Has The Population Bomb ... Fizzled ?

[Michael Hardner]

Something tells me that a lower birthrate in some places in the 3rd world simply is'nt good enough for him...

Forced depopulation is probably more to his liking...

Gotta keep those howling 3rd world masses from breaching the walls!!!!

In the end, it's revenge of the cradle. When I visited Cuba in the 1980s (go ahead and have a field day with that one, L) I was impressed with the amount of socializing that happened between people of different backgrounds. It really didn't seem to matter, and it was normal to see mixed groups together. I'm seeing that today with kids in Toronto. Given that the European divisions are rather arbitrary (Are you Luxumbourgian ? I'm sorry my family is Leichtensteinian through and through) then getting hung-up on such things seems such a 17th-20th century thing... especially a 1930s German thing...

[Jack Weber]

In the end, it's revenge of the cradle. When I visited Cuba in the 1980s (go ahead and have a field day with that one, L) I was impressed with the amount of socializing that happened between people of different backgrounds. It really didn't seem to matter, and it was normal to see mixed groups together. I'm seeing that today with kids in Toronto. Given that the European divisions are rather arbitrary (Are you Luxumbourgian ? I'm sorry my family is Leichtensteinian through and through) then getting hung-up on such things seems such a 17th-20th century thing... especially a 1930s German thing...

I love his affinity for European bluebloods and right wing monarchist types...

Does he realize the Hapsburg's are all inbred?

Because inbreeding is a sign of racially superior behaviour!!!!

[lictor616]

It demands a shift in our mentality when it comes to food. We have an abundance of products that are just not good for us, and we seem to find that in more quantity than food that is good for us. We could not waste our energy on producing food that is unhealthy, which can and already does put an economic strain on us because we are spending money to cure ourselves.

Iwas talking about the energy demands required to overcome the "distribution problem" you were talking about. Do you really think that trucking, airplaning, refrigerating food for BILLIONS of additional people (not to mention, the increase in production, increase in water usage, increase in sewage facilities etc) wont have any negative consequences on the price of fuel, or energy or food?

I bet you'd be giving this food away too, since obviously the third worlders helped by this grand scheme, couldn't afford to pay for the food. Really what are you envisioning? take me down that road! show me how this would work... or how this would even be desirable to keep up with current population growths.

Unhealthy food is a product of the increased strain on agriculture you nitwit! We are lab rats for GMO crops right now BECAUSE GMO food stocks are easier and cheaper to grow! Wheat, Canola, Soya etc.

Why do you think we drink pop sweetened with GMO corn syrup instead of cane sugar? because doing this allows for more sweetener to be produced to accommodate the gargantuan demands of a growing population.

furthermore the logical conclusion of what you propose would be for brokers and bureaucrats to decide wha twe eat for us... because that type of rationing would be an inevitable consequence of having to feed an ever growing population with dwindling resources.

are you people this disconnected from reality?

[lictor616]

Because inbreeding is a sign of racially superior behaviour!!!!

are you saying that Europeans are inbreds and genetically inferior for it?

[lictor616]

In the end, it's revenge of the cradle. When I visited Cuba in the 1980s (go ahead and have a field day with that one, L) I was impressed with the amount of socializing that happened between people of different backgrounds. It really didn't seem to matter, and it was normal to see mixed groups together. I'm seeing that today with kids in Toronto. Given that the European divisions are rather arbitrary (Are you Luxumbourgian ? I'm sorry my family is Leichtensteinian through and through) then getting hung-up on such things seems such a 17th-20th century thing... especially a 1930s German thing...

anecdotal nonsense again, but ill play ball...

what do you mean by different backgrounds in cuba? really how diverse is cuba?

[Michael Hardner]

anecdotal nonsense again, but ill play ball...

what do you mean by different backgrounds in cuba? really how diverse is cuba?

It was pretty diverse in 1988. I was hanging out with 'the people' though... not the elites.

[WIP]

This blogger posts a convincing case that it's been defused.

Next time somebody tells you that the world's population is exploding, tell them about Bangladesh and Iran. Now, we should start focusing on the environmental challenges for the first world.

Sometimes Grist has good information...but this isn't one of them! No doubt there is a racist angle to calls for population control, but to use that to deny the problem of overpopulation is the wrong advice to give nations that are already beyond the breaking point. This is similar to that British commie who made a climate change-denial movie a couple of years back, because he decided that taking action against global warming impeded Third World nations' opportunity to industrialize. It is stupid reasoning in both cases, because the larger problems related to natural resources don't give a crap about human political wishes.

