Holy pork sausages!!

(:>0

I've never been terribly convinced about the issue of humans creating entropy by burning fossil fuels, simply because those fossil fuels have always been part of the planet's ecosystem.
The issue is largely the *pace* at which we're burning them, and the fact that were we to release all the CO2 currently locked up inside fossil fuels, the climate and sea levels would be too different from what we have currently for our agriculture and coastal cities (and hence most of *us*) to survive.
A bigger issue is the use of nuclear power, which definitely would add more entropy to the system, however in theory that entropy could contained, and in practice it probably wouldn't be all that much in the scheme of things.

BTW the argument that "the fewer of us, the better for the planet" is specious - it implies that the Earth would be "best off" if there were no humans at all. But "best off" according to who, or what principles? It's one thing to accept that on balance, the Earth's ecosystem would be healthier, and better able to support life - *including* humans - if there were less of us, but the same would be true if we all lived vastly simpler lives. There is no logical reason why the net effect of the existence of humans on the planet cannot be positive, even if there 8 or 9 billion of us, and this is far more realistic goal to aim for than to wish for some sort of magical but "kind" population reduction within a sort period of time.
Having said that, there's no doubt more can be done to help slow the inevitable population growth over the next few decades.

No seriously, an eminently sensible article Sheila.

The thing that befuddles me the most is the extraordinary lack of action in addressing population growth, on local to global scales.

It remains a huge blind spot. While we are now getting ourselves together on the issues of climate change, water shortages, etc and are thus tackling per-capita consumption head-on, we still don’t even have it within our collective psyche to meaningfully address the ever-increasing number of ‘capitas’.

How on earth anyone who is concerned enough to be in any way active about wildlife, habitat loss, climate change, and every other environmental issue, can’t see fit to also be active in opposing continuous population growth, is just beyond me!

If less of us and more of everything else is best then Sheila should lead the way by junking her computer, cancelling her internet service and offering herself as a free lunch to a supposedly starving Polar Bear.

Quoting physics to justify a morbid, and ultimately fatuous, loathing of her own species would have to be one of the lead indicators of what we now know as the "articulate bimbo".

I do hope she is taking her own advice and eschewing procreation. It is the most reasonable and practical step she could possibly take to prevent entirely foreseeable harm to a child.

Human beings are capable of contributing positively to the ecoystem as well but with ever increasing human populations and human activity we are in danger of destroying our own habitat.

In the 1970s we used to be taught human geography which covered topics like population control, birth rates, decentralisation - topics you don't here these days. Sometimes you hear commentators refer to talk of population control as racist so maybe this spurious connotation has prevented people from raising the over-population issue. It is a shame because until you address this issue environmental problems ie. climate change,deforestation, pollution will continue unabated.

This is not to say that population is the only factor - there are others such as better use of resources, using naturally available energy sources, tree planting etc. but population control has to be part of the debate and relevant to the mix of solutions.

me too, ludwig. i note with alarm that wiz is complacent about population growth, '8 or 9' billion being perfectly acceptable to him.

wiz, why stop there? shall we just keep going until oz looks like one of those indian trains with people covering the roof, pouring out the windows and doors of each carriage?

Why so much loathing Perseus? Are you someone who abhors restraint? Sheila is arguing for balance, not the disappearance of humans. She is trying to get us to save ourselves by preserving the ecosystem.

Population 'control' ain't half of it. Even if a human sterility virus swept the planet halting all reproduction overnight, the planet will still be shagged by the rising afluence of all those here on earth today.

There needs to be a massive die off to get numbers down closer to the 1 - 2 billion that were here around the 1850's when the explosion in fossil fuel use started slowly cooking us all.

After the new plague has got the numbers down then we can talk about 'population control'.

I can't think of any case where humans have been ecologically positive for the planet. We have a plague of humans and all plagues end in disease and die off.

Good article - I agree that human overpopulation is probably the biggest environmental problem facing the world today.

However, as others have suggested, it's not simply the fact that there are too many people - it's also that as the world 'develops', per capita consumption of resources and energy increases exponentially. Mind you, given the increasing awareness of issues such as climate change, 'peak' oil and energy, I think it's quite likely the orgy of consumption that currently characterises 'developed' societies is likely to be wound back drastically in the relatively near future.

I'm a big fan of national parks, sanctuaries and conservation zones for wild animals and plants. I'm also a big fan of leaving as small a footprint as possible on the rest of the planet.

And I agree that there's no need for bile such as that posted by Perseus in the discussion. This is a probably the most serious issue facing us all, and we don't need to let the debate become distorted by political antipathies and pre-existing enmities.

The Government will not do anything about flooding our once great country with immigrants simply because they push the "Go for Growth" mantra. More people equals more wealth......for those at the top at least, whilst those earners from the middle down suffer the effects of climate change, loss of arable land, loss of space and lack of affordable food, however, the following might be of interest to some...........

'07 ELECTION DIRECTION - REDUCE IMMIGRATION

HOW EASY IS THIS FOR MILLIONS OF US TO DO ON ELECTION DAY?

1. With both ballot papers in hand; walk into the privacy of the voting booth.

2. Number the squares as you wish for your valid vote.

3. Across the clear, blank space of approx 1 cm on the top of both ballot papers write

'REDUCE IMMIGRATION' - which can't and therefore won't obscure or invalidate your

vote.

4. Fold them both, walk out of the voting booth, drop them into the respective

Representative

and Senate ballot boxes on the way out...too easy!

The words 'Reduce Immigration' are legal and acceptable to write on your ballot

papers, according to the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), providing that

you do not obscure the candidates names and/or your numbers in the squares.

Well the Christian right has a habit of abusing the laws of thermodynamics so why not the green left. What the Author and many "greenies" fail to understand is humans are part of nature. We are acting just like any other successful animal consuming and breeding as much as possible, if we use all our resources then our population will collapse. This has been happening on the Planet for millions of years, well before we turned up. No what she is asking us to do is unnatural. Now I'm not saying we shouldn't do some of the things she is saying but I do want her and other of her like to stop talking crap.

