The Great Distraction: Are we really experiencing a population explosion?

[Better Believe It]

The Great Distraction: ‘Overpopulation’ Is Back in Town
by Betsy Hartmann
Betsy Hartmann is the Director of the Population and Development Program and Professor of Development Studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, MA.
August 30, 2011

What’s next to hit New York after Hurricane Irene? If you’re in the heart of Times Square during the month of September, you’ll get the chance to see a scary video about overpopulation playing every hour on a huge screen. Sponsored by the Human Overpopulation Campaign of the Arizona-based Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), the video aims to persuade people that the population explosion is the root cause of environmental destruction and that we need to stop it now.

CBD is a relatively small player in a huge public opinion campaign mounted by the population lobby. Almost everyday, in a variety of media, we are being told that the world’s serious environmental and social ills are caused by too many people. This begs two key questions. Are we really experiencing a population explosion? And just who and what are wreaking the most havoc on the planet?

Unbeknownst to many Americans, the so-called population explosion actually ended in the last century as growth rates came down more rapidly than anticipated. Family size has fallen to a global average of 2.45 children and is projected to fall to two or less in the next few decades. The main reason why global population is projected to increase to 9 billion by 2050, and possibly 10 billion by 2100 (a high projection that is disputed by many demographers), is that currently a large percentage of young people are entering their reproductive years. High fertility persists in only a few countries, mainly in sub-Saharan Africa, because of deep class and gender inequalities and the failure of elites to invest in education, employment and health services, including accessible, high-quality family planning.

The real challenge before us is to plan for the addition of 2-3 billion more people on the planet in a sustainable way. Fortunately, that is possible, but only if we address the real causes of environmental pressures. Instead of blaming overpopulation, Americans need to get serious about climate policy, conservation, the transition to renewable energy, and mass transport. And we need to challenge the grotesque and growing inequality of wealth and power in our nation that fuels conspicuous consumption and weakens the government’s commitment to environmental regulation.

Read the full artcle at:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/08/30-1

[SheilaT]

1. Well, yeah.

Every day there are more and more people, we're probably already long past true sustainability.

[Better Believe It]

3. "we're probably already long past true sustainability. " And why is that?

That may be true without any radical progressive changes in our international economic systems.

[SheilaT]

5. Even though it is often presented

as a simple distribution problem, we are really having a problem raising enough food to feed everyone. There's a lot of talk about "peak oil", meaning our oil supply is going to diminish, slowly at first, but surely over time. Environmental degradation is real. Climate change, whatever the cause, is real.

Look at what just happened in Vermont, just to name one relatively small place. The flooding is the worst in at least three quarters of a century, possibly the worst since Europeans settled there. Many thousands are without power, which almost all of us depend on. (Those who live off the grid are such a tiny number that they hardly count.) Many buildings have been destroyed, roads now need total rebuilding.

Merely changing the international economic system won't reduce the huge numbers of people now affected by drought, by flooding, by civil wars, and so on. There are too many people, especially in parts of the world least able to sustain all those people.

[RC]

8. We are fishing out the oceans, cutting down the forests, running out of the easy oil, destroying

the habitat of most other life forms so we can have a place to live or to grow our own food. We can't feed what we have now.
Polluting the air burning coal to supply our power needs.
Yeah, there's not enough of us yet, there are still some untouched wilderness areas left.

[Better Believe It]

11. We don't need to engage in that kind of activity to sustain a bigger population.

That's just more evidence that something is wrong with our current economic/political systems.

The claim that "over population" is the root problem is a distraction from the real cause of the economic crisis.

[StarsInHerHair]

50. running out of water-what are your plans to deal with it?

[and-justice-for-all]

7. Thats right...nt

[MadHound]

2. We are currently on the high end of the J curve,

Yes, we have a population problem. Anybody who tries to say otherwise is a fool.

[Better Believe It]

4. So Betsy Hartmann is a fool. Thanks for your enlightened contribution.

An absolutely brilliant refutation of the article.

You smart!

[MadHound]

6. Smart enough to realize that somebody doesn't have even a modicum of critical thinking skills

Go here
<http://subdude-site.com/WebPages_Local/Blog/topics/environment/enviro_worldPopGrowth_charts.htm>

Notice how that chart is shaped like a J? It is called a J curve, and it has a specific meaning, namely that our population has exploded out of control, and it simply cannot be reigned in by a few years, a few decades of slower growth. Your article mentions that the average global birth rate is 2.45, guess what, that's still above replacement numbers.

A J curve is a death knell for any species. What essentially happens is some condition allows a given population to explode beyond any previous bounds. As that population grows, it consumes resources to an unsustainable degree. A J curve is followed by a devastating population crash, a mass die-off.

Of course being the Director of the Population and Development Program at Hampshire College, Harmann knows all this. Which makes it all the more baffling that she's pushing the line that our population growth really isn't a problem.

So either she's a fool, or she has ulterior motives. Either way, this article of hers is a piece of tripe, and should be thrown out as the trash it is. She is going against the established work of dozens, hundreds of respected academics, but we should believe her, not the evidence of our own eyes? Pfft, thanks but no thanks, I can read a J curve just as well as the next person, and apparently better than Ms Harmann.

[Better Believe It]

9. Can you provide any hard facts to refute her article? Personal attacks just won't do it.

"either she's a fool, or she has ulterior motives."

