UK population must fall to 30m, says Porritt - UK must cut its population in half.

[seemslikeadream]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5950442.ece
JONATHON PORRITT, one of Gordon Brown’s leading green advisers, is to warn that Britain must drastically reduce its population if it is to build a sustainable society.

Porritt’s call will come at this week’s annual conference of the Optimum Population Trust (OPT), of which he is patron.

The trust will release research suggesting UK population must be cut to 30m if the country wants to feed itself sustainably.

Porritt said: “Population growth, plus economic growth, is putting the world under terrible pressure.


“Each person in Britain has far more impact on the environment than those in developing countries so cutting our population is one way to reduce that impact.”

Population growth is one of the most politically sensitive environmental problems. The issues it raises, including religion, culture and immigration policy, have proved too toxic for most green groups.

However, Porritt is winning scientific backing. Professor Chris Rapley, director of the Science Museum, will use the OPT conference, to be held at the Royal Statistical Society, to warn that population growth could help derail attempts to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Rapley, who formerly ran the British Antarctic Survey, said humanity was emitting the equivalent of 50 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year.

“We have to cut this by 80%, and population growth is going to make that much harder,” he said.

Such views on population have split the green movement. George Monbiot, a prominent writer on green issues, has criticised population campaigners, arguing that “relentless” economic growth is a greater threat.

[jobycom]

1. Time for a Lottery? nt

[sakabatou]

12. Battle Royale anyone?

[NoPasaran]

67. Lottery?

How about a re-enactment of the First Day of The Somme with live ammunition? Once a day for the next year and a half should bring things down to manageable proportions.

[jobycom]

78. It's a story about ancient death rituals used to ensure the health of a modern community.

Which is in essence what the OP story suggests--reducing population (not by force, hopefully) to ensure better crops in the future. Limiting population to reduce the strain on the ecology may have been exactly what the ancients were up to. In any case, that's the first thing that occured to me--that we are not so different over the millenia, we just use our own set of rationalizations.

And I'm not arguing against curbs on population--although they will happen naturally even if we don't intervene--I'm just amused by the way it all sounds so different when we say it about ourselves than when we comment on the barbarisms of the past.

[Hello_Kitty]

98. Yes, because limiting the number of children you have

Is exactly the same thing as human sacrifice. Every sperm is sacred. :eyes:

[jobycom]

102. Thanks for playing along.

:WTF:

[Brother Buzz]

73. Lottery? Why not just finance Monsanto® to invent a magic potatoe

You know what I mean, Vern?

[jobycom]

79. Heh. Frankenstein meets the Malthusian Cycle?

May happen. :)

[Dorian Gray]

153. Shivers

down my spine.

[Hello_Kitty]

2. Oooh...a population thread. Cue the outraged parents in 1, 2, 3....

:popcorn:

[jobycom]

13. And cue the "Cue the (whomever)" posts in 1, 2, 3...

:popcorn:

[Hello_Kitty]

27. Well you beat me here with your hysterical bullshit

"Time for a Lottery?" :eyes: Because the mere suggestion that people should procreate less is, of course, a call for human sacrifice.

[jobycom]

53. Your hysterical bullshit came pretty close to mine, except of course

I was referring to a famous literary story, and you were just making sweeping attacks on posters.

[Hello_Kitty]

91. Just filling up my bingo card

I'm surprised the "ZOMG U WANT US TO BE LIKE CHINA WHERE THEY DROWN THE GURL BAYBEEZ!!1!" one hasn't popped up yet. Really, I expected it much sooner. But I did get my "Logan's Run", "eugenics", and "Soylent Green" references so I'm set for now. :)

[jobycom]

95. Pick any topic, and the arguments will be predictable.

Doesn't stop us from arguing them. :shrug:

[Hello_Kitty]

101. But this particular topic gets reductio ad absurdium so quickly

I mean, you were the first one up with a human sacrifice reference!

[jobycom]

103. And you were the first one up with "All arguments but mine are ludicrous."

So not much point in mentioning that my post was more complex than a "human sacrifice reference."

[Hello_Kitty]

105. Yeah it was deeply complex

"Time for a Lottery? nt" I'm sorry I failed to grasp the multi-layer nuances of that statement.

[jobycom]

106. I'm sorry you did, too. nt

[Gwendolyn]

118. A blood-chilling story. The subtle layers of that post weren't lost on all. n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

127. So you equate family planning with stoning people to death too?

I got the reference, I've read the story, and I don't think it's an even remotely applicable analogy. The human sacrifice in The Lottery was done for superstitious reasons (yes, probably based on past generations legitimate need to conserve resources). The OP is about the REAL problem of too many people competing for dwindling resources and destroying life on the planet. This isn't a myth, it's happening. And if the idea of voluntary population reduction via contraception makes you squeamish, realize that in the involuntary kind will be much, much worse.

[Lyric]

157. Forced family planning? I equate it with a lot more than stoning.

If it isn't forced, people aren't going to do it. People are just not that altruistic.

If it is...well, you can see what that is.

[Hello_Kitty]

163. China? Come on....that's the only reference I need to finish the bingo card.

You meant China, didn't you?

[Lyric]

167. Actually I meant Fascism.

I thought China gave up the whole one-child thing?

[Hello_Kitty]

170. I thought fascists were for forced natalism. eom

[Lyric]

172. Well what else would you call forced family planning

for the good of the state?!

:eyes:

[Hello_Kitty]

173. Yeah right.

I think you meant China in the first place but wanted to deprive me of my bingo.

:rofl:

[Lyric]

176. And here I was, thinking that I was talking to an adult.

My mistake--carry on.

:hi:

[Hello_Kitty]

177. At least I'm honest. eom

[muriel_volestrangler]

265. You're the first one to mention "forced family planning"

Sorry to bring you back to the real world, but many people do average less than 2 children on average, which enables populations to decline. Many countries in Europe, and Japan, are already in that position. And then you compound your hysteria by calling this 'fascism'. Sometimes, I despair of getting reasonable replies to threads like this from a majority of DUers. Mention population growth, and posters like you are proving Godwin's Law in no time at all.

[Lyric]

268. Oh come ON. How deliberately facetious can you be?

You are completely mischaracterizing both my position and the larger discussion. If we were talking solely about voluntary family-planning, then we wouldn't be arguing. We already HAVE that--and so does Britain. Obviously it isn't enough, if the population is still at an unacceptable level. This is not a discussion about whether or not we support family planning--I have never met a DU liberal who DIDN'T support family planning. So far as I understand it, the OP is about the fact that family planning alone doesn't seem to be WORKING--Britain still has more people than they can sustainably support.

The discussion is about how we think that this problem should be addressed. My comment was in reference to my own position, which is that I am open to solutions that don't involve ANY kind of forced birth control or limited reproduction, because I believe in reproductive freedom--BOTH kinds. And yes, I DO consider governmental limits on reproductive freedom "for the sake of the state" to be fascist to the core. If you want to dispute that with some kind of evidence or logic, or if you have some solution ideas that don't involve handing the government control over reproduction, then please feel free to chime in. If all you want to do is to characterize opinions that you disagree with as hysterical, unreasonable, and Godwin-eque, then there's no point bothering to talk to you.

[muriel_volestrangler]

272. There's plenty more that can be done without any forced familiy sizes

The UK has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe; partly through appalling sex education, and partly through lack of ambition among some - they see nothing for their future apart from bringing up children, so they're happy to get started on that at age 17.

As pointed out elsewhere in the thread, the UK's expected population increase will largely come from immigration, rather than increase of currently resident families:

The UK’s population is projected by the Office for National Statistics to increase to 70 million over the next 20 years and 85 million by 2081, with immigration the main factor, responsible for at least two thirds of projected growth. In a one-page policy briefing accompanying the letter to Mr Woolas, and published alongside it today,*** OPT says immigration feeds through into rising greenhouse gas emissions; more crowding, congestion and development; and increased pressure on water and energy supplies, farmland and green space.

Based on forecast population growth and household formation rates, at least 10 million more flats and houses will be needed for new immigrants and their descendants, roughly three times the number of dwellings in London. A policy of “zero net” migration to the UK, matching incoming to outgoing numbers, could cut the UK’s forecast population in 2081 by up to 28 million (33 per cent) - from 85 to 57 million. This is the equivalent in population to nearly four cities the size of London or the combined populations of Holland and Belgium.

http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.release05Jan09.htm

There are advanced countries with fertility rates down around 1.3 (such as Japan and Italy). If a country sustained that for some decades, the population would really fall - in a gradual manner, with no forced family planning. If the majority of people looked on having children as a huge step, to be done when you're ready, and only then, and with no societal pressure on people to "settle down and have a family" or "give us some grandchildren", we'd get a long way towards that.

Your conclusion that force is the only way this will happen, and that therefore this discussion is about 'fascism', is unfounded and uninformed.

[Hello_Kitty]

280. What is so hard about this for people to understand?

There are advanced countries with fertility rates down around 1.3 (such as Japan and Italy). If a country sustained that for some decades, the population would really fall - in a gradual manner, with no forced family planning. If the majority of people looked on having children as a huge step, to be done when you're ready, and only then, and with no societal pressure on people to "settle down and have a family" or "give us some grandchildren", we'd get a long way towards that.

Spot on, and I'd also add that tax and government assistance policies that favor procreation need to be reevaluated. That invariably leads to loud shrieking from the pronatalists but it needs to be done.

[jobycom]

141. Thanks. nt

[Joanne98]

3. What to do. If the right hadn't fought birth control, so they could have slaves,

we wouldn't be in this mess. If someone has to die, make it the slaveowners. Kill the winners first.

[tuckessee]

6. Would you mind being more specific about whom you want to exterminate?

Define a "slaveowner"?

Do you have a method you desire to use to liquidate these tens of millions? Gas? Starvation? Mass shootings?

[Hello_Kitty]

25. Would you mind trying to be a little less hysterical?

These ridiculous, emotional reductio ad absurdium arguments whenever the subject of overpopulation comes up are the reason we cannot have a reasonable discussion about it. How, pray tell, is contraception the same thing as extermination? Are you sure you're on the right board.

[tuckessee]

34. Talk about hysterical.......

You should read the post I was responding to.

Did you miss the words "die" and "kill"?

When someone says people must "die" and states that there are certain people who should be killed "first" I think it's very reasonable to ask whom they seek to kill and how.

[Incitatus]

4. So the solution isn't to find a way to limit CO2 emissions, it's to reduce the populaition by half?

interesting

[defendandprotect]

55. Obviously, both -- stop CO2 emissions and stop procreating . . .

Notice how we're rushing to stop CO2 emissions!!!

Birth control and normal human sexuality will continue to be victims of organized

patriarchal religion until we overturn it -- and in doing so we will overturn patriarchy.

[tinrobot]

Halving the population halves CO2 emissions

There's half your problem solved right there.

On the flip side - more people - more damage to the planet.

If we control birth rates now, then within a few decades, the population will naturally decline.

If we don't, then Nature will decline the population for us, and it will be catastrophic.

[Incitatus]

189. What should we do?

Allow only certain people to procreate? Forced sterilization of selected people?

[tinrobot]

242. It's not an easy issue....

In fact, it's probably the most difficult issue we will face as a species.

I'd suggest education as a start - particularly education of women. Those societies where women have equal access to education tend to have lower birthrates.

We can also be more open about things like birth control and sexuality so people don't have unintended pregnancies.

Past that, financial incentives for sterilization could be another method.

[trudyco]

294. Or start with financial incentives for limiting the number of offspring.

No need to get into sterilization. Just stop subsidizing more than 1 or 2 kids (tax breaks). After that start taxing for more than 1 or 2 kids.

