Elephants in the room, part one
For all our schemes and mantras about making this or that part of our lives environmentally “sustainable”, humanity’s assault on the planet not only continues but expands.
The conservation movement dates back centuries and our technological prowess grows day by day, but even so the wilderness is shrinking, species dying out, and on and on we spread, build, and plunder. It’s easy to see our schemes and mantras as ultimately little more than fiddling while Rome burns.
What are the deep problems that we don’t talk about in terms of our relationship with nature? What, so to speak, are the elephants in the room? This is part one of a series written by Professor Cliff Hooker, looking at some of these elephants.
When we’re talking about the relationship between humans and the environment, the most obvious elephant in the room is human population growth. This is rarely discussed in the Western media nowadays, especially compared to the 1970s, but it is central to what we’re doing to to the planet. We reached an estimated 7 billion people last October, and the OECD estimates that will climb to more than 9 billion by mid-century.
Yet, the only cases where population still gets coverage are those where the sheer numbers of people are the immediate problem: think China and India, or Pakistan where 40% of people are below 15 years of age and will themselves explode into further procreation over the next decade. But also think of the Sydney (Australia) Basin and the coming Sunshine Coast-Gold Coast conurbation.
In all these cases the environment – and human society as well in many regards – would be so much better off if human numbers were cut by a factor of two to five (in other words, reduced to between 50% and 20% of their present size).
Five benefits of a fall in population
First, it would vastly decrease the greatest environmental pressure we exert: habitat loss due to agriculture, recreation, industrial exploitation (dams, mining, etc), urban sprawl, and waste.
Second, it would make it easier to shape development to be compatible with natural ecological requirements. We could preserve creeks nearer to pristine condition and restore wetlands. It would also make it easier to safely extract the things we do want from ecologies (for example, to catch many kinds of fish for eating, instead of just steadily dwindling stocks of the most common fish).
Third, for developing countries, it would decrease some of the major barriers to economic development, including the costs of providing – ahead of rising taxable incomes – education, infrastructure and public institutions.
Fourth, it would offer increased opportunity for all to live surrounded by natural landscape and wildlife, and within more manageable urban structures. These are a much-underestimated support for sane living, especially when it comes to child development.
Fifth, it reduces all the effects of non-uniform scaling up in numbers; that is, as population numbers rise relationships change. For instance, twice as many people does not mean twice as many streets but the same traffic densities; instead, even with twice as many streets, the arterial roads will be nearly twice as crowded. There are at least four categories of effects of this sort.
How relationships change as population rises
Congestion: Higher population means many more people trying to use the same streets, cafes and elevators. This can slow down and even temporarily halt normal socio-economic processes. For example, a busy 50-storey office building faces disproportionately longer elevator use times than do three-storey buildings. (What’s more, instead of building a 50-storey tower of 40m x 40m base area sitting on a 200m x 200m open space square, we could build a three-storey building along the edges of that footprint, providing the same floor space, many access points, often stairs, and an enjoyable central sheltered courtyard.)
Friction: More people means it takes many more procedures to get something done. For instance, it reduces efficiency to have to fill in a form and have one’s tool bag officially inspected just to enter a building to service the coffee machine; this happens mostly at large, busy buildings where people don’t know one another directly.
Overheads: The numbers of managers needed to organise an activity rises faster than the number of people needing to be organised. For instance, a team of three mostly does not need a leader while a team of 3,000 will need hundreds of local team leaders (of, say, 10) plus middle managers to coordinate them and executive managers to ensure overall coordination. Managerial “distance” can also increase friction and vice versa.
Thresholding volatility: Where normal system performance is pushed to near its limits, inadvertent small changes can result in it crossing a threshold to a new way of functioning. In many cases this new way will be a degraded way of functioning from which the system cannot easily recover. For instance, an expressway near capacity is in a highly vulnerable state where an isolated braking incident can lead to a traffic jam, sometimes with mounting accidents at its rear end; either way the highway has degraded to non-functioning.
There are also downsides to population declines. For example, declining numbers also mean fewer workers, smaller markets and revenues, less intense and varied stimulation, fewer forms of back-up for failures, and so on. And these effects will become increasingly important as human numbers fall.
Similarly, there is the consideration of how many people we need to have sufficient “weight” in regional affairs to serve our legitimate interests, including a credible defence capacity. But this number would fall if our neighbours had smaller populations. (On both counts, recall the brief “Big Australia” debate of 2010/11.)
But within reasonable limits, and depending on a society’s circumstances (ecological, international, etc), there are rewards to be enjoyed for becoming smaller, especially for organised developing nations, and for Western urban domains, as mentioned above. Only the Chinese, through their one-child policy, are doing anything direct and serious about it. Ironically, they are self-righteously criticised for it by people like us who are so well-off we too often have trouble rousing ourselves publicly to do anything but complain about losing privileges.
Why doesn’t the West discuss population?
The West does not discuss population numbers partly because the market is thought to favour growth. Business finds growing numbers attractive because it mean more consumers for their products, and more labour to compete for jobs and to support an aging population. Remember the recent calls for increased immigration, lest there be a fall in the number of people seeking work and supporting the aged?
However, there are a couple of flaws in this argument. First: this perspective calls for an endlessly increasing population and this would ultimately undermine all basic rationales for it (except making money and increasing money-based power). Second: it is far from clear that this is even the best economic strategy for business. Consider smaller numbers enjoying increasing technological and human services, for example in support of “smart” green technologies. Why would this strategy not generate as much or more wealth per capita, and a great deal more satisfaction along the way?
Another reason the West does not discuss population numbers is because our gross numbers are relatively low. But this is an illusory perspective. An individual human’s impact on the environment is vastly magnified by wealth, technology and lifestyle. Thus Western nations have many times the per capita environmental impact of developing ones.
For instance, Westerners eat higher on the food chain, which greatly increases our demand for plants. Roughly, for every step up the food chain, one kilogram of food requires five to ten kilograms of supporting food on the lower step; so a human (or a tiger) who extracts one kilogram of body weight from cattle or deer needs to eat five to ten kilograms of deer, and those deer in turn need to eat 25-100 kilograms of plants. Straight away, the Hindu vegetarian who eats plants makes five to ten times less demand on agriculture and hence the environment than does his Western meat-eating equivalent.
Moreover, our industries that generated most of the past rise in greenhouse gases now expand to meet wealth-enabled demands (housing, appliances, cars, and so forth), and also manufacture higher on the production chain, meaning they take up more land and often pollute more (compare the environmental demands of making a car and a cart).
Finally, wealth makes it easy to adopt unnecessarily wasteful habits, from excessive, non-biodegradable packaging, to large and poorly insulated houses, to concentrated peak electricity use at breakfast and dinner times.
Instead of explicit population policies we Westerners largely rely on a “demographic transition” to take care of numbers. That is, we rely on a process in which, as economies get wealthier and require longer, more expensive education while providing increased social security, people choose to reduce their family size. It’s a great idea that works well (while politicians leave it alone).
Nevertheless, there are two important problems with relying on it for everyone. First, this is a slowish transition, typically taking two to three generations or 60+ years to effect. Second, we Westerners largely did it before life expectancies took off, which raises total population “at the other end”.
Now, under the very improvements in public sanitation, medicine, safety, and social security that make small families riskable, the demographic transition is slowed down by increasing life expectancy, especially in developing nations. Can it take effect soon enough to prevent a ruinous human-plague problem for many developing nations, and the planet? How could we speed it up? What else could we throw into help other than the usual extreme nasties (war, plague, famine, forced sterilisation) and the merely hard one-child policy?
The aim of this series
My aim here is not to catalogue the obvious surface problems of our relationship with the natural world around us; they are relatively well known. The aim instead is to dig a little deeper into the underlying dynamics of human societies. There we find processes and problems now too often left undiscussed by our hastening lives and increasingly superficial media.
Only some of the elephant herd is presented. Certainly not all the herd, especially because some of them hide behind the others and are only revealed through persistent prying.
And for those animals presented, the whole elephant is never visible, just the parts I happen to handle; their bodies sometimes vanish into the unexplored gloom. And they intermingle in often complex ways. My aim is to show just enough of each elephant to reveal its presence and so stimulate you to continue exploring it. Please remember this: if your favourite piece of anatomy is missing or a limb seems misshapen, then add it in or correct it yourself! Likewise, for many of the elephants there are no experts, certainly not me; please take my presentations, even if they seem opinionated, as simply goads to explore the issues for yourself.
The herd may look a little bleak. You wont find here any spiritual messages. I have instead focussed on “neutral” underlying elephants, ones that will appear in some form in any human society because they derive from basic underlying processes, though I look at my own Western society most. This will generate elephants enough to think about while we learn to value love and hope in the human spirit.
Comments welcome below.
Guido Tresoldi
logged in via Twitter
A couple of comments about the view expressed in this article.
