American bigwigs start to treat overpopulation seriously

[David B]

Well, at least recognise that it is a problem.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7974995.stm

Nina Fedoroff told the BBC One Planet programme that humans had exceeded the Earth's "limits of sustainability".

Dr Fedoroff has been the science and technology advisor to the US secretary of state since 2007, initially working with Condoleezza Rice.

In a wide ranging interview, Dr Fedoroff was asked if the US accepted its responsibility to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be driving human-induced climate change. "Yes, and going forward, we just have to be more realistic about our contribution and decrease it - and I think you'll see that happening."

And asked if America would sign up to legally binding targets on carbon emissions - something the world's biggest economy has been reluctant to do in the past - the professor was equally clear. "I think we'll have to do that eventually - and the sooner the better."

It's something, I suppose, but not really an answer.

David

[DMB]

In terms of sustainability, we're already far beyod the limit already. I've been involved in the population "business" for over 20 years and US Government attitudes to it seesaw depending on who's in charge.

People who know very little about it often jump in thinking that coercion is the way to limit population growth. It isn't, unless you're prepared to be as draconian as China was with its one-chld policy, and even that was difficult to enforce.

It turns out that you need a number of interlinked policies and measures to have something that actually works. Prominent among them is female emancipation.

[Zygote]

Female emancipation with an emphasis on education. Literate mothers have fewer children, on average.

Health care to reduce child mortality, and some sort of safety net for the elders so that they don't need to breed their own social security would also be necessary.

[Pendaric]

http://mwillett.org/Politics/bigprob1.htm

I always link to this article when I see this issue raised.

Worth a read. It opened my eyes to the problem.

[Free Thinkr]

Neo-malthusian garbage, IMO.

[DMB]

You think the world's resources are effectively infinite?

[Free Thinkr]

You think the world's resources are effectively infinite?
If managed properly. Certainly, 6 billion people isn't too many.

[David B]

You think the world's resources are effectively infinite?
If managed properly. Certainly, 6 billion people isn't too many.

Well, that's arguable, given carbon use, other recourse use, landfills, changing climate, potential water level rise.

But 6 billion now is one thing. 6 billion growing exponentially quite another.

David

[premjan]

I think we should focus on stabilizing or reducing populations but in a non-authoritarian way.

[David B]

I think we should focus on stabilizing or reducing populations but in a non-authoritarian way.

Me too. But if that fails then either we will have to step up the authoritarianism, or nature will do it, far less mercifully.

For a start - make contraception and early term abortion available on demand.

David

[premjan]

Where nature is starting to assert itself (Darfur?) I would make it a big priority.

[DMB]

Just one result of our burgeoning population is the terrible extinction of other species that is going on. A great deal is due to habitat loss, where more and more land is taken for human use of one sort or another. When you then add in climate change, the wipe-out rate will go up.

The trouble is that we won't know about the effects of the extinctions on us until it's too late.

[premjan]

That's a real issue that can't wait, we have to make global laws on environmental conservation.

[David B]

Another problem is how much margin we have should we go through hard times, like those which obtained in the aftermath of the Tambora event jn 1815.

There are better distribution facilities now, and more productive agriculture, but a helluva lot more people.

The tree ring record tells us that times like that are not that rare.

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

In the spring and summer of 1816, a persistent dry fog was observed in the northeastern U.S. The fog reddened and dimmed the sunlight, such that sunspots were visible to the naked eye. Neither wind nor rainfall dispersed the "fog". It was identified as a stratospheric sulfate aerosol veil.[4] In summer 1816, countries in the Northern Hemisphere suffered extreme weather conditions, dubbed the Year Without a Summer. Average global temperatures decreased about 0.4–0.7 °C (0.7–1.3 °F),[2] enough to cause significant agricultural problems around the globe. On 4 June 1816, frosts were reported in Connecticut, and by the following day, most of New England was gripped by the cold front. On 6 June 1816, snow fell in Albany, New York, and Dennysville, Maine.[4] Such conditions occurred for at least three months and ruined most agricultural crops in North America. Canada experienced extreme cold during that summer. Snow 30 cm (12 in) deep accumulated near Quebec City from 6 to 10 June 1816.

