Hot Topic (11/21): Overpopulation . . . does it concern you?

[Cafe GroupAdmin]

Can contraception save us from catastrophe?
Paul York

Roughly two centuries ago, British thinker Thomas Malthus famously predicted that human overpopulation would result in food shortages and mass famine. “The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man,” he said. For a long time, his idea that mass famine would overtake humanity was rejected out of hand by those who pointed to industrial agriculture and vastly increased crop yields. Industrial agriculture proved him wrong, or so the textbooks said.

Malthus’s ideas are now back in vogue as global food futures are uncertain, due to a devastating combination of fresh water depletion; drought caused by climate change; the collapse of the world’s oceans; an increase in fuel prices (as global oil supplies peak); soil erosion caused by excessive pesticide use; and the replacement of agricultural lands by biofuel crops.

From 1940 to the present, the world’s human population more than doubled to about 6.6 billion, and is projected to be about 10 billion by 2050. An International Panel on Climate Change report says that by 2080, 1.1 to 3.2 billion people will experience water scarcity, 200 to 600 million will be starving, and 2 to 7 million people each year will experience coastal flooding. The population is expected to plummet after the year 2050 due to famine, drought, disease, and war, exacerbated by climate change and peak oil.

Curbing overpopulation to mitigate climate change is also contentious due to the widely held view that reproduction is an inviolable right, and fears that coercive measures will be used to limit populations, like those used in China. The counterview holds that reproduction ought not to be considered an inviolable right when we’ve already exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet, and the consequences are inevitably so tragic.

One solution is to simply prevent unwanted pregnancies. Contraception is widely viewed as a viable and necessary solution by most people who write on this subject. According to the London School of Economics, contraception is almost five times cheaper as a means of preventing climate change than conventional green technologies.

But there’s a dispute over whether efforts to curb population growth should be a priority while those in the industrial north are still consuming many times more than those in the global south, and are responsible for global warming to a much greater degree.

George Monbiot, columnist for The Guardian and environmental activist, recently criticized those who talk about overpopulation while neglecting to mention the north-south inequity on greenhouse gas emissions. “While there’s a weak correlation between global warming and population growth, there’s a strong correlation between global warming and wealth,” he said.

Responding to Monbiot is Ryerson physics professor Helmut Burkhardt. He says, “It’s important to expose the misconceptions that only overconsumption is the cause of ecological problems, and not overpopulation. A drastic reduction of the few overconsumers, and reasonable and just increase in consumption by the numerous poor will raise the world average consumption of resources in a planet already suffering from ecological stress near the tipping point.”

In other words, even if we greatly reduce our carbon footprints in Canada while China and India continue to urbanize and industrialize, we will not be able to avoid the much-feared “tipping point” of catastrophic climate change, with disastrous consequences for all.

The reality is that if the practice of contraception is not widely adopted, another type of population control will be implemented: mass murder. Richard Heinberg, author of Powerdown, posits several types of future communities. The type he calls “Last Man Standing” neatly describes an all too common attitude among the over-privileged of the world: let the developing world—namely sub-Saharan Africa—die, and we will hoard all the resources for ourselves. This might also be called the fascist solution to overpopulation. The reality is that corporate and government inaction on climate change—including the Harper government’s failures on this front—already represents this morally callous depopulation program, albeit indirectly.

A study titled Fewer Emitters, Lower Emissions, Less Cost, says that every seven dollars spent on family planning over the next four decades would reduce global CO2 emissions by more than a ton. We are still at a critical point in history when we can rationally discuss sane options, such as contraception and family planning education, and implement them with relatively little cost.

* * *

What are your thoughts about overpopulation?

Is it irresponsible to have more than two children?

[hsteele]

Overpopulation is a big concern to me, but there is no way to significantly fix it, ethically that is. The only way to reduce the population enough to have an affect on the earths natural cycles would be to kill off a huge majority which would be terrible obviously. I do think that having more than 2 children is irresponsible.

[stormcris]

Nature will take care of herself. She has many ways to do so if people do not take care and act in a manner that is conducive to the health of the Earth. The Earth is a living organism and like all living organisms that get sick it will take action to fix the things that harm it. It did so with the dust bowl, it does so with tsunamis, hurricanes, and tornados. Human stupidity will lead to its own downfall, and it is egotistical to believe that we are harming the earth as opposed to harming ourself. It is not about population as much as about what the population does. If humans become a disease upon the Earth like any other living organism that diseases will be dealt with. Besides war was put in for a purpose.

Yes. I know people will find this strange and will most likely disagree.

[PsychMommie]

Quoting stormcris:

Nature will take care of herself. She has many ways to do so if people do not take care and act in a manner that is conducive to the health of the Earth. The Earth is a living organism and like all living organisms that get sick it will take action to fix the things that harm it. It did so with the dust bowl, it does so with tsunamis, hurricanes, and tornados. Human stupidity will lead to its own downfall, and it is egotistical to believe that we are harming the earth as opposed to harming ourself. It is not about population as much as about what the population does. If humans become a disease upon the Earth like any other living organism that diseases will be dealt with. Besides war was put in for a purpose.

