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
Advertisement
  • 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.

Water

The Problem Is Simple: Too Many People, Too Much Stuff

By Paul & Anne Ehrlich, Yale Environment 360. Posted August 7, 2008.


An equitable and humane solution to overpopulation and overconsumption may actually be possible.
Advertisement

Over some 60 million years, Homo sapiens has evolved into the dominant animal on the planet, acquiring binocular vision, upright posture, large brains, and -- most importantly -- language with syntax and that complex store of non-genetic information we call culture. However, in the last several centuries we've increasingly been using our relatively newly acquired power, especially our culturally evolved technologies, to deplete the natural capital of Earth -- in particular its deep, rich agricultural soils, its groundwater stored during ice ages, and its biodiversity -- as if there were no tomorrow.

The point, all too often ignored, is that this trend is being driven in large part by a combination of population growth and increasing per capita consumption, and it cannot be long continued without risking a collapse of our now-global civilization. Too many people -- and especially too many politicians and business executives -- are under the delusion that such a disastrous end to the modern human enterprise can be avoided by technological fixes that will allow the population and the economy to grow forever. But if we fail to bring population growth and over-consumption under control -- the number of people on Earth is expected to grow from 6.5 billion today to 9 billion by the second half of the 21st century -- then we will inhabit a planet where life becomes increasingly untenable because of two looming crises: global heating, and the degradation of the natural systems on which we all depend.

Our species' negative impact on our own life-support systems can be approximated by the equation I=PAT. In that equation, the size of the population (P) is multiplied by the average affluence or consumption per individual (A), and that in turn is multiplied by some measure of the technology (T) that services and drives the consumption. Thus commuting in automobiles powered by subsidized fossil fuels on proliferating freeways creates a much greater T factor than commuting on bikes using simple paths or working at home on a computer network. The product of P, A, and T is Impact (I), a rough estimate of how much humanity is degrading the ecosystem services it depends upon.

The equation is not rocket science. Two billion people, all else being equal, put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than one billion people. Two billion rich people disrupt the climate more than two billion poor people. Three hundred million Americans consume more petroleum than 1.3 billion Chinese. And driving an SUV is using a far more environmentally malign transportation technology than riding mass transit.

The technological dimensions of our predicament -- such as the need for alternatives to fossil fuel energy -- are frequently discussed if too little acted upon. Judging from media reports and the statements of politicians, environmental problems, to the degree they are recognized, can be solved by minor changes in technologies and recycling (T). Switching to ultra-light, fuel-efficient cars will obviously give some short-term advantage, but as population and consumption grow, they will pour still more carbon dioxide (and vaporized rubber) into the atmosphere and require more natural areas to be buried under concrete. More recycling will help, but many of our society's potentially most dangerous effluents (such as hormone-mimicking chemicals) cannot practically be recycled. There is no technological change we can make that will permit growth in either human numbers or material affluence to continue to expand. In the face of this, the neglect of the intertwined issues of population and consumption is stunning.

Many past human societies have collapsed under the weight of overpopulation and environmental neglect, but today the civilization in peril is global. The population factor in what appears to be a looming catastrophe is even greater than most people suppose. Each person added today to the population on average causes more damage to humanity's critical life-support systems than did the previous addition -- everything else being equal. The reason is simple: Homo sapiens became the dominant animal by being smart. Farmers didn't settle first on poor soils where water was scarce, but rather in rich river valleys. That's where most cities developed, where rich soils are now being paved over for roads and suburbs, and where water supplies are being polluted or overexploited.

As a result, to support additional people it is necessary to move to ever poorer lands, drill wells deeper, or tap increasingly remote sources to obtain water -- and then spend more energy to transport that water ever greater distances to farm fields, homes, and factories. Our distant ancestors could pick up nearly pure copper on Earth's surface when they started to use metals; now people must use vast amounts of energy to mine and smelt gigantic amounts of copper ore of ever poorer quality, some in concentrations of less than one percent. The same can be said for other important metals. And petroleum can no longer be found easily on or near the surface, but must be gleaned from wells drilled a mile or more deep, often in inaccessible localities, such as under continental shelves beneath the sea. All of the paving, drilling, fertilizer manufacturing, pumping, smelting, and transporting needed to provide for the consumption of burgeoning numbers of people produces greenhouse gases and thus tightens the connection between population and climate disruption.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: population, consumption

Paul and Anne Ehrlich are in the Department of Biology and the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford University, where he is Bing Professor of Population Studies and Professor of Biological Sciences and she is Senior Research Associate. Their latest book, The Dominant Animal: Human Evolution and the Environment (Island Press), focuses on the issues cited in this article and includes references.