In my opinion population is not the prime cause of congestion and exploitation of environmental resources but our lifestyles. If we have people that demand air conditioned McMansions which are affordable, and therefore only available at the city's fringes, which then create the demand for multiple cars for members of a family and consequently demand for roead fuel etc.This makes population less environmentally sustainable than a society…
Read moreGreg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
Guido clearly you have a poor understanding of mathematics as applied to population and consumption.
Let's look at a really simple example that will help you to understand why your thinking is deeply flawed.
Let's consider a hypothetical village with 10 people and whose land is capable of producing 10 bags of rice per week on average on long term basis without degrading the land.
Let's assume one bag of rice confortably feeds 1 person for a week and that a quarter of a bag of rice is the…
Read moreHelen Hasan
Associate Professor in Information Systems at University of Wollongong
I like the discussion on the way a “demographic transition” can take care of numbers. I perhaps naivley think that we can speed this up by (1) giving as much aid as we can to developing nations so that they lower their birth rate to be like most western countries whose populations are pretty static as soo sa possble and (2) educating women so that they can have more say in these decisions.
James Jenkin
EFL Teacher Trainer
"What are the deep problems that we don’t talk about in terms of our relationship with nature? What, so to speak, are the elephants in the room?"
Alarm about overpopulation is hardly the elephant in the room - it's the orthodoxy! By contrast, any article that argued 'the more people the better' would be run out of town.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
"The other reason why western societies have avoided talking about population is because unfortunately it attracts xenophobes and racists who piggyback on rational and reasonable discussions about sustainable population levels. Concentrating on immigration etc. and the ethnic composition of people, instead of thinking that an Afghan refugee uses the same resources as a British migrant"
I have little doubt that a small proportion of westerners want population reduction for racist or xenophobic…
Read moreDale Bloom
Analyst
I would agree that those who would like to see a smaller population can be labelled racist, and I have noticed that label can also be applied to people (such as myself) who don’t want to see so much multiculturism, but would like a country to develop its own culture.
However any belief that the Catholic Church is responsible for large populations is incorrect. The majority of countries that are predominately Catholic have birth rates below replacement levels. (Italy for example has very low birth rates). Most catholic countries also have low rates of HIV and AIDS.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
Dale, western Catholic dominated countries have average fertility of 2 or less.
But this is not the case in developing countries like the Philipines that may not be overwhelmingly catholic but never the less where the catholic church has a signficant presence and influence on local politics.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
Dale on what basis do you make such a claim????
"I would agree that those who would like to see a smaller population can be labelled racist, and I have noticed that label can also be applied to people (such as myself) who don’t want to see so much multiculturism, but would like a country to develop its own culture."
I believe that third world fertility must be curbed and that Australia etc should pursue a policy of zero net population growth. Any incentives to having more than 2 children in Australia should be abolished, e.g. the baby bonus and welfare for the third child and greater.
How does that make me a racist pray tell????
Clive A Marks
logged in via email @attglobal.net
Dale - it is probably worth while looking at the impact of Catholic ideology and philosophy on population growth as well as AIDS.
Opposition to contraceptive use has hardly been helpful and has no doubt shaped policy in many developing countries as it has western countries. Nor has the the association of normal sexuality with sin managed to produce sensible debate about where children come from and why.
The 'sanctity' of human life debate tends to be used to justify many environmental excess…
Read moreDale Bloom
Analyst
Greg, excuse my use of Wikipedia, but here is a table of birth rates for different countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_birth_rate
Here is a table of countries that are predominantly catholic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations
There is no great correlation between high birth rates and the population being predominantly catholic. There also does not appear to be any great correlation between higher rates of HIV/AIDS, and countries that are predominantly catholic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_HIV/AIDS_adult_prevalence_rate
I believe it is a myth that the Catholic religion creates high birth rates or high rates of diseases such as HIV/AIDS.
Dale Bloom
Analyst
Greg,
Sorry, perhaps I should have said “those who would like to see a smaller population are often labeled racist, and I have noticed that label is often applied to people (such as myself) who don’t want to see so much multiculturism, but would like a country to develop its own culture.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
Understood.
Tim Scanlon
Author and Scientist
"We live in a finite world with finite resources. Although it may sometimes seem quite big, earth is really very small – a tiny blue and green oasis of life in a cold universe." David Suzuki
Lets also face the fact that the large population bases in the world are the poorer parts of the world that the first class world exploits. We have to have a dramatic restructure of not only society, but our economy and approach to life.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
Let's not forget that westerners have an equal share of the blame to third worlders in this.
Westerners due to our profligate consumption and setting a bad example.
Third worlders in making little or no effort curb their fertility regardless of the fact they wish to emulate westerners with respect to their own consumption.
Byron Smith
PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh
There is nothing equal about it. The damage done to the earth's natural systems by wealthy industrial (and rapidly industrialising) nations is many, many times that done by poorer nations (who usually have higher fertility levels).
Lorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher
Greg - "Third worlders in making little or no effort curb their fertility"... are you really pointing the finger at illiterate 13 year-old girls who've had little or no schooling and are being forced into marriages with older men in order to ease the burden on their parents' households? Who will not only never have access to contraception, but who won't even be allowed to entertain the idea of choosing whether or not to consent to sex? Where sons - the more the merrier - are what's valued from a wife, and even more educated, middle-class couples will keep trying for sons?
There is a well-established link between female education and emancipation, and birth rates. Try those search terms in google scholar.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
Sorry Byron but you are again attempting to ignore the mathematical point I made to guido.
If western industry simply catered for demand in the west, rather than attempting generate massive new markets in the developing world, then it may be the case that environmental impact is less than the environmental impact of far more numerous villagers and farmers etc in the developing world.
In fact if populations in the developing world were slashed then there would be little incentive for western corporations to greedlily sell ever more product.
Reducing third world populations would therefore solve two problems.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
I am primarily refering to their governments, and also western aid organisations, not to illiterate 13 you girls.
"There is a well-established link between female education and emancipation, and birth rates. Try those search terms in google scholar."
I don't dispute this. But the problem comes down to numbers and practicality.
This was the intention of Norman Borlaug in the 50s and 60s. His green revolution was aimed at buying us time to acheive exactly the above.
But unfortunately…
Read moreFred Moore
Builder
Discussing Overpopulation without discussing human sexuality is not just a foll's errand, its a fool's delight.
The discussion begins:
1. Women want children men want sexual pleasure. Men refuse to believe this truth. Masculine libido and competitiveness depend on that refusal. Women dress provocatively to PLAY the situation to their advantage. The end game is Political & economic power yielded to women who are proving every bit as abusive and corrupt as men. The more men are denied sex the…
Read moreLorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher
"1. Women want children men want sexual pleasure."
Umm.... your argument falls apart right around point 1, mate.
Jay R
Mining Engineer
Consider a single country with rich and poor. Who is responsible for looking after those in poverty? Who manages the equality of wealth across the country? Simple enough, that's why we have proportional taxes, governments, welfare etc etc. (Not saying we are doing a good job of this, but at least the issue is well known and generally agreed upon)
Today's world economy is clearly global. Countries exploit other countries, some are substantially more well off than others. Would anybody here support…
Read moreGreg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
Welcome to the human condition Jay.
This has been the case throughout human history and will continue to be the case throughout human future.
Byron Smith
PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh
Except never before have the stakes been so high.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
Which means that those in human society that are in a position of superior wisdom about the 'bigger picture' have an obligation to manage human affairs so that the global effects of human greed and selfishness are kept to a minimum.
If we wish to avoid famine, disease, war and genocide being the primary means of managing collective greed and selfishness then that can only mean global human population management.
Byron Smith
PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh
The "only" in your final sentence is unwarranted, as I have been arguing all along. There is nothing exclusive or even primary about population management in an overall response to ecological crises.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
If you can't change individual behaviour enough to reduce envirommental impact then the ONLY option left is to reduce numbers Byron!
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
And changing individual behaviour as a means of allowing more people to be accomodated is not ultimately sustainable.
Agian lets's take the simple example of water.
If every person of earth did not use water for anything other than drinking then, given that a human being requires 2-3 litres of water per day to survive, you would still reach the point were you have no choice but to reduce the number of humans in order to maintain sustainability concerning fresh water.
Your consumption reduction strategy is merely a means of postponing the inevitable difficult and troubling decisions concerning human fertility.
And there is one thing that humans, particularly politicians, are exceptionally good at.......postponing difficult decisions.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
Unfortunately us postponing difficult decisions around population and fertility now will almost certainly mean that future generations will have even worst decisions to make.
If that is not the height of slefishness then I don't know what is!
Byron Smith
PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh
"If you can't change individual behaviour enough to reduce envirommental impact then the ONLY option left is to reduce numbers Byron!"
That's a big if. I believe people can change. I have seen it happen. Cultural assumptions and patterns have shifted before in very significant ways. Fringe ideas have become mainstream and unquestioned norms have become unacceptable.