Such personal attacks against her indicate a lack of critical thinking skills!

[MadHound]

14. So I suppose you didn't click on the link I provided then

I suppose that you know nothing about a J curve and what that signifies in terms of population growth. I suggest that you educate yourself on the subject matter.

<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090418075752.htm>
<http://overpopulation.org/>
"there can be no permanent progress in the battle against hunger until the agencies that fight for increased food production and those that fight for population control unite in a common effort," Norman Borlaug. Thanks, I'll take the word of a Nobel Prize winner over that of a Hampshire professor any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
<http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=growing-population-poses-malthusian-dilemma>
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/feb/26/food.unitednations>

But hey, ignore the experts, continue to view the world through rose colored glasses, whatever gets you through. But when the crash comes, don't say you weren't warned.

[Better Believe It]

16. "I'll take the word of a Nobel Prize winner over that of a Hampshire professor any day of the week "

Do you also take the word of Nobel Peace Prize winner President Obama over the word of anti-war professors who opposed the escalation of the war in Afghanistan?

This over-population nonsense is diverting attention away from those political/economic forces that are actually responsible for the food crisis and massive growing poverty and direct the blame against poor working folks for having "too many babies"!!!

It's a diversion and distraction that people wearing blinders and/or suffering from a upper class bias, sometimes coated with not so subtle racism, love to spout!

That's like blaming the Great Recession on people who took out sub-prime mortgages and not Wall Street banksters!

[MadHound]

19. Wow, what nonsense

What sheer and utter nonsense.

The numbers are there before you. They are sharp, short and unequivocal. There is no inherent "blame against poor working folks", in fact neither rich nor poor are mentioned.

There are simply too many people for the resources of this world to sustain. Period, end of discussion.

We have a limited amount of arable cropland, we have a limited amount of water, and we have limits on every other single resource available. We have reached, and/or exceeded each and every one of those limits.

We are on the downside of Peak Oil, we have reached the limitations of potable water available, we would have to increase our food production by seventy percent in order to sustain our projected population in 2050. We are in the beginning of the age of mass extinctions.

And yet you think the over population problem is some sort of great conspiracy? That we can simply continue breeding like no tomorrow because all these problems are the product of upper class bias and/or racism.

Tell me then, where is all that food going to come from? Water? Oil? Energy? Wood? On and on I can go, so please tell me, how are we going to exceed the resource limits we currently face?

Or are those limits racist as well:eyes:

[FLPanhandle]

21. I get the feeling facts won't help in this persons case.

They just don't want to believe it because, well, it makes them uncomfortable.

[MadHound]

22. It truly is amazing how people will stick their head in the sand on certain issues

Hell, the problem with overpopulation is well proven, and well accepted, more so than climate change. And yet there are those few who, for whatever reason, will deny it to the day they day.

Simply amazing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. and ... they are connected

[sudopod]

43. Yeah, you pretty much hit all the high points.

I hope people will listen.

[Silent3]

23. Why demand "hard facts" when it's clear...

...that you'll dismiss anything citation that disagrees with you as being suspect for no other reason than you don't agree with it?

Is there any hypothetical "hard fact" that could change your mind about population? How "hard" would that fact have to be to overcome your suspicion that talk of over population is "nonsense... diverting attention away from those political/economic forces that are actually responsible"?

There are indeed political problems behind some current problems with food supplies and prices, but that is not mutually exclusive from there being serious population problems looming in the future.

[FLPanhandle]

27. Yet an article without any facts has convinced them that over-population isn't an issue.

I don't think facts are very important to this person.

[LanternWaste]

26. You had maintained a modicum of credibility...

"This over-population nonsense..."

You had maintained a modicum of credibility until that very point-- I believe what is known as 'jumping the shark'.

[StarsInHerHair]

52. you've mentione d those political/economic forces" so links? evidence?

[amborin]

82. +10000

[Gormy Cuss]

32. Hartmann is not saying that population isn't a problem, just that it's time to shift the focus

since even with the slower rate of growth the world will add several billion more humans in the coming decades. Her piece demonstrates why focusing solely on population growth is dangerous folly for environmentalists and reproductive rights supporters.

What I don't see anywhere in the piece is Hartmann claiming that the current world population is sustainable. Rather, she seems to be suggesting that the energy spent on discussion population growth is distracting from discussion of living more sustainably with the population projections as they exist today.

[MadHound]

36. The problem is that we can't live more sustainably with the population projections

Hell, we can't even live with the current population we have, even if we cut the population growth rate to zero tomorrow.

We have too many people consuming too many limited resources. We don't have the arable land or potable water to allow everybody to survive.

The sheer simple stark fact is that our population has exceeded this planet's carrying capacity. We have been able to do this due to technological prowess, but we are quickly reaching the limits of technology. All those fertilizers and pesticides that we're using, they have rendered the soil barren, unable to grow anything except weeds, not just for years, but for generations. And given that these are petroleum based fertilizers, we're in deep shit, since we're running out of oil.

We have desperately got to have a controlled, negative population growth. Otherwise Mother Nature will impose her own version of negative population growth, and that won't be pretty.

[Gormy Cuss]

37. We can live more sustainably than we are now.

That doesn't mean that our current population is sustainable. It's also unlikely that we can turn the projected increase over the next few decades into negative population growth unless there's some kind of global control over reproduction and that is just not going to happen.