But I'm thinking of the industrialized world which are the big polluters. The educating of women you talked about was more about non-industrialized countries I presume.

Of course, if the non-industrialized have too many children (beyond what the country can sustain) they will find a way to emigrate to the industrialized countries if they can.

[wuvuj]

215. The old....

...pastoral (sheep and goat herding) religions all seem to want more and more adherents...unlimited procreation is the easiest method...get them early and they are yours?

The moral/ethical rules about killing other people are supposed to help social cohesion I'd guess...that's why God likes wars...he's on our side...but not on theirs?

So when you put it all together....can't get rid of the religions...sure won't see an end to the wars...gotta lot of dumbutts living in the 50s or even 2000 years ago that not only resist change....they want even more stupid?

At the risk of repeating myself: Humans...you just gotta laugh at 'em...don't they do the darnedest things? Bacteria in a petri dish....running out of growth media. Real big brains that they don't really use...except to brag about how they are much more advanced than other animals. We're just so damned proud of them...yes we are!

.......

:hide:

[NeedleCast]

5. Without Draconian Measures, there will be no population reduction

So it's either begin those draconian measures, or stop pretending this a problem that's going to solve itself and continue to research alternatives.

[spinbaby]

50. I don't think it would take draconian measures

A decent standard of living plus cheap and available birth control would go a long ways towards solving overpopulation worldwide.

[Hello_Kitty]

147. And a change from an economic model that requires unending growth

To a more static one. We could all reduce our consumption substantially in the developed world and still live very well.

[defendandprotect]

57. The campaigns to create awareness of overpopulation began in the 60's and were

very quickly stopped ---

They were effective --

[marshall]

69. I can't imagine a practical way of reducing the population by half

Why make a statement like that when there is no humane or practical way of carrying it out within the lifespans of our grandchildren's grandchildren?

[Echo In Light]

120. Because Power's idea of "practical/humane" isn't the same as someone who isn't beholden to its aims

...which, when you think about it, is a common misunderstanding that often prevents average people from accurately perceiving the situation.

Conversely, those who do are then sometimes referred to as "conspiracy theorists," which can be another way of describing someone who understands that, throughout our species history, Power has and will kill any in its way without so much as batting an eye.

Some just prefer to pretend that such evil isn't within the human form.

[Tesha]

154. "Quietus".

And if things keep going the way they are, that may become a very
popular option in the next decade or two.

Tesha

[ForrestGump]

233. Quietus interruptus

might help.

[rampart]

162. war, plague, famine, the usual

it can happen in no time

[marshall]

164. Put too many people in any given environment and something will happen to cull the numbers

Whether it's was or famine or disease. Just imagine a ten gallon aquarium with a dozen gerbils in it and they keep reproducing. Eventually the mothers start eating their own young.

[muriel_volestrangler]

266. A sustained total fertility rate of about 1.3 would get it done

and that's about what Japan, South Korea, Italy and Poland currently have: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate

Perfectly humane and practical. Whether people will keep that attitude going for many decades may be open to question, but it's possible.

[The Stranger]

108. There is nothing to research.

We know how to limit procreation. We have always known how to limit procreation.

What is so fucking hard about it?

[NeedleCast]

134. Biology?

Why you can find a way to over-ride the natural, biological drive to re-produce this problem will be solved. Bummer that this is unlikely to happen.

[rucky]

185. One speech from the Pope could drastically change the world

for the better.

It'll never happen, but...

[defendandprotect]

201. Absolutely true --- which is why there was a coup on Vatican II . . .

wherein Pope John XXIII told Catholics to use their own personal conscience to

decide for themselves whether or not to use birth control --

thus kicking Papal Infallibility in the ass. (1962-65)

That went into the hopper along with JFK who pretty much showed Americans that the

Cold War was farce -- and Kruschev going along seemingly happily for the ride.

The three together were too much for the right wing hawks, church/$$$$ and

those invested in authority. The revolution had to be stopped.

The three quickly disappeared!

[Hannah Bell]

226. Catholic countries have Europe's lowest birth rates

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/catholic-countries-have-europes-lowest-birth-rates-britains-population-set-to-rise-as-women-have-children-later-in-life-1379641.html

BIRTH RATES in some of the richest countries of north-west Europe have risen in the 1990s after two decades of decline, writes Steve Connor. By contrast, poorer countries in southern Europe, often Roman Catholic and thought to have traditions of large families, now have the lowest birth rates.

[Hannah Bell]

224. how is it every developed country is at or under replacement rate without draconia, then?

is the plan to use the draconia on the populations of poor countries who consume a fraction of the resources richers ones do but have higher birthrates?

i guess i'm not getting it. is the point to reduce resource consumption? or to reduce poor people? or what?

[opihimoimoi]

7. Exponential Pop Growth is IMPOSSIBLE to SUSTAIN....we will run out of resources

somewhere around 7 to 12 Billion Peeps

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

[NeedleCast]

8. Do those numbers assume that technology

or amount of resources stays stagnant?

[Incitatus]

10. Good point, technology grows exponentially as well.

We have technology today that few could dream of a hundred years ago. I'd imagine the same would be true in another 100 years.

[NeedleCast]

15. I think in even shorter terms than that

Five years, ten years. Look where the personal computer has gone in ten years, especially in terms of miniturization. When I was a kid in the 80s, the only people who had cell phones were the wealthy and those cell phones where the size and weight of a standard brick. My very average cell phone now weighs maybe six ounces and for a fairly low fee it can act as a variety of devices.

The problem I always have with peak population arguments is that most of them seem founded on the pricipals that population will continue to grow while technology and amount of resources available will stay the same.

I kind of think that the solution to this problem is going to have to be expanding our pool of resources and not shrinking our number of people.

[Hello_Kitty]

22. And the problem I have with population deniers

Is that they have an almost religious faith the the power of technology and innovation when it comes to having too many people but cannot conceive of how that same ability could be used in the opposite situation (declining population). It's "OMG! Catastrophe! Who will take care of the old people!" in that case. Like we could never, with the 6+ billion people we already have now, figure something out.

[NeedleCast]

29. I'm not denying that population becomes an issue

Just kind of spitballing about ways of dealing with the number of peeps that doesn't include government imposed population control...because I think we're way past the point of individual population control.

[defendandprotect]

59. Right . . . . try tuning into the government's news that we can move on to other planets --- !!!

We can just devour and pollute this one and move on ---

And, after polluting the next one, we can move on again!!!

[NeedleCast]

64. Just like the OP article, your outlook is black and white

Cant we make this planet better over the long run AND also move off of it? The technology already exists to do so. I don't see anyone supporting the plague of locusts argument.

[defendandprotect]

99. If you were born yesterday . . .

what "technology" exists to restore glaciers?

To overnight restore our air, water, oceans, soil?

You have to understand that Global Warming is NOT evolution --

rather it is violent and sudden change.


From my post #83 above . . .


There is every question and no assurance that the planet will survive . . .
our pollution and the patriarchal war on Nature.

In fact, almost 15 or more years ago now, the NY Times reported that . . .

"The dams and reservoirs built by our Army Corps of Engineers over the last 50

years are impacting the rotation of the earth."

After that, there was a bit of talk -- still is -- about taking down the dams.

Little has happened so far.

We have no way to know what the compounding of all the pollution and harm to the

planet may result in -- even, perhaps, a shift in polls.

Global Warming is not evolution -- which happens gradually -- it is sudden, violent

change.

Our Species has the option of surviving Long Term or just waiting for whatever comes our way...passively....


Humanity is in peril given that all of nature is in peril.

Perhaps you think we'll be moving along, planet by planet -- pollution forever?

[Bill McBlueState]

90. the government has news that we can move on to other planets?

Can you provide an example of this news?

[defendandprotect]

100. Don't you believe that the astronauts walked on the moon?

and that government is reporting many planets with conditions similar to ours?

Men in space? Believe it or not?

[Bill McBlueState]

124. the moon is not a planet

which is why I didn't think of it. But okay, we can count it as one world that might feasibly be colonized. It's going to take a lot of work, given that there's no atmosphere.

What other planets are being reported with conditions similar to ours? How will we get to them?

[DIKB]

148. Not to mention

the lack of Gravity. At only 1/6th of Earth's gravity peoples' skeletons will weaken as a result, factor in fetal development, generational adaptation, etc. It becomes less a colony and more a permanent sentence, as reintroduction to Earth would be devastating to a fragile constitution.

[defendandprotect]

196. Overall, we may be unfit for space travel . . . therefore . . .

might have been wise to treasure this planet and Nature?

[defendandprotect]

195. Well . . . if you can get to the moon . .. presumably you can reach

a habitable planet ... ?

I'm not suggesting it, but government seems to be doing so over the past.

How will we get to them . . . ? Well, there is some theory that man is actually earth

bound, unable to survive any period of time in space. I think the Space Shuttle

shows the difficulty -- especially males have --- with spending time in space.

Also the Van Allen Belts represent a serious threat --

OTOH, the first moon landing was 1969 ... and we kinda bailed out after a few years on

that though wasn't Bush talking about another ride in 2011 -- 42 years later?

So . . . maybe we're not going anywhere?



But, just as an aside . . .

Moon is sometimes classified as a terrestrial "planet" along ...

terrestrial or rocky planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars:
The terrestrial planets are composed primarily of rock and metal and have relatively high densities, slow rotation, solid surfaces, no rings and few satellites.


A moon is a natural satellite rotating ...

Earth and the Moon are more like a double planet than a planet and a moon. ...

[Bill McBlueState]

222. ouch

"if you can get to the moon ... presumably you can reach a habitable planet"

Even if we're exceptionally optimistic and assume there's a habitable planet 60 light-years away, that's more than 100 billion times as far away as the moon. Keep in mind that, by definition, it would take at least 60 years to get to that planet.

Not to pick on you in particular, but even a rudimentary level of scientific literacy often allows one to make much better political arguments.

[defendandprotect]

245. Well, there's the problem . . .

i.e., if anyone is visiting us, it is generally assumed to be time travel.

Or -- as in "a wrinkle in time."

And/or -- the moon might have to do. OTOH, it may already be occupied.

Someone else's base?

My political argument is that we shouldn't be destroying our home planet!

[wickerwoman]

152. There are other reasons why space colonization is essential to human survival.

One black hole opening up in the wrong place at the wrong time could consume the entire earth and everyone on it in a millisecond. Also scientists believe that Venus used to be habitable but expanding heat from the sun led to runaway global warning that turned the entire planet into a gassy deathtrap and that it's very likely in the long run that the same thing with happen to Earth (while Mars becomes warmer and more habitable).

Advocating that people should not aspire to spreading humanity to other planets is a death sentence in the long run for the entire species. Life adapts and moves on. We're coming to an age where we will need to adapt and move on to other planets or face complete extinction. Stagnation is just not a viable evolutionary strategy.

A lot of study is going on at the moment about ways to terraform Mars. I've seen estimates that say it would be feasible in about fifty years and that the actual terraforming itself would take a matter of decades. It's theoretically possible we could have a colony on Mars by the end of century.

That being said, I have no problems with efforts to control population as long as they respect human rights. Education about birth control and family planning, free access to judgment-free abortions and tax penalties for enormous families would be cornerstones of the policy I'd advocate. But the best birth control of all is a healthy middle class so I'd spend more energy on economic programs that lift people out of poverty and ignorance.

The hopeful, optimistic side of me says we'll have fusion (more or less solving our energy crisis) in less than twenty years and we'll be colonizing Mars in my lifetime.