I'm with wizofaus and Perseus. Arguing that overpopulation is a problem is not wrong or even silly in and of itself. However, when one reads what many have to say on the matter, one detects a strong, unambiguous undercurrent of self loathing, whether it's of "the Anglo-Celtic system found in most English speaking countries," or of our species as a whole. CJ Morgan is pathetic to refer to Perseus' argument as bile, especially as he/she does not scold Agent Smith/ Catastrophist for the immediately preceding filth/post.

As a good capitalist, I see no contradiction in the idea that a system that holds the concept of efficiency as one of its highest ideals, can be sustainable. If we reduce waste and increase efficiency, we can have a larger world population yet have less impact on the globe.

Although I am all for immigration, (and going by my experience as an election scrutineer, I must say I doubt Aime's plan would have much impact,) Aime and pelican are pushing the thread to the crux of the matter. Namely, the Western World doesn't have an over-population crisis. At all. The over-population crisis is in the developing and non-developing Third World. Indeed, the effects of the self-loathing espoused by the author and several posters are becoming all too apparent in Europe and Japan. It is in the third world that the twin phenomenon of high population growth and rapid modernization are posing the world's most serious environmental problems.

Population growth will take care of itself- it is a well understood fact (although not by the Green-Left) that once a country reaches a GDP of about $15000, the population starts to level out. What is important is to help developing countries avoid the worst aspects of modernization- find alternatives to coal-power, help them to recycle etc.

Making our own system more efficient makes good sense. Hatred of humans as somehow unnatural, or a plague, the appropriation of the laws of thermodynamics into pseudoscientific faff, and an inability to use the “comma” button on a computer does not.

Responding to Kenny Thursday1November20071:35:10PM where he reminds me/us that humans are part of nature.

Of course, true! However I did write:

"Modern human societies are in fact quite different from those of pre-fossil-fuel human societies and those of other animals."

The point is that fossil-fuel based societies, with industrial processes create a problem which did not exist before by the total amounts of materials used per capita and in total, and by the fact that these materials are broken down outside the normal routes involved in the original natural system, yet there is no proportionate system available which can deal with this and nurture us at the same time.

Is this success? Could actually be a big mistake. Kenny's definition of 'successful' might pass in Spencerian circles. I think that Spencer argued teleologically, and distorted Darwinian theory. It has been argued that life occurs within a certain heat spectrum in an open system and has developed a function of breaking down energy gradients and therefore any life-form will suck up as much energy as it can come by. (See Margulis, Acquiring Genomes, but I forget what page and cannot put my hand on the book). Of course not all organisms can do it the way we do it.

I apologies to Kenny for sounding moralistic. I wonder if it was the reference to 'depraves us' that bothered him. I could write an entire article on the etymology of the word 'deprave' and how it translates into physics or biology. To deprave something in part means to remove its sense and ability to function. It is similar to the word corrupt, which means to break something so that it doesn't function. Both words can mean to 'rot', which brings us back to the physical

Whilst my article is primarily about materials, the number of per capitas MUST be taken into account as a multiplier because it is now such a HUGE factor.

Still in response to Kenny, population crashes have never occurred on this prospective scale by which I also mean involving this amount of material disconnected from the ordinary bio-systems.

In response to Wizofaus: I do not believe there is any possibility of keeping up an economy to support 9 billion or even our current population without destroying this 'nest' (planet earth) and I have said why. You need to show how my thermodynamic argument is wrong. Have a go.

There have also been some assertions on this forum that there is no problem in the developed world. You would have to be especially insensitive to say that the what is happening to the places and creatures all around us is no problem. Thinking it isn't a problem because for some reason you are not upset by it, doesn't mean that others are not upset by it. Quite apart from the thermodynamics of the thing.

Perseus (bimbo)and Dozer (faff): As for the idea that the use of thermodynamics in such an argument is ‘faff’ and me a ‘bimbo’ for using my knowledge (which is unfortunately for you over your heads) - I guess that shows you up the macho-airheads they are. Whaddaya think? Only the boys can talk about thermodynamics? Tosh!

Sheila N
(aka Kanga)

Limit Australia's population and they all lived happily ever after, is that it?

For about ten or fifteen years until Uncle Hu and President Das decide that 2.4 billion people have a stronger claim to 780 million hectares of the planet than a bunch of lotus eaters who can think of nothing more contributive than sitting about measuring Lizard farts.

Australia already feeds 80 to 100 million people. But let there be absolutely zero room for doubt that with an abundance of cheap labour we could feed a whole lot more. And as long as we continue to accept people from other nations, at a rate that we can assimilate, then no other nation is likely to work up a suitable rationale for taking us over.

If we turn our back on the world then all bets are off. And don't believe for a moment that the "court of world opinion" will come to our aid when the US dollar is worth half a Yuan. China, India and Indonesia will be all the 'world opinion' there is. Get used to it folks.

Hang on dozer - Perseus' first post was an unnecessarily personal attack on the author. Catastrophist's post, while silly and misanthropic, didn't actually insult anybody individually.

"Arguing that overpopulation is a problem is not wrong or even silly in and of itself"

Er, I thought that's pretty well exactly the position I took. Further, I loathe neither myself nor my cultural heritage. However, I think that I'm allowed to say that I think that per capita overconsumption of resources and energy in 'developed' societies is disproportionately responsible for most of the world's environmental problems, aren't I?

My view on immigration to Australia is not that it should cease at all. Rather, I think that it should be restricted to refugees - whether this is caused by war, politico-religious oppression, or climate change. That way, we avoid the 'closed borders' mentality that others rightly decry, and also do our bit to help out fellow humans where we can.

As a "good capitalist", dozer may seek ways to prevent the ever-expanding bubble's inevitable burst, but in a finite system such as our planet we are ultimately going to have to find ways of equitably limiting population and restraining per capita consumption. Yes, efficiency is both desirable and essential, but it's by no means the complete answer to the world's environmental problems.