1816 was the second coldest year in the northern hemisphere since AD 1400, after 1601 following the 1600 Huaynaputina eruption in Peru.[17] The 1810s are the coldest decade on record, a result of Tambora's 1815 eruption and other suspected eruptions somewhere between 1809 and 1810 (see sulfate concentration figure from ice core data). The surface temperature anomalies during the summer of 1816, 1817 and 1818 were −0.51, −0.44 and −0.29 °C, respectively.[17] As well as a cooler summer, parts of Europe experienced a stormier winter.

This pattern of climate anomaly has been blamed for the severity of typhus epidemic in southeast Europe and the eastern Mediterranean between 1816 and 1819.[4] Much livestock died in New England during the winter of 1816–1817. Cool temperatures and heavy rains resulted in failed harvests in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Families in Wales traveled long distances as refugees, begging for food. Famine was prevalent in north and southwest Ireland, following the failure of wheat, oat and potato harvests. The crisis was severe in Germany, where food prices rose sharply. Due to the unknown cause of the problems, demonstrations in front of grain markets and bakeries, followed by riots, arson and looting, took place in many European cities. It was the worst famine of the 19th century.[4]

David

[Free Thinkr]

You think the world's resources are effectively infinite?
If managed properly. Certainly, 6 billion people isn't too many.
Well, that's arguable, given carbon use, other recourse use, landfills, changing climate, potential water level rise.
Well, the key there is development of alternative energies. If humans could ever get the economic thing figured out, we'd probably have little trouble developing such technologies.

Landfills aren't an issue, IMO.

But 6 billion now is one thing. 6 billion growing exponentially quite another.

David
Yes, but experience shows that areas where economic matters are in order do not see exponential growth. You argue that overpopulation is a problem and to some extent that's true; but it's a problem that results from an underlying problem, and that is economic injustice. The solution is not to attempt to limit population growth by whatever means, it's fixing the rules of our society so that these problems will solve themselves.

[DMB]

You argue that overpopulation is a problem and to some extent that's true; but it's a problem that results from an underlying problem, and that is economic injustice. The solution is not to attempt to limit population growth by whatever means, it's fixing the rules of our society so that these problems will solve themselves.

Bit of a strawman there. No-one in this thread has been suggesting "whatever means". As I posted above, a lot is known about the factors that slow population growth.

You cannot justify saying that overpopulation results from a single cause. Throughout most of human history high birth rates have been almost matched by high death rates, so that populations grew slowly. What changed in the 20th century was that death rates came down. And they came down in poor countries as well as rich countries. But in the rich countries the birth rates fell as well. The change in death rates was not a result of some unfairness to poor people; it was the result of spreading some of the benfits of modern medicine and public health.

In fact since about 1970, birthrates have been declining in much of the world and the overall rate of population growth has declined. But there is a real problem about sustainability even of the population size we have now. At it does depend on the level at which people live. We can't sustain a world population of 9 billion living at the average level of the USA today. Would you be in favour of bringing the US standard of living down to the world average?

[Free Thinkr]

You argue that overpopulation is a problem and to some extent that's true; but it's a problem that results from an underlying problem, and that is economic injustice. The solution is not to attempt to limit population growth by whatever means, it's fixing the rules of our society so that these problems will solve themselves.
Bit of a strawman there. No-one in this thread has been suggesting "whatever means".
I meant that to mean "insert scheme here," not "do whatever it takes."

As I posted above, a lot is known about the factors that slow population growth.

You cannot justify saying that overpopulation results from a single cause. Throughout most of human history high birth rates have been almost matched by high death rates, so that populations grew slowly. What changed in the 20th century was that death rates came down. And they came down in poor countries as well as rich countries. But in the rich countries the birth rates fell as well. The change in death rates was not a result of some unfairness to poor people; it was the result of spreading some of the benfits of modern medicine and public health.