Byron Smith
PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh
The height of selfishness would be the world's richest people refusing to consider the possibility of accepting lower consumption levels for the sake of our collective survival and flourishing.
"There is enough in the world for everyone's need, but not for everyone's greed."
(BTW, as I've pointed out many times, I have never said anything about postponing demographic issues. I agree that population is an issue that requires some attention, just secondary attention.)
Byron Smith
PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh
"Your consumption reduction strategy is merely a means of postponing the inevitable difficult and troubling decisions concerning human fertility."
Only if I were not also saying, again and again and again, that I am not postponing such discussions.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
When, through out human history, has human greed been suspended throughout a society and for a signficantly sustained period of time.
The answer is never!
Human nature is what it is Byron and you can't change it.
Why don't you take a good hard look at yourself with all your talk about sharing the wealth around.
Why don't you put your money where your mouth is, sell your house and all your possessions, donate it it all to charity and go and become a mother terasa like aid worker?
Will…
Read moreGreg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
Well Byron, let me see you lead the way on reduction of your own consumption in order to allow more people in the devloping world to simply live.
What will you give up tomorrow?
Would you be prepared to cut the electricity off from your house and live without from now on?
I want to see action not just lip service!
Or is it the case, as with so many other issues in the west, that it is some one else's responsibility to live without electricity or what ever rather than your responsibility?
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
Sorry Byron but you are postponing the inevitable decision about population and fertility.
The mere fact that you regard it as a secondary issue to consumption indicates this.
Byron Smith
PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh
That's pretty much what I'm doing. House already sold. Aiming to never have much stuff. Sharing my life and wealth with others.
"I expect to lead a reasonably comfortable and meaningful life regardless of what it may or may not cost people in the developing world."
And you're the one calling me selfish?
Byron Smith
PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh
I use approximately 8% of the average UK power demand (and it is 100% renewable). I have never owned a car. I very rarely purchase goods. I eat an increasing portion of local, organic produce. I minimise my travel. My carbon footprint is significantly lower than the average Chinese one, and in the same ballpark as that of a number of developing nations.
And I love it. Truly, less is more. I don't envy people their lives filled with stuff that dominates their concerns and (often) crowds out relationships of trust and love.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
Well when I see you living in a corrugated iron shack with those you are trying to help then I will take you seriously Byron.
Even if you live in rented house in Australia from now on you are still taking substantial resources away from those in the third world.
What about your university studies Byron? Will you give those up as well? Or is that a bridge to far even for you?
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
It would mean cutting yourself off from the academic community Byron. Are you prepared to make a personal sacrifice of that magnitude?
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
"And you're the one calling me selfish?"
If that is the modest level of my selfishness Byron then I can sleep quite well at night......
Apart from the fact I have a family and would not have the right to impose draconian personal scarfices on them.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
At least I am prepared to admit that I am little different to any other human being on the planet or throughout history rather than mascarade as a mesiah of charity.
Byron Smith
PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh
"Apart from the fact I have a family and would not have the right to impose draconian personal scarfices on them."
Just impose draconian measures on others. Your words, not mine.
I'm not advocating anything draconian. Simply living more simply.
I'm no messiah, nor any kind of superman. I'm just trying to think through my responsibilities in a world facing unprecedented challenges.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
Oh Byron blah, blah, blah.
The fact remains that your 8% of power consumption is still 100% greater than the power consumption of those living in slums.
If you are truly prepared to live you convictions then give up electicity altogether.
You will not get agreement from all westerners or indeed those living in slums on what is an acceptible minimum level of power consumption.
If you can't get agreement then the only other solution is for their to be less people all consuming what they deem is acceptible and such that total consumption is with the ecological limits of the planet.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
You need to understand that doing all this while doing little or nothing about population is like pi$$ing into the wind.
As Kelvin Thompson says "It's hard to reduce your carbon foot print when you keep adding more feet"
Byron Smith
PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh
My goal is not to live on nothing, but to live at a level that is capable of multiplication by 7, 8, 9 billion. So my convictions don't require me to give up a modest amount of renewable electricity. I am not advocating that we should all live in caves, or slums.
"You will not get agreement [...] If you can't get agreement then the only other solution"
Read moreI don't see the attraction of this all-or-nothing approach: Unless things can be perfect, then the *only* other alternative is... No, I grant…
Byron Smith
PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh
"while doing little or nothing about population"
As I've said quite a few times now, this is not what I'm saying.
The rate of population growth has slowed dramatically already. Global fertility rates have fallen from about 6 to about 2.5 in the last handful of decades, largely due to poverty-reduction, the education and emancipation of women, and greater access to family planning. All these ought to continue to be vigorously pursued as being of both intrinsic benefit and very effective means to slow (and ultimately halt) population growth.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
"This is better than having wealthy nations punish poor nations for their poverty "
This has got nothing to do with punishing the poor for their poverty. It is about addressing a big part of the global problem without fear or favour.
Individual rights do not always trump the rights of the collective or of future generations. That applies to us westerners also and not just those living in poverty.
And I don't propose to necessarily impose fertility control only on the third world.
If messages like abolisment of baby bonuses and welfare for the third child and more fail to have the desired effect then I would not hestitate to impose the same fertility control on Australians.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
"Global fertility rates have fallen from about 6 to about 2.5 in the last handful of decades, largely due to poverty-reduction"
Well I would question such figures. If there really has been such a dramatic decline in global average fertility over the past decades then why is the global population still headed for 9 billion plus in the next 30-40 years.
I strongly suspect the the person(s) responsible for such figures are some what guilding the lily.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
"Global fertility rates have fallen from about 6 to about 2.5 in the last handful of decades, largely due to poverty-reduction"
Well I would question such figures. If there really has been such a dramatic decline in global average fertility over the past decades then why is the global population still headed for 9 billion plus in the next 30-40 years.
I strongly suspect the the person(s) responsible for such figures are some what guilding the lily.
Byron Smith
PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh
Source: UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
https://www.un.org/esa/population/
The reason the global population is headed for nine billion is because (a) people are living longer (average life expectancy has grown by something like 20 years during that same period) and (b) there are so many young people (those born when the rates were much higher) who are coming into child-bearing age, giving considerable momentum to the growth. However, they are having fewer children than their parents and so the rate of growth is slowing (though when this lower rate is applied to larger base, the absolute number continues to rise quite rapidly).
There is a good summary here:
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/global-population-10-billion-not-so-fast
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
"though when this lower rate is applied to larger base, the absolute number continues to rise quite rapidly"
So the current strategy (development and education of girls etc) of population reduction is totally inadequate given that the global population is on track to reach at least 9 billion by 2050 with all the increase in poverty, political instability and human misery that this will cause.
Lorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher
Greg - imagine for a moment that Third World countries had some power over us, equivalent to the power we have over them in the form of aid etc. Now imagine two Third World farmers sitting in the dust under a tree, talking about how their Government should take "draconian measures" to force wealthy nations to reduce their per-capita consumption.
How would you, as a citizen of a wealthy nation, feel about that? Just imagine yourself in their position before holding forth over what we, with the whip-hand over these nations, should coerce them into doing. Imagine for a moment that the boot was on the other foot.
Might doesn't make right.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
The west exercises 'might' over the third world regarding human rights abuses Lorna!
Does your world view extend to the west minding its own business about human rights abuses in third world countries????
If some other country imposed its will on me an my country then I would no doubt react in the same way that the Greeks are reacting to European Union demands for spending and public sector wages cuts.
But rightly or wrongly it is just tough titties for the Greeks.
They are collectively…
Read moreGreg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
This whole western guilt thing over our wealth is a bit of bull$hit anyway.
We have not and are not doing anything that current third world countries have not done in their historical past.
Today Egypt is an over populated third world country, but 2000 years ago it was a major centre of wealth and power.
Today China is a developing country struggling to life its over large population out of poverty. But a few thousand years ago it was also a major centre of wealth and power.
In both cases surrounding civilisations begged them for hand outs or derided them for their greed.
I think we westerners have become a little too soft for our own good!
Lorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher
Greg - likening the situation of Third World nations implies that they're responsible for the mess they're in. Which involves conveniently forgetting that they were systematically pillaged by Empire-building nations. I'm from Scotland - a country disproportionately impoverished in spite of its natural resources, largely because the English honed their Empire-building skills on us, the Welsh and the Irish.
Before you go in swinging, remember that we aren't blameless for the plight of these countries…
Read moreGreg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
I agree that it is fair and equitable to share some of our wealth with third world countries and to allow them the dignity of sorting out their own over population problems.
But unfortunately that strategy is likely to lead the failure of states as their governments are unable to provide their populations with enough resources to satisfy their needs/demands.
That will lead to situations like in Syria where there is a total break down of law and order, a total break down of human rights standards…
Read moreGreg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
This whole western guilt thing over our wealth is a bit of bull$hit anyway.