Sheila/Kanga, you need to more carefully clarify what your thermodynamic argument is. You seem to believe that burning fossil fuels adds so much extra entropy to the system, that the environment will inevitably become more entropic. But a) the actual entropy we currently add from burning fossil fuels truly is miniscule, compared to the amount of entropy that is already in the system and b) all the latent energy in fossil fuels is just stored up solar energy, that was entering the system anyway. So even if we released it all at once, it wouldn't put the system into a state it hadn't been in before.(*)
At any rate, even if there were a problem with the entropy released from burning fossil fuels, there is quite enough alternative energy available to provide many times current total usage. Now to a certain extent it's true that if we capture it for our own uses, it's less available for use by other species, and that's a very good reason for dismissing Simonesque visions of 60 billion humans (or whatever it was), but OTOH, eventually we should also be able to capture solar energy that currently *doesn't* enter the planetary system, thus giving us the capability to add order to any extra entropy we may have created (the only downside is more entropy somewhere else in the solar system, but that's hardly a major cause for concern).

(*) Actually not entirely true, because various fossil fuels were formed at different times. At any rate, as I said before, the real danger is the carbon that gets added to the atmosphere, as what this does is *trap* far more entropy in the system, that would otherwise have been reflected out.

I do hope she is taking her own advice and eschewing procreation.
Perseus,
maybe Sheila could move in with Bob Brown ? well, it would be a start wouldn't it ? And Ludwig, yes the very people who rave on about saving the planet are the ones who don't subscribe to poulation control. Yes, let's build more rehabilitation clinics etc. so we can keep more & more of the useless alive & crowd the planet. I went out of Cairns to the reef the other day & observed Mr & Mrs Average Tourist. On average each tourist slapped on a 100 ml of sunscreen before jumping into the water. Now, out of North Qld you get an average of 6000 people a day out on the reef. 100ml sunscreen X 6000.. know what I mean ? three 44 gallon drums of sunscreen everyday over the Jewel of Oz, the Great Barrier Reef. I bet 90 % of those tourist get all uptight because Howard's not ratifying the Kyoto protocol.

I do hope she is taking her own advice and eschewing procreation.
Perseus,
maybe Sheila could move in with Bob Brown ? well, it would be a start wouldn't it ? And Ludwig, yes the very people who rave on about saving the planet are the ones who don't subscribe to poulation control. Yes, let's build more rehabilitation clinics etc. so we can keep more & more of the useless alive & crowd the planet. I went out of Cairns to the reef the other day & observed Mr & Mrs Average Tourist. On average each tourist slapped on a 100 ml of sunscreen before jumping into the water. Now, out of North Qld you get an average of 6000 people a day out on the reef. 100ml sunscreen X 6000.. know what I mean ? three 44 gallon drums of sunscreen everyday over the Jewel of Oz, the Great Barrier Reef. I bet 90 % of those tourists get all uptight because Howard's not ratifying the Kyoto protocol.

The human race has now become a rediclus mass! The world does not have the space for all these people. We are the contradiction to life its self. Look people! I don't know if I have the fortitude to keep telling you where we are going wrong, but this world has been in balance for 4.6 billion years. Try and learn it! Yes! its has had its ups and downs, and if you know this, you can understand that this planet will kill! Its call extinction. We are, and have become ignorant to the fact. Think about this! With only one hundred million people, this is the most you can have. But on the other hand, if you want to screw up this planet, Grow a brain and find another place were we can put all the normal people on it! Like ME!LOL. Look! All jokies aside! The stupid will destroy us. And thats a fact!

Perseus,

You have had some sensible things to say on the nuclear thread, but with your Yellow Peril argument, you have come up with a real "scarenario" here.

Having a dense population is no guarantee against invasion. Before and during WWII, Japan invaded Korea, China, Indonesia, and a number of other densely populated Asian countries. Germany invaded Belgium and the Netherlands, which were both densely populated and ethnically similar to the invaders. If what mattered in modern conflicts was having a great mass of cannon fodder, then Israel would not have lasted one year, let alone sixty, since the Israeli's enemies collectively outnumber them many times over. Modern states are defended by technology, not numbers. A small, rich population with the best military technology money can buy is in a good position to defend itself. No country with nuclear weapons has ever been invaded.

China and India have been importing vast amounts of minerals and agricultural products from Australia in exchange for a consumer trinkets for a relatively small population. Why would they want us to consume everything ourselves? If one regional power looked like it was going to invade and grab Australia's resources for itself, what would the other(s) be likely to do?

The problem with cheap labour is that it introduces huge class and ethnic divisions. The agricultural workers (and certainly their children) would soon get tired of toiling in the hot sun for a pittance while others enjoy huge wealth. Many of them would be co-ethnics or co-religionists of potential enemies. The import of a lot of cheap labour has not done much for the harmony of Fiji or Sri Lanka.

Dozer,

You are correct when you say that raising per capita incomes to developed country levels will stop or drastically reduce population growth [unless governments override their people with mass migration]. Where are the resources to do this going to come from? There is an article by Daniele Fanelli in the Oct. 6 New Scientist which shows that it would take the resources of three Earths to give everyone a Western European standard of living, even if all the resources were divided equally.

The new United Nations Global Environment Outlook-4 Report featured on the front page of the Friday, Oct. 26 Sydney Morning Herald says that unprecedented ecological damage being done, with water, land, air, plants, animals, and fish stocks "all in inexorable decline". The 6.75 billion world population "has reached a stage where the amount of resources needed to sustain it exceeds what is available". Rwanda has given us a preview of the likely outcome.

Our own government's Measures of Australia's Progress reports have been showing large and growing environmental damage. Of course, overconsumption is an issue too, but how are more people going to make any of this better?

