EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Sun Apr 20, 2014 4:17 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 97 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2012 1:46 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2147
Location: Central Colorado
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
Even with equal women's health and educational opportunities, the problem is really and unfortunate lack of >>average<<< intelligence. I read this general text in another forum;
The problem is that maximum food and water available in 2050 will be 1/3 to 1/2 of what it is now. The 7 billion of now reduced to just above starvation level in the best case scenario (6 billion) means reducing the 130 million annual births to 4 million while keeping the death rate of 50 million per year the same. That is just 3% of today's birth rate. If it is more, then the death rate will have to increase. If neither is done, the amount of food and water available will be below that needed to survive, on average. This is a set up for warfare and mass starvation/death from thirst. Eco-collapse preceded by years of abject world depression.
The math exercise;
IF): The population must go down fast enough to prevent a mass die-off event. The maximum food and water for humans that the planet can produce in 2050 will be at least a third less than today and possibly even less than half. The cumulative effects of AGW, soil losses, water losses, and oil loss/huge expense, will take a heavy toll on yields. If people start to compost more and grow and buy locally more, it will be on the low end. Business as usual until then will be the high end of crop and water loss. The population will be close to 9 billion living on enough food for only 3.5-4.7 billion. If there was some great leader who could say, and people obey, that we need a moratorium an having kids for 20 years, then the natural death rate would reduce the population by at least 50 million per year. Let's say 60 million per year reduction with almost no births. In 10 years it would reduce .6 billion, in 20 it would reduce 1.2 billion. Then one child families would keep the reduction rate at 20 million per year, so by 2050 there would be roughly 5.4 billion in a world that can only support 4.7 billion in the best case. So 700 million would starve or die of thirst, rather than 8 billion over a period of 20 years or so.
That is if there was such an edict and new morality and it started immediately. That is about the best mitigation we can hope for. Let us say it was an instant going to one child families with education and free forms of birth control and changes to social systems to provide for the disabled and elderly. Then 38 years of 20 million per year net drop would be 6.3 billion in a world that can support a max of 4.7 billion. There would be more deaths from starvation, 1.6 billion in a short period, and a greater chance of warfare over resources. Still, it would be better than the crash of 8 billion or more in around 20 years, in similar fashion to Easter Island 1150 AD. Warfare, theft, cannibalism, diseases, starvation, all too fast to even bury the remains.

I agree that people, on average, just are not smart enough to think ahead, or moral enough to care for future generations.
I like to use the term "head in the sand". Here's a good video on it with others at the right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTWduFB_RX0

I posted this in the past at both the environment site and population.org ;
Here is more commentary with a great old link on the bottom:
The "Horsemen" and the blame. 1.) Aquifer depletion is to be blamed on the people who are over the aquifers, not on outsiders. 2.) Soil depletion can only be blamed on the countries where they are or have depleted their own soils(by not adding organics/composts, salinization by over-irrigation with river waters high in salts, citification by uncontrolled population growth and sprawl, and by not fallowing the land), not on outsiders. 3.) Oil depletion can only be blamed on the countries with oil who have sold it for their own wealth to outsiders. 4.) AGW has a number of sources of blame; the countries burning oil, the countries burning coal, the countries using slash and burn agriculture, the countries cutting down their forests--not outsiders. 5.) overpopulation beyond sustainable is the fault of the countries involved. It may be their culture. It may be their average stupidity. It may be religions. It may be their immigration policies. It may be the greed of some. It may be a combination of factors. 6.) world fisheries collapse can be blamed on drift netters, shark finners, and 3 billion people who get 60% of their protein from fish/seafood. 7.) Surface water pollution/depletion can be blamed on the people in the areas it is occurring and the people upstream who over-use and pollute with everything from agricultural chemicals, industrial waste, excrement, and pharmaceuticals.
http://dieoff.org/page14.htm