I'm in the camp that believes that we've past the point of effecting negative growth --population will not decrease until Mother Nature imposes her correction. As such, I think that Hartmann has a point -- shift the focus to what we can change in the short term.

[MadHound]

38. What can we change in the short term though

We've reached the limits of arable land, potable water and other resources. If you think that Western industrialized countries are going to share the bounty that they've seized for themselves, then I have some magic beans to sell you.

We have only have two real choices at this point. Go for negative population growth on our own, and try to engineer a gentle landing. Or have Mother Nature make the correction and watch the human race crash and burn. We're too far up the J curve for anything else.

[FLPanhandle]

41. +1

Concise, accurate, and true.

[GliderGuider]

55. +1 from me too. /nt

[Gormy Cuss]

63. If by "on our own" you mean the U.S., the birth rate is already slightly below replacement.

To make a big difference in U.S. population growth requires stopping immigration (and that wouldn't address world population, only resource consumption) and lowering life expectancy because those are the other driving forces of U.S. population gains.

[MadHound]

71. No, I was referring to the entire world.

I know, good luck with that, which is why I'm pretty fatalistic about the future of mankind.

[FrodosPet]

75. Forced sterilization? Compulsory abortion?

How do we gently reduce the population of the world in a non-violent way that respects individuals and non-western cultures?

Africa has proven itself an extremely homophobic continent, and that's where a large part of the population growth is happening. How do you encourage non-breeding relationships and birth control without the western imperialism of the past?

You say something must be done. I'm asking, exactly what and exactly how?

[FLPanhandle]

103. Before solutioning, people need to acknowledge the problem.

Right now, just like global warming, some people would rather stick their heads in the sand because the solutions are difficult.

The solutions are probably worth their own thread but a few things would help.
1) Economically reward those who choose not to have children.
2) Economically punish those who do have children.

[former9thward]

39. You are giving the static arguments that Malthus gave 200 years ago.

He was dead wrong in all of his doom and gloom population predictions and you are too. "... they have rendered the soil barren, unable to grow anything except weeds, not just for years, but for generations." Oh, please stop with the false dramatics. The soil is not barren and it is able to grow food year after year just fine. You would not have most of the food on your table if that were not true.

When I was growing up people actually did starve to death in China due to the crazy dictates of Mao during the Great Leap Forward. Now China has a far bigger population and no one is starving since they have introduced rational thought to their agriculture. Anywhere you look in the world where people are starving it is because of politics or food distribution issues, it has nothing to do with overpopulation.

[FLPanhandle]

45. Malthus didn't foresee the impact of petroleum based agriculture.

He wasn't dead wrong. His prediction is based on nature and animal growth. Unless some other miracle occurs in the agribusiness, when the oil runs out, Malthus will not only be correct but the number of people impacted will be much higher.

BTW, the reason soil is able to grow food year after year is petroleum fertilizers. Read back and you'll learn that it wasn't always so.

[MadHound]

46. Yeah, right

I'm a farmer, what am I thinking, I must be fucking crazy to notice that the soil is barren and grows nothing but weeds, what the fuck am I thinking:crazy:

Tell me, do you know anything about raising crops? Have you ever farmed? Do you even know the first thing about how food gets to your table? Do you know what it takes, and how long it takes to revitalize top soil that has been burned by generations of ever increasing chemical use?

Here, educate yourself, then get back to me. Your ignorance is not only showing, it is quite annoying.
<http://www.canadianlongevity.net/misc/mineral_depletion.php>
<http://www.articlesbase.com/nutrition-articles/soil-depletion-is-going-to-kill-us-1307809.html>
<http://www.copperwiki.org/index.php/Soil_depletion>
<http://dge.stanford.edu/SCOPE/SCOPE_32/SCOPE_32_2.6_Chapter13_429-451.pdf>

You can go ahead and google more, please do, please educate yourself. Until then I suggest that you stop spouting off on topics you know nothing about.

[former9thward]

59. If you asre a farmer and "growing nothing but weeds" I guess you are out of business.

Not much of a market for weeds.

[MadHound]

61. Ah, there it is,

You can't argue with facts, so you pull something I said out of context and try to make a funny with it. Stay classy there.

Psst: My farm is doing fine, don't worry your little head about it.

[former9thward]

64. Out of context? I just quoted you word for word. Anyone can see the posts.

Believe me I am not worried about your farm. Not for a second.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MadHound]

72. Again, you are missing the point, perhaps deliberately so

I gave you the information and links to prove my point, yet all you can respond with is insults and quoting out of context.

Your position, such as it is, is factually void and intellectually bankrupt. You know nothing about what you're talking about, much less what I'm talking about, so you are trying insults and diversions in order to try and cover that simple stark fact.

I suggest that you try educating yourself instead.

[Ikonoklast]

94. The articles you link to say nothing about soil 'burned by ever increasing chemical use',

In fact, they call for the replacement of minerals through fertilization, proper crop rotation, and soil conservation methods.

Any farmer worth his salt tests his soil and adds nitrogen, lime, trace elements, etc, in order to maximize his yield.

[MadHound]

112. I suggest that you do a little digging

You'll quickly find that yes indeed, our soil is being rendered sterile by sixty plus years of chemical overuse on our fields.

