Have 1 Child: Save the World?

[Bernie Gunther]

There are some discussions of the population myth that aren't written by right-wing crazies. Here's Bookchin.

Once we accept without any reflection or criticism that we live in a "grow-or-die" capitalistic society in which accumulation is literally a law of economic survival and competition is the motor of "progress," anything we have to say about population is basically meaningless. The biosphere will eventually be destroyed whether five billion or fifty million live on the planet. Competing firms in a "dog-eat-dog" market must outproduce each other if they are to remain in existence. They must plunder the soil, remove the earth's forests, kill off its wildlife, pollute its air and waterways not because their intentions are necessarily bad, although they usually are <discursive rant about hippies snipped> but because they must simply survive.

source

 

[ska invita]

Although I agree with Bookchins sentiment, and I am also not trying to suggest that population is the silver bullet with which to save the world (despite the thread title!) a greatly reduced population (in Bookchin's example 50m as opposed to 5b) would have a greatly reduced combined spending power/consumption potential. I think a 50million global population would have a dramatic effect on the practices of "competing firms".

Remeber also that much of the production of goods at present is specifically designed to be temporary and replacable - the "built to last" ethos has all but disappeared in the current capitalist mode. From what I understand there are different thoughts regarding the role of techonology in an ecologist's Utopia, but a smaller population which has harnessed the best of technology in doing the boring, exhausting jobs that may need to be done will have more time to invest in creating objects/goods of lasting value. This whole area is a minefield of speculation and economic ifs and buts, so I'm going to stop now!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On another note I want to bring up the subject of fertility treatments and adoption. Another story today about possible breakthrough advances in fertilization issues:
Whole frozen ovary transplanted http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4244750.stm

Is it a fundamental human right to have to have your own child? In a world of so many unwanted children, desperate for adoption, why do people go to the ends of the scientific earth to have their "own" children?

The overcoming of infertility problems seems to be a holy grail for science at the moment - barely a week goes by without some story or other about how science is getting closer to overcoming the infertility barrier. Why dont these poeple just accept it, do the whole world a favour and adopt?

 

[ICB]

Nice bunch of US right wing, Xtian, Anti-abortion links there...

The main contention seems to be the it's a myth based on the amount of space we take up. So the amount of world resources consumed by the average westerner is immaterial? The amount of water, oil and energy used to manufacture all his 'wants'?

I don't think that 'myth' can be debunked quite so readily.

If everyone in the world lived like people in the EU and the States we'd be fucked quick time. It takes 39,000 gallons of water to make one car and of course everyone would require one of those... the water table is dropping alarmingly. Have you ever flown over the States? the amount of agriculture is ridiculous... that ain't countryside, that's production.

I think reducing the population of the greediest nations would make a big difference. (Says a father to be )

That's just a random selection courtesy of google and includes various perspectives, there are lots of different takes on the issue. Yes, I've flown over the states, in fact I've worked with a large agricultural manufacturer in Nebraska, which is about as agricultural as it gets.

The most developed nations have fairly static populations, it's when countries are going thorugh industrial and post-industrial development that they tend to see a big spike in population, largely through massively improved life-expectancy without a counteracting ready availability of birth control methods. The idea that over population rather than use and abuse of resources is the issue strikes me as fatalistic claptrap at best.

Besides, even if it holds some merit it's purely academic - what are you going to do, prescribe some form of mass genocide or eugenics? So we'd be better of concentrating on the things we can do something about, like encouraging people to eat local and seasonal food, improving public transport, supporting the UN's attempts to get the US to stop behaving like a spoilt child, discouraging the purchase of new cars until there are smarter cleaner ones on the market, lobbying for much higher environmental standards when renewing housing stock, etc. All the things that the over-population alarmists would have us believe are too insignificant to worry about. Basically people like things simple, a single explanation is so much more cosy and convenient than a hugely complex intermeshedness of cause and effect.

 

[Structaural]

That's just a random selection courtesy of google and includes various perspectives, there are lots of different takes on the issue. Yes, I've flown over the states, in fact I've worked with a large agricultural manufacturer in Nebraska, which is about as agricultural as it gets.

The most developed nations have fairly static populations, it's when countries are going thorugh industrial and post-industrial development that they tend to see a big spike in population, largely through massively improved life-expectancy without a counteracting ready availability of birth control methods. The idea that over population rather than use and abuse of resources is the issue strikes me as fatalistic claptrap at best.

