Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Population: Public Enemy No. 1  (Read 253465 times)

budmantis

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1220
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #250 on: September 03, 2016, 11:51:58 PM »

You might not approve of this process. One could argue that the Serengeti should have been left without human interference, to become in turn scrubland, and possibly eventually some form of tropical dry forest. When the great white hunters such as Prince Philip and chums finally put down the rifles and picked up cameras their first moves as WWF - an error repeated by ecologists so frequently, in so many places, that words fail me - was of course to attempt to remove, restrict and curtail the traditional practices of the keystone species in this environment. The human.

And another thing...

Humans are at the top of the food chain. We rely on keystone species to support our existence. How can humans be a keystone species?

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #251 on: September 04, 2016, 12:21:34 AM »
The linked article is entitled: "The Toughest Question in Climate Change: Who Gets Saved?"; which is an interesting question that will become only more poignant as we approach 10 billion people (circa 2050):

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-08-29/the-toughest-question-in-climate-change-who-gets-saved
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9805
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3584
  • Likes Given: 3922
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #252 on: September 04, 2016, 12:24:28 AM »
idunno:

While you certainly have the right to state your opinion and defend it, your response is dripping with sarcasm, which in my opinion diminishes the effectiveness of your message.
What was the message anyway?
The sarcasm is a piss-off, but it goes hand in hand the tendency to write a whole lot and not make any point that can be related to or argued with, which is much worse as it derails the whole thread.
btw, not reading a book but knowing for certain that it's a failure, not sure what to say to that.

idunno

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 194
  • wonders are many
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #253 on: September 04, 2016, 12:46:29 AM »
In fact, the influence of humans practically engaged in subsistence survival within their local landscape, over the last 3 or 4 millennia has so radically changed almost every biome in existence that it could be claimed that there is no natural world, other than in the genuine wilderness of Antarctica.

The myth of the wilderness chimes strongly with Americans - unpopulated unpolluted vast stretches of land untouched by man.

Underpopulated yes, given that during the European invasion, the aboriginal population suffered a mortality rate from smallpox and persecution of -estimates vary - about 95%. Certainly, where Columbus landed in Hispaniola, modern day Haiti and Dominican Republic, we know that 100% of the natives had died out by around 1650CE. IIRC, it is estimated that the population of the Amazon was reduced by 95%. In the States, the official government policy was "extermination" until late into the 19th Century. And one of the main arguments advanced for the second amendment  was so that private citizens could join in.

In the New World then, as well as the old, if you are intent on setting aside space for nature which has never  been affected by humans, there isn't any.

Back in Europe, which I know better... My own idiosyncratic belief is that the greatest  threat to local biodiversity in the UK, for example, is now UNDERpopulation.

By which I mean that the current rural population is not much bigger or smaller than it was 50 or 100 years ago, and whether it is bigger or smaller make little difference. But people no longer make any use of virtually any local natural resources. As far as the natural world is concerned, after at least 2,000 years of human exploitation, the humans disappeared, and that is a disaster.

If, to take an example pertinent to the discussion above, woodland is no longer coppiced to provide firewood and timber, you do still get some standing woodland; but it enormously impoverished as a habitat. In a purely "natural" state, in a now near mythical, unrecoverable past, which is now the preserve of Disney movies, there was some mature woodland, but with an awful lot of clearings in it. Because mastodons sometimes decided they preferred their lunch to lie down and not hover out of reach. Thus, biologists speculate, certain tree species evolved to survive being broken, or even felled and nearly uprooted. by producing new coppiced growth. There are also a wide range of woodland plants which have evolved to exploit the break in the canopy, on which a host of creepy-crawlies also depend. Once upon a time, the mastodon and the other mega fauna may well have been the "keystone" species in this environment.

Their role was inherited by a bunch of medievals, who certainly weren't even aware of why a tree can be coppiced, nor slightly interested in providing ecological niches for bluebells or butterflies; but who did so because the found it was the best way to obtain the maximum amount of wood from a patch of land. In modern terms, the best source of carbon-neutral fuel.

Similarly, not with the specific aim of pleasing the reed-warblers, reed beds were ransacked for every last standing reed, for thatch or basketry, on an annual basis. Reeds grow better if they are cut. Once upon a time, not so long ago, people around here even picked fruit off fruiting plants when they were bearing ripe fruit.

From such practices, the English landscape was largely formed, and in terms of the pattern of land-use, changed remarkably little between the late Bronze Age and the witterings of the Reverend Malthus in around 1800, when the situation gravely changed, due to the actual Tragedy of the Commons, rather than the mythical version referred to by Neven, above; which I may return to in a future instalment.

My point, for this instalment, is that the environment which was handed down to us by our ancestors was actually shaped by their exploitation of it; and while they may have a bit too good a job at, for example, supplying the beaver-skin hat market, or the wolf-skin cloak department, which  is regretable, many of those species which actually survived a couple of millenia of living alongside humans actually thrived as a result of humans performing important, long-sighted and sustainable activities within it, and performing crucial ecological roles within it.

To impose a boundary between the human and the rest of the natural world, and to declare humans the enemy of the natural is  to condemn many habitats which now only exists specifically because of human intervention to a long slow decline through neglect.

Those sources of natural resources and produce within Western Europe, at least, which were at genuine risk of extinction through overexploitation by people are long gone. Like Julius Caesar ate the last one, the greedy sod. There are many more in the actual modern world as it exists that are in more danger today because humans are now afraid to interact with their surroundings in any way, for fear of upsetting a "natural" ecological balance that actually irrevocably disappeared several tens of thousands of millennia ago.

