Comments on: more opinions about children http://thegoldenspiral.org/2009/03/31/more-opinions-about-children/ musings from a girl trying to change the world Mon, 16 Jan 2012 10:29:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Pete Murphy http://thegoldenspiral.org/2009/03/31/more-opinions-about-children/comment-page-1/#comment-2718 Pete Murphy Wed, 01 Apr 2009 12:38:53 +0000 http://thegoldenspiral.org/?p=2249#comment-2718 There is a trend among environmentalists to blame waste and overconsumption for the strain on our environment and resources, hoping to avoid the more thorny issue of overpopulation. While there is, of course, some waste that should be eliminated, the truth is that a high standard of living goes hand in hand with a relatively high level of per capita consumption. For example, a poor nation may have very few paved roads, as compared to a developed nation with an extensive network of paved roads. Thus, high per capita consumption of paved highway. The problem with advocating for reduced per capita consumption is that it is inextricably linked with per capita employment. Driving down per capita consumption would inevitably yield rising unemployment and poverty. The only way to reduce total consumption (the real goal) while allowing all to enjoy a high standard of living is by reducing our population. The biggest obstacle we face in changing attitudes toward overpopulation is economists. Since the field of economics was branded "the dismal science" after Malthus' theory, economists have been adamant that they would never again consider the subject of overpopulation and continue to insist that man is ingenious enough to overcome any obstacle to further growth. This is why world leaders continue to ignore population growth in the face of mounting challenges like peak oil, global warming and a whole host of other environmental and resource issues. They believe we'll always find technological solutions that allow more growth. But because they are blind to population growth, there's one obstacle they haven't considered: the finiteness of space available on earth. The very act of using space more efficiently creates a problem for which there is no solution: it inevitably begins to drive down per capita consumption and, consequently, per capita employment, leading to rising unemployment and poverty. If you‘re interested in learning more about this important new economic theory, then I invite you to visit either of my web sites at OpenWindowPublishingCo.com or PeteMurphy.wordpress.com where you can read the preface, join in the blog discussion and, of course, buy the book if you like. Please forgive the somewhat spammish nature of the previous paragraph, but I don't know how else to inject this new theory into the debate about overpopulation without drawing attention to the book that explains the theory. Pete Murphy Author, "Five Short Blasts" There is a trend among environmentalists to blame waste and overconsumption for the strain on our environment and resources, hoping to avoid the more thorny issue of overpopulation. While there is, of course, some waste that should be eliminated, the truth is that a high standard of living goes hand in hand with a relatively high level of per capita consumption. For example, a poor nation may have very few paved roads, as compared to a developed nation with an extensive network of paved roads. Thus, high per capita consumption of paved highway.

The problem with advocating for reduced per capita consumption is that it is inextricably linked with per capita employment. Driving down per capita consumption would inevitably yield rising unemployment and poverty.

The only way to reduce total consumption (the real goal) while allowing all to enjoy a high standard of living is by reducing our population.

The biggest obstacle we face in changing attitudes toward overpopulation is economists. Since the field of economics was branded “the dismal science” after Malthus’ theory, economists have been adamant that they would never again consider the subject of overpopulation and continue to insist that man is ingenious enough to overcome any obstacle to further growth. This is why world leaders continue to ignore population growth in the face of mounting challenges like peak oil, global warming and a whole host of other environmental and resource issues. They believe we’ll always find technological solutions that allow more growth.

But because they are blind to population growth, there’s one obstacle they haven’t considered: the finiteness of space available on earth. The very act of using space more efficiently creates a problem for which there is no solution: it inevitably begins to drive down per capita consumption and, consequently, per capita employment, leading to rising unemployment and poverty.

If you‘re interested in learning more about this important new economic theory, then I invite you to visit either of my web sites at OpenWindowPublishingCo.com or PeteMurphy.wordpress.com where you can read the preface, join in the blog discussion and, of course, buy the book if you like.

Please forgive the somewhat spammish nature of the previous paragraph, but I don’t know how else to inject this new theory into the debate about overpopulation without drawing attention to the book that explains the theory.

Pete Murphy
Author, “Five Short Blasts”

