Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The Threat of Population Growth Pales Beside the Greed of the Rich

By George Monbiot, Comment Is Free. Posted January 31, 2008.


Some blame the poor for growing pressure on the world's resources, but the wealthy West takes the lion's share.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by George Monbiot

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

I cannot avoid the subject any longer. Almost every day I receive a clutch of emails about it, asking the same question. A frightening new report has just pushed it up the political agenda: for the first time the World Food Program is struggling to find the supplies it needs for emergency famine relief. So why, like most environmentalists, won't I mention the p-word? According to its most vociferous proponents (Paul and Anne Ehrlich), population is "our number one environmental problem." But most greens will not discuss it.

Is this sensitivity or is it cowardice? Perhaps a bit of both. Population growth has always been politically charged, and always the fault of someone else. Seldom has the complaint been heard that "people like us are breeding too fast". For the prosperous clergyman Thomas Malthus, writing in 1798, the problem arose from the fecklessness of the laboring classes. Through the 19th and early 20th centuries, eugenicists warned that white people would be outbred. In rich nations in the 1970s the issue was over-emphasized, as it is the one environmental problem for which poor nations are largely to blame. But the question still needs to be answered. Is population really our number one environmental problem?

The Optimum Population Trust (OPT) cites some shocking figures, produced by the UN. They show that if the global population keeps growing at its current rate, it will reach 134 trillion by 2300. But this is plainly absurd: no one expects it to happen. In 2005, the UN estimated that the world's population will more or less stabilize in 2200 at 10 billion. But a paper published in Nature last week suggests that there is an 88 percent chance that global population growth will end during this century.

In other words, if we accept the UN's projection, the global population will grow by roughly 50 percent and then stop. This means it will become 50 percent harder to stop runaway climate change, 50 percent harder to feed the world, 50 percent harder to prevent the overuse of resources. But compare this rate of increase with the rate of economic growth.

Many economists predict that, occasional recessions notwithstanding, the global economy will grow by about 3 percent a year this century. Governments will do all they can to prove them right. A steady growth rate of 3 percent means a doubling of economic activity every 23 years. By 2100, in other words, global consumption will increase by about 1,600 percent. As the equations produced by Professor Roderick Smith of Imperial College have shown, this means that in the 21st century we will have used 16 times as many economic resources as human beings have consumed since we came down from the trees.

So economic growth this century could be 32 times as big an environmental issue as population growth. And if governments, banks and businesses have their way, it never stops. By 2115, the cumulative total rises to 3,200 percent, by 2138 to 6,400 percent. As resources are finite, this is of course impossible, but it is not hard to see that rising economic activity -- not human numbers -- is the immediate and overwhelming threat.

Those who emphasize the dangers of population growth maintain that times have changed: they are not concerned only with population growth in the poor world, but primarily with growth in the rich world, where people consume much more. The OPT maintains that the "global environmental impact of an inhabitant of Bangladesh … will increase by a factor of 16 if he or she emigrates to the USA." This is surely not quite true, as recent immigrants tend to be poorer than the native population, but the general point stands: population growth in the rich world, largely driven by immigration, is more environmentally damaging than an increase in population in the poor world. In the US and the UK, their ecological impact has become another stick with which immigrants can be beaten.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: population, consumption

George Monbiot is the author Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning. Read more of his writings at Monbiot.com. This article originally appeared in the Guardian.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Paternalism and biofuels
Posted by: El Hombre Malo on Jan 31, 2008 1:06 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is right on spot; while population controled growth is desirable, it has been often promoted as a panacea because it puts all the blame in the less favored, failing to adress the economical origins of bigger breeding rates in developing countries. Without the state-sponsored safenets we enjoy in developed countries (yes, even you americans), big families are the only way to sustain the elderly and ill, or the students during their extended dependency. Younger children benefit from the economic backing of their older brothers, enabling them to stay longer in school. Smaller birthrates in the first world are a consecuence of development, not its cause. Cutting the birthrate before development is a recipe for misery and distress, and a consecuence of a complacent paternalism; Why can't they be more like Us?

