Could We Talk about Population Growth and Accompanying Problems

[yellowwood]

People seldom discuss population growth, but it's an issue that impacts just about every other issue with which we are concerned. Here are world statistics, including some projected growth.
1950 2,556,000,053
1960 3,039,451,023
1970 3,706,618,163
1980 4,453,831,714
1990 5,278,639,789
2000 6,082,966,429
2010 6,848,932,929
2020 7,584,821,144

This issue affects immigration
environment
availability of fuel
transportation
availability of water
employment
religious policies
political conflicts
animal survival
http://www.populationconnection.org/site/PageServer

Does this subject interest people?

[Jakes Progress]

1. Last time I brought up the subject

I was called a racist.

[cobalt1999]

2. It's the elephant in the room

You are right, human population and unsustainable food production is the biggest problem with the Earth.

The solutions are tough to discuss though.

[NeedleCast]

3. Actually it gets discussed here quite a bit

and is usually one of the more...interesting...topics

[SPedigrees]

4. Lowering the population to the 1950-60 level would solve

nearly all of our environmental problems and many of our economic troubles as well, particularly in affordable housing. I can't understand why this issue is never mentioned today. Back in the 70s the issue of population control was at the forefront. My strong views on this subject are one of the primary reasons why I chose not to reproduce.

[raccoon]

5. Population growth is one side of the coin. Resource consumption is the other side.

I've said that here before, but nobody wants to hear it.

The First World citizens are consuming way too much of the world's resources.


Consumption Dwarfs Population as Main Environmental Threat

Published on Thursday, April 16, 2009 by The Guardian/UK


A small portion of the world's people use up most of the earth's resources and produce most of its greenhouse gas emissions

by Fred Pearce

It's the great taboo, I hear many environmentalists say. Population growth is the driving force behind our wrecking of the planet, but we are afraid to discuss it.

It sounds like a no-brainer. More people must inevitably be bad for the environment, taking more resources and causing more pollution, driving the planet ever farther beyond its carrying capacity. But hold on. This is a terribly convenient argument - "over-consumers" in rich countries can blame "over-breeders" in distant lands for the state of the planet. But what are the facts?

The world's population quadrupled to six billion people during the 20th century. It is still rising and may reach 9 billion by 2050. Yet for at least the past century, rising per-capita incomes have outstripped the rising head count several times over. And while incomes don't translate precisely into increased resource use and pollution, the correlation is distressingly strong.

Moreover, most of the extra consumption has been in rich countries that have long since given up adding substantial numbers to their population.

By almost any measure, a small proportion of the world's people take the majority of the world's resources and produce the majority of its pollution. Take carbon dioxide emissions - a measure of our impact on climate but also a surrogate for fossil fuel consumption. Stephen Pacala, director of the Princeton Environment Institute, calculates that the world's richest half-billion people - that's about 7 percent of the global population - are responsible for 50 percent of the world's carbon dioxide emissions. Meanwhile the poorest 50 percent are responsible for just 7 percent of emissions....

In any event, it strikes me as the height of hubris to downgrade the culpability of the rich world's environmental footprint because generations of poor people not yet born might one day get to be as rich and destructive as us. Overpopulation is not driving environmental destruction at the global level; overconsumption is. Every time we talk about too many babies in Africa or India, we are denying that simple fact.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/04/16-7



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x441113

[yellowwood]

11. Fewer People with More Equal Distribution of goods

I completely agree that overconsumption by the "rich" countries of the world is part of the problem. So what is the value that we want to promote? More people but less consumption or fewer people with more equal distribution? I would opt for fewer people with more equal distriution. It stands to reason that increased numbers of people want to consume more, too.
The Bush Adminstration blocked or discouraged many forms of birth control. I see some change with the present administraton. This is a good move.
Another issue that is impacted by overpopulation is the subjugation of women. When women are seen primarily as baby-producers, they don't have much change to improve their status.

[HamdenRice]

6. All the demographic models suggest we're rapidly approaching zero population growth

I suspect that it's not considered urgent because the UN and other international population studies centers keep producing more optimistic news.