We have not and are not doing anything that current third world countries have not done in their historical past.
Today Egypt is an over populated third world country, but 2000 years ago it was a major centre of wealth and power.
Today China is a developing country struggling to life its over large population out of poverty. But a few thousand years ago it was also a major centre of wealth and power.
In both cases surrounding civilisations begged them for hand outs or derided them for their greed.
I think we westerners have become a little too soft for our own good!
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
No Lorna I am not implying anything of the sort.
I am merely pointing out that the third world is no more virtuous or deserving than the west!
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
And ponting out that the west is not more guilty than third world countries have been in their past.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
And that when the 'party' finally ends for the west we will be no more deserving of charity than the current third world is.
Lorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher
"You often have to make those sorts of decisions on behalf of your children" - too true - BUT people of the Third World are not children!
The problem with treating adults like children is they're quite likely to start acting like children. And as I've said before, my only issue with your opinions is the idea that we have the right / ought to impose our ideas on those less powerful. Maybe that's my feminism speaking - I don't pretend to know.
Why not fight for the rights of women in Third World countries - their rights to self-determination, equal access to education, to be equally valued as people and to have the access to contraception that they want? As long as women are seen as breeding-stock and their bodies controlled by men, all the "draconian measures" in the world won't be effective in reducing birth-rates - BUT they will waste a lot of time and money and cause a lot of misery for the most powerless.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
At the end of the day it does not matter whether the third world has got itself into its current situation or whether previous generations of westerners caused it.
Predicating our actions entiurely on what we regard as fair and just will not necessarily save our species or our civilisation.
First and foremost our actions should be predicated on what is sustainable and what is likely to have the greatest effect.
As far as contraception goes, I am all for it. If that is all that is required to slash third world fertility adequately then great.
But if it does not then we must be prepared to do what else is necessary to minimise long term suffering of future generations and preserve western civilisation.
Unless Lorna you are of the view that there is nothing about western ciuvlisation that you regard as worth preserving due to the numerous sins of our ancestors?
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
No doubt Lorna you are quite happy to impose your views around human rights on third world males who think you are a western imbecile!
Why pick and choose which views you are willing to impose on them pray tell Lorna.
Where is the logic in your considering them to be 'children' when it comes to human rights, but sensible adults when it comes to individual fertility in the context of global sustainability?
You may find this extremely cynical but I believe that there is a vast number of people, including in the west, that are little more than large teenagers when it comes to the bigger picture of global ecological sustainability. Usually as a result of little or no science education.
And it is these people that play a major role in hiring and firing governments.....at least in democratic nations.
Therefore I repeat my question........is democracy compatible with global ecological sustainability?
Lorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher
I don't recall saying anything about my views on human rights abuses in the Third World - except, obviously, for abuses of womens' rights. You might want to extrapolate from those views, shouldn't be hard.
As for being thought an embicile, 10 years of teaching adolescents cured me of worrying inordinately about what people who're not in a position to judge, think of my intellectual capabilities :)
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
Then why on earth would be remotely concerned about third world villagers criticising you for imposing fertility control on them when you KNOW they lack the education that would otherwise enable them to see the folly of their ways???
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
They are much like your adolescents in not being in any position to rationally judge your decisions.
Lorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher
Simple - because my desire not to coerce people less powerful than me has sod all to do with what they or anyone else would think of me. It has everything to do with what I personally consider right or wrong.
And the schoolkids who're not in a position to judge my abilities? What I said was "teaching adolescents cured me of worrying inordinately about what people who're not in a position to judge". That sentence does NOT imply that the people who're not in a position to judge are the adolescents!
Lorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher
And if you think that's pedantic you should see my thesis.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
Well I don't understand your reasoning Lorna.
You have just told me you don't give a rats about what your adolescent students thinkj about your position when you KNOW they are not in any academic position to challenge your authority.
That is exactly using your power to coerce people less powerful than yourself. You don't have a problem with it.
Villagers in third world countries are likewise not in an academic position to be able to challenge the authority of people who know from science that their poverty can never be solved as long as they go on breeding like mice......puting it bluntly.
So I simply do not understand your inconsistency on this.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
Perhaps what is going on inside your grey matter Lorna is that you only exercise your academic authority in areas where you perceive it to be socially acceptible by your peers.
But you are afraid of attracting derison from your peers by exercising academic authority in areas that are arbituarily deemed to be unacceptible by your society.
But unfortunately the global over population problem cannot ultimately be solved by scientists and academics whose primary concern is their own social standing!
What if the few westerners, who eventually brought down slavery, thought the same way????
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
One of the burdens of leadership is some times having to tell people what they don't want hear.
And the global over population crisis is certainly one issue that requires leadership and resolve, and not paranoid concern about social standing both within western society and on the world stage.
Lorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher
Greg:
"I don't understand your reasoning Lorna". OK - let me try to explain again
"You have just told me you don't give a rats about what your adolescent students thinkj about your position when you KNOW they are not in any academic position to challenge your authority".
No, actually I only said I was teaching adolescents. Never said they were the people whose unfounded opinions I discounted. I'll make it clearer - I don't give a rats what ANY uninformed person, of any age, thinks of my…
Read moreGreg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
You say you are not concerned about being criticized by people who are not in an academic position to challenge your authority, I say you don't give a rats.
It means the same thing even if I have a rather less subtle way of expressing it.
And I thought I had already made it clear that what is good for the goose is good for the gander as far as coercion on fertility goes in both the west and the third world.
I have already made it clear that western couples should be coerced into having 2 or less children by means of abolishing baby bonuses and any form of welfare for more than 2 children.
The same should be done in third world countries where necessary: they don't get food parcels unless they take a pill or what ever or they only get enough food parcels for two children etc.
Tough love may yet be required if softer measures fail to have the desired impact.
Byron Smith
PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh
You're really equating baby bonuses (which I agree should be scrapped) with food aid to starving people? Removing baby bonuses is not a form of coercion, merely the removal of an encouragement. The result would be to say "I am no longer going to encourage you to have more children", which is fair enough. This is entirely different from saying, "I will let you starve if you don't do as I say".
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
Personally I am not sure I would have the strength to allow some one to starve to death if they refused to take the pill.
But I would sure as hell try it on.
I suspect you would meet little resistance to the idea anyway if they were hungry enough.
On ABC foreign corespondent they were doing a story on the floods in Pakistan and on Pakistan NGOs providing aid to flood victims.
They showed the officials turning away hopefuls at the gates of their camps, presumably to go off and survive…
Read moreLorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher
Byron - "You're really equating baby bonuses with food aid to starving people?". So blindingly obvious that it shouldn't have needed said, but somehow it still needed spelled out.
Greg - why keep talking about the pill? If you miss one, or take it a few hours too late, it doesn't work.If you can't read and don't have a clock, or your husband or mother in law doesn't approve and throws the packet in the river, or get a bout of food poisinong an spew it up, you're not going to prevent too many pregnancies…
Read moreGreg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
Lorna I reckon you are on to something there........compulsory vasectomy if you want a food package.
It would personally find it far easier to threaten to send a male off to starve to death if they refuse to comply than I would a female with children.
And in patriarchal third world societies that have long disrespected woman, it might be a little just deserves as far as the woman are concerned.
And as you say it is far safer and efficient to perform a vasectomy than it is a tubal ligation. Pity there wasn't a pill that simply caused testicles to shrivel up!
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
By the way, don't they have some sort of subcutaneous slow release oestrogen pellet for those woman who would want it.
Or is this technology only used in non-human applications?
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
"I've tried to explain why coercion on contraception (a) isn't necessary and (b) won't work. You don't seem to be listening or move the discussion on."
In patriarchal societies where they prefer their woman to be bare foot and pregnant, they might not take kindly to you going around giving the females a months supply of pills.
So again, although this is undoubtedly part of the solution, it is highly unlikely to be the only solution.
I suppose to be fair, in converse, my suggested strategy is also unlikely to be the only solution in all regions.
Lorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher
Greg - threatening males and testicles shriveling up? You're going to incur the wrath of Dale if you're not careful. I bet he accuses you of being brainwashed by man-hating feminist sociologists.
Mods - can we have online betting please?
Yes there is slow-release hormonal contraception for women (progesterone, not estrogen) - not sure what the status of that is, but I don't think any of those things last more than 3-4 years.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
Well Lorna in the eternal, cynical and humorous words of my brother......
"I am not racist (or feminist or a misogynist), I just hate every body equally."
If you think about, any drop in third world testosterone levels, associated with shriveling up their testicles, is highly likely to have some substantial social and political benefits for the third world huh? Apart from a drop in population levels I mean.