I accept that Antarctica is a wilderness, and that humans have no business there, apart from on important scientific work. But Antarctica is not a hotspot of biodiversity, more of a desert. People have always tended to avoid deserts, preferring areas of high biodiversity, which is often tasty or of other interest. We are locked in a symbiotic relationship with our environment; and the continuing economic exploitation of the environment by humans is an essential feature of that relationship; without which both parties locked in symbiosis suffer immensely.





budmantis

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1220
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #254 on: September 04, 2016, 05:50:25 AM »
Lost me with " regard me as an enemy ".  I could care less what Idunno's opinions are at this point. Ignor !

I have to agree with Bruce. The best way to deal with this guy is to ignore him.

oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9805
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3584
  • Likes Given: 3922
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #255 on: September 04, 2016, 09:35:25 AM »
My point, for this instalment, is that the environment which was handed down to us by our ancestors was actually shaped by their exploitation of it
Fine. Humans are a key part of the environment and it's not natural anymore. How is this related to human population size and associated problems and limitations arising from it, the subject of this thread?

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9470
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1333
  • Likes Given: 617
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #256 on: September 04, 2016, 10:54:53 AM »
Humans are at the top of the food chain. We rely on keystone species to support our existence. How can humans be a keystone species?

It looks like idunno inadvertently proposed a horrible solution.  ;) ;D
The enemy is within
Don't confuse me with him

E. Smith

Darvince

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 318
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #257 on: September 04, 2016, 11:53:20 AM »
For the rest of your arguments I understand that you don't worry that much for the very difficult times that are coming because men has always been capable of creating the right technology that will allow humanity to cope with the problem. Well, my answer to Darvince is good for you too. Thinking of humanity living comfortably in the middle of a mass extinction, with a changing atmosphere sounds very informative to me.
To me it sounds very odd, until you consider that the cause of the mass extinction is us - but even then we are definitely degrading our own survival. All I can say is that I truly do not know whether civilization will collapse or innovate its way out of this present problem, but I can definitely say that I put most of my hope in the second one. ;D

budmantis

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1220
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #258 on: September 04, 2016, 04:18:25 PM »
idunno:

While you certainly have the right to state your opinion and defend it, your response is dripping with sarcasm, which in my opinion diminishes the effectiveness of your message.
What was the message anyway?
The sarcasm is a piss-off, but it goes hand in hand the tendency to write a whole lot and not make any point that can be related to or argued with, which is much worse as it derails the whole thread.
btw, not reading a book but knowing for certain that it's a failure, not sure what to say to that.

I hear you Oren. I was trying to be diplomatic, which doesn't always work! The recent exchanges with idunno reminds me of a line in the movie "cool hand Luke", where the warden says "what we have here is a failure to communicate, some people you just cant reach".

Archimid

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3511
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 899
  • Likes Given: 206
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #259 on: September 05, 2016, 01:40:32 PM »

For the rest of your arguments I understand that you don't worry that much for the very difficult times that are coming because men has always been capable of creating the right technology that will allow humanity to cope with the problem. Well, my answer to Darvince is good for you too. Thinking of humanity living comfortably in the middle of a mass extinction, with a changing atmosphere sounds very informative to me.

I'm sorry that you understand that, but it is very far from what I meant to say. I don't think anyone will be better off with global warming, regardless of their perceived social standing.  I believe that those with the most to lose will be the biggest losers. Both the have's and the have not's have about an equal chance to be directly impacted by climate change, but only the have's
are highly connected to the world economy.  Add to that arctic amplification and that most have's live in the northern hemisphere then it is really bad for the have's.


Technology can only save our current civilization if it is developed and deployed while there are the resources.  Sadly with rapidly approaching deadlines like an ice free arctic, we might have already ran out of time. Once the climate enters a stay of disarray, we won't have the resources to fix the problem. 


But I'm an optimist. I see human efforts like the Great Wall of China, the space race, and even the mobilization during WW2 and it gives me hope. I don't think the earth's climate is beyond our control. At this point in time, civilization can either get busy preserving the planet habitable or let nature run its course. If the second happens, over-population will not be a problem. Extinction will.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #260 on: September 05, 2016, 08:23:19 PM »
I have been visiting this discussion daily for the past week, simply reading and processing the differing viewpoints and would like to weigh in on this issue "Population: Public Enemy No.1".

The 1960's was a particularly turbulent period in human history. Africa and large portions of Asia, the entire world really, were adjusting to a post colonial society. The world was still rebuilding from the destruction of WWII. In the U.S., a social revolution transformed the landscape as women and minorities argued for a seat at the table. On the international scene, this mirrored the arguments by third world nations to also have a seat. The United Nations was still in its infancy. With this as a backdrop, the specter of mass starvation across much of the planet loomed. Books like "Limits to Growth" published in 1972 gave voice to a growing intellectual argument that we had grossly overshot the human carrying population of the planet.

Meanwhile, modern science, the groundwork laid in 1930's America, worked furiously to refine and implement technologies to feed the growing world. The "Green Revolution", a term first used in 1968 by former US Agency for International Development (USAID) director William Gaud who noted the spread of the new technologies, saved us from the predicted tragedy.

