Population Growth in the Amazon Rain Forest

I recently had the incredible good luck to take a tour deep into the Amazon basin. It was everything, and more, than expected: overwhelming, an amazing diversity of exotic animals and plants, vast, isolated, and ruggedly beautiful. But, sadly, the indigenous people there live in poverty eking out a subsistence existence based mostly on fishing. We visited two small villages and it was obvious that in spite of the primitive conditions, making babies is no problem. We were greeted by children, many of them. And they appeared healthy and happy. Perhaps here in the isolated, resource-rich Amazon, there is room for additional people. But with total human population now predicted to top 11 billion, I worry about the rest of the world.

Review of The Message by Yan Vana

Falcondale Press, England, 2015, 198 pages.

This book by Vana tackles the very serious problem of human population. But it is most unusual and interesting, because it does so as a science-fiction novel. Various aliens, superior to Earthlings, are having an inquiry to decide what to do about a myriad of grim difficulties that have arisen on a nature reserve called Retha (Earth in actuality). The inquiry shows conclusively that these problems are extremely serious and are, in fact, destroying the planet. The cause is humans and specifically their out-of-control population growth.

The author is to be commended for penning this book and, especially, for taking such a fresh and bold approach. The topic of human overpopulation needs to be addressed; it’s astonishing how it is largely ignored.

However, The Message falls short of being a good read. It needs a proper title and subtitle that give some idea of what’s inside; the characters are not developed in enough detail to make the story interesting; the environmental and resource problems arising on Retha are named but little discussion or definition; and the love story is shallow and clumsy. Most bizarre is that no information is provided about the author either in the book, on the website, or when you Google the name. It’s not clear who the author is, or even whether male or female.

A bold effort, indeed, on a crucially important topic. With some solid upgrading, it could be an outstanding book.

More on the False Population Myth

In my last post (some time ago), I railed against the false myth that population growth is slowing down. For decades it’s been erroneously thought that human numbers will peak at about 9.5 billion in 2050 and then decrease, and, thus, the overpopulation problem will go away.

My post showed this is a total misconception, based on incorrectly interpreting data using percentages rather than actual numbers. Well, now my blog post has received authoritative confirmation. A major United Nations study in 2014 involving scientists, statisticians and demographers predicts that global population will continue to increase reaching a total of about 11 billion by 2100. Furthermore, it will continue to grow slowly beyond that. This is dynamite news! The current global population already far exceeds the world’s bearing capacity. At 11 billion, the situation will be much worse.

Human population impacts virtually everything from resources, to environment to terrorism. Why do we go on ignoring it?

Reference

Gerland, P., et al., World population stabilization unlikely this century, Science, 10 October 2014:
Vol. 346 no. 6206 pp. 234-237.

Shattering a Population Myth

Late in October, global population will reach seven billion. To mark this auspicious but depressing milestone I’d like to confront the widely held belief that global population growth is slowing. Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute, for example, states that population growth peaked at over 2% in 1968, and today, the global population growth is 1.1%. This certainly sounds like a significant decrease, doesn’t it?

Wrong! Let’s look at actual numbers, the actual number of humans involved, rather than percentages.

In 1968, the world’s population was 3.6 billion. An annual growth of just over 2% means that the population increased by about 75 million people that year. Now, in late October, 2011, we are on the verge of reaching 7.0 billion souls. The present growth rate of 1.1% means about 77 million additional people will be added to the world this year.

Wow! Real population growth, that is, the increase in actual living, breathing, consuming humans, is virtually the same today as it was in 1968, over four decades ago. So much for the myth that human population growth is slowing down.

Another set of frequently quoted statistics is that in the 1950s women bore approximately 5 children each, while today that number stands at 2.5 children per woman. This sounds like a huge decrease. But it’s not. Although the birth rate has halved, the number of women has doubled. One cancels the other so that we’re still producing the same number of children. Dealing with percentages rather than actual numbers hides the disturbing fact that global population growth hasn’t slowed at all. It is still increasing at a robust level — about 75 million per year — just as it has since 1968.

