Will Human Numbers Ever Decrease?

Concerned scientists such as Paul Ehrlich argue that the ever-increasing human population is looting the planet. Most economists and politicians refuse to accept this. Often they respond that population growth is slowing and is actually decreasing in some countries, notably western Europe, and is slowing in most developed nations. In a few more decades human population will peak and then slowly decline, they claim.
Recent evidence from Australia indicates that this slow down in population growth rate may be temporary. In 2005, Australian treasurer Peter Costello made his famous plea, "Have one (child) for mum, one for dad, and one for the country." In 2004, to encourage fecundity he offered a $3000 bonus for every new baby. Recent data shows that Australia’s strategy has worked. The birth rate, which had been in a rut for years, rose in 2005 and again in 2006. The baby-bonus cost for the two years was $1.7 billion, resulting in 37,000 extra babies. The province of Quebec, Russia and other jurisdictions are offering similar incentives.
It’s too early to tell, but it appears that projections for human population growth will likely be at the high end of United Nations predictions. After all, Australia and others don’t seem to care about peak oil, fisheries depletion, water shortages and global warming. Instead they’re paying big bucks to keep the population, that is, the economy, expanding. Is there any hope?

Octuplets and More

On January 26, 2009, eight little children popped into the world, all from the same womb. Historic perhaps, but I can’t stop laughing at the incredible, beyond-belief stupidity of the event. The California mother, Nadya Suleman, already had six children of which three have disabilities. Furthermore, she is single, unemployed, in debt, lives with her parents and relies on food stamps and other government handouts. And this was before the octuplets!

Using in-vitro fertilization Suleman was impregnated with six frozen embryos, two of which split. A 50-person medical team delivered the eight babies. Not only will the brood be much more susceptible to diseases and disabilities that require expensive medical attention, but their quality of life promises to be dreadful.

But hold on, Suleman has a solution! No, she isn’t going to get a job. Instead, she has opened a website to solicit donations. You’ve got to love American entrepreneurship. I’m sure the Catholic Church and right-wing pro-lifers like Sarah Palin are busy clicking on Suleman’s website and making huge contributions.

With the world’s environment and resources stressed beyond capacity and with the US economy on life support, the last thing needed is more children, especially one who will be reliant on welfare. It’s high time that the United States (and Canada) change its reproductive laws to prohibit the emplacement of multiple embryos, in line with other nations.

I can already hear the contrarians: “But this sweet young lady should have the freedom to choose the size of her family. And the poor fertility doctor needs to make a living.” It’s the American way: Everyone for themselves and to hell with the common good.

Shout Out About Population

Twenty years ago everyone worried about, and talked about, the exploding human population. It was frightening, a problem that threatened global well being. Since then, the population has increased by two billion, a whopping 40% growth. So are we panicking?

Just the opposite. Population has fallen off the map. It’s a taboo topic. Media coverage of population is woefully lacking and, when it does happen, is often met with hostility or apathy. This in spite of many signs of approaching crisis: global warming, failing fish stocks, food riots, water shortages, loss of forests, and much more.
But there’s hope. This month a group of scientists initiated Global Population Speak Out, a project which is mobilizing scientists, writers and knowledgeable individuals to speak and write about population over the next month. It’s a simple idea. If a large number of qualified voices speak out on overpopulation 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 at gpso.wordpress .com and pledge your support – it’s free.

Escalator to the Abyss

My thesis is simple and unassailable: In the face of constant growth (population and economy combined) it is impossible to prevent environmental degradation and resource loss. We’re heading toward an abyss.

Consider the automobile. Over the past three decades some of the brightest minds in the world have worked to make cars cleaner and more efficient. Catalytic converters and positive crankcase ventilation have been introduced; lead has been removed, sulphur greatly reduced in fuel and vehicle fuel-efficiency has been improved.

In spite of all this, there has been no meaningful improvement in vehicle-created air pollution with all major cities still sitting under poisonous domes of smog, and more oil is being burned than ever before. Why? Because the number of cars and the distance travelled have increased faster than improvements. It’s simple: There’s more of us and we’re wealthier than in 1973.

Same thing for vehicle accidents. In spite of air bags, improved braking systems and better highways, the carnage on the roads gets bloodier each year. Today, about 3,000 people are killed worldwide in traffic accidents each day.

Ditto for waste. In spite of blue-box collection, in-vessel composting and phasing out of plastic bags in stores (finally!) and more, the amount of waste going to landfills increases each year.
And the list goes on and on.