The initiatives, led by Norman Borlaug, the "Father of the Green Revolution," who received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970, credited with saving over a billion people from starvation, involved the development of high-yielding varieties of cereal grains, expansion of irrigation infrastructure, modernization of management techniques, distribution of hybridized seeds, synthetic fertilizers, and pesticides to farmers all over the world. The adoption of these initiatives was an unqualified success and the population of the world, 3.3 billion in 1965, doubled in the next 40 years and now stands at 7.35 billion.

Clearly the doomsayers were wrong and their fear mongering should be laid to rest. Or should it?

The simple fact is the "Green Revolution", the technologies currently in place to feed the planet, are unsustainable. Helping feed the population of 3.5 billion in the 1960's led to the very predictable exponential growth of the human population. In cases of overshoot and there are thousands of cases that can and are studied by scientists, when a predator population grows too large and the prey population collapses, the predator population quickly crashes. Many here have argued that there will be new technologies that will allow continued growth and we can avoid a crash. I will not argue that such technologies do not exist, cannot be developed and won't be implemented. I will point out the obvious fact that if such technologies are developed, it will not solve the problem. It will merely cause the crash to occur later and with far more devastating effects.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2016, 08:31:29 PM by Shared Humanity »

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2272
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #261 on: September 07, 2016, 08:18:38 PM »
Well said SH.

I think that i have two responses to the comments by idunno and Archimid.

First I am not offended by idunno's antipathy and sarcasm.  I am a pretty good disherouter of that stuff myself.  One of the prime ways we move towards an understanding of an issue as well as an understanding of each other is when we find the points where the gloves start to come off and politeness is set aside.  Idunno has some good comments - though his conclusions are pretty much in a denialist vein.  Not the same kind of denialist as the climate change deniers as he clearly sees there is a big problem.  He more falls into the green bau camp of understanding there is a problem but  having a huge mental block about the extent and implications of the problem.  If one accepts where the data leads one then it is obvious that the green bau approach has no chance of arriving at a solution anymore than following the siren song of the fossil fuel advocates does.  To accept the data requires that one be morally obligated to give up our incredibly unsustainable way of life  - for at least a handful of generations - if we want any reasonable version of civilization to survive.  But that is the big rub in all of this.  We are utterly addicted to living large and better than the kings of old.  However it is exactly like what SH just said and I have stated many times....if we make every effort to utilize every possible technology to maintain our current way of life all we will be doing is burning the resources at an even faster rate than now and thus will move the arc of overshoot even higher.  And that will make the collapse much deeper.  Make it deep enough and we may not recover.

The rise and collapse of civilizations is just a repeating exercise of human history.  It has happened many times and we have always - so far - managed to recover and move the bar of civilization higher.  But there is no guarantee that we can do it this time as we are in a global overshoot of carrying capacity on an epic scale.  The addition of climate change into this ago old problem of civilization taking us into overshoot has put us in a much more complicated situation.  An existential one this time as we no longer have large global expanses where there are vast amounts of mostly untapped resources to exploit to trigger that growth again.  This time we actually have to solve the problem.  This requires we change our approach to building and maintaining civilization.

It is not the case that technology cannot help us in the future.  But we cannot depend on some 'faith' in Progress to fix things.  That is the point where progress turns into Progress and becomes a form of a religious belief.  Thus in the modern world this faith in progress has strong religious overtones.   Thus I use this terminology to deliberately insult those who think this way.  It is irrational and foolish.  It will not help us solve our problems.

Archimid.  It may seem insulting to you when i state that you are basically uneducated to the point of complete misunderstanding of these subjects.  You are just ignorant of the science behind what we know.  It is possible to learn about subjects like carrying capacity if you choose to.  But it will require you to set aside your blindness and subconscious decision to refuse to understand the basic physics and mathematics of what we are talking about.

It is easily possible to find where some idiot has claimed that there is no such thing as exceeding the carrying capacity or comes up with some number like 10 billion.  Check out their assumptions as to how they come up with such crazy numbers in the rare occasions they don't just pull then out of their asses.  What carrying capacity means and how it functions in the biological world is pretty well studied.  What numbers one ends up with are like many things based upon the constants one puts in the equations - or the assumptions based upon some faith or bias. Just what does sustainable mean.  Forever?  Fifty thousand years.  For as long as I am alive and then I don't care? This last one is the one most commonly used by those who want to continue to live the way we do.  But there is no doubt that human actions and consumption has been slowly degrading the Earth since well before the industrial revolution and has accelerated rapidly since that time.  A by product of that technological progress that some - for some strange reason - have faith in to save them.  If technological progress has accelerated our overshoot of the Earth's carrying capacity what logic indicates that we will use it in any way different from what SH just pointed out?  There is none obviously.  Carrying capacity is viewed by some fools as the point where all other living things have been sacrificed to the need for resources with which to support the human population.  But this is not how ecosystems function.  We are an integral part of the web of life and we cannot exist without the rest of that complex network of living things.  We will die without them.  And every day we take another step down that road of eliminating another living entity so that we can feed, clothe, and build another part of this civilization.  This ends in catastrophe.  BTW if one defines sustainability by maintaining our population for an equal time into the future comparable to how long we have existed to date you cannot come up with a number much beyond 1 billion.  And at a human population of 1 billion in the past we did tremendous damage - of an unsustainable kind - to the Earth.  I suspect our current knowledge would allow us however to maintain that number today much more carefully than in the past and we could prosper for a very long time.  But we also have to allow the natural systems to recover as much as possible - many of them of course cannot ever recover as they either don't exist any more or they are so damaged that full recovery is not possible.  Human induced climate change is significantly lowering the carrying capacity and as it accelerates this lowering will be very substantial.  It is certain that in another few decades we will be struggling mightily to feed ourselves - EVEN IF WE WERE STILL USING FOSSIL FUELS (Buddy should like those caps:).  But we dare not do that and growing enough food for 10 billion using pre-fossil fuel technologies or even large scale renewables (with their associated non-carbon free costs) is absolutely out of the question.  This is when the collapse happens - when the food runs out. 