[defendandprotect]

197. Aaaaaah . . knew there would be someone ....

who would embrace the idea that we can move on ---

Mars and water -- seems to be the combo being sold now ...

"Go forth and multiply" --- ????

We're not "coming to an age" . . . we're coming to a point where we are meeting

catastrophe. Neither does life "adapt" in any immediate sense. Evolution takes time.

"Manifest Destiny" is not an evolutionary strategy -- rather it is anti-Nature.

Considering Global Warming, I think we'll be lucky if we have 15 relatively stable years ...

50 or 90 . . . questionable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars

Re overpopulation, I think education campaigns would be very effective ---

they have been in the past.

Trust we might have to go no further than that.

Middle Class is a double edged sword -- desirable on the one hand --

but greatly increases consumerism.

I think clean, renewable energy may be the least of our problems ---

and would presume that much alternative energy research has been suppressed.

Alas, humans may be unfit for space or life on any other planet.

[Johonny]

32. I agree

It's possible with better technology we can support vastly more and more people, but should we? The human habitat comes at the expense of something, resources, habitat for other animals, quality of life...

[Hello_Kitty]

39. Exactly.

And with knowledge and technology we could find alternatives to the current unending growth driven economic model.

[opihimoimoi]

43. The growth spiral is impossible to sustain...sooner or later...there will come a time

to either stabilize....or ...reduce our human population.

If we cannot self regulate...then Nature will do it for us....

We may get away with 7 Billion people....but 12 Billion? 18 Billion?......?

[defendandprotect]

62. I would suggest that NATURE is about to do it for us . . .

and I think the question is whether this planet will even survive our

destructive, violent, aggressive assault on it?

[opihimoimoi]

83. Earth will survive until the sun expands due to normal life span sequence.

Our Species has the option of surviving Long Term or just waiting for whatever comes our way...passively....

[defendandprotect]

97. There is every question and no assurance that the planet will survive . . .

our pollution and the patriarchal war on Nature.

In fact, almost 15 or more years ago now, the NY Times reported that . . .

"The dams and reservoirs built by our Army Corps of Engineers over the last 50

years are impacting the rotation of the earth."

After that, there was a bit of talk -- still is -- about taking down the dams.

Little has happened so far.

We have no way to know what the compounding of all the pollution and harm to the

planet may result in -- even, perhaps, a shift in polls.

Global Warming is not evolution -- which happens gradually -- it is sudden, violent

change.

Our Species has the option of surviving Long Term or just waiting for whatever comes our way...passively....


Humanity is in peril given that all of nature is in peril.

Perhaps you think we'll be moving along, planet by planet -- pollution forever?

[opihimoimoi]

112. The easy answer is reducing Ignorance so that we could contend with important issues using Reason

Logic, Common Sense, and Compassion

We are still 20 years outta the trees when it comes to social/political systems...

[defendandprotect]

199. I might have to agree with that . . .

However, organized patriarchal religion/patriarchy and capitalism are suicidal --

"Manifest Destiny" and "Man's Dominion Over Nature" are licenses to exploit nature,

animal-life, natural resources and even other human beings according to various myths

of inferiority.

Unless we overturn those fatal concepts -- that ignorance -- we cannot reach "Reason."

[defendandprotect]

104. What you are saying is there can be an infinite number of ducks on a pond . . .

an infinite number of birds in the sky --

Can there be?

[FiveGoodMen]

107. Does farmland increase exponentially?

Technology has done many wonderful things, but it has its limits as well.

(Have we cured cancer yet?)

[Incitatus]

187. The ability to produce higher yields per acre and grow in areas previously not possible can.

[FiveGoodMen]

244. Infinitely, right? Just better and better production for ever and ever, right?

Because otherwise it's just a matter of time.

[The Stranger]

109. That doesn't make sense.

"... technology grows exponentially as well ..."

[Incitatus]

190. technology grows exponentially means

technology grows exponentially

The more it grows, the faster it grows.

[tama]

156. Does that tech grow

deplete soil or increase soil fertility? Yup, the former.

What I've learned about how food grows (the latest scientific truth which is as it ever was), all factors interact with each other and pushing one factor (e.g. nitrogen) higher than the ideal balance will affect growth negatively.

And yes, Amish do fine and in fact better than the "English" without technological technocracy, accepting what technology they accept only as tools and on their own terms - good servant, bad master.

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. Resources will not stay stagnant -

they will decline.

I expect that there will be a population crash about the time we hit 9 billion. Too many competing for too few resources, too little fresh water, too little food, will weaken the overall population so badly that it will be vulnerable to a pandemic of 'black death' proportions - 60-75% fatality rate. And the more that die, the more desperate the survivors will become as societies break down, causing conflicts which will reduce world population by another 10%.

Over five years, go from 9 billion to 2 billion.

I won't live to see it - but my daughters will and I fear for them.

[NeedleCast]

24. You assume they're going to decline, I don't

They might, they might not. The only way your argument holds weight is if we consider the earth the only resource and that technology stays stagnant.

Some resources will decline but that doesn't mean they won't be replace by other technologies. We're slowly seeing a shift away from depletable energy sources to renewables. Too slow, IMO, but it's happening. Better desalinization technology will make fresh water a more easily accessed resource. That's one of many options, of course.

[Hello_Kitty]

28. Keep on having babies and hope for technological miracles! eom

[NeedleCast]

31. I have no children

Nor do I plan to have any.

[RaleighNCDUer]

48. I just lost a long post in reply to the above when I went away to google

population figure - such as

It took till @ 1800CE to hit a world population of 1 billion.

One hundred and fifty years later, when I was born, in 1953, the world population was 2.6 billion.

Sixty years after that, we will hit 7 billion in @ 2012.

They are predicting 9 billion by 2040 - but looking at the previous numbers i think that is a vast underestimation. I'd guess more like 2025.

That is simply not enough time for technology to save us. Sixteen years. Teeny little cell phones and fast PCs are NOT world-saving technologies - sixteen years ago we HAD cell phones and PCs - and a billion fewer people on the earth.

I don't understand the deniers' mindset.

[NeedleCast]

51. So what's your fix?

No one is denying anything, although I think you underestimate the technological factor. Maybe you're right. Yet you, apparently, found the need and/or desire to have children.

So, what's the fix?

[RaleighNCDUer]

60. My (ex)wife going off the pill without telling me is an entirely different thread.

And the fix is Gaia - we are incapable of fixing this ourselves, so Gaia will take care of it for us. There will be a population crash, that will reduce the world population by 75-90% - back to the level of @1900.

Declining food, water and energy resources and emerging diseases just about guarantee it.

[NeedleCast]

68. Awful bleak outlook

Could happen I guess...but I sure hope that we'd take whatever steps we can to prevent it instead of just assuming it's going to happen with no way to prevent it and sitting back waiting for the crash.

[RaleighNCDUer]

72. The Titanic is going down, and all I have is a teacup -

that doesn't mean I'm going to stop bailing. I just have no illusions of how much good it will do.

[NeedleCast]

74. For your kids sake, I hope you're wrong

[defendandprotect]

82. Our opportunities to prevent it are long past and to deal with it probably also gone . . .

"...but I sure hope that we'd take whatever steps we can to prevent it instead of just assuming it's going to happen with no way to prevent it and sitting back waiting for the crash."

Where have you been re Global Warming?

If you think you see anger now re shock economics wait until the public figures out that

capitalism/ExxonMobil have hidden the truth about Global Warming for four decades or more.

Indeed, it is probably too late.

[NeedleCast]

88. Well, good luck with your doom then

I think I'll take a more aggressive approach and not just accept the inevitable. I'm nutty like that.

[defendandprotect]

94. Scientists just love to spread "doom" . . . ???????????

We have been aware of Global Warming since at least the late 1950's . . .

And we know that the burning of fossil fuels plays a large role in it.

ExxonMobil and other members of the oil industry have worked for decades ---

with hugely financed campaigns -- to distort and deny the information.

And what "aggressive" approach are you taking?

Or, are you presuming that the slim outlines of response by governments is

in any way sufficient?

Capitalism is deadly -- we should all wake up to that.

[NeedleCast]

113. Your solution seems to be "fuck it, we're doomed"

So not really much to be gained from this...

[defendandprotect]

202. I've been trying to wake up people for more than 20 years . . .

do you think that was based on "fuck it, we're doomed."

Do you think the scientists telling you it is near too late now are in shock

themselves and trying to tell you the truth -- or that they enjoy reporting

the possibility it may be too late?

No one can say positively -- go plant a tree -- try to get electric cars built.

Push for alternative energy ---

No one knows how all of this may compound -- we've polluted about every inch of

the earth!

[Hello_Kitty]

52. Humans evolved to love babies and children

It's probably the most powerful attachment in our makeup. But, that doesn't mean you have to have babies in order to have children in your life. Honestly, I wish people would figure out that when there are fewer children the ones who are there get more resources and better care.

[NeedleCast]

54. Good Luck With That

Even as a person with no desire to have children I understand that basic instinct.

So lets assume that population isn't going to self-regulate. What are the solutions other than government mandated population control (or massive die off)?

[Hello_Kitty]

76. A good start would be a public awareness campaign.

Which is what the guy in the OP is trying to do, and look at the way he's being savaged for it right here on this thread. But maybe if governments and the UN made a concerted effort to educate and inform people many would voluntarily limit their procreation.

Also, and this will really raise hackles, we need to reevaluate tax and economic policies that reward people for procreating. Why are we giving tax breaks and credits to people for adding to the population, while effectively punishing people who don't? And why is assistance to the poor tied to parental status? As a childless woman I qualify for practically no assistance whatsoever if I become destitute. Yet if I had a kid I'd get food stamps and free medical care. I used to volunteer with a youth-in-crisis organization and a 17 year old mom I was working with made the bald-faced admission that she had her baby to get government bennies. She was getting her college fully paid through a program for single mothers. If she didn't have the kid, she wouldn't have gotten anything for college. Mind you, I don't begrudge someone in her situation the assistance, but why not assist the girls who DON'T get pregnant too?

[NeedleCast]

85. Again, I think we're WAY past the point of individual population control

Not like this is the first dude saying this and so far it's done right around zero good. You're assuming that people are going to stop doing something they are biologically inclined to do. That's pretty much the dictionary defintion of trying to ice-skate uphill. I just don't see someone in India or Mexico or even the US for the that matter responding to some UN finger-wagging. Maybe I'm wrong and it's probably relativly inexpensive to try, but I don't think that some political body is going to change 200,000 years of biological drive.

I tend to agree with you regarding the tax subsidies. That's not going to happen until being single and childless isn't seen by many as being abnormal though. There's a lot of power of relgion behind that too...the fundies are suggesting that people marry and have children younger...they want a return to the 1800s breeding levels. Big familes to work the big farms...except without the big farms and with no mention of who is going to provide for them (well, other than the standard answer of "god").

[Hello_Kitty]

129. You're absolutely right. And it's not just the fundies who engage in faith-based thinking

Obviously so do a lot of progressives.

[NeedleCast]

137. There's a lot of pressure, even on progressives

I have a hard time finding fault with people who want to have kids, no matter what their reason (or lack thereof). You've got personal disire, of course, but on top of that you've got socail and often family pressure as well. I imagine it's even worse for women because society seems more accepting of single males than single females.

I'm the last male of my bloodline. Since I don't plan to have kids, I'm the end. Logically, I shouldn't care about that since I've made a consious decision not to have children, but I'd be lying if I said their isn't a (sometimes fairly strong) desire to procreate.