I think both are issues to be honest, look how much the UK imports from other countries to supply the 60 million living there. Land is continually being eroded to provide more agriculture. More people: more land to grow food, more roads to transport it, more pollution from more vehicles, more landfill, less diversity of food, more animals raises....
If each Chinese person consumed as much as the US then we would need about 5 extra planets.
The problem with population increases is that it is so exponential and whereas most developed nations are slowing down the developing countries have massive populations that will want the level of comfort afforded to the West because.. well, why shouldn't they?

Besides, even if it holds some merit it's purely academic - what are you going to do, prescribe some form of mass genocide or eugenics?

Yeah true, some education on the subject maybe, less stigma on those who choose not to have kids, - of course if it's continually referred to as a myth then no one will be interested.

So we'd be better of concentrating on the things we can do something about, like encouraging people to eat local and seasonal food, improving public transport, supporting the UN's attempts to get the US to stop behaving like a spoilt child, discouraging the purchase of new cars until there are smarter cleaner ones on the market, lobbying for much higher environmental standards when renewing housing stock, etc. All the things that the over-population alarmists would have us believe are too insignificant to worry about. Basically people like things simple, a single explanation is so much more cosy and convenient than a hugely complex intermeshedness of cause and effect.

Well that's your own projection, to talk about population growth doesn't mean that other factors are ignored. Environmentalism considers all those things in my book... I agree with your points but I think overpopulation will be an increasing problem but I can't prove it... yet...

 

[chooch]

Besides, even if it holds some merit it's purely academic - what are you going to do, prescribe some form of mass genocide or eugenics?

Only cunts would prescribe such things. And evidence from places like Kerala shows it's not necessary. There's been some mention of radical stuff like empowering women (educationally, economically, etc.). Given some educational and economic opportunities, a reasonable guarantee that any children they do choose to have will make it through childhood, and some hope that they won't be entirely destitute if they don't have lots of kids to support them in old age, it seems most women aren't in a big hurry to reproduce.

Amartya Sen has done some interesting stuff on population myths...

 

[the B]

Sen, what a legend

 

[ska invita]

from amrtya sen:

"The long-run impact on the global environment of population growth in the developing countries can be expected to be large. As the Indians and the Zimbabweans develop economically, they too will consume a great deal more, and they will pose, in the future, a threat to the earth's environment similar to that of people in the rich countries today. The long-run threat of population to the environment is a real one."

----Exactly: it is the ratio of ever growing consumption to ever growing population that is the problem. As Sen say's the GDP rates per person are growing faster for the developing world than for anyone else, and this is partly because of the state of modern capitalists enterprise, which has hit new lows in its ability to make goods in a way that is wasteful and environmentaly damaging.

"There is indeed a very powerful case for reducing the rate of growth of population in Africa, but this problem cannot be dissociated from the rest of the continent's woes. Sub-Saharan Africa lags behind other developing regions in economic security, in health care, in life expectancy, in basic education, and in political and economic stability. It should be no great surprise that it lags behind in family planning as well. To dissociate the task of population control from the politics and economics of Africa would be a great mistake and would seriously mislead public policy."

----THe whole population issue is intrinisically tied to political matters, not just in Africa but everywhere in the world.

"There are reasons for worry about the long-term effects of population growth on the environment; and there are strong reasons for concern about the adverse effects of high birth rates on the quality of life, especially of women."

---Lower population is all about a better standard of life for all: As Bernie G's quote points out "with a model that describes "business as usual" you can support a global population of about 2 billion with EU standards of living and something less than a billion with US standards of living. We have 6 billion right now." Its about bringing up the standard of living for all, including curbing excess at the top, so that as many people as possible can share in a good standard of living

 

[upsidedownwalrus]

Overpopulation? Bollocks

Another one of those justifications perpetuated by the few in order to excuse their exploitation and subjugation of the many. We could sustain a population of 60billion+ if we got our shit together.

Yeah 60 billion living in one room shacks, with zero quality of life.

 

[upsidedownwalrus]

all of this kind of speculation ends up either in the China model, as mentioned, or in something scarily close to eugenics.

overpopulation simply isn't the problem

But if you look at China, overpopulation clearly is a huge problem (I should know, as I live in the thick of the highly populated central to eastern 'core' of China.