Let’s delve deeper. Since about 1950 we have witnessed incredible prosperity. Every generation has had a better, richer lifestyle than their parents. The GDP, number of cars per family, home size and electronic gadgets have all increased significantly during this golden era of human civilization. To provide the improving quality of life, each generation requires more oil to be drilled, more forests to be cleared, more aquifers to be drained than for the preceding generation. Although the increase in number of humans was about the same in 1968 as in 2011, the cohort of 2011 uses far more resources, they have a larger ecofootprint, a larger environmental impact. And that’s what counts.

Human society is at the brink. We need to deal with immense global problems such as approaching peak oil, diminishing fish stocks in oceans, loss of good agricultural lands, global warming, oceanic pollution and much more. A central cause of every one of these difficulties is human population, which continues to grow at an alarming rate.

We must not believe the myth that population growth is slowing, nor let it lull us into complacency. There’s too much at stake.

Murder of an Ancient Matriarch

Murder of an Ancient Matriarch
Who cannot love old-growth groves where enormous trees soar skyward like turrets and flying buttresses. Shafts of golden light angle down to a dusky forest floor that is rich with sword ferns, moss-covered logs and witch’s hair dangling from branches. When I am amongst these gentle giants I feel a spirituality, a deep closeness with nature.

But last week a tear welled in my eye as I gazed at the largest stump I’ve ever seen. About 45 feet in circumference and about a thousand years old, the noble red cedar had been cut only recently. The thud as this old matriarch hit the forest floor should have reverberated throughout the land. Instead there was silence. The surrounding clear-cut, located near Port Renfrew on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, contained many large stumps, several rivalling this one in size. Photos of the clear-cut can be seen at: http://utopiaphoto.ca/blog/?p=343

This ancient grove should never have been logged. That such rare old-growth trees, which form only a tiny and diminishing fraction of the forest, continue to be felled highlights serous shortcomings in the BC government and the logging industry.

Looking deeper, this sea of stumps also sends a message about the world’s population. There are so many people now that to provide shelter, clothes, food and modern conveniences, we must lay waste the resources that nature has provided. Shameful practices are found in the fisheries, oil and gas, fresh water and elsewhere. The days when resources were harvested sustainably are far behind.

The murder of a grand old-growth matriarch, leaving behind only a stump, is a sure sign that our society is failing. Can we not turn it around?

Time to Speak Out about Human Population

The most frightening — and fascinating — thing I know is a graph of human population growth over the past millennium. Starting in about 1800 the curve suddenly spikes almost straight upward, and this incredible growth in human numbers continues today. In my lifetime alone, population has increased by over four billion and it continues to rise at about 70 million people each year. And thanks to technological innovations and cheap oil, the wealth of each person on the globe, especially in developed nations, has increased even faster.

Under this onslaught, Earth’s vast cradle of resources, including oil, food grains, fish stocks and water, is being severely depleted, and the environment is being degraded. It is truly scary, for the graph can only be interpreted one way: dire times lie ahead.

The fascinating part is that few care that the population freight train is steaming toward a cliff. Why?

The problem is that politicians consider economic growth as their ultimate goal, providing jobs and an ever-increasing standard of living for their constituents. But the economy can’t grow by itself; it requires a partner: an increasing population, which provides a growing consumer base and more workers to produce more consumer goods. Thus, economy and population are like two yoked oxen heaving and pulling together. And no politician dares to slow them or unyoke them.

How will it end? An ever-expanding economy that requires an ever-expanding population to make it viable is a giant pyramid scheme. We all know what happens to pyramid schemes. Since the world is finite, population-economy growth must also crash to an end.

The Suzuki Foundation, Greenpeace and other environmental organizations studiously ignore the population issue. Ditto for religious leaders led by the pontificating Pope.

So what can we do? The good news is that many steps are being taken to wean ourselves from fossil fuels and reduce our ecofootprint, such as smaller cars, public transit, compact fluorescents and wind turbines.

Truly tragic, however, is that population is being ignored. Media coverage of population is woefully lacking. It is a taboo topic. As long as human numbers continue to climb, they will cancel any gains made by conservation. It will yield not one millimeter of progress if through superhuman efforts we decrease our environmental footprint by, say, 20% per capita but the population increases by 20% over the same period. Global warming provides an excellent example. In spite of the Kyoto Protocol, the annual amount of carbon dioxide emissions between 1990 and 2005 increased 32% world wide. Quite simply, we’re not getting the job done. And the best measures in the world won’t as long as we keep ignoring population.