Great article Sheila Newman, as is the first edition of the Final Energy Crisis, and, as I keep reminding people, your Masters thesis on the insidious effect of Australia's growth lobby (downloadable form http://candobetter.org/sheila) which is driving population growth and the destruction of biodiversity.

I think the challenge we face is to find the combination of natural and man-made systems which will cause the least overall rate of the increase in entropy (low entropy -> order, high entropy -> disorder). Even the most perfect system will still see entropy inevitably increase until we reach the heat death of the universe, where no more energy flows will be possible as all available energy will have been evenly spread everywhere.

The extreme we see to day of rampant uncontrolled growth of profit-driven industrialisation, globalisation, population growth and human immigration is clearly close to the worst that is possible. Another extreme, that of voluntary human extinction (http://vhemt.org), whilst it would be better for the planet as whole than the current situation, is one I don't personally feel great enthusiasm for. Other solutions include:

* The return to hunter-gatherer society.
* An agrarian society based upon sustainable Permaculture-like principles as espoused by David Holmgren and Bill Mollison.
* Perseverance with industrialised society whilst we have the necessary non-renewable resources, but based on a steady state economy with the private profit motive severely constrained.

It has been argued that the latter two alternatives would merely be a stage of transition back to hunter gatherer society, which has proven be tho only truly sustainable form of society thus fur.

Personally, I would like to see the human colonisation of space as TA Heppenheimer foretold in the 1970's. However, it is debatable whether this can be achieved without destroying the biosphere, even if we were to find ways to constrain the corporate sector.

Whatever course we choose, we have to accept that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for human intelligence to recreate, the essential environmental services performed for us by relatively unspoilt areas of wilderness which has evolved over hundreds of millions of years.

Further to Divergnce's argument, Australia with a stable much samller population of 7 million did deter the Japanese from invading in 1942 and paid a very substantial part in their subsequent defeat.

Although contrary to the prevailing myth that the US saved us, this has been shown conclusively in Andrew T Ross's meticulously researched "Armed and Ready" of 1995.

This was because Australia had become an advanced industrialised nation and was virtually self-sufficient and capable of arming 8 divisions by June 1942, the earlient possible date at which an invasion could have been launched. Australia also had a modern air force that would have prevented a Japanese invasion force from being able to achieve air supremacy.

That is why the Japanese Army in March 1942 before the Battle of The Coral Sea vetoed a Japanese Navy plan to invade. I wrote more about this in the forum "Can Australia ever be self-reliant for national defence?" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=860

Sheila got a stiff response from me because she, like many other contributors, assume that everyone else must make the sacrifice of limiting population, not her. And it is now a matter of record that many people could even take offense at the suggestion that she should start with herself.

The attempts to dismiss issues of national obligation as some sort of "yellow peril" scare are ill-informed. Countries no longer need to invade with cannon fodder, they simply crank up their economies, manipulate their trade balances and exchange rates, and then just buy the joint. Nations are still dependent on "fodder", but these days it is "tax fodder" and fought with "economic muscle".

And for all the talk about technology and innovation compensating for a stable population, it is well to remember that the major part of every nations GDP is income from personal exertion. And as the Chinese are now demonstrating, remove the constraints on the personal exertions of ordinary people and the number of people engaging in personal exertions becomes, and remains, the primary driver of economic mass.

Sheila,

I got the strong impression from the language used in your article, and some of the general themes that came across, that you apply a double meaning to the word "energy."

Your choice of words, for example:

- "Life (your capitals,) is the only force that can reorder spent energy."

- "our fellow travelers on this planet"

General themes:

* a focus on humans and human society, particularly modern society and modern inventions, as being unnatural and inherently harmful;

- "the more of them and the fewer of us, the better for the planet."

* and a romanticisation of pre-human and pre-industrial life;

- "In their place man-made things simplify what existed before,"

- “mysterious forests”

- "replacing the awe-inspiring herds and flocks of yore,"

etc.

What comes across is a strong New Age/pagan/spiritual ethos. Adherents to such ideas often co-opt scientific terms to explain their own beliefs, mistakenly seeing "parallels" and "connections" as one and the same. Most commonly, physical “energy” is equated with spiritual “energy.” (I am quite surprised that no-one else has bothered to raise this subject.) I do not wish to pry into your personal beliefs, (I may be completely mistaken,) and I do not dispute your understanding of the Laws of Thermodynamics. However, I think you should clarify whether, when you say "that Life is the only force that can reorder spent energy," that (a) you mean "Life," “force,” and "energy" in the purely physical sense, or (b) whether you attach a spiritual, supernatural or otherwise "cosmic," (in the New Age sense,) meaning to such terms. ((c)You may also try to argue that they are one and the same, with which I would also disagree.)

If (a), I stand corrected. If (b) or (c), I stand by my "faff" comment.

Either way, the suggestion that I am confronted by a woman who discusses thermodynamics is silly. Are you upset that I disagreed with you and refused to kiss your ass? If you engage my arguments, rather than pick out one word I used at the end of my post, I might show more respect.

CJ,

Perseus, although slightly rude, simply suggested that one person should practice what they preach. Catastrophist clearly articulated his desire to see billions of humans die. What is worse? Frankness to the point of rudeness, or misanthropy? You suggest that Catastrophist was being silly. Can you not also see the humour in Perseus’ comments? I stand corrected. You don’t hate yourself. You just have misplaced priorities.

Divergence, CJ, and others

If it would take three Earths to give everyone a Western European standard of living, then why not reduce our consumption by two thirds? Efficiency IS the key. How is capitalism compatible with dumping grain into the sea, or groceries out the back of the supermarket, or buying crap from China that we don’t need and will break after the second use? How does this add to our standard of living? To me, advertising, which generally tries to convince people of things which are patently untrue in order to get them to buy things they don’t need, seems to have more in common with Communism than capitalism. I think it is quite possible to reduce our consumption by 2 thirds and maintain our standard of living. And capitalism and industrial society, especially as cleaner forms of energy become more common, will get on just fine.