Nobody has anything in the way of real houses with gardens. There is little open green space or parkland to speak of. And you can drive out of the city for hours and go to what Mrs RD calls the 'countryside', where her parents live, and still is nowhere near what I would call real countryside. To the southwest, though there is more real wilderness, but that's out of the heart of what I call China proper.

If China can seem so extremely overpopulated, polluted, built up, imagine what a hellhole it would have been without those one child policies?

 

[ICB]

Yeah 60 billion living in one room shacks, with zero quality of life.

Isle of Wight anyone?

 

[Structaural]

Isle of Wight anyone?

My mum was there! Hendrix was very good.

 

[Structaural]

Isle of Wight anyone?

If they take their waste with them it might be a problem...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/env_was_gen


shit, Netherlands, UK and Denmark above the States - I'm surprised - must be all that ham and cheese packaging.

 

[kyser_soze]

Be interesting to find out what the constituents of those figures are. I reckon that air travel would feature quite heavily in the UK and European ones...

 

[ska invita]

France plans to pay cash for more babies

· Mothers may get €1,000 a month to have third child
· High birthrate fails to stop population shrinking
http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,11882,1575401,00.html

---cant say i approve: babies should not be bribed into existance. There are enough unwanted children in the world - France should fix up and let more people in through its borders, either that or just shrink if thats the way it is.

Its pure capitalist thinking that everything needs to keep growing, more human capital must be amassed.

 

[the B]

Capitalist think is more per capita.

Increased pop wrt France is about pension crunches.

 

[ska invita]

George monbiot weighs in:

"It’s time to lighten up about falling birthrates.
[...]
we could be expected to welcome the extraordinary news that, for the first time in history, without the help of plagues, wars or famines, the human population is expected soon to start declining
[...]
So, though I won’t be around to enjoy the results, I say roll on the partial extinction of the human species."

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/05/15/just-fade-away/

 

[ska invita]

This article in the paper made me resurrect this thread:

Population explosion threatens to trap Africa in cycle of poverty

· World's poorest nations set to triple in size
· Uganda leads growth that can change face of earth
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1857730,00.html

As anyone who has read this thread will know, I see population not as a race issue - all countries would beenfit from a reduced birth rate. The issues for African countries need to be looked at on the ir individual circumstances. In Africa the issue is birht control, or lack of it...

 

[ska invita]

Fantastic News - Lets hope this amounts to a big population drop off - and fast - contraception has a huge role in saving the planet IMO.

After decades of opposition, Vatican view on condoms begins to shift
http://www.guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,,1954759,00.html

 

[ska invita]

Nice to see this issue getting more airtime recently - there has been a thinktank launched that is pushing the agenda to reduce our global population, called the Optimum Population Trust
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/

PATRONS
Professor Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies, Stanford University

Jane Goodall PhD DBE, Founder, Jane Goodall Institute, and UN Messenger of Peace.

Susan Hampshire OBE, Actress and population campaigner

Professor Aubrey Manning OBE, Emeritus Professor of Natural History, University of Edinburgh

Professor Norman Myers CMG, Visiting Fellow, Green College, Oxford University, and at Universities of Harvard, Cornell, Stanford, California, Michigan and Texas

Sara Parkin OBE, Founder Director and Trustee of Forum for the Future and Director of the Natural Environment Research Council and the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education and Head Teachers into Industry.

Jonathon Porritt CBE, Founder Director of Forum for the Future and Chairman of the UK Sustainable Development Commission.

Professor Chris Rapley CBE, Director of the British Antarctic Survey

Sir Crispin Tickell GCMG KCVO, Chancellor of Kent University, Director of the Policy Foresight Programme at the James Martin Institute, and former UK Permanent Representative on the United Nations Security Council

They are putting out lots of information to try and change consciousness regarding this. For example:

The UK’s sustainable population based on current patterns of resource use is just over 17 million, less than a third of its actual population of 60 million*, according to new research from the Optimum Population Trust.
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.release04Dec06.htm

or

A radical form of “offsetting” carbon dioxide emissions to prevent climate change is proposed today – having fewer children.

Each new UK citizen less means a lifetime carbon dioxide saving of nearly 750 tonnes, a climate impact equivalent to 620 return flights between London and New York*, the Optimum Population Trust says in a new report.