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


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Tools: [Post a new comment] [Login] [Signup] View:
Thanks for a Thoughtful, Sane Article
Posted by: Jim Shaw on Aug 7, 2008 1:25 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's nice to see that some thought leaders can not only see the obvious - endless growth on a finite planet is impossible - but accept this truth (perhaps the ultimate "inconvenient truth") and attempt to deal with it.

I get so frustrated with these liberal, left-leaning economists and politicians (I expect it from the right-wing market worshippers) who avoid this truth and continue to promote endless economic growth.

It's too bad that we've automated production so much that we have to produce tons of unneeded crap (the demand for which must be continually stoked by relentless marketing)just to keep people employed.

I think the wealthy don't like to talk about limits to growth, not just for the obvious reason that as the economy grows, they get much wealthier (and don't want to give that up), but also because if we stopped growing the economy, it would be painfully obvious that they need to start sharing the wealth. For now, they can say, "We may be getting the lion’s share of the pie now, and you may be left out of the party, but as the economy grows, you’ll have the opportunity to get a nice chunk of the much bigger pie.” What can they say once the pie has stopped growing?

It's time to cut our numbers, stop the over-consumption, and start SHARING the things that people actually need.

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

Enough is as good as a feast
Posted by: Rod on Aug 7, 2008 2:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good Enough for Mary Poppins, good enough for me.

Evidently not good enough for way too many.

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

More Malthusian nonsense...
Posted by: ahmlco on Aug 7, 2008 4:10 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Remember back in the '60s and early '70s how all of the doom and gloomers were predicting the collapse of civilization within the next decade due to overpopulation and lack of food?

Remember "Limits to Growth?" ZPG? Heck, remember Soylent Green? Logan's Run, where we were forced to kill everyone over 30?

Didn't happen.

The simple fact of the matter is that if you improve the standard of living birth rates drop of their own accord. In fact, the US, Europe, Japan and other industrialized countries already have fertility rates at or below the replacement level. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate

That said, we do need to be more efficient with the resources we do use, and we also need to work out better and more equitable distribution system.

But "overpopulation" is and remains to be the boogieman forever hiding in the closet.

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

» RE: More Malthusian nonsense... Posted by: sunnywater
» Quiver folks Posted by: kimbari
» Wrong Posted by: dudelette
If only we could talk about it
Posted by: Dartagnan on Aug 8, 2008 1:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
   I'm afraid this will be our downfall. We can't talk about it because everyone needs to be free to procreate, and most aren't intelligent or selfless enough to realize they should not have children, and the powers that be want continual growth.
   Humans not overcoming their instinctual drives and short-sightedness. - Want to help the environment? Don't reproduce! You'll save more resources and waste creation that way than you ever could by restricting your lifestyle.

   The health of the oceans is of great concern (we can't see how 'empty' they are compared to 200-500 or more years ago).

   The energy crises that we're finally talking about is only coming up now because we're on the edge of the cliff, and now may not have time to transition comfortably to lower consumption and alternative sources. - If only we had listened to Tesla... (and I'm sure a few dozen others).

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

» RE: Soylent Green is People! Posted by: Last Chance
» Yum! Soylent Green! Posted by: Beepath
Wrong again
Posted by: Beached Whale on Aug 8, 2008 1:54 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Saying the same wrong thing over and over does not make it any less wrong.

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

» RE: Wrong again Posted by: Last Chance
I'LL BE JUST FINE, SAYS PLANET
Posted by: opmoc on Aug 8, 2008 3:05 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
linked text

THE planet Earth has dismissed claims it is in danger from global warming, stressing the worst that could happen is the extinction of the human race.


The Earth spoke out after a series of books, television programmes and environmental campaigns urged people to do everything in their power to 'Save the Planet'.

