Report; There are simply too many of you.

On the contraception issue it's obvious that the Catholic church must lead the way and engage its collective brain. That's just for starters.
The consumption issue is less clear. Should there be schemes in place to cater for increases in populations which nobody wants ?

 

I don't necessarily buy this Malthusian prognosis. Global food production per capita far exceeds rates of global human reproduction. It seems to me that global inequality is the root cause which can effectively be addressed by the re-organization of production and distribution and the rejection of the profit motive in relation to the necessities of life. But maybe I'm too much of an idealist.

Here's a really good article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme...ct/27/population-consumption-threat-to-planet

 

Missing link for the OP;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/apr/26/earth-population-consumption-disasters

Monbiot's is a single voice. The Royal Society constitutes a think-tank.

 

It's a case of emphasis I think. The article makes this clear:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme...ct/27/population-consumption-threat-to-planet

 

OK, there are too many Americans eating too much. Few would argue with that.

 

And their resulting excess 'wind' is also contributing to global warming.

 

A lot of this problem is somewhat alleviated by market mechanisms. Almost every resource is finite. As populations rise, resources become comparatively scarce. As the Third World industrializes, it consumes more resources than before, which drives up the cost of said resources. First Worlders start consuming less over time as a result.

At the same time, most First World countries have low native birth rates. Some are even in the negative. So, a good portion of population growth comes from immigration from the Third World.

As the Third World improves in standard of living and education, birth rates decrease.

So, there are several balancing effects in place that naturally help human population growth adjust to scarcer resources.

 

Actually, the free market is an inefficient method of allocating resources. A far more effective way would be a socialist system of planning. The idea that the global poor whose reproduction rates are relatively higher than ours might one day become richer is a fallacy because as resources begin to dry up it becomes a diminishing prospect. There are strong social reasons for helping people to manage their reproduction, but weak environmental reasons, except among wealthier populations.

The world is going through demographic transition: population growth rates are slowing down almost everywhere and the number of people is likely, according to a paper in Nature, to peak this century, probably at around 10 billion:

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/sixbillion/sixbilpart1.pdf

Most of the growth will take place among those who consume almost nothing.

But no one anticipates a consumption transition. People reproduce less as they become richer, but they don’t consume less; they consume more. As the habits of the super-rich show, there are no limits to human extravagance. Consumption can be expected to rise with economic growth until the biosphere hits the buffers. Anyone who understands this and still considers that population, not consumption, is the big issue is, in James Lovelock’s words, “hiding from the truth”. It is the worst kind of paternalism, blaming the poor for the excesses of the rich.

So where are the movements protesting about the stinking rich destroying our living systems? Where is the direct action against superyachts and private jets? Where’s Class War when you need it?

It’s time we had the guts to name the problem. It’s not sex; it’s money. It’s not the poor; it’s the rich.

 

I'm sure China could spare a few bodies...they do have quite a few bodies to spare.

 

I'm lauging at the OP, who is probably Chinese...
There are 1.3 billion Chinese....not many of whom are Catholic
another 1.1 billion Indians...not many of whom are Catholic...

Blame the Catholics, blame the Jews!

You folks are clowns.

 

But the increase in food production is not SUSTAINABLE!

The very methods that allow an acre of land to produce MORE per acre also strips the land of viability and eventually it fails.

We lose huge amounts of cropland around the world each year.

Further, the people compete for the land AND for the water needed to boost the food production.

We are careening down a highway to a brick wall of soaring needs impacting reducing resources, and everyone thinks things are fine because we aren't dead YET!

 

But the increase in food production is not SUSTAINABLE!

The very methods that allow an acre of land to produce MORE per acre also strips the land of viability and eventually it fails.

We lose huge amounts of cropland around the world each year.

Further, the people compete for the land AND for the water needed to boost the food production.

We are careening down a highway to a brick wall of soaring needs impacting reducing resources, and everyone thinks things are fine because we aren't dead YET!

 

qft'''''''''''''''''

 

Sorry moon, but it is too many arab muslims who emigrate to America and Europe, manufacture babies by the dozens and get onto welfare, draining social programs. Way too many muslims; I wish they stay where there belong, in the dunes. Don't you too belong there? Go ahead, and mark this post for review, will yea?

 

What does that mean when he does that. I always found it kinda creepy.

 

The poor in a lot of countries really are getting more prosperous though. China is definitely wealthier now than it was even just 15 years ago.

I’d argue the natural limit is the market, however. There’s no question that rising consumption in the Third World increases the cost of resources for everyone.
This isn’t really a bad thing, however, because it means that First Worlders will consume less over time.
First Worlders also have the advantage of access to more efficient technology. We find new ways to maintain a high quality of life through consuming less but more efficiently.

I’m a lot less concerned about a superyacht and more concerned about cleaning up industrial processes both here and in the developing world.
Wealth isn’t the enemy. Pollution is.

 

Oh yeah...like the muslims practice a lot of contraception. I wish.

Are you aware that your viewpoint aligns with liberals, atheists and other people that don't have much respect for God?

 

Moon is an atheist.

Respect for God really has no relevance in this discussion though.

 

That depends entirely upon whose definition of a deity one addresses. Clearly it would apply in the case of addressing the behavior of irresponsible Catholic churchmen. They excel at buggering their flock but they're not so good at reducing it.

 

China is getting richer that's true, but like I said, in the long term this is undermined by what will be the law of diminishing returns. In the end, unsustainable growth affects us all. It's the rich first world that consumes more, not less than the poor third world. You seem to be missing the point that it's consumption not population growth per se that's the fundamental problem. There is a direct correlation between wealth and growing rates of consumption and hence pollution. So, contrary to your assertion, wealth IS the enemy.

 

So you're blaiming the population problem in the West on approx. 6% of the population?

 

I'd refine that to perception of wealth. Our industrial complex has lied to us about values.

 

I was specifically referring to wealth in terms of increasing consumption applicable to the OP. But I understand the point you are making and I agree with it. The nature of capitalism itself distorts values by equating them to the lowest common denominator in terms of the 'accumulation of 'things'. Under capitalism, human values are measured in terms of how many things we have, even if those things are detrimental to sustaining human life and the eco-systems upon which that life depends. This is connected to the ideology of progress which, as I've stated previously, is a zero-sum game. The planet, in other words, is finite but we continue on the destructive path of unsustainable economic growth and the 'values' that derive from it. Population growth per se when viewed in the context I've described it above, is a side issue.

 

For the moment, yes.

 

Yes, I agree. But the idea that we can dictate to a poor family in say India that they restrict themselves to one or two children when the carbon footprint of a family of 10 living on 2 dollars a day in Calcutta is still less than the average couple with one kid in a London suburb is, in my opinion, wrong. We need a radical paradigm shift in the way we view economics and thus the perception of values that derive from it. The views of economist Max Van Neef are apposite in this regard:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjcbBnM2OUo