Still, it's generally not westernized countries where population control is the isssue. I think another part of the education problem with this issue is that the people who need to be educated the most are often the people that are least accessible.

[defendandprotect]

86. We did have a campaign in the 1960's . . . it was stopped . . . but highly effective .. .

That's why you have low population figures in America and Europe now ---

save for America's recent new "baby boom."

however, if you look back to the 1960's when the overpopulation campaigns began

they were, indeed, very effective. In fact, it led to the previous Pope going before

Italian Parliment a few years ago to demand that they make Italian women start having

more children!!!

Did he cite quality of life issues, help for families with children, health of women or

anything like that?

No -- he cited the need for capitalism to be able to expand thru increased labor!!!


The overpopulation campaigns were stopped almost as they began -- and rarely heard of

again!!! But, quite effective as you can see from reports even today -- until the

recent new "baby boom."

From my post #49 above ---

[defendandprotect]

65. Indeed, it's like the old story of the grains of rice . . . !!!

[Hannah Bell]

227. "They" - e.g. the UN - changed their prediction for 2050 from 10 to 9 million

from 1994 to 2006.

Why would you think 9 million in 2025?

[defendandprotect]

63. " . .. if we consider the earth the only resource..." --- ????

Ah, yes, the jumping from one planet to another option --- !!!

Pollute this planet and move on to pollute the next one -- on and on!

We have not even prepared in any way for PEAK oil . . . which basically means the

end of surburbs unless we quickly move to electric cars and hybrids.

[Deja Q]

139. Well, everybody who's scared can kill themselves. Win-win.

:eyes:

[defendandprotect]

58. Technology - unless it is used to make weapons -- is usually suppressed . . .

and our natural resources are generally not renewable.

[anigbrowl]

180. Likely, we don't have exponential pop. growth, but rather sigmoid

Actually, this is true of a lot of thing; it's like when you see those news stories suggesting the # of Elvis impersonators is rising so fast that by 2079 everyone will be an Elvis impersonator. The numbers seem superficially convincing, but actual experience (and empirical observation) shows that most things in nature tend to go through a period of accelerated growth and then level off.

[Hannah Bell]

229. your speculation backed up by declines in 10-year growth rate.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762181.html

[dysfunctional press]

292. our alien overlords will make a harvest well before that happens...

and i for one welcome them...

[leftofthedial]

9. Here in the colonies, 30% of our 306,000,000 people are repukes.

Interestingly, my research shows that we need to reduce our population to 214,200,000 if we are to survive.

[FiveGoodMen]

21. If only there were a way to be that selective!

In practice, of course, it's the red-state idiots who are having a million kids.

[MADem]

11. Any time some asshole comes out with "must" I lose interest.

How about improving farming methods? That might enable the country to "feed itself sustainably." If everyone put a garden on their rooftop, that would do it, eh? Maybe clone beef, and give over the grazing pastures to vegetables? Find a way to make hydroponic gardening, year round, indoors, viable and affordable?

There's more than one way to tackle a problem. The "musters" though...well, they "must" go.

[NeedleCast]

16. This

You're exactly right. These "must" people see things in such a black and white world. Whenever someone says their can only be one solution, you have to wonder what their motivation is.

[defendandprotect]

66. I think the Rand Corporation said this same thing -- more quietly --

many decades ago ---

[Hannah Bell]

221. malthus said it 300 years ago, the eugenics folks said it 100 years ago,

& like most of the ruling class, their underlying motive is to justify & normalize the poverty & untimely deaths of the poor.

The first world has been at replacement rate for decades.
The "second world" is at or nearing replacement.

The world fertility rate is 2.6 births per woman, .5 off replacement.

Rising income security = demographic shift.

[Hello_Kitty]

288. Bullshit. It's the pro-natalists who want a huge supply of cheap labor.

Not to mention patriarchal religions who want to keep women's necks under the foots of men. If all of a sudden women everywhere were magically freed from the obligation - social, religious, financial - to have babies you bet your ass the birthrate would drop like a fucking stone.

[tonysam]

19. The "expert" sounds like a nutjob.

There are real problems in the world without somebody wanting to get publicity for saying a bunch of people need to die first before the world can be saved.

[bridgit]

77. How bout you 'must' get off the railroad tracks there's a train coming

:kick:

[MADem]

218. Put on your glasses--that's not a train, it's a didactic asshole screaming "The Sky Is Falling!" nt

http://www.c2ccertified.com/

[Ezlivin]

96. Think through your statements

How about improving farming methods? That might enable the country to "feed itself sustainably."

The so-called "Green Revolution" began in 1945 and greatly increased crop yields and productivity. However, these gains were made with the use of petroleum; the eight-fold increase in an acre's yield can be attributed almost entirely to the use of pesticides (petrol based), synthetic fertilizers (petrol based) and herbicides (petrol based). Without petroleum inputs yields drop drastically. If you study the condition of much of our topsoils you'll find that it is a burned-out soil that requires synthetic fertilizers to grow food. As petroleum becomes increasingly scarce our farm productivity will drop.

If everyone put a garden on their rooftop, that would do it, eh?

And what of the towers filled with people in every metropolis? There's not enough roofs to support gardening there. And you have to supply each garden with water and nutrients (organic or synthetic), not to mention that the garden has to have ample light. Here in Texas we have lots of zero-lot line McMansions that have virtually no yard, no useable roof and cast a maze of shadows. Additionally you will have to train all of these newbies in how to garden as it is not something taught in today's schools.

Maybe clone beef, and give over the grazing pastures to vegetables?

Actually, your idea of giving over the grazing pastures to vegetables is an excellent idea. We devote far too much valuable farm land to the raising of grains simply to feed to livestock. Unfortunately our technology is not yet at the point where we can clone livestock at a large enough scale to prove economically viable. Who wants to pay $100 for a steak?

Find a way to make hydroponic gardening, year round, indoors, viable and affordable?

Hydroponics certainly work and have aided countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia make use of scarce water resources. These, however, are outdoor hydroponic facilities, not indoors. If you attempt to move that indoors you have to supply artificial light. As an example look at the many indoor grow rooms that are uncovered and busted by authorities. They are very expensive and complicated to set up. If outdoor gardening is a challenge, running an indoor hydroponic set-up is a huge challenge (adjust pH levels, measuring total dissolved solids, flushing, etc.).

Technology is not a panacea, unfortunately.

[MADem]

220. I'm going to give you a link. I hope you read through it.

http://www.c2ccertified.com/

Here's a slice, in case you don't bother. This IS the future:

Cradle to Cradle Design is a new strategy for business growth and prosperity that generates ecological, social, and economic value. It represents a fundamental conceptual shift away from the flawed system design of the Industrial Revolution, not just a damage management strategy.

Background

In response to widespread environmental degradation, many industries have adopted a strategy known as "eco-efficiency"-minimizing waste, pollution, and natural resource depletion. But eco-efficiency is not a strategy for long-term success. It seeks to make the current, destructive system sustainable.

Waste Equals Food

Minimizing toxic pollution and the waste of natural resources are not strategies for real change. Designing industrial processes so they do not generate toxic pollution and "waste" in the first place is true change. Long-term prosperity depends not on the efficiency of a fundamentally destructive system, but on the effectiveness of processes designed to be healthy and renewable in the first place.

Cradle to Cradle Design's strategy of eco-effectiveness is rooted in the systems of the natural world, which are not efficient at all, but effective. Consider the cherry tree. Each spring it makes thousands of blossoms, which then fall in piles to the ground-not very efficient. But the fallen blossoms become food for other living things. The tree's abundance of blossoms is both safe and useful, contributing to the health of a thriving, interdependent system. And the tree spreads multiple positive effects-making oxygen, transpiring water, creating habitat, and more. And it is beautiful!

Eco-effectiveness seeks to design industrial systems that emulate the healthy abundance of nature. The central design principle of eco-effectiveness is waste equals food.

When waste equals food, the "be less bad" imperatives of efficiency fade. When a product returns to industry at the end of its useful life and its materials are used to make equally valuable new products, the minerals or plastics of which it is made do not need to be minimized-because they will not become waste in a landfill. Industry saves billions of dollars annually by recovering valuable materials from used products. Similarly, products designed to be made of natural, safely biodegradable materials can be returned to the soil to feed ecosystems instead of depleting them.

Transforming the Making of Things

This fundamental conceptual shift leads to design strategies that some might find surprising. For example, instead of minimizing the consumption of energy generated from coal, oil, and nuclear plants, why not maximize energy availability using solar and wind sources? Instead of using only natural, biodegradable fibers like cotton for textile production (a pesticide-intensive agricultural process), why not use non-toxic synthetic fibers designed for perpetual recycling into new textile products? Instead of directing intelligence towards regulation compliance and liability reduction, why not design industrial processes and products so safe they do not need regulation, and direct creativity towards maximizing economic, social, and ecological benefits?

Eco-effectiveness has profound implications for industries everywhere. Rather than lamenting a world of hazardous waste, scarce resources, and limited opportunities, it celebrates an abundance of continuously valuable industrial and natural materials, of rich and diverse living systems, of economic and environmental wealth.

The eco-effective future of industry is a "world of abundance" that celebrates the use and "consumption" (by people, nature, and intelligent industrial systems) of products and materials that are, in effect, nutritious-as safe, effective, and delightful as a cherry tree.

We simply need to learn how to "think differently." This guy's attitude is that if you do it right, there's no such thing as "waste." He's designed fabric plants in Switzerland (where the environmental laws are fierce) where the former "waste product" that could not be disposed of in Switzerland because it was so toxic is now used as garden compost there, and the waste water from the plant meets Swiss environmental standards for DRINKING WATER.

I think it can be done. I think these "sky is falling" assholes need to STFU, suck it up and put their shoulders to the wheel and use their brains instead of wagging their fingers at others. Start thinking, stop crying. Technology and a different way of thinking can and will do it. Telling people "NO!!!!" never works. It just generates stupid arguments like the ones we see here.

[Hannah Bell]

230. hear, hear. it *can* be done, another world *is* possible, & i'm sick of the doomsters too.

[Hannah Bell]

223. Do you follow US ag trends?

Farmed land is declining, not because it's not productive, but because it doesn't pay, due to a combination of high yields, low prices, undercapitalization of smaller producers & competition from crops grown overseas. The low monetary payoff is taking cropland out of production in the US & elsewhere, leaving large growers to consolidate & intensify on less acreage.


"Agriculture acreage numbers continue to trend in an alarming direction, Cecil Williams told those attending the Missouri Cotton Production and Outlook Conference in Kennett, Mo.

“The number of farms in the United States in 2004 was estimated to be 2.11 million — six-tenths of a percent fewer than in 2003,” said the executive vice president of Cotton Producers of Missouri. “Total land in farms, at 936.6 million acres, decreased 2.25 million (2 percent) from 2003.”

The news certainly isn't all bad: major row crops did tremendously in 2004. Cotton, soybeans and rice all had record average yields nationwide.

“Soybeans were at 42.5 bushels per acre — much higher than we've ever averaged. Missouri alone averaged around 45 bushels.”

Cotton's average was the highest it's ever been by far: 818 pounds per acre. Missouri averaged 1,041 pounds per acre — the second highest in the Mid-South. Arkansas averaged 1,112 pounds — well over 100 pounds better than it had ever done before. Mississippi averaged 1,034 pounds, and Tennessee averaged over 900 pounds.

“Louisiana was the only state to drop in yield. Because of bad weather at season's start, it dropped to around 870 pounds.”