Earth, 4,000,000,000, said last night: "I'll be absolutely fine, seriously. I might get a bit warmer and a bit wetter, but to be honest, that actually sounds quite nice.

"Try living through an ice age. Pardon my French, but it's absolutely fucking freezing."

The planet, based 93 million miles from the Sun, said it was 'sick and tired' of being drawn into arguments about human behaviour.

"Look, I'm just a planet doing its thing, alright? If you want to live on me, that's your business, but I've got important planet stuff to do, okay?

"Try being in elliptical orbit for five minutes, or balancing your gravitational pull with a medium-sized moon. Let me assure you, it's no fucking picnic."

The planet said environmental campaigners should change their slogan from 'Save the Planet' to something more relevant such as 'Save Your Sorry Arse'.

Earth added: "Okay, so there may come a time when, for a variety of reasons, I am no longer able to support pandas, polar bears, and humans, but you know what? Life goes on.

"Who knows, I might end up being a haven for toads."

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

» Teheheh... Posted by: JingleFae15
» New Religion Posted by: kimbari
» All Religion is Bollocks Posted by: opmoc
» RE: I'LL BE JUST FINE, SAYS PLANET Posted by: JingleFae15
» To Explain Further Posted by: opmoc
» RE: To Explain Further Posted by: opmoc
A Very Specific Solution Is Available
Posted by: Last Chance on Aug 8, 2008 3:56 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did the Erlich's memtion anything about family planning clinics and every woman's right to decide if and when to birth children?

I find it soooo BORING to plow through a lot of cautious, tip-toe rhetoric that skirts around the issue and takes 5000 words to say what can easily be said in one or two paragraphs. But I suppose that's how books are written these days, and why so many like myself prefer the Internet.

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

An Execellent Summation Of The Facts
Posted by: pinnacle on Aug 8, 2008 4:33 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A well thought out and presented article. I would just add this ----- consumption in the US could be reined in by the elimination of "easy" credit, particularly the proliferation of credit cards that started 30-40 years ago and has continued until we have found ourselves in a financial mess. People are simply buying stuff they don't need and, in the end, can't pay for.

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

Pollution, hunger, war: Population bomb is very real
Posted by: Moonray on Aug 8, 2008 4:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As the above comment "More Malthusian nonsense" shows, many people would rather cling to comforting myths than face hard realities. Come to think of it, the entire conservative movement consists of clinging to comforting myths rather than facing reality. (As a reformed conservative who once drank the Reagan kool-aid, I know how easy it is to be seduced by those myths.)

Humans can survive for quite a while as our global population continues to explode, but our lifestyle will take the elevator shaft -- and already is, as we all can plainly see. A vigorous worldwide effort is needed to curb population worldwide, and I don't mean "better education and improving standards of living," as some wimpy liberals prescribe. That approach is clearly not working. The Chinese have the right idea with their one-child policy, but programs would have to be tailored differently for each nation. The alternative is also clear: Look at Ethiopia and wait for it to happen everywhere.

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

» There Is An Answer Posted by: Last Chance
» small is beautiful and sustainable Posted by: socialpsych
» dystopian novel question Posted by: stilldreaming
» too soon Posted by: stilldreaming
» Hmmm, sounds like . . . Posted by: dustdevil
» Almost, but Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: There Is An Answer Posted by: Gracchus
Huh? There's a problem?
Posted by: PJAW on Aug 8, 2008 4:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've long wished I wish I could come back to this planet in another 200 years or so and see what kind of shape it's in. That, in fact, could be exactly what's behind "UFO's". Other beings capable of interstellar travel, stopping by earth to take a look at what's going on here. If they live long enough, and stop by often enough, I would imagine they find it rather entertaining, in a sort of tragicomic way.

Erlich is right, too many people and too much stuff. And all of it made from other stuff that used to be just lying around or buried just beneath the surface. Which is where today's stuff will return some day. The atoms and molecules will be recycled, just as they have been many times in the past. Including the ones that make up our physical bodies. You know, ashes to ashes and dust to dust. And humans may or may not manage to hang around.