Yes. I know people will find this strange and will most likely disagree.

[stormcris]

Thank you.

Quoting PsychMommie:

Quoting stormcris:

Nature will take care of herself. She has many ways to do so if people do not take care and act in a manner that is conducive to the health of the Earth. The Earth is a living organism and like all living organisms that get sick it will take action to fix the things that harm it. It did so with the dust bowl, it does so with tsunamis, hurricanes, and tornados. Human stupidity will lead to its own downfall, and it is egotistical to believe that we are harming the earth as opposed to harming ourself. It is not about population as much as about what the population does. If humans become a disease upon the Earth like any other living organism that diseases will be dealt with. Besides war was put in for a purpose.

Yes. I know people will find this strange and will most likely disagree.

[mommyofderek]

 I would not say having more than two children is irresponsible. What is irresponsible is people having children they can't afford or care for. Overpopulation is an issue but the ones creating the "overpopulation" if you will are of lower social economical classes.

I do think that birth control should be required right after a woman has a child. That way her body can heal up, She doesn't end up with two children so super close together, she can get regular again, and she can get to know her child. At the very least 6 months after giving birth to be on BC to prevent pregnancy.

 

[gogetem]

I've traveled the country and there is a lot more uninhabited land than I think most of us realize... myself, included.  Traveling gave me a lot more comfort in that respect.  I do have concerns, as everyone should, but I don't feel we're in as bad of a shape as I once did.

[rfourangels]

Quoting stormcris:

Nature will take care of herself. She has many ways to do so if people do not take care and act in a manner that is conducive to the health of the Earth. The Earth is a living organism and like all living organisms that get sick it will take action to fix the things that harm it. It did so with the dust bowl, it does so with tsunamis, hurricanes, and tornados. Human stupidity will lead to its own downfall, and it is egotistical to believe that we are harming the earth as opposed to harming ourself. It is not about population as much as about what the population does. If humans become a disease upon the Earth like any other living organism that diseases will be dealt with. Besides war was put in for a purpose.

Yes. I know people will find this strange and will most likely disagree.

I completely agree.

[rfourangels]

I'm not concerned with overpopulation. I think, as another poster said, it will take care of itself through a number of means. I also beleive that the course of the earth is just that, and it is finite.

Sadly, it really is based on the population itself, and what they do. Sure, we can require contraception, we can sterilize people against their will, on and on, but is that ethical? Is that responsible? Does that make us any better than countries that require it? Will that solve anything? I don't think so.

We did in vitro, and I have triplets. We have a total of 4 children. Many would have dealt with that in a very different way than we did. For me, it was the right thing to do, they are all fine and healthy. They are well cared for, and well behaved children. We can afford them with no difficulty. You can bet they will grow up and be productive members of society, and make a difference in this world. Maybe we'll make up for so many that don't.

This is dangerous territory, who is to decide what population stays, who can reproduce, etc? My parents grew up in Germany WW2... they remember hitlers army coming through and removing anyone who had brown hair and brown eyes... sterilizing and killing people... he was trying to create the perfect race, control the population. My parents were German too, it didn't matter. Think about the families that come to the US from other countries to have the freedoms that we do.

I was also a public health nurse for years, and I wondered why people with serious mental deficiencies were allowed to reproduce, have children that some were not cabable of caring for and those children becoming wards of the state..Well, it is their right. How far can you one in taking away rights?

[Mandipants]

Quoting stormcris:

Thank you.

Quoting PsychMommie:

Quoting stormcris:

Nature will take care of herself. She has many ways to do so if people do not take care and act in a manner that is conducive to the health of the Earth. The Earth is a living organism and like all living organisms that get sick it will take action to fix the things that harm it. It did so with the dust bowl, it does so with tsunamis, hurricanes, and tornados. Human stupidity will lead to its own downfall, and it is egotistical to believe that we are harming the earth as opposed to harming ourself. It is not about population as much as about what the population does. If humans become a disease upon the Earth like any other living organism that diseases will be dealt with. Besides war was put in for a purpose.

Yes. I know people will find this strange and will most likely disagree.

I agree--however I think that action still needs to be taken. I do think having more than two children is irresponsible and ultimately selfish. It happens though, there are soooo many ways we as humans behave irresponsibly and selfishly--and I'm not sure there is any kind of ethical or humane way to stop it or slow it down.

But like anything else--every person can do their part to help alleviate the burden of our impact on the earth. We all know the ways. And if you must have more than two children--then you should take extra care to be responsible in your actions that impact everyone. Hence the ACTION that we all can perform responsibly and ethically.

But Stormcris you are right. To further the analogy--humans are a cancer on the earth? We grew slow at first but are now in some kind of 'latter stage' and we're metastasizing? And eventually earth will go out and get the cancer removed? Oy. That'll put a damper on my ego :)

[rfourangels]

So, just for the sake of argument. For people who think there should be a limit of 2 children. Do you think the limit of 2 should be equal for all? (What about people who have severe genetic problems, AIDS, no job and are on state aid, child abusers, etc.)