So we get back to Public Enemy No 1.  We have irrevocably put ourselves on this road.  We can humanely manage a rapid population reduction.  My favorite approach to accomplishing this is by all of us stopping having babies for about 20 years as this allows the existing population to leverage from existing infrastructure (thus avoiding building another 33% more if we let population grow), while the inevitable carbon emissions caused by human activities drops rapidly due to the shrinking population.  This is not a full solution by any means.  But it avoids the much more severe impacts of holding onto what we have as long as possible as advocated by the green and black bau crowd.  IF we do the above while judicially deploying renewable energy technologies (while they are certainly not completely sustainable they are far better than any other alternative we have) and rebuilding our civilizational structure to be one that does not advocate mass consumption, living rich or any of that other stupid stuff we will land in a far better place - than if we just run the train into the ditch out of stupidity.  This is my foolish hope. That we will be smart about this situation.  I hold it in spite of the overwhelming evidence that humans are utterly stupid and incapable of thinking much beyond where their next meal comes from and how soon they can get laid.
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

Archimid

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3511
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 899
  • Likes Given: 206
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #262 on: September 24, 2016, 02:24:49 PM »
A Cinematic Approach to Bacterial Drug Resistance, scientists have built a giant petri dish to visualize how bacteria move as they become immune to drugs.

https://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/pub/123197.php



In this video, the limits of growth are directly observed. Bacteria grows rapidly, until it exhausts the growth media in terms of space, nutrients and antibiotic resistance. Then the colony becomes grey and cracked as billions of bacteria die, slow down their metabolism, or become spores. Eventually from cheer dumb luck(as far as I can tell), one in a billion bacterium gets a mutation that allows it to survive the current dose of anti-biotic and the process starts all over again.

The same thing happens at human and planetary scales.  We can not perceive it because we reproduce in a time scale of decades, E. coli duplicates every hour or so, depending on the conditions. Regardless, as we approach whatever the limit of growth in terms of human sustainability is, growth will slow down naturally, just like bacteria. Of course we might perceive it as anything from education and homosexuality to famine and war, but the process is the same. It is a natural process.

The problem is when the carrying capacity is lowered below the levels needed to sustain current populations.  That's exactly what climate change is doing and will do so much more abruptly in the coming years/decades.The carrying capacity of the world will be slashed by climate change, causing a significant and abrupt decrease in population.


I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

SteveMDFP

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2476
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 583
  • Likes Given: 42
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #263 on: September 24, 2016, 04:15:39 PM »
ASLR
....
My father in law died recently.  He had a very explicit living will on what was allowed to be done to him and what he wanted.  I sat at the kitchen table when he explained it exactly to his wife and children.

When he was dying and no longer capable of expressing opinions his wife overruled everyone and the doctors and insisted on treatment which had no chance of saving him and indeed prolonged his suffering.  This precipitated some serious arguments and confrontations in the family.  My wife went so far as to take his living will and medical directions directly to the doctor who was executing my mother-in-laws directions and pointed out that this is in the hospital files.  He literally said, "Oh my God", when he was forced to read them.  It was like, "You do what you are legally obligated to do.  Or else."  The hospital then figured out ways to work around his wife.  I am certain that this plays out tens of thousands of times a year in the US.  And not getting called on it makes the hospitals a lot of money.
 . . .

Remarkable story.  Not that his living will was disregarded, that happens all the time.  That next-of-kin was ultimately over-ruled in favor of following the living will is very unusual.
As a physician who has been involved in geriatrics and end-of-life care, I can assure you that this is rare.
The only practical way for us to be sure futile extraordinary measures are not done to us is to name a proxy, a "durable power of attorney for health care" that we trust to follow our wishes.  Immediate family members are sometimes the worst choice.  A living will helps for providing guidance to the proxy, but having a trustworthy proxy is crucial.

oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9805
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3584
  • Likes Given: 3922
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #264 on: October 14, 2016, 09:17:44 AM »
Dutch Law Would Allow Assisted Suicide for Healthy Older People
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/world/europe/dutch-law-would-allow-euthanasia-for-healthy-elderly-people.html?_r=0

Quote
Edith Schippers, the health minister, read a letter to the Dutch Parliament on Tuesday defending the measure. It is needed, she said, to address the needs of “older people who do not have the possibility to continue life in a meaningful way, who are struggling with the loss of independence and reduced mobility, and who have a sense of loneliness, partly because of the loss of loved ones, and who are burdened by general fatigue, deterioration and loss of personal dignity.”