If you don’t agree, which one of you is going to go and tell black people to stop having babies?

Dagget,

I am with you on the colonization of space. However, I often find it amusing that a return to a hunter-gatherer society is most commonly advocated by those least likely to survive in such an environment.

"If one regional power looked like it was going to invade and grab Australia's resources for itself, what would the other(s) be likely to do?" How about you ask the Iraqi's how they feel about this question. In all seriousness though, if we become an outpost rich in resources someone is likely to want to control us to their own benefit. We do not have the military reach that we used to and are thus reliant on beign superpowers to act as umbrella (although the beign part I think will depend on your point of view).

Evolution, the world hasnt been in balance for 4.6b years. It has a habit of swinging from one extreme to the other. Balance suggests things are pretty stable, and I guess from the point of view of a human life span, then that's true. I think the idea here is that humans are potentially clever enough to expand our means of living at a rate that allows us to increase population - ie we can become more efficient. The tricky bit is working out what rate this is. We just dont know what technological advances are around the corner.

"If you don’t agree, which one of you is going to go and tell black people to stop having babies?"

Dozer, if you check it out, you'll find that its sex that people
want to have, not all those babies. Fact is that many women in
the third world can't afford contraception, family planning etc
and the dear old Western Catholic Church is doing its utmost
to stop them them being available in Africa and elsewhere. If I had my
way, the pope would be charged with environmental degradation,
but thats another story.

Kanga,
Interesting article.

Since you are responding to comments. There are a couple of areas I’d like you to expand on:
1) There seems to be an assumption in your treatise that
-egalitarianism facilitates optimum environmental management -
Am I misreading you?

2) Re “We humans have to share the land we already have more equally with each-other”
What measure determines what is ‘more equally‘
Is land to be (re)apportioned according to population ?

3) Re “The Anglo-Celtic system …is worse than most”
What are your grounds for this conclusion -and what EXISTING systems do you judge to be better?

I'm no fan of the catholic church but if we had of produced a few more offspring over the last 30 years we would not have the chronic labour shortage that we have now. In WA we are bringing people from everywhere and still can't get enough. We are even allowing eastern staters in.

Yabby,

You’re preaching to the converted on the evils of the Catholic Church and Christianity in general. See my views at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6497.

But,

If you’re going to charge the pope/CC with environmental degradation, should you not also, and in fact more importantly, charge him with crimes against humanity, for involvement in the perpetuation of human poverty and the inhibiting of efforts to combat the spread of AIDS? You appear to echo the sentiment that the environment is more important than people.

Also,

The Catholic Church is only part of the problem. Indeed, people do want sex, don’t we all... But people also want babies. Large families are a practical, biological, and psychological response to poverty. People have large families in areas prone to high infant mortality, to ensure that some will survive, and perpetuate one’s own genes. Creating new life is also a natural, psychological and practical response to large, often traumatic loss of life. Therefore, conditions of poverty contribute to high population growth.

Also, would you like to blame the “dear good old Western Catholic Church” for high population growth in the Middle East? Or, were you trying not to be culturally insensitive?

Furthermore,

Africa is rife with conspiracy theories and false information about AIDS. Rumours that condoms are designed to make you impotent, and that AIDS is an acronym for “American Intentions to Destroy Sex,” are perpetuated by nut-bags like Dave Groll and “Alive and Well,” who dispute that AIDS is linked to HIV. Such groups bear some portion of responsibility for inhibiting the fight against AIDS, (they sucked in Tabo Mbeki until recently,) and indirectly feeding high population growth.

The point I make is that there is an over-population problem in the third world, but not in the West. The West, containing a very small proportion of the world’s population, has an over-consumption problem. Posters are still trying to skirt around this, because when Sheila says “the more of them and the less of us, the better for the planet,” she is effectively saying there are too many black people.

“You appear to echo the
sentiment that the environment is more important than people.”

Dozer, I’m not sure what you know about biology, but without biodiversity
you won’t have a humanity. So its in our interest to maintain an environment
that is sustainable, or it will be back to ants and cockroaches whizzing around
the sun on planet earth. Not that we or they will care, but to me anyhow it would
be a shame. Given that we only have one planet to fool around and experiment
with, if we get it wrong, there won’t be a second chance. So I think it would
be wise if we were a little bit cautious in what we do. From my own moral
perspective, I do actually believe that other species have a right to a bit of
this planet too, not just wall to wall people. But that’s my morality, so no
more then my opinion.

As to the pope, oh we could charge him with all sorts of things. My point
is that no organisation on earth has done more and lobbied more, to stop
people having access to contraception and family planning, then the Vatican.

As they have also sold the true believers a ticket to heaven if they behave,
they have undue influence over many politicians around the world.
Luckily most of the West is educated enough to see through their little
games and tell them to get lost, but in the third world people in general
are still a lot more gullible.

Many surveys have been done in the third world and work undertaken
by organisations like UNFPA show that there are plenty of women
who just cannot afford contraception. My point is that they should
have a choice, something which millions don’t have right now,
so no wonder the 80 million per year increase in population.

Islam is not one organisation and many seem to understand the
problem of overpopulation, unlike the Vatican.

http://www.islamonline.net/English/contemporary/2005/05/article03.shtml

Excellent post, Yabby

Dozer,

Reducing our environmental per capita footprint (i.e. consumption, 79 hectares in Australia) to the global per capita average of 21 hectares would make us a bit poorer than the average in Argentina (23 hectares). If we cut back to the sustainable biocapacity of 15 hectares (where we wouldn't be burning the furniture to keep warm) we would be in the same ballpark as Cuba. Somehow I don't think you would like it. I suspect that the voting public wouldn't like it either, if they were told that they had to live in pretty dire poverty because people on the other side of the world had decided to have lots and lots of babies.