http://www.worldometers.info/
These are VERY useful links. Plus this factoid:
"Research from Murtaugh and Schlax at Oregon State University shows that a hypothetical American woman who switches to a more fuel-efficient car, drives less, recycles, installs more efficient light bulbs, and replaces her refrigerator and windows with energy-saving models, would increase her carbon legacy by 40 times if she has two children."
And this food for thought; Overpopulation causes poverty, low IQ causes overpopulation and poverty.
1)overpopulation>too many people for the number of jobs>lower wages/income>poverty.(economics 1)
2)overpopulation>increased resource demands>increased depletion and increased prices>less money>poverty.(economics 1)
3)overpopulation>increased pollution and depletion>lower food production and lower pure water per capita>collapse/crash
area collapse/crash/economic hardship>migrations>collapse of host areas.(population science)
4)Higher IQ>thinking ahead>lower breeding rate/knowledge of sustainability and ecology>higher income>population habits within sustainability and pollution/depletion at replenishment/absorption rates(known by increased knowledge for increased IQ).
5)Lower IQ>easy influence by religions and cultures/lack of understanding ecology and ability to think ahead>high breeding rate>poverty>higher breeding rate>collapse economically and ecologically in one area>migrations>collapse in host areas.(multidisciplinary science and observation)
6)Long term crowding>crowd tolerance (generally regardless of IQ)>more overpopulation(w/more lowered wages)>collapse/crash

From page one.
I have seen food waste at 10% not 40%, and in my household it is zero because we compost or re-use everything. Our adjusted for one child footprint is 1/20th the average American citizen, and we live well. It can be done outside of urban areas, but the giant monstropolises of the world are all unsustainable and will be the places where most of the die off occurs. They will become deserted decaying monuments to human stupidity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGC ... r_embedded

_________________
"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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:01 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 1:54 pm
Posts: 53
Location: Hamilton, Canada
Bored Wombat wrote:
Perhaps the world population will naturally come to a limit of about ten billion.

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_r ... abies.html

And then what? Even with drastic reductions in carbon footprint, 10 billion is way above a permanently sustainable population level.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2012 3:15 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 1:54 pm
Posts: 53
Location: Hamilton, Canada
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
From 1997, and we have 1.2 billion more people,
http://www.brontaylor.com/courses/pdf/I ... Denial.pdf

QUOTE
"A remarkable feature of human population growth is the abundance of
people who deny that human numbers count. Across the spectrum of
public opinion, there is near unanimity that the notion of overpopulation
is either a silly fantasy dreamed up by a few ecofkeaks or a temporary
phenomenon, affecting only a few places in the Thirdworld, and
one that will dissipate of its own accord. In the latter case, incantation
of the phrase "demographic transition"is usually thought sufficient to
dispel the specter.

Examples abound of the mental and moral Aiction that might
best be christened the Overpopulation Denial Syndrome (ODS). At
the time of the first Earth Day in 1970, for example, there was considerable
concern about population increase, partly due to the writings of
ecologist Paul Ehrlich. Since then, the global population has shot up
by 1.6 billion people (a 43 percent increase), yet on Earth Day 1990
there was virtual silence on the subject.

The 1992 Earth Summit largely ignored population problems.
Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, and most mainstream environmental
organizations hardly address the issue. [The political parties],"green" ones
included, are silent. None of the green lifestyle guides mention overpopulation,
even though giving birth to children is the most significant
environmental choice any couple makes" :mrgreen: #-o :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: 8) [-X

The reason why population growth has resumed in many areas that can least afford it is because of a three-headed beast of conflicting interests who are able to cooperate together in their shared goals of restoring patriarchal authority and pushing back women's rights - especially regarding birth control. And these three: U.S. conservative Republican governments since Reagan, The Vatican, and Organization of Islamic Countries, have conspired together to knock down the birth control programs of the UN and NGO's operating around the world. If not for the collaboration of conservative reactionaries, family size would still be declining everywhere, and we would have a reduction in population gradually, rather than a sudden crash.
Quote:
Basically people, in general, consciously or sub-consciously, are ecocidal maniacs.

In places where birth control is offered free of intimidation, population levels have been in decline for the last few decades. So, I don't believe that people are innately suicidal. When it comes to carbon footprint, it's not the people that are suicidal, it's the economic system that we are trapped in and have to work with everyday. We have a system that demands continuous growth or it punishes its citizens (especially at the lowest income levels) with recession to spur them to work harder and take on more debt and buy more crap. That's the part that's suicidal!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 8:50 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1272
ralfy wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:

This does not show the discrepency betwen first world and third world consumption.
In terms of consumption, the wealthy countries of North America and Europe are eating up the world's resources at a much faster rate than thirld world countries. Overpopulation is also a factor and must be addressed in third world countries, as much as over consumption must be tackled in the first world.

Nice article .... but we have already been there. Let's move on ...

Education ..... in the underdeveloped worlds, must be afforded to women and women must be given other opportunities as well. In leveling the playing field between genders in less develoed nations, which means moving away from tradition, we will see a reduction in birth rate. This is where social justice comes into play. Social justice is eco justice.