In India, there is a renewed effort to re-introduce the sterilization programs. Sterilization became a vulgar issue for decades because the authoritarian regime of Indira Gandhi tried to impose forced sterilization....which you may guess was targeted largely at lower class and lower caste Indians. The reason why they are talking about offering incentives for a voluntary sterilization system now, is because the general consensus is finally starting to realize that there are no more green revolutions to be had. In fact, mechanized agriculture based on hybrid plants and oil-based fertilizers has already degraded the topsoil in most of the good agricultural regions of the country. They are running out of sources for fresh water for the cities, and of course the changing climate (which many idiots here still deny) has put extra pressure on India's ability to feed its already oversized population.

India, and the rest of the world, has no choice other than gradually bringing down the human population levels, or mother nature will bring them down for us! As a species, the human race is already living beyond the carrying capacity of our environment, and the rapacious level we are polluting this world and depleting its resources has to be balanced for the sake of future generations. Better to start now than leave our grandchildren with a world that may force them into extinction.

[WIP]

The Earth can support many times its current population; technology allows us to greatly increase the carrying capacity of our environment. A population that stops growing (or even worse, declines) is a sign of stagnation and societal collapse.

No, it cannot! The best estimates I've seen indicate that we would need three planet earths to supply the natural resources for everyone to have an American-style living standard. This isn't rocket science! The Earth is a finite resource, while our population and economic demands are growing exponentially; both have to be reduced if we want future generations to have a good chance of continued success on planet earth.

[Michael Hardner]

Sometimes Grist has good information...but this isn't one of them! No doubt there is a racist angle to calls for population control, but to use that to deny the problem of overpopulation is the wrong advice to give nations that are already beyond the breaking point. This is similar to that British commie who made a climate change-denial movie a couple of years back, because he decided that taking action against global warming impeded Third World nations' opportunity to industrialize. It is stupid reasoning in both cases, because the larger problems related to natural resources don't give a crap about human political wishes.

I don't think anybody is advising nations to stop population control. I think that the point is that it's inevitable.

In India, there is a renewed effort to re-introduce the sterilization programs. Sterilization became a vulgar issue for decades because the authoritarian regime of Indira Gandhi tried to impose forced sterilization....which you may guess was targeted largely at lower class and lower caste Indians. The reason why they are talking about offering incentives for a voluntary sterilization system now, is because the general consensus is finally starting to realize that there are no more green revolutions to be had. In fact, mechanized agriculture based on hybrid plants and oil-based fertilizers has already degraded the topsoil in most of the good agricultural regions of the country. They are running out of sources for fresh water for the cities, and of course the changing climate (which many idiots here still deny) has put extra pressure on India's ability to feed its already oversized population.

India, and the rest of the world, has no choice other than gradually bringing down the human population levels, or mother nature will bring them down for us! As a species, the human race is already living beyond the carrying capacity of our environment, and the rapacious level we are polluting this world and depleting its resources has to be balanced for the sake of future generations. Better to start now than leave our grandchildren with a world that may force them into extinction.

Yes, you seem to have got a different point than I got. The populations are coming down, but we need to focus on first world consumption.

I would step back even further and say we need to manage common communications so that the right to educate people isn't purchased, so that truth can't be bought/sold.

[Moonlight Graham]

we should go to the source of the problem not try to alleviate the symptoms: the IMF, internationalist left wing NGOs like the UN, liberal "intellectuals", socialists etc.

The UN isn't an NGO, its an IGO (intergovernmental organization). It's largely created/run/funded by governments and/or their official representatives.

[Jack Weber]

The UN isn't an NGO, its an IGO (intergovernmental organization). It's largely created/run/funded by governments and/or their official representatives.

"And it's full of Communists...You reprobate pinko!!!"

[lictor616]

It was pretty diverse in 1988. I was hanging out with 'the people' though... not the elites.

elaborate please... what kind of diversity...

[lictor616]

No, it cannot! The best estimates I've seen indicate that we would need three planet earths to supply the natural resources for everyone to have an American-style living standard. This isn't rocket science! The Earth is a finite resource, while our population and economic demands are growing exponentially; both have to be reduced if we want future generations to have a good chance of continued success on planet earth.

its a hopeless cause WIP, they won`t listen to reason because their thinking isn`t based in reason... as self evident your comment may be to anyone anywhere on the political spectrum who isn't completely blind by a futuristic dream of having everyone live in superdevelopped countries 15 years from now... with no poverty, and food for everyone...