Just like drug addicts, the first and most important step is to admit we have a problem. We need to drag the population issue into the open, shine a spotlight on it and start talking about it.

An important initiative has been launched called Global Population Speak Out, a project that is mobilizing scientists, writers and knowledgeable individuals to speak and write about population during the month of February. It=s a simple idea. If a large number of qualified voices speak out on population all at once, perhaps people will listen. Interestingly, one of the first to add his support was Paul Ehrlich, the author of The Population Bomb, the best seller that fuelled much of the concern about population in the 1970s.

Add your voice to the movement. Visit the Global Population Speak Out website (gpso.wordpress.com) and pledge your support. It doesn’t cost a cent, but it could make a world of difference.

Female Bison on the Pill

Stop the presses! Contraception is being introduced to a bison herd on Catalina Island, California (www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-catalina-bison20-2009nov20,0,1351086.story). The goal is to control the size of the herd at about 150 head so the animals and the environment will be healthier. When the herd was about 350 in size, the bison’s health was deteriorating and they were trampling native plant communities, altering tree canopies by rubbing against trees, and undermining weed management efforts.

This raises questions, deep and important questions. First, how can family planning be acceptable for bison, yet be a taboo subject for humans, whose vast numbers are making a mess of the entire planet? How can such a vitally important issue be ignored? Why are we so blind?

Second, if an optimal population number can be determined for bison, then surely one can also be calculated for humans. In fact, similar studies suggest the earth can sustainably support no more than about four billion humans. But there is no discussion how this number might be achieved. Just an overwhelming silence .

Third, if a contraception method can be used for bison, which does not harm them nor change their social structure, can we not devise similar, humane methods for humans?

Fourth, why have the religious right, the Catholic Church and other pro-lifers not intervened in this case? After all, they get their moral knickers in a knot at even the hint of contraception, family planning or anything related to controlling human numbers. Human life is sacrosanct, they argue. But why is a bison’s life not sacrosanct? Humans and bison are both animals, two species that are genetically very similar (just look at the DNA structures). The arguments of the religious right are steeped in elitism: humans are the superior race.

Finally, the religious right fights vigorously to save the lives of those yet unborn. Yet their actions condemn future populations to lives that will be significantly inferior to what we enjoy (more elitism), just as the health and environment of the bison herd on Catalina Island degraded when their numbers became too large. Religious zealotary cannot reverse this unassailable fact.

Let’s recognize that human population is a serious problem, and let’s start talking about it. Maybe we can answer some of these questions.

European Values

To save the world we need to slow birthing in poor nations and slow consumption in rich countries. It sounds so simple, yet it’s incredibly complex and difficult. This post looks at slowing consumption, and at the United States in particular.

The American dream is built on: unfettered growth, every man for himself, the rights of the individual, and the belief that anyone can become rich or famous. When there are unlimited resources, this attitude works for there is plenty of wealth to go around.

But now the U.S. population is over 300 million, national oil is long past its peak, other resources are dwindling, smog and pollution are ubiquitous, space in the big cities like New York, Los Angeles and Chicago is cramped, there is a large chasm between the rich and poor, and the US has the highest murder rate of the developed countries. Then there's the current economic crisis, a slap in the face, a sure sign that times have changed and that the American way no longer works. There’s a desperate need for a change of attitude, a fresh approah. But how to change?

Jeremy Rifkin in his book, The European Dream: How Europe’s Vision of the Future is Quietly Eclipsing the American Dream, provides some valuable guidance. Europeans value: the common good rather than individualism; quality of life over accumulated wealth; sustainable development over unlimited material growth; deep play over unrelenting toil; the rights of nature over the rights of individual property rights; and global cooperation over unilateral flexing of military power. Furthermore, most western European nations have slowed their population growth to equilibrium, or even lower, rates.

If we want to save the future we need, more than anything else, to change our mindset. Europe has set a fine example; let’s follow it.

Abortions, Family Planning & Respect for Women

An abortion isn’t a pretty thing. Not only does it take the life of the fetus, but all too often the mother dies as well. This is especially the case in countries with highly restrictive abortion laws, as recently reported by the New York-based Guttmacher Institute.

First the good news. The Guttmacher report shows that the number of abortions worldwide fell about 8.6% from 45.5 million in 1995 to 41.6 million in 2003. The reason: more women are using contraception, which increased to 63% in 2003 from 54% in 1990. However, contraceptive use lags badly in Africa where it is used by only 28% of married women.

Now the bad news. Shockingly, the report estimated that almost half of the abortions in 2003 were unsafe, that is, self-induced, performed by unskilled people or done in unhygienic settings. About 70,000 women died and another 8 million suffered complications. Almost all of the unsafe abortions were performed in less-developed countries with restrictive abortion laws. The most restrictive laws are found in Africa and Latin America where birth rates are also the highest. The report concluded that legal restrictions do not stop abortions from happening, they just make the procedure much more dangerous. Is there a lesson here for the Vatican and far right Christians?

The future for the world and human society looks grim. The basic causes for our woes can be summarized as over-consumption by the wealthy and over-birthing by the poor.

How simple this sounds. Yet how difficult to find solutions. The Guttmacher report presents one step we can take. The report urges rich nations like the U.S. to sharply increase financial support to poor countries for family-planning programs. This would also save a lot of women from suffering. Africa needs our help and giving women respect and dignity is a good place to start.

Steady-State Economy and Population

A movement has been quietly gaining momentum. More and more people are recognizing that a continuously growing economy is no longer feasible in this finite world. The worldwide economy has grown so immense that we are now pushing against the very boundaries of nature. Peak oil, depleting fisheries, water shortages and food riots are wake-up calls. It’s insanity, suicide, to proceed like this.

Last week, Professor Edward O. Wilson of Harvard University, two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize and one of the most distinguished and respected biologists in the world, joined an elite and respected group of thinkers in signing the position on economic growth developed by the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy. The statement points out the conflict between economic growth and environmental protection and proposes a steady state economy as an alternative. A steady-state economy aims for stability in population and consumption of energy and materials -- it is a truly green economy that meets people's needs without undermining the life-support systems of the planet.

Other distinguished scientists who share this view include David Suzuki (biology, media), Herman Daly (economics), Vandana Shiva (agriculture), Wendell Berry (agriculture), Chris Matthews (media), and Douglas Tompkins (business). These individuals believe that a steady-state economy is necessary to conserve planetary resources and ensure well being for future generations.

A vital and necessary part of a steady-state economy is a steady-state population. The former is not possible without the latter; it’s impossible. So we have some of the world’s most intelligent people advocating a steady-state population. Yet politicians, religious leaders and many others pay no heed. The topic of population, crucial as it is, is not even on the agenda. If we want to save the future, it’s time we paid heed.

One-Stop Overpopulation Resource

I’ve wanted to list some good reference material on overpopulation on this blogsite for quite a while. But somehow, I just haven’t got around to it. Sure, I had plenty of excuses: my procrastination gene, the topic is too boring, I’d rather be tackling specific issues, etc., etc.

But wait no longer. I just read a superb article on the web by Frosty Wooldridge. Not only does he slam politicians and others for ignoring the vitally important issue of overpopulation but he provides references to a ton of useful information on this topic including books, movies, web sites, organizations and where to get pre-written letters to e-mail or FAX to your political representatives.

And I love Wooldridge’s bombastic style. The title -- Most Americans stupid as a box of rocks as to overpopulation -- sets the tone and lets you know he’s not pulling any punches. For example, Wooldridge says the Pope is “probably the most out of touch human being on the planet.”

Here’s the link. I urge you to read it.
http://www.examiner.com/x-3515-Denver-Political-Issues-Examiner~y2009m6d25-Most-Americans-stupid-as-a-box-of-rocks-as-to-overpopulation-On-American-Sustainability

Busting a Myth

Perhaps it’s coincidence, but in the past week I’ve seen the same myth trumpeted no less than three times. Two web articles and a colleague announced that a major threat to the world is not the growing human population, but instead is a declining population such as we’re seeing in some European countries. “Why?” I asked. “Because we need young people to work, pay taxes and, thus, support the aging population,” they responded.

Let me put an end to this preposterous myth. In isolation this argument might make sense. Yes, there will be a need for extra tax funds for the pensions and increased medical care of the increasing numbers of seniors. But, this will be covered by the tax dollars saved by having less children and young people, who are very expensive. Government will spend less on child benefits, day cares, schools and universities. In addition, most crime occurs amongst young people so the costs of police, court systems—we all know the exorbitant fees that lawyers charge— and prisons will decrease. Ditto with car accidents, where savings will occur with insurance, hospitals and medical care. I could go on.