Jay R
Mining Engineer
This is as far to the right (literally) I have ever seen a discussion on here get
Byron Smith
PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh
I do not deny that population growth is a very significant driver of our ecological woes, yet it is currently a secondary driver to consumption. As Tim Scanlon has pointed out, the countries with rapidly growing populations are almost exclusively poorer nations, where per capita consumption is a tiny fraction of that in Australia and most OECD countries. If we were to halve the population of the most rapidly expanding nations (a thought experiment that can only be contemplated over very long timescales…
Read moreGreg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
Both population level and consumption level are equal factors in our current predicament Byron.
If you lower the population level then you can afford to raise individual consumption.
If you allow the population to rise then you must cut individual consumption.
Clearly the vast majority of the global population would prefer to increase/maintain their consumption.
Therefore their fertility must be curtailed, by draconian reproductive laws if absolutely necessary.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
To argue that consumption is the only important factor is akin to arguing that the accelerator is the only important device for controlling the speed of your car!
Just plain silly!
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
Obviously you would prefer to ignore my previous reply to Guido about how his position that consumption in more important than population defies mathematical logic.
But I am not going to allow you to ignore it Byron so here it is again.
Let's consider a hypothetical village with 10 people and whose land is capable of producing 10 bags of rice per week on average on long term basis without degrading the land.
Let's assume one bag of rice confortably feeds 1 person for a week and that a…
Read moreGreg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
You can fairly argue that consumption in the west is the primary issue combined with immigration from the third world that allows more of them to become profligate consumers like us.
But in the third world by far the more important issues are fertility and population levels. We cannot resonably expect to raise all billions of them out of poverty without breaking the ecological bank.
For the third world, fertility control and population reduction must come first before they can be rased out of poverty. In fact fertility control and population reduction will slowly reduce the number of them living in poverty by simple virtue of the fact that there will be less 'mouths to feed' with existing limited resources.
Byron Smith
PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh
Your situation is hypothetical. We are actually more akin to a village of forty where five are eating three bags of rice a week and the rest are left to survive on what they can scrape, all the while degrading the productivity of the land. No matter how much you reduce the population of the other thiry-five, the consumption of the five already exceeds the sustainable production of the whole village and so the first issue has to be reducing the consumption of the five. Furthermore, unless you want to engage in genocide, then the thirty-five are not going to disappear (and deliberate starvation of the thiry-five by the five out of some perverted Malthusian logic is self-serving moral corruption) and so even if further population growth is to be slowed, stopped reversed (as perhaps it ought to be - I never said population was irrelevant), the consumption of the five has to be tackled as top priority, even as the growth of overall population is kept in check.
Byron Smith
PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh
"If you lower the population level then you can afford to raise individual consumption."
Only if a small minority are not already exceeding the sustainable consumption of the system as a whole.
"Clearly the vast majority of the global population would prefer to increase/maintain their consumption."
While for those in absolute poverty, such a desire is healthy, for those already fat from excess and suffering under the weight of their own overconsumption, acknowledging this desire and endorsing its sacredness through draconian fertility measures is both unnecessary and cruel.
Byron Smith
PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh
I agreed that population is a very important issue in poor nations with rapidly rising demographics.
Yet it remains secondary to the overconsumption of the wealthy nations, not least from the perspective of the wealthy (i.e. us). There is no place for us to say almost anything at all to those in absolute poverty, far less institute (or encourage the institution of) draconian fertility measures while our consumption exceeds and degrades the sustainable productivity of the planet. At both practical and ethical levels, consumption must be at the forefront of our minds in the developed world.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
I actually agree with you that consumption of western population in vastly in excess of what is sustainable long term.
But that can only mean that western countries also require population reduction also doesn't it Byron.
Which is preceisely why I and others advocate an end to unsustainable immigration and abolshiment of baby bonuses and other inducements to having more than two children on average. Or if necessary a strictly enforced two child policy in western countries.
In third world…
Read moreGreg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
Primarily consumption reduction, with some population reduction, is required in the west.
In the third world primarily population reduction is required given most of them aspire to consume like us.
They are of EQUAL importance across the board Byron!
Addressing only consumption is like bailing water out of a sinking boat without plugging the hole in the hull!
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
I agree that it is healthy, but again you are taking your eye off the bigger picture.
That small increase in consumption by those living in poverty will almost certainly catastrophically increase collective global consumption when multiplied by the hundreds of millions, and propbably billions beyond 2050, currently living in poverty.
Consumption cannot be sensibly addressed without simultaneously addressing population!
Give them contraception today along with food etc and you reduce the humantarian effort in the future and possiblly even make real progress on reducing poverty.
Byron Smith
PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh
"But that can only mean that western countries also require population reduction also doesn't it Byron."
That would be an odd conclusion to draw when our consumption levels are many times what is necessary for a flourishing life and our overconsumption is also at the root of a number of our social ills (think obesity as one example). It may be that western countries would do better in the long term with lower populations. Or it may not. But your conclusion does not follow from the evidence…
Read moreByron Smith
PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh
"That small increase in consumption by those living in poverty will almost certainly catastrophically increase collective global consumption when multiplied by the hundreds of millions, and propbably billions beyond 2050, currently living in poverty."
Untrue. Oxfam recently released a report called "A safe space for humanity: can we live inside the doughnut?", available here:
Read morehttp://policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/publications/a-safe-and-just-space-for-humanity-can-we-live-within-the-doughnut-210490…
Lorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher
You've got a point there Byron. Greg's model assumed fair sharing of resources. Clearly a very unrealistic model. Factors accounting for unequal sharing and greed need to be added - the behaviour of our own home-grown billionaires suggests that for some individuals at least, too much will never be enough.
Byron, did you factor in the fact that as the environment is degraded, it becomes capable of supporting FEWER people?
Lorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher
Greg - draconian laws are unlikely to be necessary. Education, emancipation and, obviously, access to contraception, have been proven to do the trick without holding the whip-hand over anyone.
Mind you, U.S.A. is very busy lately limiting access to contraception to its own poor (and middle-class).
Byron Smith
PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh
Good point. Greg's hypothetical situation is oversimplified to a point where it becomes unilluminating. Mine was also very simplified. Getting a good imaginative handle on problems of this scale is difficult.
Lorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher
Simplicity is very elegant and all that, but it doesn't do a great job of predicting behaviour in the real world. Sociology is messy and infuriating to hard scientists (whose science, if we're brutally honest, isn't half as complicated as we like to make out) but without its insights we're never going to understand the problem. And obviously we can't solve it without understanding it.
Quick anecdote: a tutorial excercise I teach involves students exploring the relationship between body-mass and metabolic rate. The physics involves a number of assumptions including that the animals are (a) made of homogeneous tissue and (b) spherical. Needles to say, the predictions don't quite match the empirical evidence!
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
Yes my example is simplified, but again I point out that the distribution of rice among individuals or the fairness of that distribution is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT in terms of collective consumption.
IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT that lower consuption by more people can and often does hugely exceed more profligate consumption by fewer people.
This whole discussion of yours Byron is a red herring aimed at avoiding addressing the mathematical fact I have pointed out.
If other contibutors in here accept my premise then how is addressing only the consumption side of the equation going to solve the global problem?
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
Sorry Byron, but I take such reports with a grain of salt.
Such organisations are populated by people lile you and economists whose optimism exceeds their common sense and scientific knowledge etc.
I would like to see a similar study carried out by the likes of the IPCC or at least with signficant scientific input from them.
Then we would see how acheivable it really is.
You are also assuming that westerners, along with citizens in developing countries who have acheived wealth, will be prepared to give up 1% (or what ever) of our wealth and consumption in order to allow the impoverished to increase their walth and consumption by 1%.
But most of us know you are living in a fools paradise Byron. It aint going to happen.
The only way it will happen is for there to be less westerners over consuming and much fewer third worlders to 'feed'.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
I hope you are right Lorna - it would be much preferable than the alternative I have pointed out.
But we must never the less be prepared to use more draconian measures if the softer ones fail to acheive the desrired result in a reasonable time frame.
The alternative to do nothing or doing the minimum and failing is unthinkable - global famine, epidemics and genocidal wars.
I believe that the Rwandan genocide is a taste of what could happen across much of the globe if the global population juggernaut is not turned around more quickly.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
I hope you are right Lorna - it would be much preferable than the alternative I have pointed out.
But we must never the less be prepared to use more draconian measures if the softer ones fail to acheive the desrired result in a reasonable time frame.
The alternative to do nothing or doing the minimum and failing is unthinkable - global famine, epidemics and genocidal wars.
I believe that the Rwandan genocide is a taste of what could happen across much of the globe if the global population juggernaut is not turned around more quickly.
Byron Smith
PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh
I get the distinct impression that you are not listening. I have never said, anywhere in this thread, that we ought to *only* address consumption. I have simply argued that it must take first priority.
Byron Smith
PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh
"It aint going to happen."
Instituting draconian fertility measures is not exactly going to be a walk in the park either, is it? I never said I was advocating something easy. Simply that it is the right priority to pursue, both ethically and strategically.