Population growth has leveled off much, much more quickly than anyone predicted and we're expected to plateau some time after mid century, even in the poor, presently rapidly growing regions like Africa and southeast Asia.

There's not much that can be done to accelerate this already accelerating population drop off.

<On edit> Estimates of peak population were once as high as 16 billion. In more recently decades they were 12 billion. Then for a while they were 10 billion. But the most recent estimates now place plateau global population at a little over 9 billion and "Replacement Year" -- the year that the world reaches a replacement birth rate -- at 2045.

So governments have switched gears and are terrified about how to manage zero population growth and declining proportions of young, productive workers.

Also, as mentioned several places upthread, per capita consumption and footprint in the rich countries is proving itself to be a bigger problem than absolute population numbers.

[cobalt1999]

14. Zero population growth doesn't matter

Not when the planet can't sustainably support our current 8 billion people. Who cares if we get to zero growth at 12 billion. It's not a sustainable number.

[HamdenRice]

15. The plateau is estimated at 9 billion.

It will then according to most models enter into a long slow decline.

Despite the fondest hopes of Malthusians, this looks to be one crisis that international cooperation has helped solve.

Consumption, carbon footprints, and global warming are separate issues and are not related to population size in a linear manner.

So the big issue is consumption, not population, which frankly has been largely solved.

[cobalt1999]

16. 9 billion is still way too high.

Depending on which study you want to believe, the number of humans the planet can sustainably support is estimated to be between 3 - 4 Billion.

"Consumption, carbon footprints, and global warming are separate issues and are not related to population size in a linear manner." Maybe not linearly, but they are definately tightly related in terms of soil erosion, over-fishing, deforestation, water shortages, loss of species and habitats, and so on.

In as little as 30 years ocean fish stocks are projected to collapse due to unsustainable fishing. If that happens, there will be massive famine.

[The2ndWheel]

17. Can a problem be solved if

"So governments have switched gears and are terrified about how to manage zero population growth and declining proportions of young, productive workers."

the solution creates the next problem?

[HamdenRice]

19. The problem of over-population is being solved but

the problem of population management seems never-ending. At least under population is primarily an economic/financial problem focused on funds like social security, and not an existential environmental one.

[The2ndWheel]

21. And we're seeing what our solution is to economic/financial problems

Grow our way out of it. Get the banks lending to more people again so that people will spend again. More people consuming.

We have four options:

1)More people, more consumption
2)More people, less consumption
3)Less people, more consumption
4)Less people, less consumption

Fewer people consuming less is going to eventually break everything down. All of our institutions won't work if that happens. So we need one of the first 3 options to work. However, if you have fewer people, there will eventually be less consumption, and if you have more people, there will eventually be more consumption. So we're down to #1 or #4.

[Oregone]

7. Lame concern. Everyone should have 18 children, not just the Duggars

Let the chips fall where they may. Thereafter, we could sponsor things like baby death cage matches and such and have good entertainment.

The more the better, as long as we utilize em properly

[The2ndWheel]

8. Those issues were still there with fewer people

Just on a smaller scale. As long as diversity exists, those issues won't be solved.

[Uzybone]

9. Shhhhh

the ticking time bomb no one wants to do anything about.

[jmg257]

10. When does the harvesting begin? n/t

[Romulox]

12. Overconsuming is bad, but over-reproducing is a GOD GIVEN RIGHT!

[NashVegas]

13. I'm Afraid No One Wants to Say It. Or Think It

[Dogmudgeon]

18. How we will reduce population

They'll die.

We'll survive.

It will require about six billion of them to save two billion of us.

Isn't nature wonderful?

--d!

[mikelgb]

20. I'm doing my part

but it is near impossible to tell others to do theirs

I was having a conversation with a grandma about her grandbabies the other day, family just had second boy, they really want a girl, they were considering whether to go for a third and whether they should pursue expensive procedures to ensure the sex of the next baby. When I suggested they could adopt and infant and insure the sex, there was an akward silence as if that was rude. The idea was poo-pooed. And yeah...

even when it is that subtle

a shame