“It’s the great taboo, I hear many environmentalists say. Population growth is the driving force behind our wrecking of the planet, but we are afraid to discuss it. It sounds like a no-brainer.”

With respect Fred, your article is a no-brainer. It is not population OR overconsumption. Is it of course both.

What about this famous Paul Ehrlich equation?

I = PAT

I is the impact on environment, resource base and future wellbeing

P is population

A is affluence or per-capita consumption

T is technology or the efficiency with which resources are used

The primary point that is being put forward by true environmentalists, that is, those concerned about population growth, is that the population factor gets LEFT OUT or superficially addressed in all sorts of decision-making and strategic planning processes.

Hwaaaw. How basic!!

Wise words.
As I understand this article and before anyone beats the deflated drum “potentially too many people*is* a problem” but the crux of this argument is my constant cry is that over consumption is the immediate and base problem. (apologies to Ludwig)

There are credible calculations that demonstrate that poverty is caused by disproportionate access/consumption of resources. As this article states 7% of the worlds population is over fed (obese) and lives in a self indulgent lifestyle while the rest are living with barely subsistence. As it stands today there is enough food in the world to feed every person more than adequately. if evenly spread of resources and consumption the world could both support the projected population in a reasonable life style. And reduce the environmental boot print on the world. One key area would the ridiculous self fulfilling practice of paranoiac overt “defence”. Clearly another key factor is the difference between need and want. However that would mean a total rethink of the *extent*of our magic pudding profit mentality and economy etc.
Just because human nature isn't always what it should be is no excuse not to try to control our lesser instincts but that requires cool thinking and effort something the average person is loathed to do except in selfish contexts.
Given the rump of this site's commenters I doubt that this article will get the consideration it deserves. Much is the pity.

The problem with the "consumption in the developed world is the main problem argument" is twofold. (1) It implies that all we have to do to solve the environmental problems is to make westerners greatly reduce their consumption. But that is equivalent to saying that we must all become poor. It is based on the deception that you can have a lifestyle-as-usual-only-greener existence if you use energy more efficiently. But the levels of energy reduction required are so massive (over 90%) that there is no possible way that energy efficiency can compensate for this. To maintain western lifestyles (which we cannot do anyway because energy is in decline) the better way to go is to stabilize and then reduce population AND make the greatest reductions in energy use that we can. (2) However, if we continue to grow our populations (in the USA and Australia) as a method of making our GDP growth figures look good, then we will never be able to reduce out polution (CO2) output. Just ask Kevin Rudd - he knows we can't reduce gross CO2 output sufficently because out population is expanding (faster than Asia)!

“Population growth is the driving force behind our wrecking of the planet, but we are afraid to discuss it.”

It is THE problem, and it is continually discussed. There’s nothing “convenient” about the argument; it is plain fact, except to the ‘deniers’ who try to waffle out of what is as plain as the nose on their faces.

“… rich countries that have long since given up adding substantial numbers to their population.”

Hallo! Rich countries like Australia, which is madly increasing its population with record immigration? The increased demand in Australia has definitely come from increased population; so has the declining state of our water supplies and the strain on our inadequate infrastructure.

Increasing population = increasing consumption = increasing damage.

This article would have to be one of the strangest and most useless seen on OLO for some time.

Those people now forced to be frugal seem to want to join the ranks of the overconsumers. Therefore indulgence seems to be a natural human trait. That makes it unlikely the affluent will voluntarily consume less so the poor can have more. In terms of the lifeboat analogy that is like having all occupants stand rather than sit so more can be taken on board.

The problem can be approached from another angle by asking how many can enjoy a good standard of living on a long term sustainable basis. Some suggest world wide it is only a billion people or fewer. If we are heading towards nine billion by mid century and resources continue to degrade then there is clearly going to be a lot of conflict. Low energy light bulbs and dual flush toilets are not going to be enough.

Einstein is often quoted as saying that “god does not play dice.”

In the game of chance called life some of us are born into affluent societies and some are not.
Some of us get to be fed, housed, educated and employed - some do not.
Some of us have our worlds brutally destroyed either by others or through self-destruction.

Reduce discretionary consumption? Reduce energy use? Plant a few fruit trees?

I think that the only countries that have a long term chance of surviving are those that have the technology to change the way they are fed, housed, educated and employed.

This makes us in Australia very fortunate indeed. If god does play dice then the die he is rolling is biased in our favour.