Byron Smith
PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh
No, the first alternative would be to pursue a change in culture around consumption. Such culture shifts have occurred before. Attitudes and behaviours regarding consumption shifted rapidly and radically after the outbreak of WWII.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
No, alone that is not enough.
When throughout human history has such a culture shift been acheived before Byron?
And if it has, how long did it last????
I think it is pointless debating this with you Byron, I think I might just leave you to your fools paradise!
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
I might say the same thing of you mate!
You are not listending to me either.
I am not saying that consumption patterns are less important than population and fertility. I am saying that they are of equal importance so I am acknowledging your point of view.
You on the other hand are sticking to you mantra of population and fertility being less important than consumption patterns.
By the way Byron, your PhD in Christian ethics is an unnecessary personal indulgence that contributes to taking resources away from the poverty stricken.
Will you give up your university studies and go an become an aid worker instead??????
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
Well unfortunately Byron, what you regard as ethical may not necessarily be effective in the long term.
If we pursue your ethical course of action, will you take personal responsibility should it fail and result in an unprecedented increase in human suffering?
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
Oh PLEASE!
Perhaps in your own imagination.
Society is just as greedy if not more greedy than it was during this time.
It is just that we have perhaps learned to 'spin' it so that it sounds less disgusting.
"We will grow the pie so that everyone's slice get's a little bigger" springs to mind.
Rather than giving everyone an equal slice in the first place.
Like I said Byron, you can't fundamentally alter human nature.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
At the very least Byron, you could give up your university studies and donate you education expenses to world vision.
Will you do that Byron? No?
Perhaps because you will argue that you personal education expenses will make little difference to world poverty or that the world needs experts in christian ethics?
Well hell Byron, everyone argues that about their own personal indulgences, one way or another.........even billionaires.
So what is the answer byron? To impose limits to western lifestyles and mandate donations to charities beyond a certain income level?
How exactly is that different from imposing limits to fetility on people?
Byron Smith
PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh
"No, alone that is not enough."
Sigh. You're still not listening.
"When throughout human history has such a culture shift been acheived before Byron?"
Read moreI just gave you an example. Admittedly, that was a short-term change. My point was that rapid change is possible. Significant and lasting culture changes on decadal timescales have occurred on all manner of issues. Attitudes and behaviours regarding smoking, drink driving, littering, sexual practices, racism, sexism - all these and many more have…
Byron Smith
PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh
I have considered such options quite seriously. During reflection over a number of years, I have decided that, with the opportunities and skills I have received and developed, that using my education (including my present studies) to try to open a space amongst certain communities of which I am a part for discussions of consumerism and ecological responsibility is actually one of the most strategic things I can do to make a small contribution to seeing cultural change. One of the goals of my PhD is to develop concepts and language to improve my ability to enter into dialogue with certain groups who may be resistant to such changes. Perhaps this is a fool's errand. Perhaps not.
Byron Smith
PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh
Yes. I take responsibility for my actions and omissions. I am not personally responsible for all the outcomes of my actions, but I am responsible to do what I can to love my neighbour to the best of my ability and insight. That is what I am attempting to do. Effectiveness is only one consideration, and does not lie entirely (or even largely) within my control. I do my part.
Byron Smith
PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh
"Society is just as greedy if not more greedy than it was during this time."
Ah, so you do admit that culture can change. If greed can increase, then it can decrease. I am not aiming at the eradication of all greed. But it is possible for greed to be closer or further away from the centre of society. I have no illusions about the imperfectibility of human culture, but that doesn't mean that nothing can ever change.
However, I am genuinely puzzled as to why you think that draconian fertility laws are an easier sell than the emphasis I'm advocating, which is, after all, an invitation into a greater degree of freedom from desires that are ultimately harmful to human flourishing, and so good news.
Byron Smith
PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh
"You are not listending to me either. I am not saying that consumption patterns are less important than population and fertility. I am saying that they are of equal importance"
Ah good - they are of equal importance. I apologise if I implied that you thought otherwise. That's a start. We have some common ground. Reducing consumption levels is a project you agree is worth pursuing. I agree that it is worth considering questions of demographics.
Jay R
Mining Engineer
With regards to the discussion here about whether population control or equality of consumption is the greater issue...
Equality in consumption (even a push towards equality) will only work if peoples basic wants are satisfied. Nobody will ever settle for life without adequate food, water, education, housing, electricity. People will only care about themselves up until that point.
So to define the issue, we need firstly to assess a responsible population level, accounting for a reasonable distribution…
Read moreByron Smith
PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh
I agree with your second paragraph. When I speak about reducing consumption, I am speaking of reducing overconsumption amongst the wealthy. I mentioned elsewhere in this thread the significance of also working to reduce absolute poverty (which is among the best ways of addressing high fertility rates, by the way).
"If you took every western country off the map (and all the top .05% wealthiest with them), I don't think it would solve the present issue of developing country population explosion…
Read moreGreg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
Again......rationalizing your own personal indulgences.
Like I said.....everyone does that one way or another and you are no different to all of them. Who are you to say that you personal indulgence is more justified than that of some billionaire.
The fact remains your PhD is not a requirement of your own survival and it is not a requirement for eliminating global poverty!
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
Well I don't share all of your christian values.
I do not believe that working for the goal of making it into heaven when I die is a worth while goal. Nor an unselfish goal.
I thinking fixing things in the here and now, so that future generations suffer less, and using the most effective means is a far more worth while goal to work towards.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
I think there is a minimum level of individual greed beyond which you will never reach with changing the collective attitudes of a society.
It written into our genes and into our neural circuitry.
Without it our species, indeed any species, could never survive the rigours of natural selection and evolution.
As for draconian measures to reduce fertility. Well that is relatively easy........developing countries do not get foriegn aid etc unless they sign up to UN sactioned population reduction…
Read moreGreg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
Byron I absolutely agree that consumption reduction is worth pursuing. And one particular area that is rather closer to my heart is the building industry.
In the new estates being built near me I am constantly horrified about the amount of good building materials, suitable for small household projects, is sent to landfill.
Wood, nails, nail plates, bricks, excess sand and stones, buckets (former paint and glue containers).........
I have taken to fossicking around the builders' rubbish piles before I go off to Bunnings.
That is one of my humble efforts at reducing consumption.....and landfill contents at the same time. Saves a bit of money too.
Byron Smith
PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh
"Aiming to get into heaven when you die" is a sub-Christian goal. My goal is loving God and loving my neighbour, which includes doing what I can to improve things here and now for the sake of future generations.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
The global population is on track for at least 9 billion by 2050 so this is of little comfort to most of us Byron.
And there is no iron clad guarentee that development will reduce fertility levels to below replacement in developing countries anyway.
There are many cultural factors at play in individual fertility as well as economic ones.
Byron Smith
PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh
"There are many cultural factors at play in individual fertility as well as economic ones."
Yes, particularly involving the education and emancipation of women - a task worthy of continued efforts.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
Well regardless I do not believe in absolute ethics as you christians often do.
Ethics must and have always been flexible depending on the circumstances.
Consider the ethical positions on killing and preserving life in terms of war and disaster triage.
I do not cosider it to be ethical in the long term to avoid imposed fertility control, if absolutely necessary, because it is against absolute christian ethics when it will lead to worst human suffering in the long term.
Such a behaviour would be a dereliction of our moral responsibility to future generations.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
Given the current and projected size of the developing world populations and given peak oil, peak fish and peak water etc it may also be task that is expanding rapidly beyond our capacity to maintain such efforts.
Byron Smith
PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh
The ethics of war were largely shaped by Christian theology in the development of what has come to be called just war theory, indicating that "absolute ethics" might not be an accurate way of characterising Christian ethics - certainly not all traditions of Christian ethics.
Byron Smith
PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh
Oh, I forgot to mention urbanisation as another trend.
Yes, you may be right that our very bumpy outlook is likely to make such efforts more, not less, difficult. This is where the "benign demographic transition" thesis, as it is sometimes called, is open to question. And so this is why I affirm that these efforts are indeed a continuing very important priority, not to be dropped in order to buy a few more tanks as the skies darken.
Byron Smith
PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh
By the way, I don't think I'm saying anything about responding to population growth that diverges greatly from the Asimov quote on your website.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
Well from the posts to date Byron you could have fooled me!
Lorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher
On the whole, I'm with Byron. Here's why:
Greg has asked why if fertility rates have dropped, population is still rising. It's because of the generational nature of populations - there's an inertia, a lag time for the drop to have an effect. 5 billion people (say 2.5 billion couples for simplicity) have 4 kids each that's 10 billion kids right? But if those 10 billion (5 billion couples) only have 2 kids each that's still 10 billion kids. Of course, 10 billion people isn't as much as 5 billion…
Read moreGreg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
Surely you cannot believe that "she'll be right mate" with an expected global population of 9 billion plus by 2050 with the magnitude of the problems we already have with 7 billion humans.