[lictor616]

The UN isn't an NGO, its an IGO (intergovernmental organization). It's largely created/run/funded by governments and/or their official representatives.

The UN is an NGO and an INTERNATIONAL organisation... not an referred to as an INTERGOVERNMENTAL organization. Although part of its mandate is to supervise relation between nations

the UN has an NGO component to it.

if yuo're going to be diverting from the subject at least be correct.

[lictor616]

Yes, you seem to have got a different point than I got. The populations are coming down, but we need to focus on first world consumption.

lol the populations are not coming down, if there are more births then deaths every year genius! hoe do you figure we are DEPOPULATING?!!?

and I can just hear the solution to all of our problems now: regulate consumption by socialist policies, by forcing cap and trade taxes, by having NGO`s ban certain foods, hey! maybe we could have bread lines like they did in the Soviet Union! TO each according to his capacity and need right guys!

yay!!!

why deny the communist accusations if everything you stand for is "communistic"??

[Moonlight Graham]

Iwas talking about the energy demands required to overcome the "distribution problem" you were talking about. Do you really think that trucking, airplaning, refrigerating food for BILLIONS of additional people (not to mention, the increase in production, increase in water usage, increase in sewage facilities etc) wont have any negative consequences on the price of fuel, or energy or food?

First, let me just say that i do think overpopulation is a big problem, and overall, world resources & the environment will have difficultly sustaining an ever-booming global population. However, as i've already stated, i agree with Ghost that hunger is a distribution problem and a money problem, not an overpopulation problem.

I can't explain it in one paragraph and won't do it in 10 because i just dont have the time/energy, and unfortunately i can't provide any links because much of what i've read about the problem is in books not online sources. Here's 2 pioneering books to check out: "Poverty and Families: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation" by Amartya Sen, published in 1981, and "Refashioning Nature: Food, Ecology, and Culture" by Goodman and Redclift, from 1991. They help describe exactly WHY people in the world go hungry.

Basically, it is a problem greatly caused by the globalization of food trade and liberalization of trade markets since 1945. a huge player in this has been the USA (though the consequences were largely unforeseen), which was producing huge food surpluses at the end of WWII. These surpluses became cheap food exports, and cheap imported food into developing countries made it unattractive for subsistence farmers in developing countries to continue growing these crops because the now-cheap global food prices meant they made far less money when they sold their crops to locals. The production of subsistence crops in the developing world for local consumption has dropped drastically since WWII because they couldn't compete with 1st-world production, a problem made worse by 1st-world countries heavily subsidizing their agriculture producers. Hence, a dependence on food aid was created (and food aid is obviously a short-term solution).

The decline in subsistence crop production in the developing world meant a big increase on large-scale, export-oriented cash-crop production (coffee etc.). Peasants were thrown off the land because their labour was no longer needed, or their land bought out by multinational corporations. So there is a greater concentration of land in a smaller # of people. A lot of local farmers in ie: latin America were encouraged to sell their land to corporations and move closer to cities and sweatshops where they lived on property with no land therefore they couldn't grow their own food, and during times of economic turmoil could not afford to buy food or had means to grow food so they would go hungry. This large crop production has also caused environment damage from pesticides, fertilization, and improper irrigation.

Frequently (as Amartya Sen points out in the book), times of famine have actually occurred when global food production was high, but local economic factors led to the inability for people to buy food from local shops. The food exists to feed starving people, but starving people do not have the money to buy food & largely no longer have the means to grow it themselves. This is how people living in the most lushly vegetated areas on earth go hungry.

I bet you'd be giving this food away too, since obviously the third worlders helped by this grand scheme, couldn't afford to pay for the food. Really what are you envisioning? take me down that road! show me how this would work... or how this would even be desirable to keep up with current population growths.

I don't know how to solve this problem. Obviously the global food regime is hurting developing countries in favour of 1st world ones. The whole system has become f****d. To start, global trade rules governing agriculture must be changed, and SAP's forcing 3rd world countries to liberalize their trade markets must be curtailed. The whole system of global food trade needs to be fixed. Sadly, most governments along with institutions like the IMF & World Bank still think hunger is a problem of overpopulation, not distribution & purchasing ability.