Collectively, I seriously doubt we have the intellect or the will to change what needs to be changed in order to increase the chances for our species to survive. Maybe we shouldn't burn all of that corn ethanol in SUV's. Maybe we should set enough of it aside for one final celebration of what humanity achieved, and one final drunken sob over what we didn't.

Just kidding..., God will be here any minute now and set all this shit straight.

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

» I tend to agree. Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: I tend to agree. Posted by: g50
Thank you.
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Aug 8, 2008 5:18 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm glad somebody did the math. All of the technology in the world or future world cannot defeat the law of diminishing returns. Eventually our tendency to overproduce will catch up with us, if it hasn't already.

Humans may be have a knack for technology, but in other ways we're stupider than most of the animal kingdom. On the matter of sex and reproduction, I think we're all roughly the same. We will keep popping them out until our habitat can no longer support us all, and we will either starve, be devoured by predators--such as mortgage brokers and telemarketers--or be shot by rednecks.

And do you really think you can compare collective incidents like the collapse of communism in the USSR or the civil rights movement to the basic biological urges of everyone on the planet? Good luck with that.

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

» Correction Posted by: Last Chance
Consumption Problem
Posted by: rotation on Aug 8, 2008 5:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Things are not made to last anymore. I purchased a freezer in 1973 and just defrosted it yesterday. My 1968 washer died in 1998 and the drier (1968) died in 1999. My 1968 refrigerator died in 1995 probably due to the move I made. The electric fry pan I use in the summer to help keep the house cooler (I live in TX) is now at least 50 years old. I got it from my parents for my first apartment and I do not remember them not having it before that.

The toaster I bought last year with a one year warranty died after 381 days. My new refrigerator (1995) has had the motor replaced once. Fortunately I purchased it from a small local business that repairs. Other things that do not last - computers, microwaves, toys and probably name it and it will not last if it is made by a large Corporartion.

Reconsumption is a Strategy:
Why would any company want to make something that will last? They lose a customer for a long time for that item. In the days of small businesses making a product they were proud to lose that customer because they had a word of mouth reference and a customer who would come back for other items. Large corporations are all about profit and a ploy to get more is to make the product to last only through the warranty period. There is no pride in the product only profit.

Ihatereplacingthingsmary

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

» Obsolescence Posted by: kepstein7777
The Italians Have a Birthrate of 1.3 Despite The Pope Telling Them They Are Going To Hell
Posted by: opmoc on Aug 8, 2008 5:54 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the entire human race adopted Italian culture and birthrate - the problem would already be solved.

Just do the maths.

Even to maintain our current numbers require a birthrate of 2.1.

Whilst I like slagging off the Pope with his Fuck For God message encouraging the sheep to have as many children as possible - his local flock appear to have told him to stick his views up his arse.

If the human race can discover why Italians have such a low birth rate and manage to replicate it across the planet, then the problem will be solved.

To be honest, I find it incredibly difficult to understand.

50 years ago Italians had the reputation for being Fat Pasta Momas with 10 kids each...

Now Most Italian Women are Staggeringly Beautiful and make the normal Fat English Drunken "Tracey" Slobs look totally disgusting.

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

» Italy Posted by: kepstein7777
» RE: USA Posted by: Last Chance
world population control . . .
Posted by: dustdevil on Aug 8, 2008 6:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
High gas prices and the rapidly falling value of the dollar will slow population growth in this country. People just will not be able to afford large families. Of course there will always be people that are prone to live beyond their means.

Here's an idea:
If wealthy philanthropists such as Bill Gates, George Soros, Warren Buffet, etc. would offer to pay for vasectomies to willing participants,
it could reduce population growth while also reducing poverty in the world.

I admit this is directed toward the poor, but poverty is a world problem, too. And the rich aren't prone to have large families.

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

Ha
Posted by: g50 on Aug 8, 2008 6:35 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I see the Erlichs no long provide a time frame for their predictions - perhaps more than 30 years of wrongly predicting catastrophe within five, ten years have taught them to be more generic?