Williams looked up cotton yields for every state going back to 1965. At one point in the 1980s, he said, Missouri was averaging only 363 pounds per acre. “We've come a long way, baby.”

http://deltafarmpress.com/mag/farming_us_farm_acreage/


one small country, thailand, produces about 30% of all the rice sold for export in the world. Subsistence farmers produce a big chunk of that.

[The Stranger]

110. Oh, that's it. "Improving farming methods."

I'm sure no one that of that before.

[Hello_Kitty]

128. Oh but see, that's why we need to have more babies.

Because one of them will be the genius who innovates us out of this mess! Technology will save us!

:sarcasm:

[MADem]

217. Are you going to volunteer to kill yourself to make room, then?

To make room for that little genius?

This guy has ONE solution. Reduce the population. Frankly, I've been alive for awhile, and I have never seen so many people who are "unable to conceive" due to fussy eggs or slow swimming sperm. It was only a few decades ago that four, five, six, ten kids per family were the NORM in many neighborhoods. That's no longer the case. It was the RARE person who was "having trouble." Now, it's every other person.

People ARE having fewing kids. Some by choice, some by environmental poisoning/reproductive failure, some by governments telling them how many they're "allowed" to have.

Just because some didactic asshole tells people that they need to have FEWER children, the "opposite" of that is not necessarily having MORE. They can have the number they planned on, if they can afford them.

And, despite your attempt at sarcasm, I am not going to dismiss technology. The industrial revolution was a huge technological enterprise that changed the way the world worked. So, for that matter, was the Bronze Age. Technology may not "save" us, but it will make lives of future generations better, if we adapt "Cradle to Cradle" ideas in everything we do, from growing food to building or creating ANYTHING--getting beyond "sustainable," as it were.

http://www.c2ccertified.com/

Making snarky remarks about this topic is really beneath you.

[suede1]

258. Irony deficiency run in your family?

The world has been over populated for years and you not understanding that doesn't change the facts.

[MADem]

296. No, it doesn't. Try something other than 'stupid snark' when you want to discuss a topic.

The world has not been over populated for years, and your saying that doesn't make it so.

You keep beating the doom and gloom drum, though--it clearly makes you HAPPY to do so.

[suede1]

297. You really do have irony deficiency . You asked if that woman wants to kill herself

then you accuse someone else of using 'stupid snark?' Wow! And I've seen some of your other responses in other threads. There's a lot you don't get, you just try to bash others with no real input. Ever.

But keep on thinking you understand things for the way they are.

[MADem]

298. You're simply being obstreperous. I don't "accuse"--where you get that shit, I've no idea.

I could give a crap about you, I'm not going to prance about "accusing" you of anything. That takes energy, and I won't waste it on a whinging "internet tough guy." You did use stupid snark in your reply to me. That's not an "accusation," it's fact.

You have no interest in discussing this topic, you simply want to play a childish "verbal wrestling" game. I've no interest in that nonsense, either.

Gee, you've "seen some of my other responses in other threads?" My, how special. You make a rather dire, though unformed, suggestion there, without the courage to follow through. Oooh, should I be upset? Scared? How does that remark advance the topic under discussion? Why, it doesn't--but then, that's not your agenda, apparently. You'd rather do the old "casting of asparagus" (yuck, yuck) that is the hallmark of a very few faux intellectuals on these here internets than discuss the Cradle to Cradle paradigm shift that is already showing astounding promise in the few applications that have been made, thus far, around the world.

FWIW, I provided some salient links in THIS thread, that discussed that very model, which is a complete break from the typical "sustainable" one that eventually drains the earth of resources. The model discussed is beyond sustainable--it is a model that replaces and grows resources. Of course, to understand it, you have to do something called "reading" before you toss stupid turdlets that don't advance the discussion of the topic by way of response.

You might try examining this new paradigm before you continue to make an absolute ass of yourself. In any event, I don't care if you do or don't, because your concrete mind is made up. You're stuck in a "doom and gloom" rut, and you're quite free to rot there.

:hi:

[MADem]

216. Apparently, Mister My Way or the Highway didn't.

In China, they're putting farmland on the roofs of new houses.

Every bit helps.

[Evoman]

240. Then what?

That only "tackles the problem" temporarily. Now you have a capacity of 12 billion instead of 9. The problem is that 12 billion reproduce even even faster than 6 billion so your going to have to find even better technologies in even a shorter time.

[MADem]

250. No, it doesn't. Not if you incorporate Cradle to Cradle techniques.

And you also assume we'll never leave the Big Blue Marble. More people=more brainpower to find solutions.

This doom and gloom shit is tiresome. And it's not terribly new. This argument has been shopped for two hundred years or more.

[Evoman]

267. It's not doom and gloom, it's realistic.

I think that there is a future in space...but we have to get there first. And how you propose we do when all our resources are tied in to providing enough food for all the new mouths is beyond me.

In the end, human being are animals. And this pattern has repeated itself again and again and again in different animals and different ecosystems. Just yesterday I held a colony of microbes in my hand that had grown exponentially, and then died off as they polluted their resources and ran out of room.

It's a real problem, and so far, our huge brains haven't made a hell of a lot of difference. World is still getting polluted at an increasing rate, we are using up our resources (fishing stock, topsoil, lakes) at abominable speeds, and the people innovating new technologies aren't concentrated where we need them because the funding isn't there. I guess I just don't see where the optimism comes from.

[MADem]

295. Cradle to Cradle design is that WASTE EQUALS FOOD.

You don't design stuff to be 'sustainable' or 'less bad'--your designs are supposed to be both efficient AND effective. What you build not only serves the stated purpose, but it also gives back to the earth in a Net Plus fashion as opposed to a 'mitigation' exercise.

It's a different way of thinking. I see it as working, if more people would embrace the concept. Since it's working so well in the applications where it is being used, I suspect it will catch on in the next ten years or so.

[daleo]

14. British population was 38 million in 1900

So a long term stable population of 30 million seems quite reasonable.

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf

[Occam Bandage]

17. Will Mr. Porritt, his wife, and his daughters volunteer to cut themselves from the population? nt

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

23. Excellent suggestion.

[Occam Bandage]

26. That may be a bit harsh. Perhaps they could draw straws to determine

which two of them should be removed from the population. To set an example, you see.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

56. lol! And whom ever loses can go to the suicide parlor attached to Howard Johnson's

and have a great meal and sexual partner of choice before the bitter end?

[Hello_Kitty]

40. This would be the 'you should kill yourself first' space

Damn, I'm almost at Bingo now!

[Occam Bandage]

41. It's rank hypocrisy to complain about overpopulation

when you yourself have more than one child.

[Hello_Kitty]

44. Yeah, but your comment still fits the space. eom

[tuckessee]

46. There's only one space missing.......

That's the space for knee-jerk spamming the thread with useless posts and whoa! Hello_Kitty! BINGO!

[Hello_Kitty]

47. Oh come on now. Help a girl out!

Give me a "drowning the baby girls in China" one! You know you can do it.

[Hannah Bell]

231. like a bot. contentless posts.

[defendandprotect]

70. Rather the idea is that his daughters would have no children --

or something less than replacement, i.e., one of them would have one child.

[tinrobot]

133. Thank you for being rational rather than reactionary.

I don't think he's advocating killing people already alive, simply creating fewer people in the future.

[Hannah Bell]

232. um, they probably will anyway, since current fertility rate in the uk is under 2. For native-born

brits, 1.8.

See? That happened without someone making laws or promoting doomsday scenarios.

[The Stranger]

111. If you agree to do so as well.

One good idiotic non-sequiter deserves another.

[Occam Bandage]

119. Nah. I think overpopulation isn't a major threat,

and regardless population control is nearly impossible to enforce without drastic human-rights violations.

[Hello_Kitty]

123. OMG

Nah. I think overpopulation isn't a major threat

:wow:

[Leopolds Ghost]

208. You also think FISA isn't a major threat, remember?

Bingo!

[chrisa]

20. Set 1/2 of the population up to fight the other half.

Problem solved! ;-)

[Rambis]

30. Logan's Run

[Hello_Kitty]

36. Yeah, I really do need to make up an overpopulation bingo card

"Logan's Run reference! Bingo!"

:eyes:

[Hello_Kitty]

33. And, once again, I'm not disappointed.

As per usual, a thread about overpopulation ends up looking like an anti-choice rally. I'm impressed at how quickly the comments about mass extermination showed up. Little slow on the girl babies being drowned in China and eugenics ones, but I'm sure they'll be along soon. This topic should get a bingo card.

[Dogmudgeon]

35. How we will solve the population/resource problem

First, terminate -- or ALLOW to be terminated -- 80-95% of the world's population over a cognitively-acceptable stretch of time. A multi-factorial process modality is to be preferred.

Second, assume through usufruct the resources abandoned due to the rapidly facilitated relinquency of the original owners and users.

Finally, the eusocially-selected survivors wring their hands, quote American Indian and Buddhist sages, make several award-winning movies and TV specials, and enjoy the new order -- I mean, the new paradigm.

It's a win-win situation! Well, all except for the members of the survival-negative cohort.

--d!
"Rapidly facilitated relinquency." That's a technical term.

[Hello_Kitty]

38. Hmm, I think this post would fit the "eugenics" space on the bingo card.

Seriously, what is it about the subject of population that causes so many people to immediately conjure up sci-fi dystopia scenarios?

[Dogmudgeon]

42. But this isn't a sci-fi dystopia

It's a description of the deliberate neglect of most of the world's population, gussied up to appear as though the problem is under technically-informed control.

Which it isn't.

And that's how we are going to solve the population/resources problem. Complete with the shedding of crockadile tears.

--d!

[dkofos]

37. They have taken away most rights in the UK so I guess the next will be

the right to reproduce.

[defendandprotect]

71. What they are making clear to you is that you only have the right to

endanger your life and the lives of your offspring by continuing to reproduce

at current levels.

Also, keep in mind that all life is labor as seen by capitalism ---

producing two children creates competititon for life and work for your first child.

[Hello_Kitty]

114. Labor and cannon fodder.

Yet progressives don't get this. Most of them have a delusional belief in the special brilliance of their gifted Indigo children who will, of course, grow up to be bio-engineers or innovators.

[defendandprotect]

203. More poets -- less engineers, please . . . . !!!

[paparush]

45. Pols have to start talking about this since free power has yet to fall out of the sky into our laps.

Sorry, I don't consider solar to be free. Yes, the sun's rays themselves are free but the infrastructure required to acquire, transmit, store, and convert that energy is beyond the means of 95% of the planet.

[Hello_Kitty]

49. Just judging from this thread, it will be a tough sell.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt where overpopulation is concerned.

[defendandprotect]

75. Not true . . . yes, there are extreme presumptions on the early parts of this thread . . .

however, if you look back to the 1960's when the overpopulation campaigns began

they were, indeed, very effective. In fact, it led to the previous Pope going before

Italian Parliment a few years ago to demand that they make Italian women start having

more children!!!

Did he cite quality of life issues, help for families with children, health of women or

anything like that?

No -- he cited the need for capitalism to be able to expand thru increased labor!!!


The overpopulation campaigns were stopped almost as they began -- and rarely heard of

again!!! But, quite effective as you can see from reports even today -- until the

recent new "baby boom."

[Hello_Kitty]

84. It's funny that Italy still has one of the lowest birth rates in the world

When women have education and economic opportunities they tend to limit the size of their families. And the number of women in developed countries who opt out of motherhood entirely is growing. I can't find the article online but there was a stat that the number of childless women over 40 in the U.S. is the highest it's ever been. I attribute the recent "baby boom", at least in part, to the Abstinence Only assholes and the lies and misinformation they are spreading throughout communities. 40% of babies are born to unwed mothers, which I don't give a shit about from a moral standpoint, but you've got to believe that a good number of them are to young women who are ill-informed about contraception.