Once you get below the Western European average (54 hectares) human well-being starts to fall off, in terms of the UN Human Development Index indicators, but there is no advantage to consuming more than that, so it would be a good thing if countries with higher footprints, like Australia, did do more to reduce waste and conspicuous consumption back to this level. If your country's biocapacity isn't sufficient for that, then you also need to cut population.

About 1.08 billion people out of 6.75 billion live in developed countries. The average per capita footprint for Australia, Canada, the US, and Western and Eastern Europe comes to 60 hectares. This leaves an average footprint of 14 hectares for the rest of the world. If we all cut back to 21, they would go from a Cuban to a near Argentinian level of consumption (i.e. still poor). It would take 34 years of global population growth at 1.2% to bring them back down to 14, and after that it would get progressively worse.

The idea of fixing everything by cutting developed country consumption won't work, because there are relatively few of us and because the global population continues to grow by about 80 million a year.

(Footprints are the latest from the Redefining Progress site.)

Perseus,

Foreigners can buy all the companies they like, and no one will object too much, so long as they behave as good corporate citizens. If they start throwing their weight around they are likely to be nationalised, as big oil and mining companies have found to their cost in Venezuela and Bolivia. Ultimately, taking over requires an invasion. This isn't an attractive proposition if your target has nuclear weapons.

If you were correct about a big and growing population being conducive to prosperity, this would be obvious in international comparisons and economic studies. In fact, if you look at the CIA World Fact Book, you will see that there is no correlation between population size, density, or growth rate and GNP per capita in the developed countries. There is a correlation between growth rate and prosperity in the third world, but it is negative. The current top ten countries on the World Economic Forum Competitiveness Index are the US, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Finland, Singapore, Japan, the UK, and the Netherlands. Australia doesn't rate. Apart from the US, Singapore, and (barely) the Netherlands, all have no population growth or population growth rates less than half of ours. We could easily afford to stabilise the population at a level that allows everyone to have a decent quality of life without trashing the environment or exploiting people elsewhere in the world.

If the author really is an environmental scientist, then she should revise her opening paragraph which is scientific bulldust. The claim that 'humans already use most of the land on our planet' is simply wrong. Vast regions of the Antartic, inland Australia, northern Canada and Siberia are largely devoid of human interference. Most of our marine environment is essentially unaffected by human activity, with only a few ships plying the surface and leaving the great ocean depths untouched.
If the author can't get her basic facts correct, it calls into question the whole premise on which her article is based, namely, that our impact on the planet is having a severe impact on the natural world.

Bernie Masters,

Could you quantify "Vast regions of the Antartic, inland Australia, northern Canada and Siberia" that you say "are largely devoid of human interference"?

It still seem to me that these "vast regions" still only comprise well under half the world's land mass.

As to our marine environment, much of it is, indeed, and has been for millions of years, relatively devoid of life. Areas of biodiversity such as the Great Barrier Reef or those other parts of the oceans which are (or were) teeming with fish, whilst comprising a relatively small part of the marine environment, is nevertheless, indispensible for the health of the planet.

The evidence is conclusive that the parts which are important for the planet's health have clearly been seriously degraded by human activities. If this is not stopped, we won't all be able to move into the deserts, Siberia or Northern Canada (even if the latter were to become more hospitable as a result of global warming) and there is no way that the ecological services provided by rainforests and other biologically diverse wilderness regions can possibly be provided, instead, by deserts and Arctic Tundra.

Bernie Masters, there might be reason for a quibble or two about some of the detail in the article, though hardly in regard to the concern underlying its general thrust.
There is every reason to take issue with your statement that the deep oceans are left untouched.
There are many with scientific credentials specifically related to the oceans who take a vastly different view from yours.
Tony Koslow is one of them. He is regarded as one of the world's leading deep-sea ecologists. An interesting book of his, on this subject, came out earlier this year: The Silent Deep from UNSW Press. ISBN 978 0 86840 4158 . The more we find out about the deep ocean the more concern is raised.

Dozer,

Glad to see that someone else out there doesn't dismiss out of hand the concept of human expansion into space. Realistically, I don't hold out much hope that it will happen. The remote hope for the successful human colonisation of space should definitely not be held out as a reason for us not to confront the serious ecological challenges of today, in particular, over-population.

---

I would be one who would find it hugely difficult to change to a hunter-gatherer existence. Neverhtheless, as I wrote, I think it is the most likely long-term outcome for humankind.

---

I completely concur with Divergence's arguments in regard to the relative human footprints in Australia, the US, Europe and the Third World.

Reply to Horus Friday, 2 November 2007 7:23:23 PM Kanga, on land-tenure systems:

This is a complex area, but, If you go to http://candobetter.org/sheila/ there are a number of papers which refer to this matter, but for a comprehensive but brief overview of systems click on "Submission to Victorian Government Housing Affordability Inquiry, Oct 2003."

The post revolution Napoleonic system of France and Western Continental Europe is infinitely superior to our British adapted one. It has a greater balance towards the commons, guarantees housing to citizens and anyone with a right to work or reside in the country, (but costs this impact of immigration, which in Australia was obscured and is now pushed as an inevitable cost which we all must pay for). Because of this proper costing of population impact EU countries were able to stop population growth and curb emissions and fuel use from the first oil-shock. They also avoided the debts which the anglophone settler states incurred.

Under the Napoleonic system children cannot be disinherited.and inheritance devolves back to the grandparents and clan where no children exist. This favorises local interests and control over local resources.

Contrastingly Britain was known from the 13th century as a country of disinherited children due to primogeniture of male lineage. This feature of the Salic Law which the Normans exploited, eventually resulted in the creation and maintenance of a large pool of dispossessed people who had nothing but their labour. (Remember Puss in Boots?) These classes in the British Isles who were kept alive through the dole (from the 13th C) which increased if they had children. They were compelled to work for any landowner. When they rebelled (Wat Tyler) they were hidiously suppressed. Such a system trends towards major aggregation of private land and the development of the corporate system. With nothing to control speculation and profits, and with the corporatisation of government which has occurred, malignant growth as an ethic and profits trump environmental sanity and democracy.