Considering the state of the globe, this is much more ethical than forcing people to stay alive when they clearly don't want to and would rather walk away with dignity (not talking about a depressed teenager, but about old people, often being carried around in wheelchairs for years on end, barely communicating with anyone, that I see around the neighborhood)

Aporia_filia

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 172
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 109
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #265 on: October 14, 2016, 10:37:22 AM »
A very good friend of mine is a psychiatrist and he has told me more than once that when he's asked to look at elderly people probably one of the most recurrent issues for them is wishing to have the chance to kill themselves.
I keep a bullet for myself.
Anyway, the next couple of links could well be in the Existential thread, or in preparing for the anthropocene, but I find very difficult to separate them. Population is enemy nº1 just because of our own nature. So here you have some more thoughts for ruminate.

http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/10/01/495437158/climate-change-and-the-astrobiology-of-the-anthropocene

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/201609/murderous-humans-are-not-acting-animals
 

Hefaistos

  • Guest
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #266 on: February 28, 2017, 08:33:20 AM »
"China is considering introducing birth rewards and subsidies to encourage people to have a second child, after surveys showed economic constraints were making many reluctant to expand their families, the state-owned China Daily has reported.
---
China began implementing its controversial one-child policy in the 1970s in order to limit population growth, but authorities are now concerned that the country’s dwindling workforce will not be able to support an increasingly ageing population."

This is bad news, not least because of the size of the Chinese population.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/28/china-considers-paying-couples-to-have-a-second-child

Hefaistos

  • Guest
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #267 on: February 28, 2017, 08:48:57 AM »
The Pope intervenes on climate change.
He explicitly rejects the idea of population growth as a strain on global resources. “Demographic growth is fully compatible with an integral and shared development,” the pope wrote. “To blame population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues.”

Dr. Paul Ehrlich, one of America’s leading biologists has dismissed as “raving nonsense” the pope’s call for action on climate change – so long as the leader of the world’s 1 billion Catholics rejects the need for population control.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/24/popes-climate-stance-is-nonsense-rejects-population-control-says-top-us-scientist

Paddy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1026
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 151
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #268 on: February 28, 2017, 10:18:49 AM »
I see the aim for less unsustainable global consumption as reading equally on reducing individual impacts and also reducing population growth gently, as total human consumption = (total human population) x (mean individual consumption), after all, giving the two equal weight. Although consumption by the rich obviously affects mean consumption much more than consumption by the poor, with a very skewed distribution from Trump-like extreme consumers on one end to subsistence farmers on the other.

But I have to emphasise the "gently" in population reduction. At current fertility rates of 2.5 children per woman worldwide, we're only a little way above replacement fertility, with many countries, eg Japan, well below it.  There are still many women with unmet needs for access to contraception, education, employment etc worldwide, however, and addressing these unmet needs is about the best proven thing we can do to ensure people have fewer children later, which in turn should slow down population growth.

oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9805
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3584
  • Likes Given: 3922
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #269 on: February 28, 2017, 01:15:20 PM »
Fertility below replacement rate is what the planet needs.
What I fail to understand is why countries insist so strongly on supporting population. A country with shrinking population can almost stop capital expenditures - building schools, roads, transportation, power stations etc., and even cut a bit on maintenance. Government budgets become much more solid in the short term (at least), and living standards can improve. And to care for the aging population you don't need many little children, you can use young immigrants more suitable and willing for the job.

gerontocrat

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20378
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5289
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #270 on: February 28, 2017, 03:05:40 PM »
Fertility below replacement rate is what the planet needs.
What I fail to understand is why countries insist so strongly on supporting population. A country with shrinking population can almost stop capital expenditures - building schools, roads, transportation, power stations etc., and even cut a bit on maintenance. Government budgets become much more solid in the short term (at least), and living standards can improve. And to care for the aging population you don't need many little children, you can use young immigrants more suitable and willing for the job.

China and Japan do not want immigration. Period
Immigrants get older, get married and have kids and resent being regarded as cheap labour to be thrown away.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

johnm33

  • Guest
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #271 on: February 28, 2017, 07:19:03 PM »
". And to care for the aging population you don't need many little children, you can use young immigrants more suitable and willing for the job."
Most immigrant groups do rather better than the native average over a period of time, so unless the intent is to deport them later, deny their children the right to settle, or have them only allowed in on a contract basis, this would have no impact on population levels on the country in question, it is often the case that immigrant groups have higher birthrates than the natives too.
You could argue that this is just replacing a population, that sees the sense of population reduction with one that doesn't.

magnamentis

  • Guest
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #272 on: February 28, 2017, 07:24:06 PM »
Fertility below replacement rate is what the planet needs.
What I fail to understand is why countries insist so strongly on supporting population. A country with shrinking population can almost stop capital expenditures - building schools, roads, transportation, power stations etc., and even cut a bit on maintenance. Government budgets become much more solid in the short term (at least), and living standards can improve. And to care for the aging population you don't need many little children, you can use young immigrants more suitable and willing for the job.

i make it short, the reason why governments are FOR more children is that the growth forced by the ill fated monetary system (interest on interest is the culprit) can only be maintained (they think but it's won't work) by ever growing number of tax-payers and consumers. in parts they have to think/act that way to avoid close to immediate collapse (which will happen anyway) and in parts they're of a species who is resistent to any kind of "learning form the past" not even speaking about "good advice" by those who know.

further those who know often get either muted in an early stage, fall for the needs (feed the kids for example) and/or are very wise men and women who disconnect from the system to the highest possible extent and consequently to their best to fly under the radar.

this may not be very selfless but then "don't throw pearls in front of the pigs" is another possible standpoint ;)

DannyIce2

  • New ice
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #273 on: March 03, 2017, 02:11:16 PM »
you can't stop polution problem, because there are too many people and they are main cause of this problem. Polution is raising. There are more planes every year, cars( esspecially old one ), facotories. Another think is that government don't care about polution, maybe they just pretending. If you really care about something you will do your best to achieve the goal.
Danny Dickson

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #274 on: March 03, 2017, 06:54:13 PM »
The Pope intervenes on climate change.
He explicitly rejects the idea of population growth as a strain on global resources. “Demographic growth is fully compatible with an integral and shared development,” the pope wrote. “To blame population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues.”