[leftstreet]

10. To maintain the capitalist system of resource grabbing, many will need to die

God forbid we think about changing that system

K&R Good article and excellent comments section

[The2ndWheel]

12. If any one thing was the problem, or the solution, it would be easy

The issue, of course, obviously, is the interconnected nature of it all. Just like corporations in relation to the government, we don't get to write the planetary rules which govern us. Because inevitably, we'll attempt to write those rules increasingly, and strictly, in our favor, which is like allowing Exxon(or pick your favorite) to write legislation which is supposed to regulate it. We like privatizing the profits of the planet for people, and socializing the costs to the rest of life.

[FLPanhandle]

13. According to most studies, an environmentally sustainable population is between 3-4 billion humans

This is a denialist, no better than a global warming denier.

Some people just wish the problems away or stick their head in the sand.

[Better Believe It]

17. What studies paid for by whom? Hunger exists. But, people having babies is not the cause of it.

[FLPanhandle]

18. LOL.

I'm at work but 5 minutes on google will find you pages of studies on a projected environmentally sustainable population. Some done from the UN. Going all the way back to Jimmy Carter who first tried to address the problem.

It is a problem too, no matter how much you want to stick your fingers in your ears and say it isn't.

Same type of crap with all deniers.

[Silent3]

29. Are you just blinded from seeing one problem because of another problem?

Or do you actually believe that once political problems with food distribution and pricing are fixed that the dynamic of birth rates which are higher than death rates simply doesn't matter? That the right politics can accommodate any old population size at all, 'cause nothing can ever be wrong with people deciding to have as many babies as they like?

[gkhouston]

30. I blame the stork, although I've heard a lot of ugly rumors about cabbage patches. n/t

[StarsInHerHair]

53. are you a Quiverfull?

[Warren DeMontague]

54. Niger, Uganda, Mali

...why don't you ask them?

http://www.photius.com/rankings/population/total_fertility_rate_2011_0.html

[StarsInHerHair]

70. why? I'm asking the op thread starter. consider the water supply of Niger Uganda & Mali

[Warren DeMontague]

89. I guess I'm old fashioned. I believe in giving people the resources & personal autonomy

particularly from religious authorities who tell them not to use birth control-

and then letting them make up their own minds.

[StarsInHerHair]

109. mayabe you havent noticed all the Christians & Muslims running guns/bibles/torans

into Africa for 100 years? I f ANY of them wanted to truly help Africa: you'd see Industrialization happening.

[saras]

15. 11-dimensional chess?

One reason for discounting the importance of population pressures, in the short term, for public consumption, is that at this time the racists are literally waiting with bated breath for any more excuse to discriminate against brown people. And undoubtedly racists in other countries have their own version of this.

If America started "working" on population issues right now, the debate would almost invariably turn to which brown people should be gotten rid of first, and how. Personally I would no more go there than I'd try to rewrite the Constitution right now.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. nine billion people is not sustainable

we will see a population crash... but that is besides the point... oil allowed us get well beyond that, using industrial agriculture. Peak Oil, will lead to one. And no, it is not a pretty picture.

Oh and whoever wrote that should take a gander at this



Population stabilized, my ass.

[LanternWaste]

28. Your graph being the only reason I decided...

Your graph being the only reason I decided not to have children.
An almost 45% increase in population in my lifetime alone does not allow for a stable future.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. We could not, and at this point I am glad

[Mimosa]

77. People who unselfishly chose to not 'reproduce' are heroes

Sure, nobody will love us when we get old. Cats have no obligations. But we added nothing to the burden...

[FrodosPet]

92. Would people who commit suicide be even MORE heroic?

Not only are they not increasing the population, they are proactively decreasing it.

[GliderGuider]

93. No need. We all die eventually. Not reproducing has the largest knock-on effect.

Your comment, of course, is just obstructionist spin.

[robertpaulsen]

60. Peak What? There's no elephant in the living room!

Thank you for providing the correct diagnosis of the dilemma we face. Here's another chart going farther back:



Population increases over the centuries have been in direct correlation with the transition from a poor energy dense renewable resource (wood) ti a more energy dense non-renewable resource (coal). With oil, you have a natural resource so energy dense that in some caseshttp://www.theoildrum.com/node/3810">(100 to 1 EROEI in the US during the 1930's) it's practically free energy. Not only has oil been hard-wired into the foundation of our economic infrastructure through transportation, but it is also imbedded into the foundation of our food production through the http://www.copvcia.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html">Green Revolution. The downside is that oil is very polluting; consume it and you increase the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Planet Earth consumes a http://www.investinganswers.com/a/50-surprising-facts-you-never-knew-about-oil-2692">billion barrels of oil every 11.86 days (and some morons still doubt humans cause global warming!) Oh, and oil is non-renewable. And we just hit a http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2010-11-11/iea-acknowledges-peak-oil">peak in global production of conventional oil in 2006.