Reply to Bernie Masters

Strictly or literally speaking I should have said that humans use most of the arable and accessible land on the planet. They also harvest from areas which they cannot actually inhabit in great numbers and use the products of those areas to fuel the giant metropolises, rural production, and other heat creating overactivity.

Each human (on average) occupies a great deal more territory and has much more impact than they would if they were living outside of a fossil-fuel powered and sculpted materials-charged prosthetic system. You don't have to build a house in Antarctica to impact on it.

The earth is occupied by species in densities which reflect climate, soil fertility, water and terrain. Human distribution reflects those constraints too but we harvest from everywhere we can get a foothold and our impact is perceptible in every place on earth that soil, a plastic bag, or toilet paper can blow to. Our species overwhelms other species in competition for the best spots and we overdevelop them.

Our capacity to use up food sources, deforest, destroy soil, and streamline natural systems (like the Missisipi in New Orleans) and silt up coastlines has been known since antiquity. [Perlin,<em> A Forest Journey</em>, 2005; Montgomery, <em>Dirt</em>, 2007]

We now compete on an industrial globalised scale with other creatures for food and building materials. We are now outfishing at a global level [<em>Happy Feet</em>]and rapidly altering inter-related ecosystems upon which our own survival and that of other species populations depends.

Sheila N
aka Kanga

So sad that the essential and hugely significant premise within this fine article has been entirely missed by the bulk of the resident intellects on this forum. On cue they have all reflexively rushed to peck at their favorite shiny things like a flock of myopic magpies.

This premise is that a sound and overwhelming scientific reason explains why life in its wild, natural formation should (must) be preserved unmitigated and in abundance. This reason is that life, and life alone, re-orders energy (and thus materials) on the planet in a way that fully supports life.

Life is a self-sustaining function. Humanity is a component part of that function and is necessarily a victim of any demise in its overall breadth or quality. Given humanity’s elevated position in the food chain, it is an early victim, compared to bacteria, cockroaches, etc. This vulnerability is masked by synthetic systems fed by fossil fuel, but that dependency is an immensely precarious one.

Stripping the capacity of biodiversity to regenerate and evolve itself, and thus its ability to capture, store and transmit solar energy throughout planetary bio-physical functions, is like taking bulldozer’s to a nation’s vital grid infrastructure. The living structures can re-grow over millennia if left partly intact, or over eons if severely diminished, but what a terrible set-back to life’s real progress, AND humanity’s real immediate needs. Those who think that putting nature above temporal human fascination is somehow a miserable act need to have a very deep look within themselves. In fact, what they are advocating is supremely miserable in its inevitable and tragically destructive effect.

Humanity is part of the natural world, but that pedigree does not enable humanity to act in discord with the physical laws of that world and not bear the consequences of that discord.

The sublime product of the author’s premise is that is allows discussion of nature conservation, and population impacts upon it, to transcend the bog of relative social values and be guided by an imperative revealed within an overarching scientific principle.

Divergence and Dagget,

Although I never like admitting it, I think we agree on a lot of essentials. However, I disagree with you on some major points.

First,

I remain unconvinced that the consumption figures you discuss, (ie, 3 earth’s resources, per capita footprints,) have taken into account how much waste our societies can reduce:

* In many summer jobs, (hospitality, retail, warehouse,) I witnessed enormous waste, and that was just the small end of town; OHS laws that prohibited giving leftovers to charity (although now several non-profits are getting past that one.) Stupid knick-knacks people give me for Christmas, (ok, that’s just off the top of my head- what can you come up with?);

The extent that current and future technologies can reduce this footprint:

* houses, and even skyscrapers designed to use as little energy as possible, (see http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/695,) and development of alternative/ non-polluting sources of electricity generation is still in its infancy;

The incentive to use less oil, (particularly in the US,) provided by higher oil prices, and peak oil; And whether the UN HDI indicators judge things we don’t need as necessary to a good standard of living:

Second,

There appears to be an assumption that somehow the Western World “doesn’t get it” about population growth. This is completely wrong- the West has actually stopped reproducing itself at sustainable levels. The average European and Japanese woman bears 1.3 children. In Australia this is 1.76. (http://www.eoearth.org/article/Human_population_explosion.) The US has the highest in the Western world, around about the replacement level of 2.1. (It is also experiencing the highest population growth in the West, due to immigration.) Although a number of factors inherent in modern society have contributed to this decline, it would be over-simplistic to point to factors such as a lack of religion or industrial relations systems see- http://bp2.blogger.com/_2-oDfgGpQKg/RxraAQ9RjvI/AAAAAAAAA34/mn4Q0wCGmv8/s1600-h/Fertility+Rate.jpg, - the similarity in birthrates between secular, socialist France, (just under 2.0,) and religious, free market USA, (about 2.1.) (My own opinion at the end.)

I am astounded that an article and forum on population growth has not, after 41 posts...

had at least one specific reference to the unsustainably low Western birthrates. Not even a cheerio to Europeans and Japanese to keep up the good work, or lack of it… but political correctness has contributed to little more than an abortive discussion the main cause of population growth in the West - immigration. If you really want to stop population growth in/ reduce the population of the developed world, reduce immigration to a trickle, (a few thousand a year, even in Europe and the USA,) and we can quibble over whether to be practical (runner) or ethical (CJ Morgan.)

Apart from a few posts there has been little recognition that to reduce the world’s population would require great cruelty. The necessity to reduce consumption in the developed world, (if you disagree with my efficiency argument,) would trump the desire/right of most of the Third World’s potential immigrants to a better life in it. There would not be enough taxpayers to support the huge pension system we will soon have. Women having to choose between a career or kids- that would be the whole idea.