Continiung to lament over-population as the main culprit is barking up one side of the tree. It is a willful ignorance of the actuality which is, simply, overconsumption, mostly by the western nations.

The first world, moving away from the tradition of


Your second paragraph contradicts your first.

The claim isn't that overpopulation isn't a factor. It's that lower birth rates are usually achieved through greater prosperity, but that in turn leads to more resource consumption.

Your two last paragraphs actually support my point but contradict the first two paragraphs of your message.


We know that overpopulation is a factor but an equally important factor is overconsumption by western nations. Greater prosperity can mean a lot of things and does not necessarily include over-consumption. It depends on what we mean by prosperity. So far, in the western nations, prosperity has meant consumption, but it need not. Quality of life does not need to include buying copious amounts of manufactured junk.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 8:55 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:42 am
Posts: 1272
animal-friendly wrote:
ralfy wrote:
animal-friendly wrote:

This does not show the discrepency betwen first world and third world consumption.
In terms of consumption, the wealthy countries of North America and Europe are eating up the world's resources at a much faster rate than thirld world countries. Overpopulation is also a factor and must be addressed in third world countries, as much as over consumption must be tackled in the first world.

Nice article .... but we have already been there. Let's move on ...

Education ..... in the underdeveloped worlds, must be afforded to women and women must be given other opportunities as well. In leveling the playing field between genders in less develoed nations, which means moving away from tradition, we will see a reduction in birth rate. This is where social justice comes into play. Social justice is eco justice.

Continiung to lament over-population as the main culprit is barking up one side of the tree. It is a willful ignorance of the actuality which is, simply, overconsumption, mostly by the western nations.

The first world, moving away from the tradition of


Your second paragraph contradicts your first.

The claim isn't that overpopulation isn't a factor. It's that lower birth rates are usually achieved through greater prosperity, but that in turn leads to more resource consumption.

Your two last paragraphs actually support my point but contradict the first two paragraphs of your message.


We know that overpopulation is a factor but an equally important factor is overconsumption by western nations. Greater prosperity can mean a lot of things and does not necessarily include over-consumption. It depends on what we mean by prosperity. So far, in the western nations, prosperity has meant consumption, but it need not. Quality of life does not need to include buying copious amounts of manufactured junk.


From your post:

Quote:
I think the problem isn't so much denial of overpopulation but not seeing connections between overpopulation, overconsumption, capitalism, and environmental damage. For example, as seen in the ff:

http://usactions.greenpeace.org/blog/fr ... far_down_t

http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/faqs/camp ... ation.html

it appears that these organizations do not deny overpopulation. Rather, they claim that the main cause of increasing environmental damage is overconsumption. The reason why they are concerned is that according to this:

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/810

60 pct of private consumption spending involves only around 12 pct of the world's population, while the lower third of the world's population account for only 3.2 pct of the same.


Maybe my earlier post was unclear, but I am basically agreeing ......


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2012 12:08 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2147
Location: Central Colorado
animal-friendly wrote:
Greater prosperity can mean a lot of things and does not necessarily include over-consumption. It depends on what we mean by prosperity. So far, in the western nations, prosperity has meant consumption, but it need not. Quality of life does not need to include buying copious amounts of manufactured junk.
The Earthship video shows this very well in the "Garbage Warrior" post.
Here is a new video on overpopulation that is very good;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msWxq-rAnEo

_________________
"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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 2:38 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:24 am
Posts: 87
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
From page one.
I have seen food waste at 10% not 40%, and in my household it is zero because we compost or re-use everything. Our adjusted for one child footprint is 1/20th the average American citizen, and we live well. It can be done outside of urban areas, but the giant monstropolises of the world are all unsustainable and will be the places where most of the die off occurs. They will become deserted decaying monuments to human stupidity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGC ... r_embedded


Any studies that show that what you describe represents the norm will be helpful. For now, I can only assume that even the computer that you are now using and Internet access will involve not just "giant monstropolises" but mass manufacturing and even mechanized agriculture geared towards the use of oil and, as part of a global capitalist economy, dependent on a JIT system as well. In which case, I would focus more on the ecological footprint data shared earlier than anecdotes, and assume that availability of various goods (including food, medicine, most products that require petrochemicals, etc.) will require a footprint at least equivalent to that of Cuba, which is already above a bio-capacity buoyed by the use of energy.