The article, though, does not adress a big reason in the food shortage; bio-fuel. The promotion of bio-diesel is making the prices skyrocket. Last year Mexico's guvermental enriched flour had to request special funding because the dramatic increase crippled its budget, I am sure UN food relief programs face similar problems.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Paternalism and biofuels Posted by: VickyinSD
The World's Economy is Based on Debt Service ...
Posted by: mmckinl on Jan 31, 2008 1:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Indeed poor people use far fewer resources than do the "Developed Countries " But it doesn't stop there.

Nearly all of the world uses debt based fractional banking, which when you analyse it means that the world must go deeper and deeper into debt to service the existing debt and so on and so on, in short a debt spiral. Should the debt creation be stymied for any reason the world's money supply rapidly shrinks causing the economy to sputter and stall.

What this means in practical terms is that more and more resources must be consumed every year to market products to sell to pay for this increasing debt service. Without a contiuous increase in consumption the world soon goes broke due to lack of money to pay the ever increasing debt. It is a vicious cycle of ever increasing debt and ever increasing consumption.


The way this plays out in the third world is twofold. Poor countries must raise ever more hard currency to pay interest and principle on their loans. This means selling whatever the developed countries want or , second, engaging in near slave labor with their workforce to raise this hard money for these payments. They end up sellling their natural resources, usually below market value, leaving environmental and human degradation behind. People in these areas are forced to engage in this pillage or are forced off ancestral lands to the new emerging mega cities where they have no resources and again must scramble for hard currency to live, usually working menial jobs while their children scavenge garbage or beg. Long gone are the productive farm lands and forests that would provide for them.

So not only does the developed world consume more, it's banking and commercial system ravage developing nation's resources,exploit their people and coopt them into this cancerous form of money creation causing ever increasing debt, environmental and human damage.

The way to break this cycle of debt based money is to create money based on credit, that is non interest bearing money creation. In this way ever more debt isn't needed to sustain the economy, the money can be credited to the banks to lend on demand and will not be destroyed once the loan is paid. The world wouldn't need ever increasing debt for the economies to prosper, money creation could be allocated for the public good and not the conspicuous consumption that is ravaging our environment and enslaving all the worlds people to ever more debt to service.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Wow! I've never seen it put so clearly and so succinctly! Posted by: Robert_Hoogenboom@leftfoot.com.au
» RE: interest theres the rub Posted by: solrev
» A Fate Worse than Debt Posted by: amphibious
Parasites
Posted by: Cathyc on Jan 31, 2008 1:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who was it that said "The Rich need a constant supply of the Poor"?

Very, very few of the rich have actually earned their money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Parasites Posted by: richholland
» Eat the rich... Posted by: thekidde
» RE: at the rich... Posted by: stevebonzai
» RE: Eat the rich... Posted by: VickyinSD
» RE: Parasites Posted by: VickyinSD
» RE: Parasites Posted by: Joshua Holland
It all comes back to population, population, population
Posted by: Bobsays on Jan 31, 2008 1:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Population is the root cause of every single major problem on the planet: population is the cause of poverty, population is the cause of environmental destruction and degradation, population causes wars and conflict, population is behind immigration chaos and over-crowding.

Environmentalists don't touch it with a barge pole because environmentalists get and need money from government to keep going. They know to raise this issue would burn their bridges and nuke the chance to go to an international conference. In short, environmentalists are highly compromised people and this goes a long to why they have failed to make any progress despite decades of campaigning and running expensive projects.

If we take Europe for example, population and Germany's desire for 'living room' caused WWII. Similar, mini battles over 'living room' are occuring across Africa and Asia. Europe's current security, prosperity and standard of living is being dragged down by population, as unfettered migration continues without check.