Funny, how these savings are never mentioned by the pro-lifers, neo-cons and all those who want the economy to continue ahead at full steam. Their arguments are simply a myth-stake.

Asimov on Human Dignity

The immense number of humans in the world (approaching 7 billion) is causing many problems including peak oil, global warming, declining fisheries and loss of species. However, there is something far less sensational—but just as important—that is quietly eroding away. It is quality of life, a constant diminishing of our dignity and self worth.

Isaac Asimov was a brilliant science-fiction writer and a prescient thinker on the future. Here’s what he said in 1989: “... democracy cannot survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot survive. Convenience and decency cannot survive. As you put more and more people onto the world, the value of life not only declines, it disappears ... the more people there are, the less one person matters.”

One example is government. The twin growths of technology and population call for more regulations. After all, synthetic chemicals, assault rifles, genetically modified foods and cell phones need to be controlled to ensure safety and the orderly functioning of society. Governments, in turn, must become larger and spend more time dealing with a morass of details. The increasing regulations hem us in and increase our taxes. And as our numbers increase we get less input to government decisions.

Perhaps saddest is that as our numbers increase the sense of community declines. We lose the feeling of belonging, of helping one another, of friendships. Personal liberty and dignity quietly disappear. Virtually every facet of our lives is degraded. It’s a tragic situation. Yet politicians and economists will not take action. They continue to ignore the fundamental problem of overpopulation.

The Light from the Christian Right

Recently I suffered a perplexing and, frankly, difficult situation. I asked a lady acquaintance how she justifies having six children in this age of degrading environment and dwindling resources. “Think of the stress it places on an already over-crowded world,” I stated.

“Jesus guides my life. He wants me to have children,” she countered. “I’d like to have even more,” she smiled, gently patting her tummy and looking at me with pitying disdain as though I was a piece of flotsam adrift without a moral compass.

I was floored. “Jesus told you to have six children?” I asked.

“The Bible says we should go forth and multiply,” she responded with the smug sanctimony of one who has multiplied more than average.

I pointed out that religion teaches that we should love and help our neighbours. But when we in the rich nations over-multiply and over-consume it causes our “neighbours” in the poor nations to starve, live in squalid conditions and suffer desperate wars over resources.

“Oh, that doesn’t matter, they’re not Christians,” she responded righteously.

“What about global warming and energy and water shortages?” I asked desperately. “Your grandchildren will face horrible conditions.”

“Not to worry, the Lord will look after them,” she smiled beatifically.

As I spluttered, trying to find a response, she said, “Sorry, I’d love to stay and help show you the light but I’ve got to run to the ‘Ban Teaching of Evolution’ meeting.” With that she climbed into her Hummer and roared off.

When Environmental Writers Are Part of the Problem

Many thanks to guest blogger, John C. Feeney, Ph.D., a psychologist turned environmental activist and writer. The full article can be viewed at http://dissidentvoice.org/2007/07/when-environmental-writers-are-part-of-the-problem/

-

When talking about causes and proposed solutions for our ecological plight, few environmental writers tell us more than half the story. There is a near universal tendency to focus on the importance of cutting fossil fuel use while staying mum on the topic of population growth.
That the size and growth of the global population is a root cause of ecological degradation is well known to scientists who recognize, for example, that the ecological footprint for the world is the product of population times per capita consumption. Yet we hear all about the need to save energy by switching to florescent light bulbs. We read about the ethanol debate and carbon trading schemes. But in all the talk of ways of reducing per person consumption, how often does anyone mention the need to address the other factor in the equation?
Why the silence? Population growth received a good deal of attention in the 1960s and 1970s. But then came China’s draconian one child policy, right-wing groups pushing free market capitalism by cheerleading growth and dismissing the need to limit our numbers, and political wrangling among environmental and social justice groups. The result was the demotion of population from its status as social and environmental issue number one.
Indeed, many writers avoid the subject of population despite recognizing its importance. For instance, David Roberts, environmental writer at Grist, acknowledges he never writes on the subject. His reason? “Talking about population alienates a large swathe of the general public. It carries vague connotations of totalitarianism and misanthropy and eugenics. It has been used quite effectively to slander and marginalize the environmental movement. It is political poison.”
Is Roberts’ view wise? I don’t believe the subject of population is, in fact, “political poison.” Though they do so too infrequently, a variety of groups and writers do grapple with it. And there’s no evidence their work has set back the environmental cause. They identify population growth as a problem because it’s the truth, and they know bringing people the truth is productive while avoiding it is ultimately damaging.
Addressing population growth means taking humane measures to assist with the social and economic issues which drive it. That means improving education for girls and economic opportunities for women in developing countries. It means increasing access to family planning and reproductive health care services, and encouraging positive attitudes toward smaller families. And it means reducing infant mortality rates. Any notion that it need involve involuntary measures such as “totalitarianism and misanthropy and eugenics” is simply wrong.
True, some have tried to use the population topic to try to slander and marginalize the environmental movement. But these groups presenting irrational arguments from such vantage points as the Christian right and the libertarian right have had, at best, a marginal impact. Their attacks are best dealt with head on, exposing their agenda-driven illogic.
I frequently raise the population issue with people and have encountered almost universal recognition that it is a problem needing more attention.
Environmental writers who have avoided the subject of population should rethink their stance. Let’s embrace truth, not avoidance.

Factory Farming, Population and Human Values

The previous post looked at how the enormous human population has created equally immense numbers of domesticated animals. They are so numerous (many billions) that they can no longer range on pasture lands but must be confined in horrid, cramped “factory farms.” (OK, OK, so they also make more profit, which justifies anything.) These factories, which will only get larger and more inhumane with human numbers increasing by over 70 million a year, may be the death of us yet, for they are perfect incubators for deadly viruses, and are just waiting for the right conditions to unleash a world-wide pandemic (the recent Mexican swine flu came close).
But what worries me even more is the loss of ethics, the loss of decency. We turn a blind eye to the fact that pigs, cattle, chickens and goats are also sentient creatures. We are all animals and share a common evolutionary heritage. Animals have feelings, emotions and sensitivity just like humans. The young of all animals want to be nourished and loved. The adults of all animals want security, to care for their young and to be loved. Farley Mowat summed it up nicely, “life itself – not human life – is the ultimate miracle upon this earth.”
The saddest part of all this is the loss of our own dignity and any shred of decency. If we don’t approve of Abu Ghraib prison and human torture, how can we possibly approve of factory farms? Humans may be all-powerful on this earth, but we are pathetic, sadistic, murderous bullies. We should be ashamed. We need to put our house in order. Let’s start by bringing our populations down to levels that are in harmony with the earth and the creatures on it.

Population and Frightening Factory Farming

The growing human population has put two diametrically opposite pressures on the fellow creatures that inhabit the earth with us. Wild animals are being slowly but surely wiped out. This is called the Sixth Great Extinction. The populations of domesticated animals, that is, the ones whose body parts we place on the dinner table, however, are skyrocketing in parallel with human population.
Here are some numbers. World meat consumption went from 40 million tonnes in 1950 to 218 million tonnes in 2005 (a 5.5-fold increase!). The population of cattle in the world is over one billion. 70 billion chickens are slaughtered annually. The number of pigs and sheep are one billion and 1.2 billion, respectively.
There is no free lunch (sorry, couldn’t resist), thus, the impact of these gigantic numbers of animals is enormous. They require food, land and energy. At the same time they create methane (hello, global warming) and waste (hello, Walkerton tragedy).
But most frightening is that the crowded factory farms are perfect incubators of disease and mutant viruses (hello, mad cow disease and avian flu). The latest swine flu (A/H1N1) from Mexico, which had world health authorities in a panic, is but one of many outbreaks associated with pig farms. As human population continues to soar, so will the numbers of domesticated animals. That even more deadly diseases and viruses will follow is inevitable and unavoidable. Our children and grandchildren will face some ugly threats.
All this because there are too many humans on this planet. Let’s change our ways. Let’s leave our children animals they can love.

Population, Prudence and the Precautionary Principle

The precautionary principle states that if an action might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public or to the environment, the action should not proceed until the advocates have provided scientific consensus that harm would not ensue. This statement, which is only common sense after all, has been adopted by the European Union and is promoted by the United Nations.

Unfortunately, society’s commitment to constant economic and population growth has trampled this fine tenet underfoot. There is no time for caution or common sense.