Finally, it should be noted once more that bio-capacity drops given an increase in population coupled with environmental damage.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 2:40 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:24 am
Posts: 87
animal-friendly wrote:

We know that overpopulation is a factor but an equally important factor is overconsumption by western nations. Greater prosperity can mean a lot of things and does not necessarily include over-consumption. It depends on what we mean by prosperity. So far, in the western nations, prosperity has meant consumption, but it need not. Quality of life does not need to include buying copious amounts of manufactured junk.


Greater prosperity will ultimately mean greater consumption, as the former is achieved only through increased money supply. That money has value only as long as production and consumption of goods increase.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 5:26 am 
Online
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 11:50 pm
Posts: 126
Location: Delhi , India
The one and only cause of environmental destruction is Industrialization.

Overpopulation and Overconsumerism are consequences / by-products of Industrialization.

Without Industrialization there would be no overpopulation and no overconsumerism.

Industrialization, Overpopulation and Overconsumerism happen together.......Industrialization, Overpopulation and Overconsumerism happen at the same time.

It is Industrialization that has led to a population of 7 billion.....Not overbreeding.

The entire world was overbreeding before Industrialization.....The entire world is underbreeding after Industrialization.

There used to be 5 - 15 children per family all over the world before Industrialization and yet world population reached only 1 billion till 1800 AD......After Industrialization the family size reduced drastically, most families are now having 1 - 4 children and yet world population jumped from 1 billion to 7 billion in just about 200 years.

If Industrialization had not happened world population would be less than 2 billion today.

If Industrialization had not happened, High death rate would have kept population under control....Diseases caused by virus and bacteria would have kept population under control.....Feeding capacity of soil would have kept population under control....Shortage of food and water would have kept population under control.....Harsh Climatic Conditions would have kept population under control - People would not have been able to live in regions that are too hot or too cold.

If Industrialization had not happened this planet would have been in very good condition today.....There would be no overpopulation, no overconsumerism and only limited urbanization.

A Non-Industrial Society would have destroyed some ecosystems on the land [Forests] but Marine Ecology [Oceans] would have been almost 100% safe today......Forest Cover would be much greater than what it is now....Millions of species on the land and in the sea would not have been decimated and would be thriving with very healthy populations......This planet would be free of Billions of Tonnes of Metal Waste, Plastic Waste, Chemical waste, Gaseous Waste, eWaste and Nuclear Waste.....The Oceans wouldn't have become Acidic, Warmer and Oxygen Deprived because of Industrial Waste.

It is consumerism that destroys environment, Not population.

A Hunter_Gatherer Society of 7 billion would have destroyed very little environment...... because it would have destroyed environment only for food......not for thousands of consumer goods and services.

An Agrarian Society of 7 billion would have destroyed very little environment [compared to an Industrial Society of 7 billion]...... because it would have destroyed environment only for food, clothing and shelter.......not for thousands of consumer goods and services.

[By the way, A Hunter_Gatherer Society would have never reached a population of 7 billion......An Agrarian Society would have never reached a population of 7 billion]

Environment has been destroyed by Industrialization/ Consumerism…….Not by Population/ Overpopulation.

Total World Population has not increased ……It has decreased……In fact total world population has been decimated.

When we talk about population we should take into account population of all animal species on earth, not just human population.

Industrial Society has decimated millions of Animal Species……Increase in human population has coincided with decrease/ decimation of millions of animal species.... The total burden of population on this planet has not increased…..It has decreased.

Industrial Society has decimated millions of other species......There was a time when the combined population of other animal species was much greater than present human population.....and we don't even need to include smaller animals in this count.....The combined population of big animals alone whose size and weight was equivalent to or greater than man was much greater than current human population of 7 billion.

The amount of food this animal population was eating was much greater than the food consumed by humans today.......Yet millions of animal species did not destroy environment and lived sustainably on earth for millions of years......because they destroyed environment only for food and not for thousands of consumer goods and services.

If animals had started a consumerist "Industrial Society" millions of years ago they would have destroyed all ecosystems millions of years ago.

The entire world has been trying to control human population for 50 years and these efforts should / will continue in future.....so where is the problem with population?????

It is so ridiculous of Industrial Society to complain about overpopulation when it itself is the cause of overpopulation......It is so ridiculous of Industrial Society to make attempts to control population while promoting Consumerism, Growth Rate, Economy Rate and GDP exponentially.