I really, really, can't stand "pro-natalism". First of all, there actually aren't enough jobs for the people we have now. The corporate canard about "labor shortages" is justification for outsourcing and low wages. The sad fact is that there are literally billions of people on the planet right now who work for less than a dollar a day. The only people who benefit from more people are cheap labor corporations and militaries.

[defendandprotect]

92. Absolutely and totally agree with your post . . .

especially this -- it's also what I'm thinking ---

I attribute the recent "baby boom", at least in part, to the Abstinence Only assholes and the lies and misinformation they are spreading throughout communities. 40% of babies are born to unwed mothers, which I don't give a shit about from a moral standpoint, but you've got to believe that a good number of them are to young women who are ill-informed about contraception.




:)

[gulfcoastliberal]

125. Good points; it's why the "Immigration Reform" bill iswritten by the Chamber of Commerce

To further flood the labor market with cheap labor. Funny how big business has such a problem with the free market determining wages. They have distorted the labor market from top to bottom.

[Hello_Kitty]

126. Damn straight.

It's basic arithmetic and yet you have so many otherwise intelligent liberals who refuse to do the simple math.

[alofarabia]

61. The solution to two problems at once...

Soylent Green!!

[defendandprotect]

81. Never saw t he movie . . . . just checked it at Wiki . . .

Thematic analysis
In the film, police detective Thorn is a "prophet of doom" who learns of the "most horrifying results" of the overpopulation and environmental disaster. In addition to being a prophet, "Thorn is a pioneer, a tragic hero willing to speak up and resist homogenizing forces as an individual." In the film's depiction of corporate corruption and police complicity in the cover-up, Thorn's "morality transcends all those around him" as he becomes the "sole voice of reason" as he "stands alone". After Thorn learns of the use of human bodies to make food, his main concern is with the future implications: that the Soylent food company will eventually "raise humans like cattle." After Thorn is shot by Soylent Corporation gunmen, he appears to be mortally wounded, and so his warnings about the horrors he witnessed in the Soylent plant "seem to be his last", making him a classic "tragic hero."<2>

In the film, Thorn's assistant Roth "serves as the reminder of better times." The aged researcher, a former professor, tells Thorn about the past, when "'real' food was plentiful and the natural environment thrived." Real food is a symbol of the past; as a result, when Thorn investigates the murder of Simonson, a Soylent board of directors member, Thorn takes "lettuce, tomatoes, apples, celery, onions, and even beef" from the wealthy man's luxury apartment. These rare and expensive luxuries were out of reach for all but the most powerful members of the society. When Thorn shows Roth the red filet of beef, Roth weeps at his realization of how much society has lost due to pollution and overpopulation. Now that most humans subsist on processed ration wafers, when Roth sees the "real" food, he asks “How did we come to this?”<2>

After Sol discovers that Soylent wafers are made from human flesh, and decides to end the horror by signing up for government-assisted suicide, Sol is shown a montage of beautiful natural images in the death chamber: flowers, deer, mountains, and rivers. When Thorn rushes to the active, voluntary euthanasia clinic to try to stop Sol, he is too late to save his friend, but he is able to share Sol's final moments. In Sol's last minutes alive, "Thorn shares Sol’s nostalgic moment" as Sol asks “Can you see it?” and “Isn’t it beautiful?”, which helps Thorn to realize "what he and the rest of the world has lost."<2>

[Blue_Tires]

228. most of the choice scenes are on youtube

especially the assisted suicide one....campy, funny and disturbing at the same time

[Hello_Kitty]

89. Soylent Green!

Totally going on the bingo card.

:eyes:

[MrScorpio]

80. So who's going to tell the British to stop screwing?

I wouldn't want the job to stand between a bunch of horny, drunken Brits and their sex.

Hmmm, horny, drunken British women... On second thought...

[defendandprotect]

93. That sounds like a Catholic question . . . presume all the "technology"

which so many here have such confidence in will deliver a more user-friendly,

1000% effective method of birth control -- for either gender--!!!

[Sultana]

87. Who would any1 want to live here, lol?

They don't have 2% milk, I mean for fuck sake x(





































Joking:D

[NorthernSpy]

115. You first, Mister Porritt.

:eyes:

[Hello_Kitty]

117. Sorry, that spot on my bingo card is full.

How about a hysterical reference to China's one-child policy? That's all I need and my card will be full.

[REP]

136. Do you already have

"but MY child will cure overpopulation!!1!"?

[Hello_Kitty]

142. Not yet but there have been several "technology will save us!" ones. eom

[NorthernSpy]

140. if the population desperately needs to be cut in half, then why did Porritt have TWO kids?

Those are his principles, after all. If he didn't follow them, then why should anyone else?

[Hello_Kitty]

143. You should ask him. Maybe he had them before he knew.

It's not like overpopulation is a socially acceptable topic for discussion. This thread provides ample evidence of that.

[GreenTea]

116. Send the excess to Australia, they want & need more people, the whole country has 23 million people

the 30 million Brits can live in the heat of the Outback creating more solar power and solar panels for the rest of the world.

[depakid]

151. Aussies already had the "ten pound poms"

Ask the Kiwis this time round....

:evilgrin:

[MadHound]

121. Hell, the whole world's population needs to be cut in half,

Good luck with getting that to happen though, the human race is going to continue to breed like rabbits until we've used up all our resources, crapped everywhere we shouldn't have, and then suffer a massive population collapse that will take much of the other species of flora and fauna with it. My only hope for the planet is that when that extinction level event comes along, mankind is not one of the survivors, thus enabling the rest of the natural world to heal itself.

[Hello_Kitty]

122. When the subject causes people on a progressive discussion board to have a shit fit

You know we are doomed. :evilfrown:

[vinylsolution]

130. The big die-off will not be pleasant....

... but it will happen, sooner rather than later.

A global cull of conservatives would be a good place to start.

[Hello_Kitty]

145. That would solve more than one problem since they have the most kids.

:P

And I LOVE that bumpersticker. :rofl:

[tinrobot]

131. Overpopulation is the elephant in the room

Nobody wants to mention it, but we absolutely need to stabilize and ultimately reduce the population of the planet.

In some ways, climate change is only a symptom of a much larger problem -- too many people.

[20score]

132. Exactly!

[leftstreet]

150. Americans waste more water brushing their teeth than a village consumes in a year

(I don't know if that's true, I just made it up.)

It's about resources and overconsumption.

[tinrobot]

174. Overpopulation IS overconsumption.

[Hannah Bell]

234. not when one american's consumption = nine africans'.

the developed world is at or below replacement.

we know who people mean when they rattle on about "overpopulation"

[tinrobot]

243. There's too many people in the West as well...

Too many people everywhere, in fact.

That's what I meant.

Anything you inferred about what I meant is from your own biases...

[ddeclue]

135. This is chicken little sky is falling crap..

People were saying this 30 years ago when the world's population was half of what it is now.

[MadHound]

138. And look what's happened in the interim

Massive starvation, running out of vital resources, increase in pollutions, thousands more species extinct, loss of billions of acres of natural habitat, hmm, maybe those people were exactly right about this:shrug:

Oh, and thirty years ago, the population numbers were about two thirds what they are now, and yes, the signs of our planet being severely stressed were around back then. A shame we didn't pay them heed and start cutting back our population growth then.

[Hannah Bell]

237. yes, & 200 years ago when mr malthus was writing his treatise,

there were 1 billion, & - amazingly, people WERE STILL STARVING.

And twits like Malthus were still blaming it on overpopulation.

[Hello_Kitty]

144. The people saying this 30 years ago were right. eom

[20score]

168. Thank you! That's important.

[CJCRANE]

146. Here's another one for your Bingo card...

"Children of Men"...

If there are no kids who will pay the taxes and look after the old folk?

[Hello_Kitty]

149. Love it! It's actually come up a couple of times on this thread.

That's one of my favorite canards because it's clear that the person using it hasn't thought it out to its logical conclusion. If more workers need to be produced in order to take care of the future retired ones then what happens when those workers get old and retire? Why, they'll need even MORE workers to be produced to take care of them! And so on and so on. Plus, you gotta love the false dichotomy. There can't be "some" kids. No, there can only be masses of them or none at all.

Also, you'd think that every single old person gets their own personal attendant the way some people talk. Since the care of old people is ostensibly so important, then why are they currently being tended to by people making $7 an hour?

[vinylsolution]

155. With a face like mine....

.... keeping my DNA to mysef has been very easy.

[Gregorian]

161. Nothing a few beers couldn't handle.

That can't be a real neck. Yikes.

[josephT]

158. Oh man. Will this ever get the Xtians worked up.

I can here it now............ Britain is a socialist country, therefore, socialists believe in culling the herd And wait until they get going on birth control and abortion.

Tony Perkins, in his next moralistic rant, will claim that Great Britaiin is now killing babies like the U.S. in 3.........2...........1.............

[Gregorian]

160. Not intelligent ones.

I'm one. And I am one of the strongest voices anywhere on this subject. I also think religion in general is usually a hoax. Like anything, there's a very thin band of the good stuff.

[Gregorian]

159. Wow. I keep waiting and waiting and waiting to hear these words.

Finally. And of course he'll be labeled as a nut.

We're way way over our limit of sustainability. We are sustaining our population artificially.

We are artificially sustaining our population!

So we talk about how we're going to engineer our way out. We talk about seeding the skies in order to curb warming. Mirrors in space! And yet it seems to escape everyone that it's not "doing" that is going to help. It's "not doing" that is the solution.

This economic bump in the road we're having is just the first in what I predict is a series of progressively worse bumps. That is because economies are based on resources. And resources are made scarce by virtue of, you guessed it, population.

Ignore it and see where your children get to live.

[20score]

169. Right on.

[tinrobot]

175. Bingo.

[CreekDog]

192. Ringo

[ForrestGump]

235. Dingo

And, no, I'm not going to explore the population-control potential....

[Joe Chi Minh]

165. Is he going to be the first one to absent himself, be an example?

[Hello_Kitty]

171. Dude, that ground has already been covered in several posts upthread.

How about something original so I can start a new bingo card?

[and-justice-for-all]

166. That is bazzare to say the least...

never thought I would ever read that.

Just how do they think they are going to achieve this? I would rather let mother nature take it course, then any other action by people in decrease population.

Porritt said: “Population growth, plus economic growth, is putting the world under terrible pressure." That is true.

[Horse with no Name]

178. Here is where "choice" gets turned on its head

for all of those that are NOT in favor of it. As the pendulum swings...and the "choice" means FORCING someone else to have babies they don't want...now as the economic/food/water situation becomes dire...by NOT allowing choice, it means the government can force YOU to have an abortion or not have children at all.
See that slippery slope that the reasonable among us try to save you from?

[Wednesdays]

181. Where's Hello Kitty?

I think you just filled her Bingo card in one swoop!

:rofl:

[Irreverend IX]

179. Probably the only way to reduce the population short of mass killing...

Would be to genetically engineer a sterilizing plague that would affect a large portion of the population. Not the most morally palatable thing to do, but at some point the only alternative is going to be death on a scale that's difficult to imagine. The use of nitrogen-based fertilizers has wrecked the planet's arable land to an extent that the global population will soon cease to be sustainable.

[notesdev]

182. On one condition....

I get to pick which half. The author can go first, as a symbol of his utter dedication to the cause.