If you are serious about the environment, then you must eventually talk about population and the fact it is not desirable to allow the human population to keep growing and growing unchecked. There is a carrying capacity for the planet and for countries and regions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I did live in China - Posted by: fearn
» RE: I don't think so - - Posted by: fearn
population and greed
Posted by: richholland on Jan 31, 2008 3:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
visiting Thailand,Laos and Cambodia for more then 10 years I woder why in Europe and USA people are concerned about environment.
Even in the poor Laos and Cambodia people are pressed into motorcycles and 4 wheel drives and minibusses. Banks are giving easy loans on this.
So what is going on??
The old europe countries need an average of 2,2 kids per household, they only have 1,9 so immigration is wanted.
Let us face it for many years poor people or less educated people have more kids then educated ones.
Where is the politician who dares to say;
4 kids per family is desirable???(and more then enough)
However in future China, India, Asia will need more gasoline and meat (McDonald?)
I suppose worldwide honesty about this subject is wanted.
What are the ideas of Hillary and Obama about this??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: population and greed Posted by: TheLimit
» no countries need more meat Posted by: veggiegrrrl
population and greed
Posted by: richholland on Jan 31, 2008 3:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
visiting Thailand,Laos and Cambodia for more then 10 years I woder why in Europe and USA people are concerned about environment.
Even in the poor Laos and Cambodia people are pressed into motorcycles and 4 wheel drives and minibusses. Banks are giving easy loans on this.
So what is going on??
The old europe countries need an average of 2,2 kids per household, they only have 1,9 so immigration is wanted.
Let us face it for many years poor people or less educated people have more kids then educated ones.
Where is the politician who dares to say;
4 kids per family is desirable???(and more then enough)
However in future China, India, Asia will need more gasoline and meat (McDonald?)
I suppose worldwide honesty about this subject is wanted.
What are the ideas of Hillary and Obama about this??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

otto
Posted by: otto on Jan 31, 2008 4:21 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree completely; great article. It's always easier to blame others, especially the poor, than to look at our own faults and weaknessses.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Worthy thesis, but --
Posted by: JPHickey on Jan 31, 2008 4:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, and it can't go on forever, either,though "rising economic activity – not human numbers – is the immediate and overwhelming threat."

"But to suggest, as many of my correspondents do, that population growth is largely responsible for the ecological crisis is to blame the poor for the excesses of the rich."

From personal observation, rich people don't really care, as "to the victor go the spoils". And the since a paradigm shift is unlikely, business-as-usual will continue until it crashes and burns. Are we there yet?

The U.S. is in suffering from the greatest gilded age even known. The wealthy people I know are neocon psychopaths, or as misguided as Marie "let them eat cake" Antoinette.

The status quo is being substantiated by the annointed ones here in the U.S. The consolidate media is so commercialized that creative and spiritual values are now totally out-of-the-picture.

Even with most AlterNet readers, any talking up of the simple life, the reawakening of our talents, or even the meaure of wealth in how we spend our time rather than materialistic greed, falls on deaf ears.

Only a crushing crash will hopefully bring us to our senses, and who knows, maybe this will be the year!

There is a higher definition of freedom than the just the common freedom of the so-called "free market".

The the most rewarding freedom is further up Maslow's pyramid where we may dwell in harmony with our hearts, enjoy just being alive, and yet live sustainably and expressively.

As far as I'm concerned in many ways, "the hippies had it right"! And at least Monbiot does get to first base.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Worthy thesis, but -- Posted by: manatthewindow
» RE: Not quite right - - Posted by: TheLimit
» Eeek! I think you meant... Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: Worthy thesis, but -- Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Worthy thesis, but -- Posted by: TheLimit
» RE: Worthy thesis, but -- Posted by: astralman
Why not a new approach to society and population?
Posted by: PerryBrass on Jan 31, 2008 5:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This piece really does not tell us a lot that is new, anyone can see that population is stretching resources. The terrible thing is that simply opening up family planning clinics won't curb population because so much of the world now in response to the tightening of a single, world-capitalist system is becoming more, not less, culturally conservative. So the old values that a man must have children to "carry on his family name," and even emancipated working women also need to be mothers is holding on. We need another approach to sexuality and population reduction.

We need to encourage extended group families, so that childless uncles and aunts are encouraged to stay that way and still contribute to larger family units financially and morally.