Dr. Paul Ehrlich, one of America’s leading biologists has dismissed as “raving nonsense” the pope’s call for action on climate change – so long as the leader of the world’s 1 billion Catholics rejects the need for population control.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/24/popes-climate-stance-is-nonsense-rejects-population-control-says-top-us-scientist


I have no idea of the church's present investment strategy, but if the Pope wants to be taken seriously he should at minimum pull out of all ff holdings and invest heavily in renewable. Anything less is a less than honest position.


Terry

CognitiveBias

  • New ice
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #275 on: March 03, 2017, 07:28:08 PM »
Pope Francis has taken the most progressive stands on a number of issue, but I doubt he directly controls the Vatican's investments.  Having his voice behind AGW is huge.   I would not question his motives nor hold up unrealistic expectations.

Full disclosure...  not a fan of Christian mythology in any form, but still a fan of the new pope.

Red

  • Guest
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #276 on: March 03, 2017, 07:28:32 PM »
The Pope intervenes on climate change.
He explicitly rejects the idea of population growth as a strain on global resources. “Demographic growth is fully compatible with an integral and shared development,” the pope wrote. “To blame population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues.”

Dr. Paul Ehrlich, one of America’s leading biologists has dismissed as “raving nonsense” the pope’s call for action on climate change – so long as the leader of the world’s 1 billion Catholics rejects the need for population control.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/24/popes-climate-stance-is-nonsense-rejects-population-control-says-top-us-scientist


I have no idea of the church's present investment strategy, but if the Pope wants to be taken seriously he should at minimum pull out of all ff holdings and invest heavily in renewable. Anything less is a less than honest position.


Terry
Make of this what you may.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2017/02/pope-francis-better-atheist-hypocritical-catholic/

Cut off your hand, Pluck out your eye, don’t scandalize the little ones.

But what is scandal? Scandal is saying one thing and doing another; it is a double life, a double life. A totally double life: ‘I am very Catholic, I always go to Mass, I belong to this association and that one; but my life is not Christian, I don’t pay my workers a just wage, I exploit people, I am dirty in my business, I launder money…’ A double life. And so many Christians are like this, and these people scandalize others. How many times have we heard – all of us, around the neighbourhood and elsewhere – ‘but to be a Catholic like that, it’s better to be an atheist.’ It is that, scandal. You destroy. You beat down. And this happens every day, it’s enough to see the news on TV, or to read the papers. In the papers there are so many scandals, and there is also the great publicity of the scandals. And with the scandals there is destruction.

anthropocene

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 128
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #277 on: March 03, 2017, 09:09:30 PM »
I will also keep it short.
Blaming population for climate change is a straw man. It will most probably be the last defence climate action deniers will hide behind. In the future the population will be greater than now and there is (I hope) no way in which a reasonable person would suggest to actively cut global population. Therefore some people blame climate change on population increase knowing full well that population increase doesn't have a quick fix so therefore they will argue climate change cannot be tackled. Even with today's population we produce too much CO2. The solution is not reducing population but removing the coupling of economic growth and production of CO2. End of argument.  Other factors (bringing people out of poverty and education and empowerment of women) will naturally reduce population growth.

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #278 on: March 03, 2017, 09:48:04 PM »
Full disclosure dictates that I announce that I am an both an Atheist and a Pastafarian. That said I don't think it affects my position.


If an organization invests in ff, it has no moral standing WRT global warming.
If excessive population growth adds to the problem, then defending excessive population growth is immoral.


edit)
Send him a case of condoms to distribute to the poor!
 
Terry

CognitiveBias

  • New ice
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #279 on: March 03, 2017, 09:56:12 PM »
+1 for the underrepresented Pastafarian

GeoffBeacon

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 394
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #280 on: March 03, 2017, 11:00:41 PM »
Climate destruction is not a problem of population per se but the affluent population of the world. In Why the Paris climate deal must put the poorest, lowest emitting and most vulnerable people first, Oxfam shows the richest 10% of the world’s population produce half of Earth’s CO2 emissions and that the average emissions of someone in the poorest 10% of the global population is 60 times less than that of someone in the richest 10%.

Oxfam kindly let me use their following infographic in Green growth or degrowth?  (I hope they don't mind here.)



We must examine consumption patterns and lifestyles of the rich and their population growth.

TerryM: For the sake of the planet, perhaps we should be restricting the population of the rich, who have high carbon footprints (one child then snip?) rather then distributing condoms to the poor. 

Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9805
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3584
  • Likes Given: 3922
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #281 on: March 03, 2017, 11:24:38 PM »
I will also keep it short.
Blaming population for climate change is a straw man. It will most probably be the last defence climate action deniers will hide behind. In the future the population will be greater than now and there is (I hope) no way in which a reasonable person would suggest to actively cut global population. Therefore some people blame climate change on population increase knowing full well that population increase doesn't have a quick fix so therefore they will argue climate change cannot be tackled. Even with today's population we produce too much CO2. The solution is not reducing population but removing the coupling of economic growth and production of CO2. End of argument.  Other factors (bringing people out of poverty and education and empowerment of women) will naturally reduce population growth.
The solution is both reducing population by avoiding as many new births as possible, AND reducing CO2 emissions per capita and per economic output. By avoiding new births I don't mean by force as China did, but by enacting economic policies that take into consideration the problems caused by excessive population, climate change being just one of these problems.
So in countries with a high birthrate, provide economic incentives for people to have fewer children, or at least avoid economic incentives for people to have more children. In addition, use education to directly explain why two children are enough and why couples should avoid having five, seven or ten children. And why couples need not hurry having their first child at 18, and can wait to 25 for that. Even if the effect is small, it accumulates to a large difference over time.
Bear in mind that as current human population exceeds the planet's long term carrying capacity, assuming that population will be even higher in the future is an optimistic view. Sadly global population could be reduced by violence, famine, loss of habitat and other catastrophes at some point in the next few decades. And unfortunately poor countries will probably fare worse even though they are less to blame.

anthropocene

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 128
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 37
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #282 on: March 04, 2017, 09:03:34 AM »
Many thanks for that graphic Geoff Beacon. That shows the point beautifully. The title and question of the thread was "Population - climate change public enemy No.1?".  By the graph the answer is a resounding NO!. Next discussion topic.

gerontocrat

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20378
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5289
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #283 on: March 04, 2017, 10:20:13 AM »
The graph is labelled "Lifestyle Consumption Emissions", which presumably excludes emissions required to maintain existence (and what else ?)
Yes, obviously the rich are totally amoral in their squandering of scarce resources.
But the current economic system needs to pull all the population up the consumpton ladder. Without continuous world economic growth the system dies.

On a planet with finite and already over-stretched resources the end result is obvious. When remains problematical.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

GeoffBeacon

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 394
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #284 on: March 04, 2017, 03:05:07 PM »
gerontocrat

Quote
Without continuous world economic growth the system dies.

What 'system' is that?

Quote
Lifestyle Consumption Emissions

I though  that meant "Consumption Emissions by Lifestyle". I will look into this - but don't hold your breath. However, the Global Carbon Project gives emissions of CO2 on a per capita basis as

CountryCO2
USA16.8  tonnes
China7.5  tonnes
Eur287.0  tonnes
Eur287.0  tonnes
World4.9  tonnes
India1.7  tonnes

Within each country the rich will be creating more pollution than the poor so the rich in the USA will be creating well over 3 times the world average of CO2 emissions and lots (and lots and lots) more than the poor in India and Nigeria.


Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9470
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1333
  • Likes Given: 617
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #285 on: March 04, 2017, 08:27:56 PM »
First post from new commenter (welcome, DannyIce2, your profile has been released):

you can't stop polution problem, because there are too many people and they are main cause of this problem. Polution is raising. There are more planes every year, cars( esspecially old one ), facotories. Another think is that government don't care about polution, maybe they just pretending. If you really care about something you will do your best to achieve the goal.
The enemy is within
Don't confuse me with him

E. Smith

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4606
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 879
  • Likes Given: 826
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #286 on: March 04, 2017, 08:33:45 PM »
Pope Urges Families to Have Fewer Kids to Make World More Sustainable
I thought some of you would like to know at least what he is preaching.  (And, hey, I expect he hasn't fathered any children, either!  See, we should all be priests.)
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things because "we cannot negotiate with the melting point of ice"

oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9805
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3584
  • Likes Given: 3922
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #287 on: March 04, 2017, 09:37:27 PM »
Full disclosure...  not a fan of Christian mythology in any form, but still a fan of the new pope.
+1

budmantis

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1220
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #288 on: March 05, 2017, 06:58:38 AM »
Pope Urges Families to Have Fewer Kids to Make World More Sustainable
I thought some of you would like to know at least what he is preaching.  (And, hey, I expect he hasn't fathered any children, either!  See, we should all be priests.)

Being brought up Roman Catholic that is a major concession from the Pope. Probably the most realistic leader of the Church since John the 23rd. I am an atheist now, but I have a lot of respect for this pope.

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6774
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1047
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #289 on: March 05, 2017, 07:15:40 AM »
I am not a Roman Catholic, but i was schooled by Roman Catholic missionaries, and I attended a Jesuit college. The pope has quite a formidable intellect and sharpened by Jesuitical training. A very good interview with  La Civiltà Cattolica, the Italian Jesuit journal, may be found (in english translation) at

http://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2013/09/30/big-heart-open-god-interview-pope-francis

"Who is Jorge Mario Bergoglio?"

" ... I am a sinner. This is the most accurate definition. It is not a figure of speech, a literary genre. I am a sinner."

I highly recommend it together with his encyclical Laudato Si. In fact just go to www.va and read everything the guy writes.

sidd

ralfy

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 80
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #290 on: March 05, 2017, 03:31:41 PM »
Two enemies: overpopulation and overconsumption. The latter is seen in higher footprints for the global middle class.

Hefaistos

  • Guest
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #291 on: March 15, 2017, 08:43:32 PM »
From deep Africa, where population growth is exponential, given that women marry at very young age and give birth to very many children:
"Having lots of children is the norm because they bring wealth (“they come with two hands to work but only one mouth to feed”). So why have four when you could have seven?"

According to the article, women don't want to use contraceptives, even when they are readily available, because they like to have many children.