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

» RE: catastrophe Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: catastrophe Posted by: g50
RACIST MALTHUSIAN BULLSHIT !!
Posted by: jwverez on Aug 8, 2008 6:37 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some people complain about population increases despite the fact that only a very small percentage of the world's population are the real culprits responsible for the depletion of the earth's natural resources. If the authors really want to help, they can simply shoot each other off as well as the rest of the RACIST neo-Malthusian assholes and there, PROBLEM SOLVED !!

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

» RE: "shoot each other off" Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: ACIST MALTHUSIAN BULLSHIT !! Posted by: adempatriot
» Uh, no Posted by: dudelette
A MUST read!
Posted by: davidg on Aug 8, 2008 6:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A Short History of Progress by Ronald Wright.
He compares the reason for collapse of all major global civilizations through millenia. Then, he applies the principles of his discoveries to our one global civilization. Disturbing, necessary.
Thank you, Paul and Ann Ehrlich. This could be real reality TV if "Swifter" would only advertize it. Someday we will have to stop amusing ourselves to death if we don't die first.

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

» RE: A(nother) MUST read! Posted by: jimbee
While I appreciate the argument the author makes...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Aug 8, 2008 7:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...why the need to create mumbo jumbo equations that literally mean whatever the hell you want them to mean?

I mean c'mon--I=PAT?

If you really want to scare folks with large numbers, why not just express such fairy tale equations as I=(P^2AT^9)3Bazillion, where I also = Doom and Gloom to the nth power.

You don't need to resort to creationist-style math to argue effectively for lessening human impact on the environment.

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

brer
Posted by: brer on Aug 8, 2008 7:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This may sound unbelievable to some, but EVERYTHING I own except my piano and my computer (oh, and my contact lenses) was pre-owned.

My furniture was purchased here and there from people who wanted a change in their decor.

My dishes--the same. In fact, lately, I've been going to garage sales to find beautiful single plates. I'm hoping to serve my guests each with a different beautiful plate.

If you are having a baby, and you go to a baby store, I'm sorry, but you are nuts. You can go out any day in the summer to a garage sale, and buy ANYTHING YOU NEED for one fourth the price. Sometimes one tenth. I always hold out for the one tenth, myself. Why do people get the idea that having a baby is so expensive? I'll wager I see at least THREE "How to raise your baby from birth to 6 months" books EVERY Saturday at different sales. There are even "twins" sales popping up more and more often. I guess the fertility drugs are really working, because three or four times a summer I come across a sale with two strollers, two high chairs, four carseats--one for the newborns, one for the larger babies. Piles of two matching dresses, two sunbonnets, two pairs of matching shoes. ETC!!

Oh, I forgot. I usually buy food first hand. But, I check the "ripe" counter every visit, and use the produce the same day.

Last week I found a garage sale with a box of canned soups (expiration date--8/09) and bought them for one dollar. That was about 7 cents a can. I priced them in the store that afternoon and they were selling for $2.99.

The only trouble with this article is that if everyone started living up to its principles, HOW WOULD I LIVE?

I really depend on all the first-timers who love new stuff. I don't even know how to shop in a mall. Have lived in my town for 13 years, and have been to the mall only two times. Ha! The last time was when my son had to have a "NAVY" suit to play in his band that was going on an overseas tour. We visited the nall stores where his eyes popped out at the high prices. I said, "Well, let's try a thrift store..." so we did. We got him a beautiful suit for $3. He was so proud of that. I think he told all his friends.

He wore that suit for the three week trip, and then we sent it back to the thrift store for some other lucky person to use.

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

» RE: brer Posted by: g50
Pogo's "And he is us" again.
Posted by: Sojourner on Aug 8, 2008 8:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It may be just another urban myth, but I once heard that we, humans, were the only creatures who will tolerate and seek the pain of healing. We go to the dentist. I heard that spoken in a context that dolphins share the behavior. Preventive medical treatment at the individual level is now widely available and taken for granted.

The contrasting evidence of contemporaneous obesity and malnourishment testifies to the lack of justice in our world. While it seems that the “haves” are the winners, we tolerate such injustice—at our own peril. Those in need of healing and the healers are in it together. Bottom line ethics dooms our species. It just a matter of sooner or later.