We need to extend tolerance of homosexual relationships, as the Dutch have done for much of the 20th century, since Holland is a small country with very limited resources and has worked to keep its population within control. Therefore the paranoia that the US and some other Western countries still have over homosexuality, labeling it subversive and "UnAmerican" has little sway in a small country.

In many ways, the US is becoming another smaller country, with the bigger majority of its population now cramped within 75 miles of either coast. So we need to see the value in other sexual/social/emotional units than single nuclear families. We also need to slow down the constant culture of competition and aggression in this country so that other values beside consumption rise, again, to the surface. As it is played now, anything outside of the national religion of consumption is entirely suspect, and even ridiculous sporting events, like the Superbowl, have become more about displays of wealth (with the $10,000 ticket) than anything that resembles sport.

We need to make the viability of animals in the wild a human priority; this idea was completely absent from Monbiets article. Humans should not be the only organisms left on earth: it would be impossible and unthinkable. But most population planners do not actively plan for how animals are affected by population.

I have written often about the relationship between culture and population, and know that population control is one of the oldest issues of the human race. Every ancient culture was aware that their limited food resources had to be spread around its population; the Egyptians started using birth control devices and practices almost as soon as they settled into cities, the Sumerians used them, the Greeks did. Only the ancient Hebrews, who were aggressively trying to control an area they were immigrating into, admonished their population to "be fruitful and mulitiply," with little thought of the outcome of it, which was continuous war.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nuts!!!
Posted by: craigandrew on Jan 31, 2008 6:22 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Greed is a very easy thing to understand, it just takes discipline... which we don't have. But, the fascism of the radical environmentalists is far more dangerous. Yes, it is true that there are problems that we need to confront, but population is not one of them. When humans begin to try and control human population we will end up with genocide. We should only concern ourselves with living our lives more efficiently and more environmentally friendly. Population control is a very dark and dangerous road.. just look at India and China.

And, furthermore, even the rich want fewer people, because there can be too many poor whose lives are so bad that they rise up against the rich... successfully. Here we see the radical environmentalists doing their bidding.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: adical Environmentalist!!! Posted by: craigandrew
» RE: adical Environmentalist!!! Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: adical Environmentalist!!! Posted by: craigandrew
» RE: adical Environmentalist!!! Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: adical Environmentalist!!! Posted by: craigandrew
The 800 lb Gorillas
Posted by: crazy carlos on Jan 31, 2008 6:25 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Noone wants to address the 800 lb gorillas, RELIGION, as a very large part of the problem--as in go forth and multiply. Until this issue is addressed head on the rest is nonsense. OUR MAJOR PROBLEM IS POPULLUTION.

Crazy Carlos

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The 800 lb Gorillas Posted by: TheNamelessCity
For example: energy use - fossil fuels or renewables?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 31, 2008 6:28 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Quote: "Stabilizing or even reducing the human population would ameliorate almost all environmental impacts."

Ah - no it would not. The U.S. for example, has 5% of the world's population and yet uses 25% of global petroleum supplies. If everyone wanted to use as much oil as we do in the U.S., and population did not grow at all, we would still need FIVE TIMES as much petroleum supply as exists to meet that demand.

We could easily use a lot less -and a 90% reduction on fossil fuel use is needed to head off global warming.

However, the people who control energy-linked cash flows and their political and media allies, because of simple greed, don't want to see fossil fuels replaced by renewable energy sources - wind, solar, and sustainable biofuels. They don't want to see industrial commodity agribusiness replaced by local organic agriculture, because they would lose control of land and money.

Both problems must be addressed - population size AND per capita resource use. We can use far less in the Wester industrialized nations, and still lead good lives - and we can export women's rights, education, clean technologies and access to birth control to the developing world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Either-Or
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Jan 31, 2008 6:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Much of this conversation seems to be based on the presumption that our environmental problems are either caused by overpopulation or they are caused by overconsumption. The fact is that both forces are at play.

The problem is that mankind has stretched the capacity of the earth to support it and sooner or later this system will break down. Scientists and even laymen are now seeing the signs of the ecosystem breaking down, so there is good reason to fear that we will face the consequences sooner rather than later.