This planet can only sustain a Non-Industrial Society.
.
.
.

Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 15, 2012 12:31 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2147
Location: Central Colorado
Sushy "This planet can only sustain a Non-Industrial Society"
The current overpopulation started with fossil fueled industrialization, aggravated by technology which lowered infant mortality and raised life expectancy. It was further aggravated when oil was incorporated into the industrialization, with mechanization and use of petro-chemicals in industrialized agriculture. It was further aggravated by the development of the growth only economy, extra people to advertize and sell, and extra people to govern, all without producing. The ratio of workers to those supported by workers changed, putting more of a burden on them. The too many people for the amount of jobs reduced wages, increasing the burden and increasing debt.
The industrialization/mechanization powered by fossil fuels also led to resource depletion well over a hundred times natural replenishment and regeneration/recharge rates. It caused pollution over a thousand times absorption rates of the natural systems involved.
With the decreased child mortality and increased lifespans, people did not reduce family size to accommodate this fast enough. The large amount of resources initially brought in from fossil fueled industrialization/mechanization along with the technology that destroyed predators from wolves to diseases, resulted in a stimulated hyperbolic population growth. The same curve seen in stimulated mammal populations in field and lab ecological/biological studies.
There were regional increases to far beyond long term sustainability with non-fossil fueled technology and industrialization. Starting with bows and arrows and large spears to destroy predators. Then metal forging and gunpowder to destroy more predators, except diseases. Water wheels were part of regional industrial/mechanized production. Plumbing/irrigation technology brought in more water.
A jump started with the large scale use of coal to power machinery for shipping and production. If there wasn't this large scale use of coal, then oil, the industrialization/mechanization would not have been powered. If medical technology would not have increased, the death rates from diseases would not have fallen. If there had not been adopted a general philosophy of over-compassion and over-tolerance, death rates from wars would have combined with diseases to keep population in check. If the philosophy of ecological awareness and oneness with nature, and thinking ahead of consequences in all you do---such as the Ute Rule of Life---had been universally adopted instead, people would have seen the folly of depleting resources faster than replenishment and polluting faster than nature could absorb it. They would have understood the natural limits and stayed sustainable even with limited industrialization/mechanization and technology gains. If there was an adopted philosophy of unselfishness, and a steady state economy, the desire to have too much would have been nipped in the bud.
It is too late now to prevent a massive die off, and time of poverty and horror. We can blame fossil fueled industrialization, or mechanization, or technology, or philosophical shortcomings, but the main thing is that the over-breeding tendency from times of high mortality and lower food, was not changed enough.

_________________
"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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2012 6:42 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:24 am
Posts: 87
"Over-breeding" has likely been in place from the start. What kept increasing population in check was high infant mortality rates and generally a lack of resources, and during the current period either enforced policies (like that of China) or greater prosperity (as seen in industrialized countries with lower birth rates but far higher resource consumption levels per capita).

As I pointed out before, the population increased thanks to the use of oil and other technologies, which in turn also led to increased resource consumption per capita. The latter led to lower infant mortality rates, which in turn contributed to increased population.

There was no "general philosophy of over-compassion and over-tolerance," for as one study reveals, the percentage of deaths due to war compared to world population during the previous two centuries was higher than previous centuries:

http://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/20 ... st-of-all/

Population increased likely because the technology to kill was outweighed by the technology to prolong life. And it did not help that a global capitalist system which stemmed from the same use of various technologies ultimately required increasing numbers of people consuming more in return for more profits.

Thus, in many ways people from the past "understood" the limits of resource availability. It is just that they didn't have the means to keep population low, so they let nature do such. That is why life expectancy rates remained low and steady for several centuries. That is why global population barely increased until various technologies were employed.

As explained above, the two current means to control population involve forced policies, like that of China, and increasing prosperity, resulting in lower birth rates in various industrialized countries. However, the one-child policy in China has backfired, leading to increasing numbers of boys, and now, increasing resource consumption per capita. Worse, the lower birth rate phenomenon in industrialized countries has led to increased resource consumption which has offset any savings due to lower birth rates. On top of that, population ageing has taken place in some, prompting communities to encourage immigration or raising families.

