EnviroLink Forum

What is it about overpopulation that makes the most dedicated environmental saver of the planet avoid it like the plague? Here is an article in common dreams dedicated to planetary salvation with a host of passionate dedicated planet savers offering commentary and not one of them mentions overpopulation, the obvious center piece of the problem. What gives?
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/06/15-4

Methinks it's preety simple: it calls for changes in behavior some just don't want a part of.

Their beliefs on reproductive rights trumping beliefs on the environment?

_________________
TANG SOO!

Maybe the thought of some type of eugenics following behind?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Human evolution that was a natural trend toward higher intelligence, greater strength, and better looks, has been reversed by human intervention. Basically, people just don't get the math or understand the consequences of their over-breeding behavior. On average, humans are stupid mammals. The main people not over-breeding for the overshoot, are those with very high IQ, but they will get killed off with the rest of this failed species, along with most other species. They are like deer in the headlights of the freight train of collapse.
http://www.skil.org/

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle

Not on my watch...or that of my one daughter. That girl got my physical and intellectual attributes combined with my wife's bull-headedness. We'll live out our lives, dying alone if that's the hand we're dealt. I'm Mad Max baby!

_________________
TANG SOO!

The only acceptable way of reducing population is to educate people so they have an average of about 2 kids per family, any other method is quite horrific and/or Orwellian, enforced sterilization for example goes against 2000 years of religious and enlightenment thinking.

And if that doesn't work or at least, work on time, then what? If we go down with the ship--our principles--fostering them for the benefit of future generations becomes a moot point.

_________________
TANG SOO!

I don't know.

That's why it's a radioactive elephant.

Well, we do know what works in the more immediate sense. Radioactivity doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing.

_________________
TANG SOO!

At least Suzuki, the author of the article, has something relevant to say on the topic of overpopulation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8x98KFcMJeo&feature=related

Yes. Suzuki is pointing to exponential growth in human population and yet, although he is well aware of the seriousness of the population problem, he explains, in the following article, that while most wealthy westerners would say that over population is the biggest challenge we face today, it is in fact over-consumption by the most privileged that is even more to blame in the destruction of the environment and resource depletion.



And ....



Suzuki goes on to explain that while it is not sustainable to have a human pop. that is growing exponentially, the average number of children per woman has actually gone down from 6 to 2.5 in the last 60 years, and that:



He also points out that the group who identify overpopulation as the biggest problem are also the group who oppose measures that would bring that population down. Corporations with politicians in their back pockets, and vice-versa, actually fight against these measures.

Suzuki maintains that if we do not uphold social justice, we will also see a corresponding failure in both environmental integrity and population increase.

So while we may be less poulated in North America and Europe than we are in Asia, we are degrading the environment and using up the resources much faster. We need to curb population and yet, it's going to take a lot more than that to solve our problems.

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/scienc ... -too-many/

I hardly come across anybody who is concerned about overpopulation who doesn't understand that a principal part of the solution has to be the rich giving up their hoggish ways. The billionaire who wants to lower population but doesn't understand that he is going to have to drastically lower his carbon foot print apparently just doesn't show up on these forums, but no doubt he is out there.

And yes lets educate poor women and give them access to medical care and family planning. And yes the rate of growth is slowing. These are the things I always hear and they are right as far as they go. But there really doesn't seem to be a serious road map to the future, simply nice sentiments about what could help mitigate the problems, not how to fire up sufficient commitment and resources to handle 200,000 new people being added to this planet each day. If population neatly follows its best deescalating rate of growth maybe we can top out at 8 billion folks by 2050. That's like a best case scenario. Think we can handle that? I don't. Too many ecosystems are playing out, too many vital resources are getting used up and too many societies are becoming more unstable.

It's hard to go after the rich when you can't get the poor on board. They seem to be more into scaling up than having the rich scale down. China and India are notable examples. Get rid of the top 20% who are gobbling up 80% of the resources and guess what, folks from the bottom 80% will in short order fill the positions of the raptured 20% and you are right back where you started.

So for me I refuse to play the game of environmentally sound equitable resource use versus dealing with population growth seriously. They both go hand in hand. Not attending directly to both is ultimately savaging the future.

Suzuki says "EVERY scientist I know agrees with me, we are already PAST the 59th minute" (my emphasis)