If so then any current reduction in the rate of population growth is just not enough.
And as I have said acting decisively on fertility does not mean we should relax on consumption..
As for the USA, I have always c,onsidered them to be bible thumping wankers. Any fertility measures or sanctions for not complying, should be equally applied to them!
Byron Smith
PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh
Educate and emancipate women, alleviate absolute poverty, and so on. All goals that are worth pursuing in their own right and for their overall effects on fertility rates. That's what Asimov is saying and what I've been saying.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
I reckon Isaac Asmiov better understood the gravity of the problem we are facing than you currently do Byron. And I think you might be projecting into is views what you prefer to read/hear.
You appear to be still living in some sort of nirvana where fair and just is the only consideration in determining our response to over population.
We have squandered that opportunity during Norman Borlaug's green revolution and now we must face the reality that what is sustainable on planet earth in the long term is not necessarily fair, just or even democratic for current generatons.
Ian Donald Lowe
Seeker of Truth
Environment: physical surroundings and conditions, especially those affecting people's lines.
"In all these cases the environment – and human society as well in many regards – would be so much better off if human numbers were cut by a factor of two to five (in other words, reduced to between 50% and 20% of their present size)." Cliff Hooker
It has taken me a while to comment on this piece of work, mainly because I couldn't read the whole piece right through without feeling sick to my stomach…
Read moreJay R
Mining Engineer
You could also say Ian that anyone who agrees with you and is fine with the idea of overpopulation might as well go out and burning crops so people starve to death, because that is the end result. Perhaps you should lead by example and starve yourself and loved ones first?
... Obviously arguing along these emotional lines is a waste of time. Consider that the global average income is around $7000. Would you be happy lead the way and live on $7000 per year?
Getting global population under control would be of greater financial benefit for the poor. Firstly because that's the demographic that is growing the fastest. Secondly, growing populations put increased demand on assets, which all the rich people own. This is a huge contributor to rich people getting richer.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
"It has taken me a while to comment on this piece of work, mainly because I couldn't read the whole piece right through without feeling sick to my stomach. What is being touted here is nothing less than an attack on the greater portion of humanity to benefit a small group of (mostly western) elites. Mr Hooker proposes a reduction in human population of somewhere between 3.5 billion and 5.4 billion people. Even though Mr. Hooker (and others) couch these proposals in gentle terms and talk about how…
Read moreGreg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
And personally I would prefer an enforced one or two child policy now than to die of starvation or in a genocidal war over resources later.
I have little doubt that most people would think similarly if they seriously weighed up the options and put aside irrational optimism.
Clive A Marks
logged in via email @attglobal.net
I'm not sure that getting emotional and personal in a discussion about our overabundant species really helps. A species debating the merits of its own population is almost comedic. There will be more than a tad of self interest from everyone. Yet does it have to become Python-like so quickly?
Cliff Hooker's article sure proved one thing. Raise the issue and be prepared for the xenophobe crop burning genocidal conspiracy debate with a touch of plague and mass sterilisation.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
Well what is the answer Clive?
Just don't worry about and leave future generations and the future of our technological civilisation, and all in science we have acheived, to their fate?
Would the last of the Rapanui on Easter Island have been understanding of the decisions of their ancestors?
Python like or not it is something we must discuss if we choose not to be like all other animals on this planet and only live for today for our entire individual lives.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
And inevitably allow our species to become extinct, rather more quickly in comparison to most other species that have existed on planet earth.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
A rather like Mr Spock's quote from one of the Star Trek movies.
"The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few"
The 'many' should also include future generations and the 'few' should also include those who seek to maintain rigid ethics at the expense of the 'many'.
Tee Kay
Conservationist, Author, Children's Edutainer
Greg
I've enjoyed reading your comments. Although I don't entirely agree with some of your points you did put them across in such a way that it caused me to think a bit more.
I do like your quote from Mr Spock. I would point out the obvious and say that the humans on this planet are the 'few' and this observation makes that quote quite poignant.
Lorna Jarrett
PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher
Yes thanks Greg and Byron - both thought-provoking and thoughtful commentators - what we come to this site for!
Also thanks to Tee for pointing out another elephant in the room: the fact that we're not the only tenants on this planet.
Byron Smith
PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh
If the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few, then the needs of the many for basic necessities of life - water, food, clean air, shelter and so on - outweights the "need" of the few of us for the latest gizmos and gadgets, or a 3rd flatscreen, or a 2nd car, or to have A/C and heating 24/7.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
I agree whole heartedly with you Byron!
We collectively do not need a large proportion of the $hit we constantly buy and waste.
But let me see you convince my fellow parents Fraser and Robert that they do not need to update their tvs etc every six months in an attempt to claim electonic supremecy over one another.
Let me see you convince the average third worlder they they do not need to do EXACTLY the same BULL$IT once they are given the means.
If you can't then the only other option is for there to be dramatically less of us across the board.
Byron Smith
PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh
I'd be happy to talk to them next time I'm in Melbourne (might be a while). I have already given public talks, seminars and run discussion groups on these themes, and seen people shift their assumptions and behaviour. My plan upon completion of my PhD is to pursue precisely these kinds of conversations. Am I alone going to change the world? Of course not. But I'm going to do what I can to change my little corner of it, and I'm aware of many others doing likewise.
Jim Wright
Retired Civil/Structural Engineer, IT Consultant/Contractor
The sustainable population discussion is a bit like the climate change discussion. Everyone is discussing the big picture, but only a few are trying to do something practical about it. We all want the overarching solution, but I suspect that there isn't one, other than amalgam of all the little helpful initiatives that we can take.
Read moreTwo of the reasons why people in poor countries have large families are that there is a high mortality rate among children and that they are the only insurance that they…
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
"have large families are that there is a high mortality rate among children and that they are the only insurance that they will be cared for when they are incapable of looking after themselves. "
I am not so sure about that Jim. I suspect it is more the case that woman have less rights and no access to contraception.
If they did then I suspect that many would choose to not spend their entire lives pregnant and looking after young children regardless of the social pressures.
In many third world countries they sell their excess children off to brothels and sweat shops. That is hardly consistent with having larger numbers of children to work the family farm or look after the parents in old age. Beyond a certain number children become a major burden for third world parents it would appear.
Diane Bruhn
ocassional activist
I have thought a lot about where human civilization is headed, and I'm not optimistic. For individuals to take responsibility regarding population growth we would need to have insight into the personal consequences of overpopulation and understand we are living on a finite planet. The average human seems a long way from having this insight, and the only alternative offered, such as in Communist China, has involved brutal oppression of the people to achieve the one child family.
I applaud those who are willing to discuss this very concerning issue. I would prefer a future where famine, war and degradation of the planet is not ahead of us. I have spoken to people in recent years who live in countries where overpopulation is already a huge problem and I've thought it has sounded nightmarish eg South Korea, India, Indonesia.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
"My point was that rapid change is possible. Significant and lasting culture changes on decadal timescales have occurred on all manner of issues. Attitudes and behaviours regarding smoking, drink driving, littering, sexual practices, racism, sexism - all these and many more have fundamentally shifted in a matter of decades. "
Byron you are so friggin naive!
Such a state of affairs around slavery, equality, blah, blah blah is unprecendented in human history, at least on its current scale…
Read moreJohn Harland
bicycle technician
I think that Greg's dismissal of Guido's comment about consumption per person is a bit glib. Consumption per capita is rising far faster than population in many countries.
Population pressure is a huge problem but is not helpful for people in the countries that have reduced population growth while increasing consumption to sermonise those in countries with the converse challenge.
It is the growth obsession that is the problem, whether population or per-capita consumption. Arguably what we need…
Read moreGreg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
"Arguably what we need most is a new economics that spreads work better so that reduced consumption does not lead to unemployment for part of the population, but increased leisure and family time for everyone. "
John I agree with you 100%.
I am not of the opinion that the west is free from blame in this.
On the contrary, a lot what I see my fellow Australians doing around me, utterly disgusts me to be quite frank. Particularly the proportion of the primary school community who indulge in the utterly unnecessary excess of having 3 or more children, particularly when there is so much poverty and suffering else where in the world.
This was particularly so when I was working in the IT sector and participating in corporate culture. Needless to say that career option did not last long for me.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
I might also add that this requires that the developing world to give up something too doesn'. I.E. The aspiration to consume like people in the west currently do.
In his book "Confronting the future" Charles Birch stated that the earth cannot sustain a world or rich countries.
That says something about Byron Smith's, and others, aspiration to raise the entire third world out of poverty.
And I will also add that doing so in the absence of measures to contain fertility will result in a further third world population explosion, as previously happened with the green revolution, thus making our global problems disasterously worse in a short time period.
Just as the age of oil derived energy and unprecidented wealth is coming to a close.