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

john
Posted by: theoldguy on Aug 8, 2008 8:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are probably closer to 7 billion people on earth now. We should be realistic about our role on the planet and accept that we are nothing more than parasites; and not good parasites at that. We all have good parasites in our systems that help us digest our food, etc. Humans are like smallpox or tuberculosis that finally destroy the host.
We have almost conquered disease and are approaching death control. Now we need birth control if the species is to survive.

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

According to the RACIST authors, if one student misbehaves, the entire class is to be PUNISHED.
Posted by: jwverez on Aug 8, 2008 8:53 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If the authors ever bothered to do their research work, they would have found out that outside and US, China (save the rural parts perhaps), Israel, and Europe, history has shown that regardless of the population density, people will consume far less than is available. Do working class Saudis, Syrians, Iranians, Palestinians, Pakistanis, Indians, etc ... consume like the West? HELL NO ! The RACIST Malthusians don't want you to find out that dirty secret. Oh, they're for "free" trade, privatization, deregulation, "war on drugs", wars for oil, social "conservatism", etc ... but don't want you to find out.

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

Ehrlichs are my heroes
Posted by: leemiller38 on Aug 8, 2008 9:42 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As one who has followed the population explosion for 40+ years, my hat is off to the Ehrlichs who are somewhat optimistic that we can pull it off, i.e., save civilization. I admire their intellect, courage and tenacity. However, I am a pessimist, because of the Know-Nothings of whom we have a great sampling in the above remarks such as "Malthusian rascist", "Malthusian bullshit", etc., and other manifestations of ignorance, I don't think we will make it. We need to come together as we never have before to solve this one.

Especially egregious is the media which should be understanding the problem, informing the public and thereby putting pressure on politicians to act. Politicians who know better are also gutless to lead, because of the firestorm of religious controversy this may stir up. So we rock along with the Mexico City policies, abstinence only education being invoked by Repugs and overturned by Dems, but no long-range plan or adequate funding to arrest the growth.

We are deep into this problem. Over 10,000 years ago, civilzation was our first mistake as a species. Correcting the error from where we are now with billions of ignorant people consuming the earth while touting that their culture and their tribe, their DNA is primal looks pretty impossible, yet the Ehrlichs labor on in their old age to try to save humans from their own worst enemy, themselves. Thank you Anne and Paul. You articulate so well what we need to hear and do, but alas lack the will to achieve.

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

mistakes and solutions
Posted by: mwildfire on Aug 8, 2008 9:51 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First the mistakes, on the part of many commenters: one is disgusted by the simple I=PAT equation, while at least one other screams in capital letters that the authors are racist, presumably because they mention population control. Apparently such people believe that this refers specifically to lowering the population of the poor, or of people of color; presumably they imagine that population can go up forever as long as consumption declines. But it doesn't work that way. Ar some point you've got 40 million people living without shelter or food. That's the point of the equation--we can get away with increasing population longer if we reduce consumption, or we can get away with allowing more and more people to consume more and more if we reduce the population, but we can't increase either factor indefinitely without destroying the ecosystems on which we depend.
I think the reason the critical element of population reduction is mentioned so little is that people are afraid of exactly this dynamic. But there is a simple solution--if more intrusive than most would prefer. That's to declare that every woman on the planet is entitled to one child--or two perhaps, if you think we can afford to nearly maintain our current numbers rather than quickly reducing them. No extra kids because you "can afford them"--even if you have money, the planet can't afford them, and any inequality will just set off the breeding wars which will assure we all go down in ugly chaos together.
Reducing consumption is also necessary, but that part about summoning political will is Herculean. The reality is that capitalism is the cancer that's eating the earth, and all the top political and corporate leaders, and the media, are entwined it its demands. We could have a healthy, green, harmonious world in which no one is hungry or homeless and the depleted oceans and other ecosystems are in recovery, even at our current population levels. But only if we directed resources toward renewable energy and sustainable farming and away from those things we can't afford, chiefly warfare and the rich. The rich are now in control and they can use the media to prevent the rest of us from communicating and organizing to bring about the change we so desperately need.

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

Hurray for the Ehlrichs
Posted by: janvdb on Aug 8, 2008 10:29 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Despite all the ignorant, gonad-propelled deniers-of-reality who have assailed them over the past 40 years, they keep plugging away, trying to save us all from ourselves.