[New Dawn]

183. The rich need to stop having kids.

Of course, I doubt that Mr Popritt is concerned about that...

[Leopolds Ghost]

213. Actually, if we induced over-population growth among the rich, it would devalue overlarge estates

And hopefully reduce the income gap.

It's called reverse upward mobility, and it's what led to the creation of the post-medieval Middle Class, as the oppressive landowning gentry out-bred the starving peasants, leading to smaller and smaller parcel size until they could no longer afford to oppress the peasants, and the poor could afford to compete for land with the scions of formerly prominent families. The downside is the squabbling heirs tend to start lots of wars among each other in an effort to reconsolidate control of the land and wealth. You might call it a "modest proposal", I'm not saying it would work.

The trouble is, it wouldn't work for the global super-rich,

they are just too rich compared to the ruling class in eras past.

They can buy the largest government in the world three times over and ask them to do anything if need be.

And are doing so as we speak.

[Hello_Kitty]

289. Bill Gates could have 9000 kids and still leave each of them a shitload of money. eom

[Juche]

184. Him first. I totally disagree

More people means more consumers, but it also means more scientists and engineers to help us get out of this situation. If the world had 1/3 as many people it would have 1/3 as much wealth and 1/3 fewer engineers working on ways to create affordable renewable energy. Progress on alternative energies would be slower with fewer people.

And the world has more than enough potential energy in solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear to power 100 earths. SO the argument that 'we have to cut population to cut greenhouse gases' is a red herring. All we have to do is use a fraction of 1% of the potential energy we have available to us via solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, tidal, etc.

[Hello_Kitty]

293. This post is a bingo card all by itself.

Congrats. :thumbsup:

[autorank]

186. What a total lack of imagination

Population control yes. Cutting the population in half, ridiculous.

The real variable that's never discussed is scientific innovation. The projections
for the environment and very important. But to say something like this is absurd.

It's a challenge. They've created the problem, the "they" being the same folks who
created the financial disaster. But we can focus on it and build sustainable
communities to support the people that exist.

The next step after a stupid statement like this out of Brown's government is something
out of "V"...really sad bunch of politicians over there. They're carrying on the Blair
tradition.

[Hello_Kitty]

188. Scientific innovation is never discussed? Are you kidding me?

It's one of the first justifications pronatalists grasp for when they defend unchecked procreation. There are several comments referring to it on this thread. Technology will save us! We can innovate! Space colonies! OTOH, when the potential of an actual decline in the population is raised it's "OMG! Who would take care of the old people? Who would fund the retirements?". For some reason, the ability of innovation and technology to find a solution to that situation is an impossibility.

[autorank]

198. Scienetific innovation is a key variable. Are you reading me?

I didn't say that innovation was going to solve all the problems we face. It's a mix of solutions,
one of which damn well better be innovation. I said that straight lining trends without introducing
that variable, innovation, is flawed logic and not realistic. The Brown government is very much
to blame on this. The scenarios that don't include this variable will be used to starve and
deny us what we need and have a right to in the name of saving the planet. In reality, it will just
be a scam to meet the ugly ends of people who have nearly ruined the earth.

Don't associate me with anyone this. I'm making a logical and realistic point. We don't know
what is down the road with science. We do know that there's some very serious innovation being
done with solar, doubling and more the capacity of solar cell and reducing costs of manufacturing
to less than half. Apply that to a massive project to roll out this for everyone in the US and
you've made a huge dent in the world's pollution and shortage crisis. That's some science, on hand,
and a lot of policy and initiative, something that ALL governments lack, in the extreme.

You said, "For some reason, the ability of innovation and technology to find a solution to that
situation is an impossibility." "is an impossibility" is meaningless. The correct way to
describe the situation is "innovation ... has not solved our current problems." To say that
it will be an "impossibility" is ridiculous. To say that it was an impossibility implies that
time ended. To say that it "is" an impossibility is simply grammatically incorrect unless you
can predict the future and guarantee that it will never happen.

[Hello_Kitty]

200. I didn't say innovation was impossible to address the issues of a declining population

I was saying that's how pronatalists act about it. I was pointing out the contradiction of holding out the promise of innovation to justify not curbing population growth while, at the same time, refusing to consider that innovation could be harnessed to figure out how to, for example, care for old people with a smaller workforce.

[autorank]

210. Well then you weren't talking to me. I'm not a "pronatalist"

I'm making a comment, originally, on zero sum analysis and how it's both incomplete but also
a useful tool to ration all sorts of things for us. Whenever they say "sacrifice," check it
out. It's often a load of nonsense to justify some inefficiency or fabricated scarcity to
drive up prices.

The environment requires a very serious but rapidly developed master plan. If we don't get
that we're truly doomed.

[ForrestGump]

236. If you WERE a 'pronatalist,'

New Balance offers some great running shoes that can compensate for it.

[Hello_Kitty]

282. A serious but rapidly developed master plan that doesn't look at population

Is doomed from the outset. I'm sorry but the earth IS zero-sum. It's all we got and we've damn near destroyed it with our stupidity.

[CreekDog]

191. Jonathan Swift is his advisor?

:wtf:

[Hello_Kitty]

193. Clearly I need a bigger bingo card.

The one I filled doesn't have a "Modest Proposal" space but it should.

[suede1]

194. The world should follow suit, even if there are so many pushing for doing nothing.

We need a world wide campaign to cut birth rate.

[bridgit]

204. Nope, not me, I'm not going to ref Malthus in the fucking slightest know why?

Cause DU is chock full of smart ass mother fuckers and it is incumbent upon them to assert their various trendings yes INDEED!

[earth mom]

205. I agree that there should be population control, but somehow this gives me the heebie jeebies

:scared:

:tinfoilhat:

[Naturyl]

206. So, the 15 of you who rec'd this...

Are going to be volunteering to help exterminate the "excess," right?

Seriously, though - overpopulation is not the problem. Faulty resource distribution is.

[Hello_Kitty]

207. Gee, it's not like several other people have already made that acerbic observation on this thread

:eyes:

But thanks for "It's not population that's the problem, it's distribution!" Definitely should go on a bingo card.

[Leopolds Ghost]

209. The irony is all the idiots who think population crash leads to economic stagnation: WRONG!

The Black Death kicked off the economic boom of the Renaissance by leveling the economig playing field and increasing demand for labor, says every reputable book on the subject. Why the fuck do you guys think the Global Hyper-Elite wants to maintain exponential growth? Well, a) to ensure disaster-driven change, which they can plan for and benefit from, is the only alternative to the status quo, hence the newfound conservatism of most Democrats. Folks are afraid of change (punitive taxes on the rich are unconstitutional, remember? and I'm all for a homeless shelter, but it's illegal to build it in MY neighborhood... blame the constitution!) and hence terminal civilizational decline is in order, according to Jared Diamond's and Amy Chua's analyses. But b), Because they maintain 50% of all resultant wealth, but lose 50% of RELATIVE wealth in a population-driven deflation while the surviving underclass GAIN relative economic status. Start with "A Distant Mirror" by Barbara Tuchman.

[Leopolds Ghost]

212. Not that dramatic population decline is a GOOD thing.

It's just that the people that survive always benefit economically, (which is why nobody wants to be the one to sacrifice their family tree) while the rich benefit from exponential population growth. When 1% of the population get richer and richer, it is always relative to someone else's wealth. Or else it just means they are taking the same penny out of a million more pockets a month.

[Hello_Kitty]

247. The pronatalists act like anything less than unending growth is a CATASTROPHE

"Dear God, who will take care of the old people??!?" Yeah, because every single old person needs their own personal attendant. And boy would it be onerous if we had to pay people more than the $7 an hour we're paying them now to care for the elderly.

"Dear God, how will we fund retirements without more workers??!?" Hmm, let's see, maybe we could come up with alternatives to the Ponzi Scheme of endless growth that is our current economic model?

[Hello_Kitty]

246. This, this, and FUCKING this.

Why the hell do so many smart people lose their ability to do basic arithmetic where macro population growth is concerned? They can obviously see it at the micro level, as evidenced by the fact that educated people tend to limit the size of their families such that their children will benefit from more resources and attention. But when it comes to global population, they turn into Cornucopian dumbasses. They're so besotted with babies and enamored with cheap immigrant-picked tomatoes that they literally cannot see straight.

[JCMach1]

211. However, our social programs are created with a growing population in mind

cue liberal cognitive dissonance...



Social programs or sustainability?

[Hello_Kitty]

254. Sustainable social programs?

Like I keep harping on in this thread: If "innovation" can solve the problems of too many people, then why can't that same innovation figure out a way to take care of retirees in a declining population? I mean surely, with 6 billion plus people we have now, there are a few brainiacs who can figure something out besides the current Ponzi scheme?

[Lucian]

214. What's he suggesting? Doing a "Logan's Run" type of thing?

Once you turn 21, you die?

[sofa king]

219. That fellow is almost certainly correct.

According to this .pdf document, the population of the United Kingdom in 1901 was 38 million and only increased after that.

In both world wars, the Germans astutely recognized that the U.K. subsisted only through overseas imports, and sought to choke off those supplies through commerce raiding. In both cases, there was a point in time where the Germans were on a pace to succeed.

The U.K. has its own furious debates over whether or not the nation should maintain its empire and whether or not it should continue to sink a huge amount of money into its navy. As long as the population of the U.K. remains above the sustainability of the home islands, however, they will have to invest heavily in a navy to protect their people, or else risk the lives of millions.

[Hannah Bell]

225. The UK's fertility rate has been under 2.0 since the 70's. Its population increases are the result

of its own immigration (cheap labor) policy.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?ID=951

1/15 women in the UK of childbearing age were born elsewhere.

[LanternWaste]

238. The fatal intersection of science and ethics...

The fatal intersection (dramatic exaggeration only) of science and ethics may become readily apparent when we compare stories which suggest responsible procreative habits against stories which tell us of a single mom's having thirteen children, or a religious family having a dozen or more children.

A rather dramatic contrast in the tone and tenor of many a posters end message.

[seemslikeadream]

239. : "The Bank of England and No.10 at war: We can't afford Budget spending spree, Governor tells Brow

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1164440/Brown-plays-rift-Bank-England-tries-sell-economic-recovery-plan-U-S.html

[surrealAmerican]

241. “Each person in Britain has far more impact on the environment ...

... than those in developing countries so cutting our population is one way to reduce that impact.”
Yes, that is ONE way, the other way is to use fewer resources per person than you do now. The "if there were only fewer of us we could be as wasteful as we are now" argument, while true, is not a workable solution, and even if it were, you would still want to find ways to reduce your impact on a per person basis.

[ContinentalOp]

248. Overpopulation is a myth.

And anyone who perpetuates it is a fascist asshole. He even admits as much when he says "Each person in Britain has far more impact on the environment than those in developing countries." The problem is overconsumption of resources by a few countries, not overpopulation.

[Hello_Kitty]

253. Meanwhile, China and India are catching up.

Infinite growth on a finite planet...

[ContinentalOp]

255. Population growth is not infinite.

It's slowing down. :shrug:

[Hello_Kitty]

257. Population momentum.

We're not salmon. We don't spawn and then die. When a couple has 2 children, there are now 4 people. Very often, the couple will live to see their grandchildren, and possibly great-grandchildren. So even with "replacement", or less-than-replacement rates, the population will continue to grow for several decades. Despite China's one-child policy, they have added 10 million people a year to their population. Sorry, but "slowing down" is not good enough. It needs to drop precipitously.