Byron Smith
PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh
"That says something about Byron Smith's, and others, aspiration to raise the entire third world out of poverty."
Out of absolute poverty. That's what I've been trying to say the whole time. Not to make them "like us" (an ecological impossibility), but so that they have enough to live a life that is not a daily fight for survival. But aiming for something other than "like us" means we need to also be aiming for something other than continual growth in material consumption.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
Byron, why do you not comprehend that even that entirely fair and just aspiration may simply be the last straw that breaks the back of the global ecosystem camel?????
I have already pointed out to that it is entirely probable that a very small increase in consumption by the third world population X billions by 2050 will greatly exceed the current over consumption by the western population. Even if consumption in the west is reduced.
Clearly however some one would have to crunch the numbers to determine exactly what is possible in the third world without trashing our Earth and rendering it uninhabitable for future generations.
I repeat, what is fair and just cannot necessarily be the only citeria that determines our response to poverty and over population.
John Harland
bicycle technician
I think that the dismissal of Guido Tresoldi's's comment about consumption per person was a bit glib. Consumption per capita is rising far faster than population in many countries.
It is the rise in total consumption that is the major element of environmental impact. Whether it is double the population or the same population consuming twice as much, the result is not all that different.
It is not helpful for people in the countries that have reduced population growth while increasing consumption…
Read moreGreg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
Yes I agree. We need a purge of university economic faculties and of government ranks to allow in a new breed of sensible and ecologically literate economists to take over.
However I am sure you are pefectly happy for the west to lecture third world countries on human rights and to chastise them over human rights abuses taking place under the watch of their governments.......e.g. Syria at present.
If so then why should we not also lecture them about fertility and population levels when we know that current levels have the entire human race and civilisation headed for the edge of a cliff.
Philip Brentnall
Retired
The problem is clear and huge. Australia cannot set rules for other countries, but should set an example. We need to revise our collective attitude to new births so that a standard of 3, being 2 for replacement and one for the country is converted to "stop at two". Assistance for children from Federal funds should stop at two and anyone having produced two children should be offered free vasectomy or tubal ligation. Any excess births should be seen as a source of further pollution.
Age pensionsshould be deferred for as many years as match the average increased life expectancy.
John Harland
bicycle technician
Population, consumption and human rights are all issues that need to be addressed across borders.
My point is not that we should remain mute, but that we should enter negotiations to address questions together. It is not helpful for one to preach sanctimoniously to the other, or to refuse to share resources needed to address the issues.
Apologies for my earlier near-repeat of a posting. A repeated search hadn't revealed the earlier one but now both are coming up in the discussion.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
I agree that we need to start by negotiating fertility and population with developing countries after first setting the example with our own populations, including cuts to immigration that enable other nations avoid addressing their own over population issues.
But never the less, as we do with human rights abuses, we must be prepared to put our foot firmly down regardless of the accusations and protestations that will inevitably fly from developing countries at first.
Australia is well placed to set an example with the level of awareness about over population thanks to prominant Australians like Dick Smith, Kelvin Thompson. Bob Carr, Tim Fischer and many others.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
It is a universal, in all time and in all races and in all civilisations, truth that anyone who proposes and idea that goes against the established norm will attract howls of outrage and indignation.
This was true with the abolishment of slavery, it is currently true with electronic speed detection equipment in Australia and it will be true with regulation of human fertility.
But if you hold firm for long enough then the population learns to live with it until it becomes the norm and people wonder how their ancestors lived with it or without as what ever the case may be.
Human fertility and population control is an issue of the same magnitude as was the abolsihment of slavery at the time.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
Winston Chruchill said the following about democracy:
"Democacy is the worst form of government, except for all those that have been tried before."
"The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter."
Perhaps another difficult truth that we must face up to is that the global population, and its environmental impact, has reached point where democracy is no longer compatible with global ecological sustainability.
Given the low level of scientific knowledge…
Read morePhilip Brentnall
Retired
I find that talking to my local member of Parliament provides a good sense of the capability and effectiveness of my representative. We cannot expect them to act for us unless they understand our requirements.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
Look Byron, if you and your colleagues can mount a campaign to successfully convince a signficant number of westerners (and not only anglo-saxons) to cut their consumption enough to allow an increase in consumption in the third world such that poverty is eliminated then bloody great.
But sorry Byron, I am not particularly confindent you can do so and nor even that you could convince those you lift out of poverty not seek to further increase their consumption to obscene western levels.
By the way, I can see from all the '-1's beside my posts that I would be an absolute pariah and persona non grata if I was still moving in university academic circles. LOL
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
As with the politics of the mining resource rent tax and the ETS etc, sometimes you have to be pragmatic in order to get SOMETHING through the parliament.
If you remain inflexibly idealistic about them then you are likely to end up with nothing.
That is how it is with poverty and over population. If you remain inflexibly idealistic Byron you are likely to cost future generations and western civilisation dearly.
But if you inject a little pragmatism into your position then you might just bring about some considerable long term benefit to the planet and future genertions in return for a fairly small amount of short term pain for current generations.
Philip Brentnall
Retired
I cannot understand why Greg, Lorna and Byron debate the methods to change developing countries. The problem of overcrowding is world wide. We should be discussing how best to reduce, not only our Australian population but our demands on resources. We, that is people, are the problem.
Have any of you produced, as I have, more than two children (polluters)? If so, we should all be finding a better way to discourage others from repeating our folly. Seems to me that "growth" is no longer good!
I have made suggestions elsewhere, but wish to know how you think the problem should be tackled, bearing in mind our vote only counts in this country.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
Phillip, given the behavior of many Australians towards climate scientists you have to concede that, on the issue of fertility across the globe, measures other than sitting around the camp fire singing Kumbayar together and agreeing on acceptable personal consumption levels and family sizes are likely to be required.
Lorna and Byron would prefer the Kumbayar approach.
I am merely pointing out that it will probably not yield the results that they assume it will.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
When I left the University of Melbourne as a new medical scientist I also had grand visions of bringing scientific enlightenment to the great unwashed masses on a range is issues.
Including right up to more recent times when became disillusioned with the corporate and IT world, discovered bush flora conservation and launched a landscaping business aimed at stemming the flow of environmental weeds.
But sadly, I was soon cured of any notions about being some sort of messiah of scientific enlightenment and found that various subtle, or not so subtle, methods of coercion and manipulation were far more effective at getting my environmental message across.
Be prepared for disappointment Byron because you are unlikely to be received by the unwashed masses in the way you are currently assuming you will be.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
P.S. I am sure the climate scientists assumed they would be welcomed into the boosom of the unwashed masses who would then fall over themselves to cooperate with climate scientists in plotting a new course for western society.
However many of them received death threats in return for their well intentioned and united message to society. I am sure that it was a rude shock for many of them that the masses do not behave and think in the same rational way that their fellow academics do.
And you Byron have every intention of prancing around among the unwashed masses telling them that they must stop buying new wide screen surround sound plasma televisions every six months and do without their air conditioners over summer etc. LOL
Good luck with that Byron!
Unless you intend to restrict your preaching to academic circles.......which would be rather useless.
Byron Smith
PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh
The unwashed masses keep inviting me back.
John Harland
bicycle technician
I wonder if looking at other people as "the masses" or "the great unwashed" might make it difficult to understand or to communicate with them.
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
Climate scientists no doubt thought of the general public as you academics in here still do but I suspect their appraisal of the general public has changed some what to less rosy one after the death threats.
I would dearly love the general public was as rational as the academic community generally is, but it just aint John and there is little point is operating under the delusion that it is.
Politicians have learned this long ago, and the fact that the major parties are masters of manipulation…
Read moreGreg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
OK Byron I leave you to your delusion.
Perhaps you should come out to Epping then or the western suburbs of Sydney and try your pep talks there.
I reckon the unwashed masses who keep inviting you back are nothing like the unwashed massed around here or in Deer Park or in Footscray,........
Greg Boyles
Lanscaper and former medical scientist
Exactly what suburbs have you 'preached' in Byron?
John Hargreaves
Writer
As one who was profoundly influenced in his teens by Club of Rome and its 1972 'Limits to Growth', I too cannot understand why the question of human procreation and population growth is almost taboo in this country. The root source [stop it] of almost all the environmental issues we face, population pressure, is accepted as a given. Look at the outraged reactions to Bob Carr's declaration last week that he will remain committed to the concept of a sustainable population in Australia. If you don't…
Read moremark feltrin
Renewable Energy and Resources
This is how we need to tackle it (minus the sound tracks and grafix).
I think the UN Millennium Development Goals need to be more targeted.
The girl effect
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1e8xgF0JtVg
Malthusian Clock
still not completely finished
http://vimeo.com/36888637
Also Ian Lowe of ACF has just released a book on population with Australian context.
As for high immigration rates in Australia.
Read moreWhich have been, for the past couple of decades, pushed by right wing economics to…