So out of the 7 billion people on the planet, how many are not living in a country where their economic infrastructure is not dependent on oil? They are the only ones who can brag about a stabilized population. The rest of us are going to have to duck as the shit hits the fan. The population explosion from 2 to 7 billion in a little over 100 years is entirely dependent on the fact that since we had such an energy-dense resource, we thought we could grow forever! Never mind that we live on a finite planet, we can structure our economy around the assumption that growth is infinite! So until we collectively change this mindset and change the way money works so that money is no longer tied to wealth creation but is representative of energy, both the human energy we produce and the planet's energy that we utilize, then there's just too many of us to make this little project called civilization work. Can we do it? Can we live in harmony within the natural physical limits of our planet? Can we rearrange our economic infrastructure so that it is based on sustainability, not the asinine assumption of infinite growth?

Good luck, Humanity!

[nadinbrzezinski]

76. Population collapse usually cmes

with things like this... suffice it to say that yes oil production has something to do with this...

As well as the other unexpected side effect, climactic change.

Oh and I agree, good luck humanity... holocene extinction, top tier species... not a happy thought.

[grahamhgreen]

24. Yes.

[Terry in Austin]

33. Urk. Where to even start with this one?

Population growth is not "caused" by people having babies any more than a murder is caused by a bullet entering the victim's heart.

Human populations are like other populations: as energy inputs increase, population numbers increase. And vice versa.

The great distraction is the dishonest argument presented here, that growth rates are slowing. Hey, it's still growth. Then a lot of hand-waving about "projections." Whose projections? Uh-uh. Sorry.

Right now, human numbers are way past natural carrying capacity. There's not a thing "we" can do to bring those numbers down significantly, so any talk of blame is foolish.

Our current carrying capacity is artificially supported by the energy subsidy we get from fossil fuels. As they diminish, so will carrying capacity, and so will human population. And standard of living, it's worth noting.

We need to start getting real about managing contraction, and stop with the wishful thinking about green-fueled business as usual.

[Quantess]

34. Yes.

[Warren DeMontague]

35. In 1st world countries with personal autonomy and access to contraception? No.

No, we're not, birth rates have stabilized on their own, and the so-called "population problem" is restricted to certain areas, economic situations, and cultures.

But try to mention that in one of these hysteria-laden threads and watch the shitfit ensue from people who are sure that the problem is "breeders", since their nice meal at TGI Fridays was ruined by someone with a crying baby.

[FLPanhandle]

40. Over population has nothing to with a specific country or if a population has stabilized.

It has to do with the sustainable carrying capacity of the Earth. Even the 1st world countries cannot their existing population (even though it has stabilized) in an environmentally sustainable manner.

Bottom line most studies have calculated that the Earth can support between 2-4 billion humans without environmental destruction. Stabilizing at 9 billion won't help.

[Warren DeMontague]

47. Bullshit.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/population/total_fertility_rate_2011_0.html

[FLPanhandle]

57. Nope.

Did you even read or comprehend my post. It's not about a single country or even stabilizing where we are.

It's about the total number of humans on the planet. Deny it all you want, but you are still wrong.

[Warren DeMontague]

58. Okay, so reducing the population of Japan to, say, zero would solve the crisis in Uganda?

Population is not one monolithic, fungible entity, and the so-called "population problem" is DEEPLY dependent on local circumstances.

[FLPanhandle]

67. Try and keep up

It's not about one country.

Think total ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE number of humans on the planet.

We have more than that now in total and we are destroying the planet to keep up.

Think planet, not countries.

[Warren DeMontague]

88. Yes, I think I understand what you're saying. 1st world people are more environmentally destructive

so the fact that 1st world people are reproducing at, basically, a replacement birthrate, and -with access to contraception and a high degree of personal autonomy- limit birth rates on their own, the answer to the "population problem" is to ignore the fact that birth rates in 3rd world countries with a low standard of living reach as high as 6, 7, 8... certainly not to help those people improve their living conditions, personal autonomy, and access to contraception- the very things that have facilitated the reduction in fertility rates in the 1st world...


....but, rather, to somehow fantasize that we're going to get rid of all the 1st world people, entirely, because 1st world people with their environmentally unsustainable 1st world lifestyles that have, ironically, allowed them to control their own population, are the real problem.

So, technically, the problem isn't actually population, it's getting rid of all the people in countries like Japan and Europe and the United States.

Am I "keeping up"? :shrug:

[GliderGuider]

90. You are absolutely right that the problem is not monolithic.

The problem is one of human impact on the planet.

The problem of human impact has two dimensions - population and consumption - that play out differently in each region. Regions with low or negative population growth tend to have high levels of consumption, while regions with low levels of consumption tend to have high population growth rates. The analogy is to a rectangle with one side measured in people and the other in consumption. The area of the rectangle represents the impact on the planet. Different regional or national circumstances produce different shaped rectangles.

While reducing the population of Italy may not affect population growth of Uganda, reducing either the population of Uganda or the consumption of Italy will reduce the impact of humans and their activity in each region.

Reducing the consumption (aka economic activity) of industrialized nations would have more of a direct global effect on our aggregate impact than regional population reductions. That is because both industrial activity and its most significant waste product, carbon dioxide, are globalized issues - the former through trade and transportation, the latter through atmospheric diffusion.

Fortunately, two key factors for addressing both population growth and industrial activity have appeared in the nick of time: the arrival of Peak Oil and Climate Change. Since commercial transportation is inextricably tied to oil, and climate change is caused by CO2, the combined effect of Peak Oil and Climate Change seems likely to assist in destabilizing the economies of industrialized nations and physically limiting our overall food supply. As a result, I expect that by 2050 two changes will be well under way. The aggregate world population will be on its way back down to sustainable levels, with major impacts to the underdeveloped nations; and the global economy will be generating a fraction of the constant-dollar GWP it does today, with major impacts to the world's overdeveloped nations.

