Overpopulation Problems Solved, Report Counts on It

3 Responses to “Overpopulation Problems Solved, Report Counts on It”

1. Dave Gardner January 23rd, 2009 at 8:14 pm

   And I would caution that relaxing because the UN projects population will stabilize at roughly 3 times what the planet can sustainably support (depending on how we conduct our lives) is not terribly rational.

   One of the least expensive and least painful solutions to global climate disruption is to begin reducing our population today. The experts say it can’t happen, but that’s only because we don’t have a widespread program to communicate about this. We assume it can’t be done, so it is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

   Dave Gardner
   http://www.growthbusters.com

2. E.Vasta January 24th, 2009 at 3:58 pm

   “Starting to reach a level of stability” ?! I don’t think so!

   We’ve already exceeded global carrying capacity. We are now in “overshoot”. (Visualize the “stability” of a car sailing smoothly, but quite temporarily, through the air after having been driven off of a cliff.)

   Global population is nearing 7 billion. Different theorists using different methods seem to end up agreeing that global carrying capacity is probably about 2 billion. (This assumes some level of social justice and a moderate, low by US standards, standard of living. More is possible if you accept a cattle car / Matrix-esque “life”.)

   In any case, we will get to that much-lower-than-7-billion number the hard way (wars, famine, disease, and their accompanying losses of environmental quality, freedom, and social justice) OR the less hard way (immediately and drastically reducing our population voluntarily). Yes, all of us, yes, everywhere. There is no scenario anywhere in which population growth is a “good thing” long term.

   Yes a drop in population would cause problems, but none of those problems are as big as the problems, suffering, and environmental collapse that is certain to occur if we don’t.

   I disagree with any argument that there is some “right to reproduce”. If there is any “right to reproduce” it’s in the concept that one has the freedom to nurture a child or children and form some sort of family. Biological reproduction is not necessary to do that and there are many in need of this sort of nurturing.

   This is a global issue with local and nation-state consequences. For example, immigration is a consequence of overpopulation, not a cause of it. Likewise, global climate change, soil degradation, and fishery collapse are not impressed by national boundaries.

   No technological / “alternative energy” options have the capacity or can be ramped up fast enough to avoid major global calamity. That isn’t to say we shouldn’t do them. Aggressively shifting to alternative energy is necessary, just not sufficient.

   For more comprehensive analysis of all this I suggest

   Approaching the Limits http://www.paulchefurka.ca

   Bruce Sundquist on environmental impact of overpopulation http://home.alltel.net/bsundquist1/

   The Oil Drum Peak Oil Overview – June 2007 (www.theoildrum.com/node/2693)

   Bandura etc.
   http://growthmadness.org/2008/02/18/impeding-ecological-sustainability-through-selective-moral-disengagement/

   Albert Bartlett on the exponential function as it relates to population and oil:
   http://c-realm.blogspot.com/2008/12/kmo-interview-with-albert-bartlett.html

   …and of course the classic “Overshoot” by Catton

3. Pete Murphy January 25th, 2009 at 2:57 pm

   Rampant population growth threatens our economy and quality of life. I’m not talking just about the obvious environmental and resource concerns. I’m talking about the effect upon rising unemployment and poverty.

   I should introduce myself. I am the author of a book titled “Five Short Blasts: A New Economic Theory Exposes The Fatal Flaw in Globalization and Its Consequences for America.” To make a long story short, my theory is that, as population density rises beyond some optimum level, per capita consumption of products begins to decline out of the need to conserve space. People who live in crowded conditions simply don’t have enough space to use and store many products. This declining per capita consumption, in the face of rising productivity (per capita output, which always rises), inevitably yields rising unemployment and poverty.

   This theory has huge implications for U.S. policy toward population management. Our policies that encourage high rates of population growth are rooted in the belief of economists that population growth is a good thing, fueling economic growth. Through most of human history, the interests of the common good and business (corporations) were both well-served by continuing population growth. For the common good, we needed more workers to man our factories, producing the goods needed for a high standard of living. This population growth translated into sales volume growth for corporations. Both were happy.

   But, once an optimum population density is breached, their interests diverge. It is in the best interest of the common good to stabilize the population, avoiding an erosion of our quality of life through high unemployment and poverty. However, it is still in the interest of corporations to fuel population growth because, even though per capita consumption goes into decline, total consumption still increases. We now find ourselves in the position of having corporations and economists influencing public policy in a direction that is not in the best interest of the common good.

   Pete Murphy
   Author, “Five Short Blasts”