[ContinentalOp]

261. No, CONSUMPTION needs to drop.

Unless you favor war, famine, eugenics, genocide, etc. What viable solution is there for your population control? You simply want to control the birth rate so you can continue to consume at an obscene rate.

[Hello_Kitty]

264. You're the one who thinks overpopulation is a myth

Which means you are in denial about the war and famine and genocide that is sure to occur. As for eugenics, where pray tell are you getting the idea that I'm for that? Has there been anything in my posts that suggests I'm for eugenics? Outside of your imagination, that is?

You simply want to control the birth rate so you can continue to consume at an obscene rate.

Well, I suppose I could do a lot to curtail my consumption. I'll get right on it. They tell me my not having a child is worth 70 years of recycling, so there's that. :shrug:

[suede1]

260. Not even close! But then again, you really haven't tried yet, have you?

Plus, facts don't have a political bias, they just are. Do you really believe that the fact that the oceans are being emptied at an alarming rate has nothing to do with population? The rain forests being lost forever? The quality of life in large cities? Jesus Christ! Read Of Cannibals and Kings. This isn't new and it's obvious; we're already overpopulated.

[ContinentalOp]

262. The quality of live in large cities is just fine.

Consumption is the issue, not population. According to the article posted below that you're all ignoring, the world population will start to decrease in 30 years or so.

I just checked your profile and noticed that you too are an Angeleno. Nice to meet you! Anyway, are you aware that we live in the most densely populated city in the U.S.? Do you think the population itself is a problem or the use of resources? The hummers, the energy consumption, the water use, etc.

[ContinentalOp]

249. Here's a great essay debunking this nonsense.

http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/3046/overpop.htm

"...there will be sixteen houses per acre with four persons to a house, each house on a plot of 100 by 30 feet, in groups of four. This results in a density of 64 persons per acre, (which is considerably less than the 100-200 people per acre that is average in many cities already!). Each plot of four will be surrounded by service roads and a network of pedestrian access ways...

...once all fifty eight million people now living in the British Isles are housed in this luxurious way, the entire city needs to be only 44 miles in diameter! And to continue the Great Plan, all the necessary public buildings and factories to provide work for the populace are built within an outer ring, bringing the total diameter to 62 miles!"

[Hello_Kitty]

252. Yeah! And everyone on the planet can fit into the state of Texas!

:eyes:

[ContinentalOp]

256. I know, the facts can be such a drag...

When you have a fun eugenics party going on!

[Hello_Kitty]

259. Oh hon, I've filled that bingo spot already.

Can't you come up with something new? Yawn. :eyes:

[ContinentalOp]

263. Sorry, I'm not playing bingo.

I don't think that talk of population control is a game.

[Hello_Kitty]

281. But I am playing bingo and I can fill the whole card with your nonsense.

Too bad overpopulation and it's horrific effects on the planet (that are occuring right now BTW) isn't very much fun.

[muriel_volestrangler]

270. That 'debunks' bugger all

It talks about the equivalent of converting southern England to one huge farm (thus wiping out various species), though without actually working out if that would still feed the population of the UK, and says nothing whatsoever about where energy, water, and sustainable input to the soil comes from. Just because someone achieves a good yield on a small patch that gets regular manure on it, you can't then just say "oh, everyone will have a patch that does just as well".

It's just ramblings from someone with a calculator and a few minutes to work out some population densities.

Here's something serious: the WWF ecological footprint calculator.

http://footprint.wwf.org.uk/static/national_footprint

Note that the average UK inhabitant is using 3.1 times the available global land. So, if we halved the population, and became a third more efficient (mainly by stopping using so much energy), we'd just about get there. And decreasing the population (less children per adult, longer generation times) is one of the easiest ways to achieve this. Better sex education (the UK has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe), free contraception, easily available abortion, better educational and career prospects for young women - they'll all help.

The average for the planet has been above the sustainable level since the 1980s - by 2003, using 2.2 hectares per person, when 1.8 hectares were available.

A report: http://assets.panda.org/downloads/living_planet_report.pdf

[backwoodsbob]

251. so much hysteria inthis thread...so little thought

*snip* Brazil, a land once known for its celebration of dental-floss bikinis and youthful carnival exuberance, is an aging nation that no longer produces enough children to replace its population.The same is true of Chile and Costa Rica. Joining them over the next 10 to 20 years, the U.N. projects, will be many other countries Americans still tend to associate with youth bulges including Mexico, Argentina, Indonesia, India, Vietnam, Algeria, Kuwait, Libya and Morocco. Think we need to build a wall on the southern border? Birthrates have declined so quickly in Mexico that its population of children younger than 15 has been in free-fall since 2000 and is expected to drop by one-third over the next 40 years. *snip*

*snip* The U.N. projects that world population could begin declining as early 2040. Those worried about global warming and other environmental threats might view this prospect as an unmitigated good. But lost in most discussions of the subject is the rapid population aging that accompanies declining birthrates. *snip*


http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/03/headed-toward-e.html

[Odin2005]

269. the world population is expected to level out at around 9 billion and then start to decline.

When a country reaches a certain level of development children become more expensive to raise and are not needed as extra hands to help sustain the family, and thus the birth rate declines rapidly to below-replacement levels. The problem is not population control, the problem is to get us past the 9 billion hump and to readjust the economy to fit the below-replacement birthrate so it doesn't screw up social security and cause wage-push inflation.

The fears of exponential population growth are simply wrong and simply don't fit with the demographic facts, nor does it with with the "growth is evil" nonsense since economic development is necessary to bring down the birthrate.

[Hello_Kitty]

283. Can the earth sustain the level of development to get us to that point?

And BTW how is that accomplished without high wages? Just so you know, "wage-push inflation" is economist code for "less money for the plutocrats because there aren't as many laborers so we have to pay the stinking proles more".

[Odin2005]

284. Yes it can through technology and *GASP* RECYCLING!

A very simple way to reduce resource use is to use the same stuff over and over again. This is not done simply because it's cheaper to get new material instead of reusing used material. To get around this problem manufactures should be required to make their products at least partially out of recycled materials. Of course it takes energy to recycle the material which is why we need to invest massively in renewable and nuclear energy.

And wage-push inflation IS a real phenomenon. Just because RWers misuse it to push their agenda doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[Hello_Kitty]

287. Every technology is extractive. Including recycling.

Recycling not only uses energy, it also uses water. Solar energy requires mining of metals to make the panels. Mind you, I'm for all of these things but they're impactful on the planet and should not be seen as a free pass to avoid addressing population. How about we lower birthrates AND recycle instead of waiting for population rates to taper off in 30 years? And no, it doesn't need to be coercive. As muriel volestrangler put so eloquently:

There are advanced countries with fertility rates down around 1.3 (such as Japan and Italy). If a country sustained that for some decades, the population would really fall - in a gradual manner, with no forced family planning. If the majority of people looked on having children as a huge step, to be done when you're ready, and only then, and with no societal pressure on people to "settle down and have a family" or "give us some grandchildren", we'd get a long way towards that.

Unfortunately they have government officials in both those countries wringing their hands over "low birthrates" instead of celebrating the fact that children get more resources and women have more freedom (don't kid yourself pro-natalism is all about the patriarchy). And unfortunately, as evidenced by this thread, people cannot conceive of way to lower birthrates quickly without conjuring up horrific scenarios like China's draconian policy or sci-fi dystopias.

[BigBluenoser]

271. Would this not also require a 0% immigration rate?

Because due to the nature of UK consumption they put a significant demand on resources, allowing folks to immigrate from a less resource consuming locale would be a negative impact on the planet. So reduced birth rates & zero immigration required. Gotcha.

So, this sounds like a good way to get the whole "England for the English" things going strong. Good work. Seriously.

[muriel_volestrangler]

273. Any policy will be a balance between sharing resources or opportunities with other countries

and keeping an approximately consistent lifestyle for the present inhabitants.

If a country with a high GDP per capita allowed unlimited immigration, and offered all existing social benefits to all such immigrants, then it would go bankrupt. It would not have the resources to build homes for everyone, to import the food necessary, the energy to run the homes, and so on. There would not be jobs for all the immigrants.

So immigration will be restricted somehow, inevitably. At the moment, some in the UK say extra immigration is needed to ensure a constantly growing population that provides cheap labour for things like crop picking and old people's homes. But if we got people to pay more for things like care, via some higher taxes, then perhaps more young people would take that as a serious career option, rather than having a few children starting as a teenager, and hoping that government benefits will all make it turn out OK.

Porritt has a long, long track record of left-of-centre politics in the UK. He is no 'England for the English' type.

[chrisa]

274. Interesting graph

Ironically, if this graph is right, the earth might be kind of lonely in 2100.

[muriel_volestrangler]

276. What's the scenario for that graph? (nt)

[chrisa]

278. I'm not sure.

I think just a general projection. I found one like it related to peak oil, but the image wouldn't show up.

Just guessing, but it could also take into account falling family sizes, and European countries going population bust.

[muriel_volestrangler]

285. No, it's some kind of disaster scenario

Compare it with the recent UN estimates for 2050:

low: 7,959 million; medium: 9,150 million; high: 10,461 million
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2008/wpp2008_text_tables.pdf

Press release:

1. In July 2009, the world population will reach 6.8 billion, 313 million more than in 2005
or a gain of 78 million persons annually. Assuming that fertility levels continue to
decline, the world population is expected to reach 9.1 billion in 2050 and to be increasing
by about 33 million persons annually at that time, according to the medium variant.

2. Future population growth is highly dependent on the path that future fertility takes. In the
medium variant, fertility declines from 2.56 children per woman in 2005-2010 to 2.02
children per woman in 2045-2050. If fertility were to remain about half a child above the
levels projected in the medium variant, world population would reach 10.5 billion by
2050. A fertility path half a child below the medium would lead to a population of 8
billion by mid-century. Consequently, population growth until 2050 is inevitable even if
the decline of fertility accelerates.

3. In the more developed regions, fertility has increased slightly in recent years so that its
estimated level in 2005-2010, 1.64 children per woman, according to the 2008 Revision is
higher than the one reported in the 2006 Revision (1.60 children per woman). As a result
of the slightly higher projected fertility and a sustained net in-migration averaging 2.4
million annually, the population of the more developed regions is expected to increase
slightly from 1.23 billion in 2009 to 1.28 billion in 2050.

4. The population of the 49 least developed countries is still the fastest growing in the
world, at 2.3 per cent per year. Although its rate of increase is expected to moderate
significantly over the next decades, the population of the least developed countries is
projected to double, passing from 0.84 billion in 2009 to 1.7 billion in 2050. Growth in
the rest of the developing world is also projected to be robust, though less rapid, with its
population rising from 4.8 billion to 6.2 billion between 2009 and 2050 according to the
medium variant.

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2008/pressrelease.pdf

[Hello_Kitty]

279. But kind of crowded around 2020. That's going to suck. eom

[LWolf]

275. I support reducing the population in every nation by 1/2.

I'd prefer reducing it by about 75%, but 1/2 would be a good start.

[20score]

277. The debate shouldn't be on whether or not to bring down the population, but by how much and

the best means. OF COURSE the world is over populated.

[Kaleva]

286. Nature will take care of the problem

If the population exceeds the food supply, mass starvation, disease, and wars will provide the necessary correction.

[LanternWaste]

291. I imagine there are far less violent means...

I imagine there are far less violent and dramatic means at our disposal through education.

[dysfunctional press]

290. sack the richest and the poorest.

the wealthiest 25% and the poorest 25% are sent packing, and their assets distributed equally among those who remain.

problem solved.

next?