This is going to be an entirely involuntary correction, though I expect that a lot of the things we will try to ameliorate it, like biofuels and geoengineering, will actually make it worse.

I don't like that forecast any more than the next guy, but the more I've researched the issues the more inescapable the conclusion has become.

[FrodosPet]

78. We (well, most of us) know the problem

What is the humane solution?

The countries on the top of the fertility list are almost all African countries. How do we solve it without racism? Without telling the "brown people" how to live their lives like it was the 19th Century?

If we had a mandatory 20, 30, even 40 year ban on reproduction in America and Europe, how do we hit the sustainable population target?

[sudopod]

44. Sounds like someone's having some projection issues there, lol nt

[Warren DeMontague]

48. Maybe.

Although how reducing the reproduction rate in Japan (1.20) is going to ameliorate the population problem in Niger (7.68) is beyond my admittedly limited understanding.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/population/total_fertility_rate_2011_0.html

Perhaps the 'global population is unitary and fully fungible' geniuses can explain that.

[Mimosa]

42. There are too many people in areas without resources.

Nobody on this planet needs to be reproducing beyond 'replacement levels'.

[Spike89]

49. Yes, population pressure is a problem, but...

a 2.45 birthrate is not necessarily above replacement...you've got to figure in infant/childhood mortality. In other words, they aren't "replacements" until they reach childbearing age. At 2.45, it is doubtful that we're below replacement, but long-term, a 2.0 birthrate would lead to a quite noticeable drop in worldwide population within a couple generations.

It is very difficult to accurately chart worldwide population trends. For instance, a poor 3rd country may have a high birthrate but a correspondingly high mortality rate for children and very poor healthcare overall. Modernize that country and get the expected birthrate to plummet, and you might still see a huge spike in population as childhood mortality drops and life expectancy jumps among all age groups. Eventually (historically at least), population stabilizes as a country becomes industrialized.

There are huge challenges ahead, but there are possible "outs" and the truth is that the answers are going to be very difficult to come up with because we're still barely able to figure out the questions. Can/will enough of the world become developed fast enough (and can we survive the spike as it happens) to eventually become stable? What really is the holding capacity of the earth? That answer does require some real and important assumptions--can we transition from peak oil to another fuel source? Can/will technology be able to meet the demand for potable water (there is plenty, but it isn't distributed where we need it).

[Warren DeMontague]

51. Personal autonomy, religion out of politics, jobs, contraceptives, & internet porn

watch those birth rates fall.

[Canuckistanian]

56. St Matthew Island cartoon - a cautionary tale

Read the PDF, you might have to adjust the zoom level. It's the eye-opening true story of a massive population boom - and it's eventual crash.

http://www.recombinantrecords.net/images/2011-02-St-Matthew-Island.pdf

[laundry_queen]

87. Excellent demonstration of a population crash. nt

[GliderGuider]

62. It's actually worse than that. We are experiencing overshoot.

Keep in mind that the impact we have on the planet is a product of our population times our individual impact, which is itself a product of our technology and our activity level.
In other words, I=PAT.

First, here is the annual population growth of the world since 1950. Notice how it's not actually declining...



Now let's take a look at the infamous "Standard Run" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth">Limits to Growth of 1972:



Oddly enough, it's proving to be accurate almost 40 years later:

In 2008 Graham Turner at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in Australia published a paper called "A Comparison of `The Limits to Growth` with Thirty Years of Reality". It examined the past thirty years of reality with the predictions made in 1972 and found that changes in industrial production, food production and pollution are all in line with the book's predictions of economic and societal collapse in the 21st century.

Here is a different way of looking at human impact on the planet over the last century. The underlying numbers are treated so that they are 100% today.



In 1900 humans had about 5% of the overall impact on the planet that we do today, and each person had about 1/4 the impact they do today;
In 1950 humans had about 15% of the overall impact on the planet that we do today, and each person had about 1/2 the impact they do today;
In 1980 humans had about 50% of the overall impact on the planet that we do today, and each person had about 3/4 the impact they do today.

All of that adds up to this:



We need 1.5 planets to sustain our population at this level of consumption.
We only have one planet.
Something has to give: either population, or consumption.
Take your pick, which will it be?

[amborin]

86. and forget any other species

they're just doomed

[GliderGuider]

91. I talk about "Completing the Copernican Revolution"

Copernicus moved the Earth out of the center of the physical universe. The completion of his revolution requires us to move humanity out of the center of the philosophical universe.

Once we make that shift in perspective, and open the space for other life to assume its own intrinsic value alongside us, the picture of what we are doing to the planet suddenly snaps into much sharper and more painful focus.

[amborin]

99. Great way to phrase it!

But how can one make that happen? Cultures have to be changed, worldwide.

[GliderGuider]

105. There are a couple of ways that can happen.

First of all, this transformation is an individual change of perspective, a true grass-roots shift. Upper echelons in the power hierarchy will not adopt it, because it's not in their best interest - that being the accumulation and consolidation of wealth and power. I promote this shift by applying an ecological, system-oriented, web-like approach to apparently isolated human problems, and communicating my understanding in those terms (more below).

