The most important environmental problem that hardly anyone talks about,
except for a few environmental groups, is that there are too many
people. The world does not *need* as many people as it has - in fact,
the world does not need people at all. Too many people are causing an
enormous consumption of natural resources (oil *will* run out), immense
strains on food production and destruction of arable land faster than it
regenerates itself, pollution of our rivers, seas, atmosphere and
land, and volatile political situations. The best thing the world could
do to ensure a better future for the human race is a concerted effort to
*halve the world's population* (for starters). However, this is anathema
to western democratic economic theory, which is based firmly upon
continuous and endless economic growth. There is no economic theory
or system that would permit a large reduction of the earth's population
without enormous dislocations and misery. We are trapped in the political
success of democracy, to careen toward a population catastrophy.

20 responses total.

At least a spelling catastrophe.

   There are those who advocate space industrialization just because
of this.  Unless we stretch beyond mankinds cradle, we will have a
disaster on our hands.
   I don't think we're going to change, however.  Major, major
changes have to occur first.  Among others, the Pope would have
to recind the "be fruitful and multiply" thoughts in the Bible;
I can't see that happening.

"be fruitful and multiply" has had its day, and should be retired. It
was written a few thousand years ago when people were tribal, and 
contended with travails we cannot imagine. Back then, the world
population was maybe 1% of that today, and the nonrenewable resources
consumed by each person was perhaps 1% of what we each consume today.
The Pope is fine: he has chosen to *not* be fruitful and multiply. 
Everyone else should come to their senses about the ultimate consequences
of multiplying.

   Agreed.  But how to approach the fundemtialists of various denominations
who would rather try and kill you for suggesting it?  The first world
might, might accept this, but that still leaves the undeveloped areas to
convince.  I'm open to suggestions as to how to do this.

Me too. The only way is to show them that population control will improve
their lot, and to provide the means of population control at low cost in
an easy to use manner. However, we still have the problem of our own
population control. We would be better off if the USA had half the current
population. How does one approach convincing the economic system of this?
It certainly would not *sell* more anything; "expanding markets", and let
the devil take the rest, seems to be the paradigm of our economic system.

The US is hardly overpopulated.  We are undergoing the stress of a large 
immigration, alot of it illegal.  There are some, relatively small portions
of the population that have high birth rates.  Most of the population, 
especially the most able, have zero or near zero population growth rates.
We don't need the good and able to even further restrict their reproduction.

The USA *is* overpopulated from the standpoint of Impact. The following
exchange just appeared in Sierra: (a letter to the editor, and a
response):

"Paul Rauber ('Cribonometry.' May/June) maintains that 'profligate use of
natural resources will ensure that the United States remains the most
overpopulated nation on earth."

According to the 1993 World Almanc, the population density of the United
States is 68 persons per square mile. Mexico has 50 persons more per
square mile; Banladesh nearly 2000 more. Germany, Haiti, Isreal, and
England all have eight times as many persons per square mile as the
United States. In view of these statistics, how can we explain Rauber's
observation (William O. McLain, Orange CA).

Paul Rauber replies: "There is more to overpopulation than number of bodies
per square mile. Paul and Anne Ehrlich suggest the equation I = PxAxT for
gauging the environmental effect of population: the Impact I is a product
of Population size, Affluence (the level of per capita consumption), and
the Technology used to supply this consumption. Few Laotians drive air-
conditioned cars, read newspapers that transform large tracts of forest
into overflowing landfills, fly in jet aircraft, east fast-food hamburgers,
or own refrigerators, several TVs, a VCR, or piles of plastic junk,' the
Ehrlichs point out. By their measure the United States, with a population
roughly twice that of Bangladesh, has an environmental impact several
hundred times as large - larger, as a matter of fact, than any nation on
earth."

   The US isn't overpopulated compared to the density in Japan,
perhaps, but there sure are a lot of people here never the less.
We're drowning in people.

Firstable, we don't know what is the human carring capacity.  Although
human consume more resources in this century than all combined years, that
does not mean humans are overpopulated.  I am not comforted that the best
the world can do for ensure human future is halve the current population.
To some regions, such as part of Ethiopia, the food and resources demands
are much higher than the supply, therefore people start starving and dying.
That's called overpopulated.  Simple comparison of density can defined
the term, overpopulation.  <i mean can not>    Second, the Ehrlichs' formula
does not include the available resources,(this include what $ can buy), 
therefore, their measure can not be used for balance calculation.  The 
calculation can not be used for future prediction without fair future inputs.
Rauber's statement is not convincing, Rane.

I agree that we cannot with certainty predict the future, but it is
self evident that the USA consumes resources and generates pollutants
at a *per capita* rate that exceeds every other nation in the world,
as well as at a *total rate* that also exceeds any other nation. There
is no need for as large a population as the USA has, and its resources
would last longer, with less impact on ourselves and the rest of the
world, if the population was smaller. Certainly, our large population
does nothing to "ensure human future" that a smaller population would
not do with greater certainty. 

Speaking of Japan, a recent news item announced that the population of
Japan declined in 2005 - 2 years ahead of predictions.

Good luck to them in trying to maintain economic health in the face of
greater welfare spending for the elderly and fewer people involved in
production.  (That is the real catastrofe.)

And fewer unproductive people ages 0-22 or so requiring daycare or schooling.
Do you consider social security and Medicare to be 'welfare spending'?

I suppose KLG believes that endless population growth is possible. I think
it would be a good thing if the whole world reduced human population. The
present problem with doing that is that politicians and economists don't
see to know how to do it without dislocations. Probably one problem is
that some idiot once wrote "be fruitful and multiply". 

Yes, that is welfare spending.

And, it's unbelievable that you would think the return on investment (in
most cases) in children is necessarily less than 100%.  Most people
(outside of Ann Arbor, perhaps) live relatively productive lives.


O.K.  We know he can bellyache, but let's hear how Curl suggests the
Japanese ought to solve their problem.

What's a cata-strofe, KLG? ((See #1 for help.)

It is not apparent that Japan has a problem, though it is likely as their
economy is also based on population growth. And the problem has been because
the investment in children has a return greater than 100% (it was definitly
true in earlier farming communities, where children were labor). But those
economic benefits of children ARE the problem. 

(The catastrofe is excess hipocracy.)

Meet me back here in ten years.

What is your definition of welfare, being paid back money you have invested?

What is your definition of invested?

Invest - put some place where it will increase in value at least as much as
inflation.  If you think social security and medicare taxes are not earning
as much as inflation, then the government must be making a profit on them,
so the more people who pay into the system and take out less than they should,
the better for the government.  You see to be objecting to people taking out
the money they have paid in.  Would you prefer everyone died at age 65?

All I can say is "Wow."

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss