This is a great interview that dispels some of the most common overpopulation myths:
Overpopulation Is Still a Huge Problem: An Interview with Jane O’Sullivan
Richard: Fertility rates are declining sharply in OECD countries, and China’s population is now dropping rapidly. Is world population growth in the rear-view mirror, a problem we no longer have to worry about?
Jane: “Declining sharply” and “dropping rapidly” are emotive terms that exaggerate the trends and distract from the far more rapid growth elsewhere. Globally we increase by somewhere between 70 million and 90 million annually, and that pace has been unrelenting for more than 40 years. We don’t have hard evidence that the curve has started to bend, let alone that it is on track to peak any time soon. So, the problem hasn’t gone away, and the impacts of the human population get more serious and intractable every year.
Richard: How can nations use population decline to their advantage?
Jane: They don’t have to do anything to reap the benefits of population decline, other than stop resisting it. It means not having to build so much infrastructure every year just to keep pace with growth. It means more affordable housing and less household debt. It means we can retreat from the most ecologically valuable or fragile places, and see them restored and rewilded.
Read the full story »
Population chart below from Populationconnection.org:
Below is a World Population Day Presentation and Panel Discussion: What is a sustainable population? Why, when and what should we do about it?
Dr Jane O'Sullivan was the fourth speaker, via a recording made earlier in Australia, at this high level discussion involving top scientists discussing what is a 'scientifically defensible, sustainable human population size for the long term' as called for in the World Scientists Warning to Humanity - A Second Notice issued in 2017 by over 15,000 scientists. Once we know the sustainable population size then how should we get there and when? The 2017 warning also called for 'rallying nations and leaders to support that vital goal’ in terms of population size.
Thankfully, people are starting again to talk about our overpopulation issue.
Here's another article on the climate change / overpopulation subject from The Guardian:
‘I am starting to panic about my child’s future’: climate scientists wary of starting families
I had the hormonal urges,” said Prof Camille Parmesan, a leading climate scientist based in France. “Oh my gosh, it was very strong. But it was: ‘Do I really want to bring a child into this world that we’re creating?’ Even 30 years ago, it was very clear the world was going to hell in a handbasket. I’m 62 now and I’m actually really glad I did not have children.”
...
Prof Regina Rodrigues, an oceanographer at the Federal University of Santa Catarina in Brazil, who also chose not to have children, was influenced by the environmental destruction she saw in the fast-expanding coastal town near São Paulo where she grew up.
“The fact of the limitation of resources was really clear to me from a young age,” she said. “Then I learned about climate change and it was even more clear to me. I’m totally satisfied in teaching and passing what I know to people – it doesn’t need to be my blood. [My husband and I] don’t regret a moment. We both work on climate and we are fighting.”
Here's another interesting perspective on overpopulation from Kitsap Sun in Bremerton, Washington:
A recent column published in the Kitsap Sun shared a view on "how to make the world better," which the author explained was to have our young have more babies. This answer got my attention, as well as others that have responded with letters to the editor on the assumption that this world needs more people on it.
The columnist in question is the VP of Research and Director of the Human Flourishing Lab at the Archbridge Institute, based in Washington, D.C. The Institute, from what I have read on their website, seems to be filled with economists and religious fellows. They also seem to be lobbying for the idea that unconstrained consumerism is good and that for that (us?) to flourish, we need more consumers, tying that in with having more babies, people on the planet.
The Institute also says they want to remove barriers and constrains on individuals so they can achieve richer and fuller lives, again, too "flourish."
The columnist criticizes the youth of today of being selfish and not doing their duty to have (more) children to populate the planet (and America) and consequently help the economy to grow.
Apparently the columnist has not looked around outside of the "Swamp" in D.C. and seen this planet already cannot feed the 3 billion inhabitants it has presently....and they want more.
Somehow the columnist does not see the link between 8 billion people and climate change.
There are a few very big elephants (problems) in the room (planet) that this economist and most big and International business seem to want us to ignore, so they can 'flourish'? They seem to want us to just keep populating the planet while they insulate themselves from everyone else's struggles to "flourish."
Maybe, just maybe, the youth of today are not that ignorant, and can see what is happening and what they are going to have to deal with in the near future in order to survive and flourish on this planet. Maybe they believe in science? Maybe they can do math and budgets, too? Maybe they see America's health system not working so well for them? And lots of other obstacles to having big families in America. This is not the 1700's anymore! Just maybe they have more information than us older folks could ever imagine, and just at their finger tips, and are making educated live directing dictions?
Maybe the youth of today can make the link between the climate change we are witnessing (it's proven science and now you can witness it) from the uncontrolled polluting of this planet's atmosphere, from, I contend, over population and uncontrolled consumerism. Maybe the youth can see that this is also polluting our oceans, rivers, lakes, and land that we feed ourselves from. Maybe they see the effects of following this historic economic and population model, that we cannot seem to mitigate our way out of, while this runaway freight train is coming full steam at them. Maybe they see the unfortunate accelerated degradation happening in our cities, towns, fields, open spaces and forests. ... Maybe we should be putting our money and planning into slowing population growth without crashing the economy. Out with the old and in with the new model, you could call it "self preservation" and a logical path for all, not some, to flourish. John Willett is a retired planner, designer, developer, builder and state-certified counselor with 45 years of leadership and advocacy for conservation and recreation. He lives in Poulsbo.
Read the full Kitsap Sun's Guest column by John Willett »
Comments