Edited July 14, 2010 by Moonlight Graham

[Bonam]

its a hopeless cause WIP, they won`t listen to reason because their thinking isn`t based in reason... as self evident your comment may be to anyone anywhere on the political spectrum who isn't completely blind by a futuristic dream of having everyone live in superdevelopped countries 15 years from now... with no poverty, and food for everyone...

That's not my position at all, which you'd know if you'd been paying attention. I am simply talking about technological reality. The Earth can support many more people than it presently does. We have hardly begun to tap the vast amount of energy available from a variety of sources (nuclear, solar, etc). Essentially limitless quantities of water can be obtained from the oceans through desalination. Food, if fertile surface farmland is scarce, can be grown hydroponically. Genetic modifications can allow for vast increases in yields. This technology is already all readily available, and already in use, and will continue to be used more.

For one who frequently comments on the dangers of the demographic trends that you see in white areas of the world, as you do lictor, you'd think that you would see the equal or even greater danger if humankind as a whole enters that same demographic trend. Humanity's only long term hope for survival is continued growth and expansion, eventually beyond Earth. If instead we enter an era of global population decline, it will signal our inevitable extinction.

Note that I make no mention of "superdeveloped" countries, socialist paradises, or anything of the like. The third world will remain a worthless hellhole for some time, until and unless they can manage to progress from their own effort and merit. But that does not mean that the Earth's carrying capacity is limited to a few billion, it simply means that not every nation is capable of utilizing technology to appropriately scale its carrying capacity.

In my view, people who advocate for an end to population growth or indeed for population decline are asking for nothing more than the end of the human race.

[Moonlight Graham]

In my view, people who advocate for an end to population growth or indeed for population decline are asking for nothing more than the end of the human race.

What?? How does declining the population or declining growth = zero humans? Kind of a slippery slope argument.

[Moonlight Graham]

The UN is an NGO and an INTERNATIONAL organisation... not an referred to as an INTERGOVERNMENTAL organization. Although part of its mandate is to supervise relation between nations

the UN has an NGO component to it.

if yuo're going to be diverting from the subject at least be correct.

Actually i'm right. An IGO is a type of international organization, so the UN is both: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_organization The UN works in partnership with NGO's, but i can't see how the UN itself would be classified as an NGO.

[Bonam]

What?? How does declining the population or declining growth = zero humans? Kind of a slippery slope argument.

Once the societal conditions to create declining population have been setup, who is to say they can be stopped? What motive is there for progress when each subsequent generation is smaller than the last? What atmosphere is set when buildings in cities are abandoned and crumble as there are not enough people left to use them? What portends when the borders of civilization retreat and once prosperous areas become unpeopled?

Now this does not lead directly to zero numbers, but it does lead to zero progress, to regression on every front, whether technical, scientific, artistic, cultural. A civilization with a declining population is a dying civilization. With less people around, who is to learn all the many thousands of specialized tasks which must be done to keep our civilization going? Who maintains the advanced machines designed by their long dead predecessors in the days of their society's bloom? As specializations and fields of knowledge are lost, so too is the civilization, until it regresses from advancement into mere subsistence. And people living in that way are much more vulnerable to natural disasters, changes in climate, disease, etc. Without our technical civilizations, which on the whole have been in a state of perpetual growth since their beginnings over 5000-6000 years ago, humans are but another animal species, as prone as any to extinction.

This might at first read sound like alarmism or pathos to some, but think on it. Come up with even a single example of a human civilization which has experienced a prolonged period of negative population growth and yet remained prosperous if you disagree.

[Moonlight Graham]

A civilization with a declining population is a dying civilization. With less people around, who is to learn all the many thousands of specialized tasks which must be done to keep our civilization going?

My stance is that 7 billion people on the planet is more than enough. I don't necessarily call for a smaller/declining population, but the growth needs to stop at some point. Hopefully the biggest population boom is over. Humans need to live in relative equilibrium with nature, with no massive growth or massive decline in pop. Sure at any given time the pop will be growing or shrinking, but to continue to grow is insane & unsustainable. Humans have put enough strain on the earth as it is. I really don't give a f*** about technological advancement etc. decreasing somewhat if we go from 7 billion to 5 billion, i'm more concerned with things like humans over-fishing the seas, continually polluting the environment with our discarded wastes, and deforestation and habitat destruction for the many species we are supposed to share this lovely planet with. How many species are humans responsible for sending into extinction or endangerment?

7 billion is good, time to call it a day.