We are familiar with smaller scale environments that are pushed beyond their capacity, what happens is that there eventually is a massive die-off, either from starvation or disease. Humans have added another possibility to this, war.

It really makes little difference whether we decide that there is over-population (making the poor take the blame) or whether we decide that there is over-consumption (making the rich take the blame). The fact is that both stretch the capacity of our one and only planet to continue supporting us. We need restraint in both areas.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ither-Or Posted by: jallan
» RE: ither-Or Posted by: YogiBear
» RE:Hot button issue Posted by: TheLimit
De ja vu all over again
Posted by: drdanj on Jan 31, 2008 7:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thirty years ago a biology instructor led my undergrad class in a discussion of "Bedroom vs Boardroom:" or, too many people vs people using too much. And of course, by the end it deconstructed the foolishness of such either-or logic.

But here it is back again. If everyone lived with a "footprint = 1" we could have a lot more people on the planet. If 5% suck up "footprints = 25" we're doomed for environmental collapse.

Of course we need to do both, reduce our use, those of us who can read things like this, and work to stablize population growth to locally sustainable levels.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Population Growth is bad for the poor
Posted by: janvdb on Jan 31, 2008 7:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We must consider the poor themselves. How can they become rich?

The rich have an interest in the poor becoming rich, even if it does put pressure on the environment; this is both a moral and a security imperative for us.

No one has any doubt whatsoever that the rich have fewer children. The question is: Does getting rich cause you to have fewer children or does having fewer children cause you to become rich?

Recent research, some at the Harvard School of Public Health by Prof Bloom, indicates the latter. This work has shown that China's path to prosperity also has worked, less obviously, elsewhere. Anyone knows that China put in place the harsh one-child policy and is now booming into "rich" status. Other examples: Bangladesh, which is far ahead of high-birth Pakistan, its sister nation, Brazil, Korea, most successful societies in East Asia, and south India, where birth rates are already near replacement.

And where is misery still the rule? Right where people continue to oppress and enslave women, leading to huge families, many of whom die in infancy, adn most of which are underfed, undereducated and, most importantly, when grown, UNDEREMPLOYED.

If the job creation cannot keep up with the rate of expansion of the labor force due to high birthrates, you get -- KENYA.

That kind of civil war is fed by unemployed youth. That kind of civil war destroys development and traps a nation in poverty. Investment flees, jobs are destroyed, misery, poverty and disease flourish. All these scourges are the result of violence, which is a result of large gangs of unemployed youth, which are a result of high birth rates, which are a result of the oppression and enslavement of women.

If women everywhere had the ability to chose the number of children they want to produce, they would chose to produce no more than they can feed, properly care for and properly educate. The numbers of young trying to enter the labor force would not swamp the economy.

The hoary idea that poor women WANT all those children -- TEST IT by giving them full access to birth control and let's just see what happens. HA! Why not?

Those who want all those children are the MEN who are oppressing and enslaving those women.

When birth control is made available and women don't use it, I'll believe the hoary old lie that poor women want all those children. Urban areas in Africa now, like Accra, Ghana, have already seen birth rates fall to 2.2.

Other Harvard School of Public Health research, by Prof Allan Hill, showed that in The Gambia, women surveyed said they wanted 4 children, but men wanted 15!!!

Now that's a gap that explains a lot.

The control of Third World population growth is not primarily about the environment, neither is it primarily about us, it is primarily about THEM. It is a necessary component of becoming rich. And the poor DO want to become prosperous, healthy and well-fed.

I do believe that the control of Third World populations would lead to those countries becoming rich, and, therefore, would, in fact, have a net BAD effect on the environment. This is just something we will have to deal with technologically, and a REDUCTION IN FIRST WORLD POPULATION is highly in order.

We need to reduce our consumption and REDUCE OUR NUMBERS to accommodate the rise to prosperity of the rest of the human race. Raw materials costs will be driven ever higher as trillions of the newly-rich (and, of course, recently smaller-familied) in China and India compete with us for access to stuff.

We need to learn to live with this and REDUCING OUR NUMBERS is one of the best ways to preserve our per-capita living standards as we come to share those with trillions of other humans.