The second thing that will facilitate the shift is pressure from the world itself. People generally change their world-view and ultimately their culture only in response to changes in the world - things like resource availability, economic changes, demographic changes, changes in the knowledge base etc. Those factors drive cultural changes far more than any spontaneous "act of will" on the part of the people.

Fortunately individuals can change their minds more easily than large groups - we are evidence of this - and that has profound implications for the value of individual consciousness-raising. Those people who have already adopted a holistic, ecological perspective will act as "seed stock" for this world-view. As others start to feel the pressure of change, it will be up to people like us to counterbalance the message they will be getting from the authoritarian side of the house, the power elite. We will not prevent the coming troubles, but we may be able to offer useful awareness and guidance to others as things begin to unravel.

The reason I think this will work is confirmed by the meta-movement that Paul Hawken describes in his book Blessed Unrest: the enormous number of small, local, independent, grass-roots groups that are appearing spontaneously around the world in response to local environmental and social-justice problems. There is no white male vertebrate leading the pack, it's a totally distributed (and therefore extremely resilient) phenomenon. At last estimate there were over two million such groups world-wide, and the number seems to be growing by 25% or more a year. These are our tribes, and the revolution is already under way.

Here's how the shift appears in my actions:

I always look at problems that appear to be related just to population, environmental, economic, social-justice or spiritual difficulties in a broader context. That context includes the impacts of any particular human activity on the physical aspects of the planet, on other species of plants and animals, and on other parts of the global human community - both the people themselves and the structures they need to survive like government, law, economics, finance, education, communication, social organization, religion etc. And to close the loop I also consider the reciprocal impact that changes each of those areas has on human activity.

As part of the "communications wing" of the revolution, I try to foster this perspective in others by demonstrating how it works and nudging people towards a broader, deeper, more ecological awareness of WTF is going on.

[amborin]

108. great post; i've bookmarked it to re-read

[LWolf]

65. I'm fine with getting serious about climate policy, conservation,

etc.. I'd also like to get serious about keeping the birthrate lower than the death rate for as many centuries as it takes to get us out of the billions and into the millions, freeing up much more space on the planet for things like increasing biodiversity, producing oxygen, growing healthy food in ways that are healthy to the planet, etc..

[The2ndWheel]

66. Every institution we've built requires more people doing more things

It's not just population, and it's not just consumption. Without the underlying infrastructure, which is supported by higher populations and increasing consumption, we couldn't have as many people, or consume as much.

Conservation will also never be part of the equation. Jobs, jobs, jobs.

[bertman]

69. The planet is teeming with human beans who, like locusts, are devouring its surface

yet this woman is arguing that overpopulation is a problem.

Un-frickin-believable.

[Better Believe It]

73. What is a human bean?

"yet this woman is arguing that overpopulation is a problem."

Actually she clearly stated that the food shortages, hunger, poverty and unemployment is not due to overpopulation, it's the irrational and unplanned world economy that's the problem.

[bertman]

97. 'Human bean' is a euphemism for 'human being'. Unfortunately, too many of us alleged

human beings act more like beans than beings. In other words, it was an attempt at dark humor.

"Actually she clearly stated that the food shortages, hunger, poverty and unemployment is not due to overpopulation, it's the irrational and unplanned world economy that's the problem."

Yes, she did state that and I totally disagree. When, in the history of this planet have human beings or beans ever exhibited any tendencies toward rational and planned world economics?? NEVER. We are energetic little monkeys with brains that function well enough to allow us to produce engineering marvels, yet the part of our brains that try to look at the LONG TERM consequences of our actions are underdeveloped. Basically, we're just animals trying to survive in a world red in tooth and claw.

It should be plainly obvious that after thousands of years of "development" we are still incapable of making good decisions on a national and international basis. The one thing we could do to dramatically alter our ongoing destruction of the planet's ecosystems is to greatly reduce our population. For someone to suggest otherwise tells me that they are dealing in fantasy rather than reality.

[cherokeeprogressive]

74. You have challenged the notion that "breeders" are responsible for the world's ills. Expect to get

trashed.

I'm wondering what the population is per square acre of usable land.

[20score]

79. Denial of the over-population problem infuriates me.

[amborin]

80. +10000 more houses, malls, forests chopped down, habitat destroyed, cars, pollution

it's a huge problem

[FrodosPet]

84. It's a catch 22

Education and higher living standards have been credited with slowing the population growths in Europe, North America, and much of Asia. Unfortunately, that requires more houses, malls, forests chopped down, habitat destroyed, cars, pollution.

Do we leave sub-Saharan Africa in poverty? That is barbaric, and serves to promote the huge fertility rates and population growth. But to bring the people food, clean water, education, safe and comfortable homes, etc requires construction of infrastructure, houses, farms, wells and irrigation systems, schools, hospitals, retail distribution points, etc. which increases the strain on an already fragile environment.

[FrodosPet]

81. What is your solution?

Identifying the problem is easy. Identifying a solution respectful of reproductive and cultural choices is a lot tougher.

[20score]

98. World-wide education and access to birth control. More rights for women. Lifting economies in third

world nations.

[FrodosPet]

100. Those are positive, humane steps

However, at least according to some I have read here, that exacerbates the problem.