A growing population and increasing GDP demand ever more products, more services and more resources. How else can we provide jobs and a good standard of living to the growing population? The system requires never-ending innovation and production. Being careful would only slow things down. And heaven forbid that we should slow the train, it must keep chugging forward.

Take synthetic chemicals such as, for example, the organochlorines: PCBs, DDT, dioxins, furans. Only after they are shown to be toxic and have permeated the global environment is removal from the marketplace considered. These chemicals (not to mention nanotechnology and genetically modified organisms) are innocent until proven guilty; forget the precautionary principle. Why? Because we need growth: more, more, more.

Bizarre isn’t it? Not only is growth degrading the environment, destroying biodiversity and depleting resources, but it is also sapping us of the will to manage our affairs properly. It’s a lose-lose situation.

Imagine now a smaller population, say 3 or 4 billion, that is in equilibrium. There would be no pressure for growth, no need to pump out new chemicals and products heedlessly. Of the many benefits, the best is that we could re-establish the precautionary principle. We could act in a prudent, cautious manner.

Attenborough, Biodiversity and Plain Stupidity

A small controversy has been stirring in Britain these past few weeks. Well-known naturalist and broadcaster Sir David Attenborough spoke out, stating that there are too many people in the world. Furthermore, he became a patron of the Optimum Population Trust, the leading think tank in the UK concerned with the impact of population growth on the environment. The Trust (www.optimumpopulation.org) campaigns for stabilization and gradual population decrease globally and in the UK.

What astonishes me is that many people can’t — or refuse to — see the simple logic that motivates Attenborough. Author Austin Williams, for example, attacked Attenborough, stating that ``experts can still be stupid when they speak on subjects of which they know little.'' What balderdash! Attenborough is a knowledgeable naturalist and understands that as human numbers increase other animal populations will decrease. More roads, more suburbs, more deforestation, more fishing and more monoculture agriculture will decrease natural habitat. Duh, that’s really hard to understand, isn’t it Mr. Williams?

As large predators disappear, lower forms of life will flourish. Already, we have jellyfish infestations because sea turtle numbers have declined. Many scientists feel that in the future algae, molds, rats, cockroaches, mosquitoes and other ``resilient'' creatures will flourish because all their predators will have disappeared. And there are dozens and dozens of other environmental, pollution and resource problems that are looming ever larger as human population grows.

Thumbs up to Attenborough. Thumbs down to all those who ignore simple logic.

Family Planning in Kenya: Insights from the Field

(This post is contributed by a lady who has donated many months of her time to help rural Kenyans cope with HIV/AIDS.)

Family planning and population control in Kenya deserves critical attention; it is a country whose population, despite being impacted by HIV/Aids, lack of health care and proper nutrition, is growing by 2.75% per year. In 1900 the population in Kenya was 1,352,000. By 2008 the population was 37,000,000. By 2050, Kenya’s population is projected to reach 65,200,000. Today, 32% of Kenyans are malnourished. Drought and climate change are reducing the nation’s ability to feed itself.

I talked to many women of childbearing age in rural Kenya. Almost all wish to limit the size of their families. Their biggest challenge is the strong Kenyan/African cultural belief in the succession of generations and of the strong tradition of ancestral power. In addition, many men measure their manhood in the number of wives and children they have and see condoms and other birth control methods as an affront. Abstinence for women is often not an option in a culture in which spousal rape or non-consensual sex is accepted as an entitlement.

Young people are slowly being educated in family planning and HIV awareness. However access to condoms and other birth control methods is sketchy in rural areas. In addition, approximately 33% of Kenya’s population is Catholic. The Pope’s recent message to Africa that the use of condoms is unacceptable exacerbates not only the issue of HIV but of population growth.

The change in culture that needs to take place for a real decline in population growth in Kenya may simply take too long to prevent a disaster. A basically corrupt and uncaring government has not supported the education and infrastructure needed to promote the need for population control in African. And the idea of negotiating cultural or behavioural change smacks of neo-colonialism if it comes from the international community.

The situation in Kenya is common to many developing nations. When a change in culture is necessary for major change, the process is ponderous and painful. And it must be coordinated and powered by the ruling government and supported by the international community.

Population control, which is a touchy phrase at best, is a political and religious hot potato. Few power structures seem willing to get burned.