[Bonam]

My stance is that 7 billion people on the planet is more than enough. I don't necessarily call for a smaller/declining population, but the growth needs to stop at some point.

And just how are you going to enforce this perfect equilibrium of population? If the population is not growing, it is shrinking. Having death rates exactly equal birth rates on a global scale is a mathematical improbability.

Hopefully the biggest population boom is over.

The biggest population boom is yet to come, when we begin to colonize other worlds.

Humans need to live in relative equilibrium with nature, with no massive growth or massive decline in pop.

Says who?

Sure at any given time the pop will be growing or shrinking, but to continue to grow is insane & unsustainable.

Why? As long as our advancing technology allows us to sustain an ever increasing population, why is it insane?

Humans have put enough strain on the earth as it is. I really don't give a f*** about technological advancement etc. decreasing somewhat if we go from 7 billion to 5 billion, i'm more concerned with things like humans over-fishing the seas, continually polluting the environment with our discarded wastes, and deforestation and habitat destruction for the many species we are supposed to share this lovely planet with.

From my point of view, the Earth and all its other species have no value without humans there to appreciate that value. What matters is human civilization, its survival, its continued progress, and the individual humans that comprise it. Perhaps that is somewhat humanocentric of me, but that is my opinion, as a human.

How many species are humans responsible for sending into extinction or endangerment?

I don't know. As long as we aren't the next species on that list I can live with it, however.

7 billion is good, time to call it a day.

An unsubstantiated opinion. Again, please give one example of a civilization that had a stagnant (non-growing) population for a prolonged period of time, and yet remained prosperous.

[lictor616]

An unsubstantiated opinion. Again, please give one example of a civilization that had a stagnant (non-growing) population for a prolonged period of time, and yet remained prosperous.

you're clearly an idiot... you cant even answer the simple question of WHY it is desirable to get more people!

and Rome fell when it made citizens out of the most people, at the time when it was densely populated...

everything you say is cooked up in your own mind..

[Bonam]

you're clearly an idiot

What an intelligent retort.

... you cant even answer the simple question of WHY it is desirable to get more people!

Actually I answered it at length.

and Rome fell when it made citizens out of the most people, at the time when it was densely populated...

Rome was ripening to fall for generations, due to a combination of reasons. It has little relevance to the topic at hand.

everything you say is cooked up in your own mind..

That's right, I do my own thinking and come up with my own ideas and opinions, as any intelligent individual should.

[Moonlight Graham]

And just how are you going to enforce this perfect equilibrium of population? If the population is not growing, it is shrinking. Having death rates exactly equal birth rates on a global scale is a mathematical improbability.

I never said we had to live in PERFECT equalibrium. Of course that's impossible. You obviously didn't read what i said. Here it is again:

Humans need to live in relative equilibrium with nature, with no massive growth or massive decline in pop. Sure at any given time the pop will be growing or shrinking, but to continue to grow is insane & unsustainable.

From my point of view, the Earth and all its other species have no value without humans there to appreciate that value. What matters is human civilization, its survival, its continued progress, and the individual humans that comprise it. Perhaps that is somewhat humanocentric of me, but that is my opinion, as a human.

That's one of the craziest, most egotistical things i've ever heard!

I don't know. As long as we aren't the next species on that list I can live with it, however.

Wow. Not worthy of a comment.

Again, please give one example of a civilization that had a stagnant (non-growing) population for a prolonged period of time, and yet remained prosperous.

I have no idea, i'm no expert on the history of civilizations. What civilization are you worried about? North American? Western? All humanity?

Take a cue from nature itself. There are countless animal species that are many millions of years old, even hundreds of millions of years old. Sharks are over 400 million years old. Have sharks continued to grow in numbers all that time? Of course not. If they had, they would have completely overrun the oceans in vast numbers, likely eating all their prey into extinction by now, thus destroying themselves. Sharks have obviously found some semblance of balance in the ecosystem in order to sustain their existence without permanent population growth.

You obviously have great faith in humanity's ability to harness technology to sustain themselves. I'm much more skeptical. In the period of the greatest technological advancements in human history ie: since the Industrial Revolution, humans have managed to use these advancements to inflict an amazing amount of harm to their own environment, and our current rate of consumption of natural resources & damage to the environment is unsustainable. 99% of all species that have existed on the earth have gone extinct. We'll see if humans adapt & change their current course of selfish unsustainability or suffer the fate that the other 99% of species have.