Jan VanDenBerg

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Your response is amazing! Posted by: Bobsays
What a Crock!
Posted by: dockboy on Jan 31, 2008 8:02 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No one here honestly gives a damn about the third world. People, listen up. We live in a true global economy, and this is not going to change. Embrace it, don't fight it. The fact is, technological advancement and progress can no longer be limited to the western world. This will have a huge impact on the environment worldwide, western societies, and the lifestyle of everyone of us here.

You people speak out of both sides of your mouths. One moment you say, oh, the west is evil, corrupt, and greedy. bad on us, bad on us!. Then when issues arise of India, China, and Latin America getting jobs out-sourced to them, you scream outsourcing evil! outsourcing evil! Government, please protect us. You people are just as greedy as the big corporations and rich elite you claim to loathe.

You want to continue with your comfortable lifestyle of mediocrity, with little to no personal effort required. Having to compete with a growing technical population from third world countries scares the sh*t out of you. Yet, because you want to be "progressive" you have to claim compassion, and that you "care" about the peoples of the non-western world. Give me a break. Until you're honest with yourselves, you don't really want change. You run from it.

Okay, I'm done ranting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What a Crock! Posted by: manatthewindow
» RE: What a Crock! Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
» RE: What a Crock! Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Hey dockboy Posted by: fearn
» RE: Hey dockboy Posted by: dockboy
» Fair enough, partly. Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: What a Crock! Posted by: TheLimit
farming takes laborers
Posted by: luzmejor on Jan 31, 2008 8:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The developing areas of the world are still in transition from farming occupations to city living. Of course they have had no time to change their ways of coping with these dramatic differences in their environments. Farmers have always needed large families as free labor to support themselves.

Even in rural America we are still having trouble adjusting to all of these changes in the world economy.

Let's not forget that the poor in developing countries live on so little that they could not afford contraceptives, even if our phony "religious" and other leaders weren't on a constant and bitter campaign to keep them from access to any kind of contraception.

In spite of the fact that rural living conditions are so wretched, our hard-hearted rich are actively competing for the resources in every other part of the world. They will even do mass murder to get what they want.
We have the prize for wretched excess here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You're exactly right Posted by: andabottleof_rum
It's both, stupid
Posted by: Sanglug on Jan 31, 2008 9:47 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Apologies for some repetition here, but I can't agree enough with the previous posters who have observed that this is NOT an either/or proposition. Climate change and resource depletion are huge, daunting challenges that require changes and solutions on a multitude of different fronts. Reducing human numbers and reducing resource consumption are the broad fronts of action, and they are not mutually exclusive. Why make this difficult or needlessly combative? Yes, the footprint of a small degree of U.S. population growth is bigger than that of a large degree of African population growth, but growth in neither context should be encouraged. Likewise, resource-intensive consumption in both contexts must be discouraged. Period. Stop pitting these issues against each other.

BTW, dockboy, stand back for a moment and just look at your hate-filled, unconstructive posting. How can you think you're being part of the solution?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It's both, stupid Posted by: dockboy
Deeper problems
Posted by: track5 on Jan 31, 2008 10:05 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
33% of the world's grain being fed to cattle is a bigger problem. And foreign aid to 3rd world countries going straight to governments while the powerless people never see a dime. Current economic policies and the powerlessness of the poor are a far greater cause of hunger and scarcity of resources than population growth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» So? Solve ALL the problems Posted by: janvdb
» RE: So? Solve ALL the problems Posted by: TheLimit
It's not control of the population we need
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Jan 31, 2008 10:14 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's control of the greedy. They are responsible for most of the ills that beset humankind. It's the gredy that have us in this war,so too with Vietnam,WW2,WW1, the Spanish/American War, the Civil War and all the Indian Wars. It's the greedy that came up with the idea of 'compound interest rates',bleeding money off the people they have no right to for doing nothing except own the bank. It's the greedy that gave us such lax environmental laws that,even if you're in perfect health,breathing the air and drinking the water will shorten you life. It's the greedy that keeps New Orleans from being rebuilt, Healthcare for everyone and the nation wide shutting down of centers for the homeless.Most of whom were made homeless by corrupted Savings and Loans operators back in the late 1980's. If you think this country isn't run by the greedy....ask an Indian. They will tell you,"The Thieves got away!'
Draft Jeffrey7 for Prez '08
www.youtube.com/RevJeffrey7