Education requires access to schools. Which requires more and better roads (cutting down forests, building more buses, consuming more energy).

Access to birth control and demanding better women's rights pushes into a cultural clash. How do we accomplish that without appearing to be cultural colonialists?

Lifting economies in third world nations requires transportation (see above), expanded local agriculture, building materials, mining, energy (even the green energies like solar and wind require copper and aluminum, along with magnetic materials for wind, processing chemicals for photovoltaic cells, and the materials to build storage systems). And then when you do that, while you are reducing the rate of population increase, you are increasing the lifespan and resource footprint of each individual.

Saying "Fix this" is the easy part. Actually doing it is a difficult and slow process.

[amborin]

83. b.s. article by Hartman...overpopulation & its assoc morbidities is a global problem, not limited to

to the U.S.

cars, houses, malls, pollution, habitat destruction...all intensified by demographic growth

[laundry_queen]

85. Everyone should watch this - we are PAST the 59th minute

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8x98KFcMJeo

[blindpig]

95. It is a massive distraction...

Not at all to say that we can sustain continued growth but as you say the trends are looking good.

It is not at all surprising that Sub-Saharan Africa is still experiencing high replacement, that region is the target of capitalist expansion and where capital goes poverty follows for the majority. Small producers are displaced by the expansion of the capitalist model driving them to the cities where they must sell their labor at what wages might be had, if they can.

The best and really only way to get a handle on our environmental situation is to adopt a rational economic model where production is for the purpose of meeting human need, not profit. Our productive capability is so great that all basic need might be met if distributed equitably, and the possibilities beyond that are great. But the incredible wastefulness of capitalism driven by it's misplaced priorities will surely lead to planet-wide misery at best.

[GliderGuider]

96. I see two problems with this position.

The first is that humans are in aggregate already in a 50% overshoot siotuation. The second is that we as a species appear to be utterly allergic to rational solutions.

The combination of capitalism, overconsumption, the already-accomplished drawdown of natural resources and our inadvertent geoengineering through climate change and habitat destruction means that the immiseration of much of humanity is already baked in the cake. The trap has been sprung, it now remains to be seen how many of us will escape its closing jaws.

[blindpig]

101. Not we as a species but rather the ruling class.

Now it follows that the ruling ideas of any period are those of the ruling class of that epoch. When the new ruling class, workers, are in charge those ideas will be substantially changed.

Things are indeed going to hell in a hand basket. Thus the urgency of getting this change in motion, there ain't no short cuts and it will take time, that is unavoidable. Better get humpin', some things we may not be able to do much about but that which we can demands the soonest action. Resignation is not an option.

[FrodosPet]

102. How do you transport equitably?

Africa is going to need more trains, planes, railways, airports, trucks, and highways to get the stuff from where it is produced to where it is needed.

But then environmentalists are going to fight because that requires building through forests, jungle, wetlands, etc. Lots of concrete to be mixed and poured. Lots of steel to be smelted and shaped. Lots of trees to be cut and oil to be pumped.

[blindpig]

104. I am sure that capitalist America is not the model.

Development yes, but not on the capitalist model where profit is the sole criteria. As biodiversity is a human need it will certainly be a consideration.

[FrodosPet]

106. What's the difference?

What's the difference between a hundred miles of capitalist highway and a hundred miles of socialist highway? Is a socialist locomotive different than a capitalist locomotive? A hundred acres of farmland is a hundred acres of farmland - how productive it is depends on fertility, crop choice, farmer skill, water availability, pest and weed control, etc. but it is STILL a hundred acres of farmland, not jungle or savanna.

We need more than grand pronouncements that there is a problem. We need specific, detailed, workable solutions that acknowledge the basic social and biological motivations of self preservation, reproduction, and comfort and pleasure acquisition.

[blindpig]

107. If the needs are different so will the infrastructure will be..

Production in capitalism is very redundant and wasteful, an inevitable result of completion. What you need to meet human need is very different. It is at least largely a matter of scale, do we need a million acres of oil palms? Only the transnationals need that. Consider coltan, who needed that before the mass marketing of game decks, laptops and cell phones? Nobody even thought to ask for that stuff but with mass marketing they have become 'necessities', to the sorrow of all life in the Congo Basin.

Let's get rational.

[FrodosPet]

110. So stick to producing onky what is necessary for life.

No video games, no telephones, no luxuries of any sort.

All food produced shall be limited to a few life sustaining crops.

Individuals should not have cars, because they are detrimental to the environment.

How far back in the past do we have to go? How limited will we become materially to satisfy your personal vision of true necessities?

And how exactly do you plan on convincing people to throw off materialism and perform self-sacrifice for the greater good?

Slogans? Posters? Websites? Take over media outlets by force?

How would you deal with people who object to your vision? Material impoverishment? Ostracization? Imprisonment?

[blindpig]

111. Strawman

You carry the argument to absurdity. 'Necessity' is not 'bread & water' and necessity is perceived through the lens of the current dominant ideas which are propagated by the current ruling class. When the ruling class is the working class the dominant ideas will change, not instantly but by changing the priorities of production and the bodies which administer society. The non-coercive methods which you mention might well play a part.

Necessity is more than marginal survival, it is a full, human life. This would include culture and entertainment, the preservation of nature for survival and enjoyment. When we take profit out of the equation things will look quite different.