (migration)

Well, it seems like migration anyway... but I've been wrong on other issues...

[joshcryer]

78. Check out www.gapminder.org, that's basically the answer (unfortunately).

But I think that on the scheme of things rampant capitalist globalization isn't the answer, more that becoming more of a global community is.

[Hannah Bell]

52. If the earth can sustain us with cheap energy, it can also sustain

us with expensive energy. just not in quite the same manner.

what it won't be able to sustain is the same kind of economy.

[Enthusiast]

56. But but, who will make money on the weapons?

Who will make money on the weapons if we don't reduce the population in a catastrophic manner?

[Mendocino]

59. We should start in the US by

eliminating tax deductions and credits for more than two children. An exception could be made for foster families.

Free or low cost contraceptives.

Free or low cost sterilization.

[eShirl]

61. someone posted this a while back -- Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

"May we live long and die out"

Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth's biosphere to return to good health. Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense.

http://www.vhemt.org/

[Wcross]

62. I am doing my part. No children, ever.

I have made the conscious decision to not have children. (It helps that I don't like them all that much though!):)

[The Stranger]

64. Support ZERO POPULATION GROWTH!

[rucky]

69. We stopped at one kid. That's -1 replacing us.

If we want another, we're adopting.

[El Pinko]

66. There's no way to reduce our numbers short-term without it being catastrophic.

But yes, we need to get world population under control. Every economic and ecological misery on earth today is directly tied to rampant overpopulation.

[rucky]

68. I think that's what turned a few liberals into neocons.

they saw no other way out and an unwillingness to sacrifice the bloated American way of life.

[Deja Q]

75. Wasn't it once said that neoliberalism = neoconservatism?

Of course, this is the internet... 100 news sites give 10,000 differing articles opinions.

[joshcryer]

70. Algae use more energy than us. Energy is *not* the problem.

[Stuart G]

72. As the emperor said to Luke ...........(in Star Wars 6)

......."So Be It.."

[Kazak]

73. Gee, maybe insurance cos might want to reconsider that birth control policy?

:shrug:

[joshcryer]

77. So where do you get your "The Earth can't sustain 6 billion of us without cheap energy..."

...comment from? You do realize that as far as an energy consumer on the planet our species is far down a long long list of various species of life, right? We're not even on the radar of energy usage.

[paparush]

84. In terms of consumption of resources - The American child will consume much more -

Between 2000 and 2050, the U.S. will add 114 million kids to its population. Africa will add 1.2 billion—but their respective CO2 emissions will be the same.

One American child generates as much CO2 as 106 Haitian kids.

Zahara Jolie-Pitt will produce 45,000 lbs of CO2 yearly, compared with 221 lbs if she still lived in Ethiopia.

A typical baby goes through 3,800 disposable diapers in her first 2.5 years.

96% of American babies wear disposable diapers. In China, only 6% do. In India, 2%.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/exhibit/2008/05/kids-carbon-footprints.html