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The ultimate grossout
Posted by: willymack on Jan 31, 2008 10:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No need to worry about what can be done about the overpopulation of our world. Due to the aggregate stupidity and selfishness of mankind, NATURE will solve the problem nicely. After a large percentage of us perish because of wars, famine, and pestilence, some sort of equilibrium will be established until the whole sorry process begins anew.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Both not either
Posted by: LRayn on Jan 31, 2008 10:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why does George Monbiot need an either/or battle? Clearly, I=PAT contains BOTH population and consumption. Continued exponential growth of either factor will catch up to us within a couple of decades.

I also don't like his assumption that population growth is all about blaming poor people. How about a discussion about the fact that each new baby born in a rich country will contribute an appalling amount of pollution and resource depletion during his/her lifetime? I apply the principles of overpopulation to myself and my friends, not to "others" somewhere else. (I have chosen not to have children).

Also, this is a great way to reframe the issue of reproductive choice in the United States. Pro-choice activists often have a distressingly narrow view of choice as an individual concern, not a collective necessity. So-called "pro-life" people don't seem to grasp the necessity for controlling human numbers. Environmental disaster due to overpopulation is NOT pro-life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Both not either Posted by: dockboy
Continuously increasing population CANNOT be good...
Posted by: olderworker on Jan 31, 2008 11:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a childless female (age 56, so I'm not going to have children in the future, either), I think it's important to realize that the resources of the earth are finite. Thus, fewer people means bigger slices of the pie for each of us.

And I don't drive an SUV, and I live with three roommates in a relatively small apartment, so I'm not a resources hog, myself.

I think more people should really consider NOT procreating, in order to prevent a steep decline in the standard of living; sorry, George Monbiot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Consumption and Population are Both Responsible for Problems We Face
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com on Jan 31, 2008 12:56 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If there were hardly any people then consuming a lot would not matter.

Conversely if there are 20 billion people but they all consume almost nothing then the high population wouldn't matter.

It is not a case of one being more responsible than the other.

What we need to do is have dialog on what is reasonable regarding the number of offspring we have and the amount of materials we consume.


Having more than 2 children is not sustainable. Consuming materials that are not renewable or faster than they can be renewed is not sustainable.

Both issues do need to be addressed though and overpopulation is rarely ever raised as a major factor for the problems we face except by individual commentators and posters on blogs and news articles.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I agree . . .
Posted by: yesman on Jan 31, 2008 2:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . . with the basic thesis of this article. Excessive consumption of resources in developed countries is at least as big an environmental threat as overpopulation in undeveloped countries. However, given the severity of the situation we now face, we must change both situations, and I'm not sure it's worth too much time debating which problem is REALLY the most serious. They're both serious.

Reducing consumption in developed nations, however, will not be as simple as making a few "lifestyle changes"--that is, people doing some self-reflection and deciding to "live simply." That's not necessarily a bad thing, but as long as the US economy is driven by a "free market" capitalist ideology, we will continue to pillage and destroy the environment--as well as families, communities and our individual and collective health and sanity.

Also, I'm not sure why the author (and his sources) think the world's population will somehow magically "peak" at a certain point. The population certainly WILL peak--because of global plagues, epidemics, mass starvation and wars produced by severe overpopulation--but shouldn't we want (very much) to AVOID these kinds of involuntary population controls?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: i am pro choice and vegan Posted by: vasumurti
» can we meet? Posted by: vasumurti
» presume i am a woman in darfur Posted by: veggiegrrrl
dabu
Posted by: Dabu on Jan 31, 2008 2:19 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I give the article credit for mentioning the P word, which is about as blasphemous to liberals as the word "liberal" is to conservatives,

however,

it comes off as "bait n switch" to me, because it still can not be acknowledged by what any good ecologist (the study of everything involved), would argue is still the number one threat to the blue marble that gives us life, too many humans, a high-end, super-trophic organism, with very low productivity to it's environment and an unusually high consumption and territory factor. No such living entity in the history of the planet, has taken more from the biosphere and returned less, than the Homo sapiens do.

