Reply #2: If the problem is narrowly defined [View All]

[pscot]

as consisting of two elements, populaton growth, and the increase of atmospheric carbon, we're fucked. Action on either front would require a global consensus, which does not currently exist. We don't have 20 years to debate the issues and form a series of five-year-plans. Atmospheric carbon is close to 400 ppm and rising, unleashing forces that will not be eaily reversed. World food stocks are perilously low even as food-stuffs are being diverted to energy production. Feeney thinks that, "Fortunately, expert consensus tells us we can address population humanely by solving the social problems that fuel it". I am aware of no such "expert consensus". This seems like a dubious proposition at best, and one arrived at without consulting the Pope, or the leaders of the third world nations who would be expeced to implement the steps needed to achieve "humane" solutions to the problem. One can easily imagine the charges of racist imperialism and genocide any such effort will trigger.

We're having an epochal election in this country, and there has been no meaningful discussion of peak oil or global warming, and no mention what-so-ever of population. Before action is possible, there will need to be a massive effort to educate the public about the peril we face and the steps needed to mitigate it. But who will educate the leaders? Generally I'm as optimistic as a bird dog, but I've got a bad feeling about our current fix. We're going to do too little, too late. I'm afraid we're going to pay in blood for our fecklessness.