In fact since about 1970, birthrates have been declining in much of the world and the overall rate of population growth has declined.
That's what I'm saying. The problem solves itself when there's conditions even remotely approaching economic justice.

But there is a real problem about sustainability even of the population size we have now. At it does depend on the level at which people live. We can't sustain a world population of 9 billion living at the average level of the USA today. Would you be in favour of bringing the US standard of living down to the world average?
I believe we can sustain the current population at US levels; just not with the current technology and infrastructure. But then, if most of the world enjoyed conditions even remotely approaching economic justice, the current level of technology and infrastructure world-wide would be far higher.

[DMB]

Free Thinkr, you don't seem to get what I was saying. First of all the lowering of death rates was the major single reason for explosive population growth. That has nothing to do with economic unfairness; on the contrary, it shows a slight increase in fairness.

The slowing of the rate of growth since about 1970 was not the problem solving itself. It has come about through sustained efforts to have that effect.

As regards global sustainablity, at the moment we are facing very dangerous climate change. At the same time we have a problem with availablity of fresh water, with soil depletion and erosion, with dangerous vulnerability of monoculture crops and with severe depletion of fish stocks. It is doubtful that we have technology to deal with all these problems simultaneously, nor are we showing the will to do so.

Population growth is one problem, not the problem, but it tends to exacerbate the results of the others. A lot of expertise has been built up about what works with population growth. It would be one of the cheaper problems to solve, if we consistently tried and funded the methods that are known to work.

[darjeeling]

http://mwillett.org/Politics/bigprob1.htm

I always link to this article when I see this issue raised.

Worth a read. It opened my eyes to the problem.

When people think there's no hope for the future, they're less inclined to have children, so the problem will eventually fix itself... ;)

[Free Thinkr]

Free Thinkr, you don't seem to get what I was saying. First of all the lowering of death rates was the major single reason for explosive population growth. That has nothing to do with economic unfairness; on the contrary, it shows a slight increase in fairness.
That's all well and good, but experience shows that while growth explodes in the short term, in the long term it levels out.

The slowing of the rate of growth since about 1970 was not the problem solving itself. It has come about through sustained efforts to have that effect.
I disagree. What efforts were those? China made a major effort, but who else?

As regards global sustainablity, at the moment we are facing very dangerous climate change. At the same time we have a problem with availablity of fresh water, with soil depletion and erosion, with dangerous vulnerability of monoculture crops and with severe depletion of fish stocks. It is doubtful that we have technology to deal with all these problems simultaneously, nor are we showing the will to do so.
These problems would be peanuts if our collective heads weren't up our asses. Think of the number of minds which could be solving these issues but are instead wasted on individuals confined to poverty and obscurity! Think about the lack of funding toward these ends resulting in disastrous world-wide economization of resources (labor is probably wasted even more than natural resources)!

Our problem is not over-population: it's a matter of social justice. Create a just society, and the problem disappears.

Population growth is one problem, not the problem, but it tends to exacerbate the results of the others. A lot of expertise has been built up about what works with population growth. It would be one of the cheaper problems to solve, if we consistently tried and funded the methods that are known to work.
That's fair enough. My main point was not to say that it's good or feasible for the population to grow at huge exponential rates eternally. I just try to quash the Malthusian viewpoint when I see it, because that viewpoint is false and dangerous. My main point is simply that our trouble is not rooted in over-population, and that population growth is not a bad thing per se.

I disagree with the Roman Catholic policy of discouraging use of condoms in Africa for this reason, aside from the AIDS issue.

[laughing dog]

Whether or not the US recognizes over-population is a problem should not affect how the rest of the world deals with over-population. After all, the USA is not really adding to the problem of world over-populaton. As a matter of fact, we've been doing more than our fair share of population reduction in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Gaza, and Ethiopia.

[Free Thinkr]

As a matter of fact, we've been doing more than our fair share of population reduction in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Gaza, and Ethiopia.
Snap!

[premjan]

The Nazis were more effective.

[Matty]

yeah and they managed to put such a plan together despite being blonde./