A heroin addict must be careful not to overdose, but they will still end up prematurely dead if they continue to shoot up "safely". But, of course, if we can get past the moment with our "high", then we need not be concerned about the future.

How many rats can you stuff into a cage?

Answer: less than the amount of food, clean bedding, water and the social acceptance limits.

before those limits they start killing each other.

But, we humans are much more smart, we would understand that there is room for more and not let our resource insecurities and our social unease let us hurt each other.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: dabu Posted by: HeroesAll
The Problem is burning COAL
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jan 31, 2008 3:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Downloaded FROM: Environmental Defense
http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/
climate411/2008/01/14/global_winds/

This post is by James Wang, Ph.D., a climate scientist at Environmental Defense.

You may have heard about the persistent droughts in the western U.S., Australia,
and other regions. The Upper Colorado River Basin is experiencing a protracted,
multi-year drought that started in 1999. Australia's record drought is threatening
the livelihood of traditional farmers and ranchers.

At what point does a passing drought become a permanent shift to desert
conditions, and why would such a thing happen?

It can happen because of global warming. Climate change can alter global winds,
the strength and location of high and low pressure systems, and other climate
factors.

.........shortened.........Graphics and URLs omitted.

Global winds shape the Earth's climate, determining - in broad strokes - which
areas are tropical, desert, or temperate. Here's a simplified overview of how it
works.

The Sun heats the Earth most intensely in the tropical zone around the equator. The
heated air rises, cools, and then dumps its moisture as rain. That's why there are
rain forests in the tropics.

The now drier air is forced by the continuously rising equatorial air to move
towards the temperate latitudes on either side of the equator. At roughly 30° N and
S - called the "horse latitudes" - it can move no further due to the Earth’s rotation,
and settles to the surface. As the air sinks, it compresses and warms, creating hot,
rain-free conditions. This circulation pattern, called a Hadley cell, is why the
deserts of the world are located just poleward of the tropics, to the north and south.

Poleward of the desert belt, strong, high-altitude winds known as the jet streams
flow from west to east, carrying large storms with them. These mid-latitude,
temperate-region storms are an important source of rain and snow, especially
during the winter season. Much of the world's population lives in the temperate
region. It includes most of the U.S. and southern Canada, most of Europe, East
Asia, southern South America, southern Africa, and southern Australia and New
Zealand.

But climate regions aren't fixed. Several independent studies have found that
global winds are shifting due to global warming, and the shifts are faster than
predicted by climate models. Most recently is this new study in Nature
Geoscience. The tropical belt has widened by several degrees latitude since 1979.
This is consistent with other observations suggesting that the jet streams and storm
tracks have moved poleward.

The drought-stricken Upper Colorado River Basin, which includes Lake Powell, is
located just poleward of the horse latitudes at around 37° N. This has historically
been in the temperate zone, but the desert zone may be gradually encroaching upon
it. (Since nothing is simple, there are other factors contributing to this particular
drought, as well.) Similarly, water-starved Sydney, Australia at 34° S is just
poleward of the southern horse latitude.

What we may be seeing here is not so much drought as desertification - a shift in
global climate patterns due to global warming. Areas that used to be in temperate
zones may be shifting into desert, while areas that had been arid receive more
precipitation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Its not looking good... Posted by: Cathyc
Of course the author doesn't mention the dreaded V word
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Jan 31, 2008 4:36 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course the author doesn't mention the dreaded V word. Vegan is part of the solution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Carrying Capacity is a function of technology, a variable
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jan 31, 2008 9:10 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Carrying Capacity is the maximum number of people that the Earth can support,
but carrying capacity varies with technology, economic system, economic
distribution and culture. George Monbiot is correct in saying that the average
American uses a lot more stuff than most third worlders. He forgot to mention
that rich Americans us