]]> By: Baka Karasu http://thegoldenspiral.org/2009/03/31/more-opinions-about-children/comment-page-1/#comment-2711 Baka Karasu Wed, 01 Apr 2009 03:21:55 +0000 http://thegoldenspiral.org/?p=2249#comment-2711 The Idiocracy argument works only if you assume biology beats culture. In any case, we seem to be rushing towards Idiocracy now even as we breed ourselves to death, so why not try something new - like taking responsibility for our impact on the planet now and into the future. Overpopulation isn't something "out there in Other countries done by Other people". Nor is it something that might happen later. It's already happened and each additional child anywhere on the planet makes it worse and makes the future suffering of people ever greater and more horrific. We’ve already exceeded global carrying capacity. We are now in “overshoot”. (Visualize a car sailing smoothly, but quite temporarily, through the air after having been driven off of a cliff.) Global population is nearing 7 billion. Different theorists using different methods seem to end up agreeing that global carrying capacity is probably about 2 billion. (This assumes some level of social justice and a moderate, low by US standards, standard of living. More is possible if you accept a cattle car / Matrix-esque "life".) In any case, we will get to that much-lower-than-7-billion number the hard way (wars, famine, disease, and their accompanying losses of environmental quality, freedom, and social justice) OR the less hard way (immediately and drastically reducing our population voluntarily). Yes, all of us, yes, everywhere. There is no scenario anywhere in which population growth is a "good thing" long term. Yes a drop in population would cause problems, but none of those problems are as big as the problems, suffering, and environmental collapse that is certain to occur if we don’t. I disagree with any argument that there is some “right to reproduce”. If there is any "right to reproduce" it's in the concept that one has the freedom to nurture a child or children and form some sort of family. Biological reproduction is not necessary to do that and there are many in need of this sort of nurturing. I would also argue that there is no right to cause suffering to others, now or on into the future, and that is exactly what having babies does. This is a global issue with local and nation-state consequences. For example, immigration is a consequence of overpopulation, not a cause of it. Likewise, global climate change and the collapse of ocean fisheries are not impressed by national boundaries. No technological / "alternative energy" options have the capacity or can be ramped up fast enough to avoid major global calamity. That isn't to say we shouldn't do them. Aggressively shifting to alternative energy is necessary, just not sufficient. For more comprehensive analysis of all this I suggest Bandura etc. http://growthmadness.org/2008/02/18/impeding-ecological-sustainability-through-selective-moral-disengagement/ Albert Bartlett on the exponential function as it relates to population and oil: http://c-realm.blogspot.com/2008/12/kmo-interview-with-albert-bartlett.html Approaching the Limits www.paulchefurka.ca Bruce Sundquist on environmental impact of overpopulation http://home.alltel.net/bsundquist1/ How Many People Should The Earth Support? http://www.ecofuture.org/pop/rpts/mccluney_maxpop.html Video short on exponential growth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2rTQpdyCFQ&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fin-gods-name.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F03%2Ftoo-many-people-too-much-consumption-by.html&feature=player_embedded Carrying Capacity http://iere.org/ILEA/leaf/richard2002.html The Oil Drum Peak Oil Overview - June 2007 (www.theoildrum.com/node/2693) ...and of course the classic "Overshoot" by Catton The Idiocracy argument works only if you assume biology beats culture. In any case, we seem to be rushing towards Idiocracy now even as we breed ourselves to death, so why not try something new – like taking responsibility for our impact on the planet now and into the future.

Overpopulation isn’t something “out there in Other countries done by Other people”. Nor is it something that might happen later. It’s already happened and each additional child anywhere on the planet makes it worse and makes the future suffering of people ever greater and more horrific.

We’ve already exceeded global carrying capacity. We are now in “overshoot”. (Visualize a car sailing smoothly, but quite temporarily, through the air after having been driven off of a cliff.)

Global population is nearing 7 billion. Different theorists using different methods seem to end up agreeing that global carrying capacity is probably about 2 billion. (This assumes some level of social justice and a moderate, low by US standards, standard of living. More is possible if you accept a cattle car / Matrix-esque “life”.)

In any case, we will get to that much-lower-than-7-billion number the hard way (wars, famine, disease, and their accompanying losses of environmental quality, freedom, and social justice) OR the less hard way (immediately and drastically reducing our population voluntarily). Yes, all of us, yes, everywhere. There is no scenario anywhere in which population growth is a “good thing” long term.

Yes a drop in population would cause problems, but none of those problems are as big as the problems, suffering, and environmental collapse that is certain to occur if we don’t.

I disagree with any argument that there is some “right to reproduce”. If there is any “right to reproduce” it’s in the concept that one has the freedom to nurture a child or children and form some sort of family. Biological reproduction is not necessary to do that and there are many in need of this sort of nurturing. I would also argue that there is no right to cause suffering to others, now or on into the future, and that is exactly what having babies does.

This is a global issue with local and nation-state consequences. For example, immigration is a consequence of overpopulation, not a cause of it. Likewise, global climate change and the collapse of ocean fisheries are not impressed by national boundaries.

No technological / “alternative energy” options have the capacity or can be ramped up fast enough to avoid major global calamity. That isn’t to say we shouldn’t do them. Aggressively shifting to alternative energy is necessary, just not sufficient.

For more comprehensive analysis of all this I suggest

Bandura etc.
http://growthmadness.org/2008/02/18/impeding-ecological-sustainability-through-selective-moral-disengagement/

Albert Bartlett on the exponential function as it relates to population and oil:
http://c-realm.blogspot.com/2008/12/kmo-interview-with-albert-bartlett.html

Approaching the Limits http://www.paulchefurka.ca

Bruce Sundquist on environmental impact of overpopulation http://home.alltel.net/bsundquist1/

How Many People Should The Earth Support? http://www.ecofuture.org/pop/rpts/mccluney_maxpop.html

Video short on exponential growth:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2rTQpdyCFQ&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fin-gods-name.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F03%2Ftoo-many-people-too-much-consumption-by.html&feature=player_embedded

Carrying Capacity
http://iere.org/ILEA/leaf/richard2002.html

The Oil Drum Peak Oil Overview – June 2007 (www.theoildrum.com/node/2693)

…and of course the classic “Overshoot” by Catton

]]>