That’s why I laugh when environmental organizations naively proclaim that if we all conserved 10% energy it would prevent dozens even hundreds of coal-fired power plants. No, no, no! It would take many years to make conservation changes. During this time the growth in population and economy would wipe out the gains made by conseration.

Yes, conservation is essential, but we’re running up a down escalator whose speed is constantly increasing. No matter how fast we run, use better running shoes and improve our running technique, the accelerating escalator soon outpaces us. There’s no escape. It’s simple, no-brainer, grade-one logic.

Wait! Here’s a revolutionary thought. Perhaps we should slow down the escalator. We need to slow population (and hence economic) growth before we reach the abyss.

Obama Turfs Out Gag rule

Great news from the White House. Within days of taking office, President Obama repealed the Global Gag Rule, also known as the Mexico City policy— named for the city in which the Reagan Administration first announced it at the 1984 United Nations International Conference on Population.

This rule prohibited foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) from receiving U.S. funds if they provided abortions or even lobbied for abortion rights in their own countries. It went further and even denied foreign aid to NGOs who helped provide contraceptives and other much-needed family-planning services. At least 16 developing nations in Africa, Asia and the Middle East have been affected.

Thank goodness for the new broom sweeping out old dirt. The Gag Rule flew in the face of logic and reason. Instead of helping developing nations, where over 90% of future global population growth will take place, it made poor nations poorer, increased the stress on global resources such as food, water and oil, ratcheted up enmity toward the United States and fostered terrorism.

Well done President Obama!

Nay-Sayers and Population

Fact: a smoothly-oiled, well-funded propaganda steamroller, which is sponsored by big oil, coal and other vested interests, continues to obfuscate, delay and deny global warming.
Fact: the conservative right believes that environmentalists are pinkos, a menace to society.
Fact: this same crowd also is dead against curbing population growth. The world, they believe, can support billions more people.

To support these beliefs, they often turn to Bjorn Lomborg the Dane who, using a tidal wave of statistics, professes that all is sunshine and roses, that the world is only getting better and better.

Wrong! I remember the long hot summer days of my youth in Niagara. My buddies and I would often bicycle to the lake, sweating past miles of orchards with trees hanging heavy with cherries, peaches, and plums. Our reward was a golden beach and sparkling clean water, where we swam for hours. Or we would lie on the beach, soaking up the sun and listening to the rhythm of waves lapping against the sandy shore.

These days kids don’t spend time at the lake anymore. The bicycle ride is a long stretch of simmering, car-clogged pavement lined with rows of uninspiring suburban homes. The water is polluted from a nearby sewage treatment plant with frequent beach closures. Furthermore, the summers are marred by periods of dense, humid, lung-damaging smog when the health department issues warnings to stay indoors.

Fact: the environment of Niagara has deteriorated; my children cannot enjoy the simple pleasures of my youth. And the cause? It’s very simple, undeniable, so straight-forward: too many people!

Yes Bjorn, there is prosperity in this land; we inhabitants live well, too well in fact. But the environment is wilting and the cause is too many people. Let’s wake up and address this issue.

Frightened? Why?

I’m confused. For a recent article I interviewed two environmental experts, William Rees and David Suzuki. “The era of exuberant consumption is over,” said Rees pointing out that the human ecofootprint is 30-40% larger than what the planet can support. Both Suzuki and Rees feel North Americans need to reduce their environmental footprint by 80%. That’s a deep cut that can’t be achieved without also decreasing population growth.

Here are two typical responses I received from readers:
“It almost sounds as if Rees is advocating a form of genocide.”“The recommended solutions frighten me.”

I lie awake at night trying to understand what frightens these people. Are they worried about giving up the good life and having to be more frugal? Do they come from large families and feel they and their children should have the same right? Have they been brainwashed by the conservative right’s propaganda that global warming and the environmental movement are a fraud? Do they really think that Gestapo methods would be used? (Although the security measures implemented since 9/11 are worrisome.) Is it a religious thing, a worry that abortion would be involved? Or is it a fear of change, a disruption to the comfortable status quo?

I simply don’t understand. Can’t these people see that human population has surpassed the world’s ability to provide resources? We need to seek solutions … and none of them require draconian measures. Population can be restrained by totally volunteer and humane means. The most important step is to encourage couples to have no more than two children. This can be achieved through education, improved family planning and tax incentives/disincentives.

In third world countries, where the large majority of future population growth will occur, the same methods will be effective. But it needs help, encouragement and foreign aid from developed nations.

I’m still confused, but hopeful that by working together we can chase away these mythical monsters.