Based on a “social cost” of carbon dioxide of $85 a tonne**, the report estimates the climate cost of each new Briton over their lifetime at roughly £30,000. The lifetime emission costs of the extra 10 million people projected for the UK by 2074 would therefore be over £300 billion. ***

A 35-pence condom, which could avert that £30,000 cost from a single use, thus represents a “spectacular” potential return on investment – around nine million per cent.
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.release07May07.htm

Check out the site for more...

 

[ska invita]

Sign the Green Planet petition:
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.petition.html
#

With world population set to rise 40 per cent by 2050, human numbers are a crucial element of ecological sustainability and the biggest underlying cause of many environmental problems. In the UK, population is projected to increase by a sixth - over 10 million people - in the next six decades. Yet population has become the issue no one wants to talk about - ignored by governments, politicians, environmental groups and the media because it's too 'sensitive'.

OPT believes the planet can't take any more people. It wants the UK to set an example to the world by adopting a national population policy - aimed, first, at stabilising and decreasing our numbers to what is environmentally sustainable and, second, maintaining them at that level (zero population growth).

 

[dash_two]

We could sustain a population of 60billion+ if we got our shit together.

 

[Fruitloop]

Why the fuck would we want 60 billion. Who wants to live like battery fucking chickens and have no wilderness left?

What exactly is better about there being so many more of us?

 

[dash_two]

Think I'll stick with my South London first floor conversion after all.

 

[i-am-your-idea]

people will start having less children when they want to, not when the government tells them too. tis as simple as that- unless you want to start stealing peoples wombs.

 

[samk]

The government could put contraceptives in the drug supply if they wanted...

 

[ska invita]

people will start having less children when they want to, not when the government tells them too. tis as simple as that- unless you want to start stealing peoples wombs.

Sure, government isn't the solution to everything, but if you look at an issue like contraception, in many countries government does nothing to help give people access to it, and allows religion to dominate the debate (what little debate there is).

Government can make a case and put out information - I certainly dont think it should be enforced - though CHina's position doesn't make this such an outlandish idea as it sounds on paper.

 

[ska invita]

Sure, government isn't the solution to everything, but if you look at an issue like contraception, in many countries government does nothing to help give people access to it, and allows religion to dominate the debate (what little debate there is).

Government can make a case and put out information - I certainly dont think it should be enforced - though CHina's position doesn't make this such an outlandish idea as it sounds on paper.

Excellent David AttenB fronted Horizon on Beeb/Iplayer today/this week, making the case for no-more-than-two-kids-or-so. Pretty much all the points raised in this thread were addressed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pdjmk

It reinforced what I already thought, but maybe it will convince those who don't think its important. Turns out David is personally supportive of 'optimum population'. The key points in the film are to make access to contraception a human right, and that by providing education to women (not just about sex, but general education) the birth rate comes down naturally.

***this thread is from 2005***

 

[TrippyLondoner]

Excellent David AttenB fronted Horizon on Beeb/Iplayer today/this week, making the case for no-more-than-two-kids-or-so. Pretty much all the points raised in this thread were addressed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pdjmk

It reinforced what I already thought, but maybe it will convince those who don't think its important. Turns out David is personally supportive of 'optimum population'. The key points in the film are to make access to contraception a human right, and that by providing education to women (not just about sex, but general education) the birth rate comes down naturally.

***this thread is from 2005***

I'm gonna look that up on iplayer at some point, worth watching i take it?(saw a few seconds earlier)

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Overpopulation? Bollocks

Another one of those justifications perpetuated by the few in order to excuse their exploitation and subjugation of the many. We could sustain a population of 60billion+ if we got our shit together.

Also promotes fear and distrust of others - divide and rule.

What a *coincidence* it is that, at the same time we're able to support a population at least twice its size, the myth of 'overpopulation' is more than ever popularized by reactionary ideology - NOT.

 

[IMR]

Gradual declines in birth rates worldwide are to be welcomed. They're happening anyway, and they go hand-in-hand with other good things like better education and women having greater control over their fertility.

The Catholic Church's opposition to contraception is inexcusable though. 'Go forth and multiply' is fine advice for desert tribes seeking to overwhelm and exterminate their rivals through weight of numbers, not to so good for the 21st century.