Keep at it, please. Sorry for all the hecklers. More power to you.

Jan VanDenBerg

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

Vegetarianism is the solution
Posted by: vasumurti on Aug 8, 2008 10:51 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Half the water consumed in the U. S. goes to irrigate land growing feed and fodder for livestock. Huge amounts of water wash away their excrement. U. S. livestock produce 20 times as much excrement as does the entire human population, creating sewage 10 to several hundred times more concentrated than raw domestic sewage. Animal wastes cause 10 times more water pollution than does the U. S. human population; the meat industry causes three times as much harmful organic water pollution than the rest of the nation's industries combined.

Meat producers, the number one industrial polluters in our nation, contribute to half the water pollution in the United States. The water that goes into a 1,000 lb. steer could float a destroyer. It takes 25 gallons of water to produce a pound of wheat, but 2,500 gallons to produce a pound of meat. If these costs weren't subsidized by the American taxpayers, hamburger meat would be $35 per pound!

Subsidizing the California meat industry costs taxpayers $24 billion annually. Livestock producers are California's biggest consumers of water. Every tax dollar the state doles out to livestock producers costs taxpayers over seven dollars in lost wages, higher living costs and reduced business income. 17 western states have enough water supplies to support economies and populations twice as large as the present.

Overgrazing of cattle leads to topsoil erosion, turning once-arable land into desert. We lose four million acres of topsoil each year and 85 percent of this loss is directly caused by raising livestock. To replace the soil we've lost, we're destroying our forests. Since 1967, the rate of deforestation in the U. S. has been one acre every five seconds. For each acre cleared in urbanization, seven are cleared for grazing or growing livestock feed.

One-third of all raw materials in the U. S. are consumed by the livestock industry and it takes three times as much fossil fuel energy to produce meat than it does to produce plant foods. A report on the energy crisis in Scientific American warned: "The trends in meat consumption and energy consumption are on a collision course."

Nor can fish provide any help here. There are signs that the fishing industry (which is quite energy-intensive) has already overfished the oceans in several areas. And fish could never play a major role in the worlds diet anyway: the entire global fish catch of the world, if divided among all the world's inhabitants would amount to only a few ounces of fish per person per week.

The American Dietetic Association reports that throughout history, the human race has lived on "vegetarian or near vegetarian diets," and meat has traditionally been a luxury. Nathan Pritikin recommended not more than 3 ounces of animal protein per day; 3 ounces per week for his patients who had already suffered a heart attack.

Obviously, then, the idea of providing the entire world with a Western-style diet is absurd. But what about satisfying today's demand for meat--which provides only a fraction of the population with a Western-style diet? If the world population triples in the next 100 years, and meat consumption continues, then meat production would have to triple as well. Instead of 3.7 billion acres of cropland and 7.5 billion acres of grazing land, we would require 11.1 billion acres of cropland and 22.5 billion acres of grazing land.

But this is slightly larger than the land area of the 6 inhabited continents! We are desperately short of forests, water and energy already. Even if we resort to extreme methods of population control: abortion, infanticide, genocide, etc...modest increases in the world population would make it impossible to maintain current levels of meat consumption. On a vegetarian diet, however, the world could easily support a population several times its present size.

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

» Now I know you're batshit Posted by: AdamG
That's not the problem
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Aug 8, 2008 12:07 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We can handle more people what we can't handle is manufactured force fed 'needs' we must buy. The old corporate model was 'Fill the needs as they arise'. Now it's 'create a
need so we can maximize profits'. We greatly over produce. That's the real strain on the planet. our landfills are chuck full of manufactured junk that is designed to wear out fast. Few things of quality are made,you can't turn a profit that way,and what things that are quality cost so much the average person can't afford them.
Wasteful production has given us inferior products,more pollution,bigger landfills and more diseases for the public from their wastes.
The best thing we can do for ourselves and the country is to stop buying the latest,newest,most gotta-have-it piece of crap that's mass advertised to us. Sattlite HD TV is bullshit. It's pushed at us so Uncle Shiteater can circumvent the laws against subliminal visuals and subsonic tones. If you think I'm full of it...plug your TV into your stereo,you'll hear all kinds of tones coming out of your