The article illustrates why population growth is sure to continue for many decades to come.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/mar/15/why-have-four-children-when-you-could-have-seven-contraception-niger

magnamentis

  • Guest
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #292 on: March 15, 2017, 09:58:34 PM »
Two enemies: overpopulation and overconsumption. The latter is seen in higher footprints for the global middle class.

not saying it's not correct but still, without too many consumers consumption would not be an issue, hence ultimately it's down to overpopulation which is a known fact for many decades, just that everyone has to grow in every aspect, including population, to fill the voids from the current exploiting generation.

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3342
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 602
  • Likes Given: 409
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #293 on: March 15, 2017, 11:51:18 PM »
Not really.

About 20% of the population do about 80% of the consumption. So you could get rid of (hypothetically) 80% of the population and not make much of a dent in consumption/pollution.

And it is of course entirely possible for an even smaller number of people to consume at even higher rates.

So ultimately it's down to consumption  :)
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9805
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3584
  • Likes Given: 3922
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #294 on: March 16, 2017, 12:21:08 AM »
From deep Africa, where population growth is exponential, given that women marry at very young age and give birth to very many children:
"Having lots of children is the norm because they bring wealth (“they come with two hands to work but only one mouth to feed”). So why have four when you could have seven?"

According to the article, women don't want to use contraceptives, even when they are readily available, because they like to have many children.

The article illustrates why population growth is sure to continue for many decades to come.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/mar/15/why-have-four-children-when-you-could-have-seven-contraception-niger
This article is so depressing. Such a poor country with such a high birth rate and such a culture. Totally hopeless.The only questions remaining are when will Niger collapse, and in what manner (Widespread famine? Civil war? Attacking neighbouring countries? A fundamentalist revolution? All of the above?)

DrTskoul

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1455
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 210
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #295 on: March 16, 2017, 01:13:14 AM »
From deep Africa, where population growth is exponential, given that women marry at very young age and give birth to very many children:
"Having lots of children is the norm because they bring wealth (“they come with two hands to work but only one mouth to feed”). So why have four when you could have seven?"

According to the article, women don't want to use contraceptives, even when they are readily available, because they like to have many children.

The article illustrates why population growth is sure to continue for many decades to come.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/mar/15/why-have-four-children-when-you-could-have-seven-contraception-niger
This article is so depressing. Such a poor country with such a high birth rate and such a culture. Totally hopeless.The only questions remaining are when will Niger collapse, and in what manner (Widespread famine? Civil war? Attacking neighbouring countries? A fundamentalist revolution? All of the above?)

I don't know of any woman that wants to have many many kids. It does awful thinks to their body. It is usually due to religion or coercion (husbands).
« Last Edit: March 16, 2017, 11:42:26 AM by DrTskoul »

magnamentis

  • Guest
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #296 on: March 16, 2017, 01:33:51 AM »
Not really.

About 20% of the population do about 80% of the consumption. So you could get rid of (hypothetically) 80% of the population and not make much of a dent in consumption/pollution.

And it is of course entirely possible for an even smaller number of people to consume at even higher rates.

So ultimately it's down to consumption  :)

one can see it like that while the 80% with the much smaller consumption pollute the globe much more. just visit any african big city like i.e. "LAGOS" and compare the air and water quality with that of a 10 times greater city of the first world and you'll see that i.e. tokyo or any other huge city, including the needed heating, pollutes less than a much smaller third world city. it's not that simple and then the most damaging consumption is "FOOD" especially meet and those 80% eat not much less, except certain regions of course.

however i see what you're heading at and it would take huge resources and numbers of studies to narrow this down, it's just not as simple as your statement sounded to my understanding while at the end we agree, both
factors count a lot and it's probably useless to know exactly which more, hence i'm with you in general :-)

thanks

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6774
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1047
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #297 on: March 16, 2017, 04:24:55 AM »
" ...  the 80% with the much smaller consumption pollute the globe much more ... "

The pollution that 80% of the world poor generate is at the behest of an economic system that has exported pollution generation to poor areas from those better off.

gerontocrat

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 20378
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5289
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #298 on: March 16, 2017, 11:19:59 AM »
From deep Africa, where population growth is exponential, given that women marry at very young age and give birth to very many children:
"Having lots of children is the norm because they bring wealth (“they come with two hands to work but only one mouth to feed”). So why have four when you could have seven?"

According to the article, women don't want to use contraceptives, even when they are readily available, because they like to have many children.

The article illustrates why population growth is sure to continue for many decades to come.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/mar/15/why-have-four-children-when-you-could-have-seven-contraception-niger
This article is so depressing. Such a poor country with such a high birth rate and such a culture. Totally hopeless.The only questions remaining are when will Niger collapse, and in what manner (Widespread famine? Civil war? Attacking neighbouring countries? A fundamentalist revolution? All of the above?)

I don't know of any woman that wants to have many many kids. It does awful thinks to their body. It is usually due to religion or version (husbands).

And there are still pro-life evangelical and catholic missionaries in Africa still preaching that contraception is a sin against God to a deeply religious people.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

magnamentis

  • Guest
Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« Reply #299 on: March 16, 2017, 10:20:57 PM »
" ...  the 80% with the much smaller consumption pollute the globe much more ... "

The pollution that 80% of the world poor generate is at the behest of an economic system that has exported pollution generation to poor areas from those better off.

true but that was not the question, nevertheless it's a fact worth (needed) to be mentioned on each opportunity.

thanks