Who has been promoting population control worldwide? Usually, philanthropists and powerful multinational corporations, especially those involved in pharma businesses. Ironically, several of them say nothing about overconsumption in rich countries, preferring to blame "Third Worlders" for resource availability issues. Another irony is that their main motive for controlling population in poor countries is not to decrease resource consumption but the opposite, as population control is supposed to lead to more stable economies, and with that, more prosperity which translates to more spending, and thus more sales for corporations.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 16, 2012 12:25 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2147
Location: Central Colorado
http://www.populationmedia.org/issues/p ... d-poverty/

_________________
"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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2012 12:35 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:24 am
Posts: 87
It's also the other way round: poverty contributes to higher birth rates.

The reference also supports what I said earlier: one of the reasons for "population stabilization" is economic improvement, which in turn leads to more resource consumption.

Ultimately, all population control policies take place amid a global capitalist system which requires increasing production and consumption of goods to ensure more profits. Increasing consumption can only take place with economic improvement, but at some point population ageing and low fertility rates set in, and these are now affecting Japan, South Korea, and Singapore (three countries mentioned in the page), and ironically are seen as a threat to their economic growth. Meanwhile, there is increasing resource demand in China and India due to growing middle classes.

Thus, it is not only population growth that is threatening the environment but a global economy that requires increasing resource consumption. That is why even as global birth rates have been slowing down resource consumption has not.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:12 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2147
Location: Central Colorado
People in poverty tend to have more kids so one of them will support them in old age and to have more to work the farm and ranch to get more food and money. They also tend not to look ahead to the consequence on an unseen level and into an unknown future. They do not understand limits and the finite nature of the biosphere. As the kids reach adulthood, they seek work in urban areas, and wages decline with too many people and not enough jobs(increasing poverty) while the regional ecology suffers from soil and water depletion and pollution from added erosion and fecal matter to rivers, lakes, and estuaries. The population is well over long term sustainable through droughts.
Africa;
HAWKANTAKI, Niger (AP) — "Each day before the reaping, the 11-year-old girl walked between the stunted stalks of millet with a sense of mounting dread.

In a normal year, the green shoots vaulted out of the ground and rose as high as 13 feet (4 meters), a wall tall enough to conceal an adult man. This time, they only reached her waist. Even the tallest plant in her family's plot barely grazed her shoulder.

Zali could feel the tug of the invisible thread tying her fate to that of the land. As the world closed in around her, she knew that this time the bad harvest would mean more than just hunger.

In Hawkantaki, it is the rhythm of the land that shapes the cycle of life, including the time of marriage. The size of the harvest determines not only if a father can feed his family, but also if he can afford to keep his daughter under his roof.

Even at the best of times, one out of every three girls in Niger marries before her 15th birthday, a rate of child marriage among the highest in the world, according to a UNICEF survey.

Now this custom is being layered on top of a crisis. At times of severe drought, parents pushed to the wall by poverty and hunger are marrying their daughters at even younger ages.

A girl married off is one less mouth to feed, and the dowry money she brings in goes to feed others.

"Families are using child marriage, as an alternative, as a survival strategy to the food insecurity," says Djanabou Mahonde, UNICEF's chief child protection officer in Niger.

This drought-prone country of 16 million is so short on food that it is ranked dead last by international aid organization Save the Children in the percentage of children receiving a "minimum acceptable diet."

The consequences are dire. A total of 51 percent of children in Niger are stunted, according to a report published in July by Save the Children. The average height of a 2 1/2-year-old girl born here is around 3 inches (8 centimeters) shorter than what it should be for a child that age.

In the tiny village of Hawkantaki, nearly every household has lost at least one child to hunger or the illnesses that come from it. Their miniature graves dot the hamlet."

_________________
"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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 5:23 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:24 am
Posts: 87
If they don't have enough children to care for them or to take care of the farm, then they will face "an unknown future" as well.

Why, then, is population increasing even given poverty? It's because the parameters for poverty has changed. In the past, high infant mortality rates, lack of basic sanitation, cheap vaccines, and other means would have kept population steady. But with the Green Revolution, the use of oil, etc., we've seen the global population double in only four decades. For only a few cents a day, one can ensure the survival of a poor child during his or her most dangerous years, between the age of 0 and 6. After that, his or her life expectancy rate increases considerably.

And yet population growth is slowing down. Why is that? It's because the same technologies has also led to a growing global middle class, which also means increased resource consumption. We kept looking at the few cents needed to prolong life but not the energy and resource cost, which is much higher.

The irony, then, is that the solution to not understanding limits due to poverty, which is prosperity, actually accelerates the arrival of those limits.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 97 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: sushilydv and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group