The author appears to ignore the fact that, overall, the population of the developed world is declining, and avoids a rigorous discussion of policies to sustain this. Instead we are fed a message of existential guilt. We are told that our very presence on the earth is destroying it. Without contextualisation by the fact that the West’s population is declining, the argument appears a Trojan Horse. It disregards the exciting possibilities of what human ingenuity can achieve, and instead looks backward. As with the simplistic guilt-tripping we are submitted to by “whiteness” studies at universities, the mantra that “the fewer of us, the better for the planet,” appears designed to convince us in the West that the best thing we can do for the planet is commit civilizational suicide.

Europeans have most thoroughly bought this message - that is why they have the lowest birth rates. Like an anorexic who starves themselves to death, they are slowly, as a civilization, committing suicide.

Dozer wrote:
“As with the simplistic guilt-tripping we are submitted to by “whiteness” studies at universities, the mantra that “the fewer of us, the better for the planet,” appears designed to convince us in the West that the best thing we can do for the planet is commit civilizational suicide”.

The principle outlined in the article provides a technical basis for understanding that civilization as we know it is suicide.

This equation should prompt us to reference the breadth and depth of anthropological history and realise that the intrinsic worth and sustenance of humanity does not depend upon this form of civilization. That there are other ways to be fulfillingly human, and some of these do not require us to eat the floor from under our feet. If we can do that we might survive.

However if we hang onto our current pretensions about growth and the technological innovation needed to drive it and bandage its gaping dysfunctions, we are in progressively deepening and ultimately irreversible trouble.

If civilization has no room for nature do not be surprised when nature finally arbitrates that it has no room for civilization.

BTW Australia has a positive, and rising, fertility rate AS WELL AS a high and increasing immigration rate. As has both the USA and Canada.

"Europeans have most thoroughly bought this message - that is why they have the lowest birth rates. Like an anorexic who starves themselves to death, they are slowly, as a civilization, committing suicide."

Has it ever occured to you that Europe might be a far more pleasant
place to live, with 2-300 million, rather then 450 million?

Why would anyone, crammed into a tiny apartment, costing huge
rent, where space for a house is a luxury, think of having a
tribe of kids?

If Europe is short of people, there are no end of migrants from
other overcrowded parts of the world, willing to live there.

Or is the issue for you that Europe needs to stay white?

EVOLUTION. What do think this means! I just hate running over old works. Let me quote. During his\ hers 5000-6000 million years, and I still think some of us are still rubbing sticks together, but man has traces that run back as far as 1.3 million years ago. Homo erect us! What a fantastic creature! Reading from books, will just lead you in a round and around way,but because life is a never ending story which was viewed and written and thought about by the hand of man,this is why evolution wins all the way. God is the easy way out and you know it. But it is far more complicated. RANDOME! I don't think so. Too many things are working as one. So it must be a act of god? There is still a question to where life begins, and it comes back to the big old question,is the big bang thing real. I am just thinking out loud, I still think its always been here. But maybe, we are not in a evolutionary position to grasp our minds around it. But the facts are the facts. Its all about population. Let me give this thought. If you put ten rats in a box, they will fight! If you put two rats in the same box, they will multiply.

Too cut it short, the earth has to many rats in it. And people, they are eating everything, and too see them all, All you have to do is to turn on the T.V.

The answer is! OVER POPALUTION! How to fix it! I know, but the people will just not understand.

I was going to wait, but lets not mess about. I know I will be shot down for this, but here I go! In the future, people who want to bread, will have go though a DNA test to show that they will not bread anymore sick people. Lets face it! They are costing the world money. We are for getting the laws of nature, and the laws are, only the fit will survive. YES! there are our love ones. Its hard, and I know it myself. But if we keep breeding and keeping the DNA flawed to make more sick to people, WELL! I think you get the point.

Why are we so dumb?

We are a species in plague proportions. We are destroying the planet and the only way to reduce the impact of our devistation is to either dramatically change the way we interact with our environment or simply stop breeding at our current rate.

There is a strong statistical corellation between literacy and its impact on a country's birth rates, health and economic development. If we focus on education in the third world maybe we can slow down the booming population growth rate and learn something about our environment and eachother at the same time.

Dozer,

For an overview of the problem, see this graph from Wikipedia which plots per capita environmental footprint (i.e. consumption) for different countries against rank on the UN Human Development Index (i.e. human well-being and freedom).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Highlight_Findings_of_the_WA_S0E_2007_report_.gif

As you move from the left where the poor countries are, you see that human well-being rises with consumption. The correlation breaks down once you get to a European standard of living, showing that past this point more consumption does not make people better off. It is clear that overconsumption is a real problem. However you will also note that all the high ranking countries consume well above the global average. If it is possible, just by reducing waste, to give people wonderful lives on very low consumption, why isn't anyone doing it?

If your fertility rate stays below replacement level indefinitely and you don't compensate with immigration, then your society will eventually become extinct, just as any rate of population growth, carried on long enough, would eventually lead to standing room only, if it were physically possible. It can take up to 70 years for sub-replacement fertility to stop population growth, because the deaths are in the small elderly cohort and the births in the large young adult one. Here in Australia, from ABS figures, approximately two babies are born and one net migrant arrives for every death. The countries that have extremely low fertility tend to be very crowded places, because of enormous population growth after they industrialised. Britain (not one of them) now has 6 times as many people as in the 18th century. These countries would be very poor if they had to rely on their own resources. There is a big difference between an anorexic starving herself and going on a diet when you are almost too obese to walk. Problems due to a skewed age structure are trivial compared to problems due to overpopulation.

The Australian Government is thinking about setting up a 'consultation blog' to give the public a chance to comment on policy and proposed legislation affecting the environment (and everything else).

If you'd like to help shape this blog then take this quick survey at

www.openforum.com.au/Survey

It could lead to something really worthwhille,

Thanks.

Whoever wins the election must review how federal and state funds are allocated to large conservations and Trusts that attract large public donations and how these organisations use roll over funds, after claiming that they buy land with endangerd species that needs protection. There is an urgent need to protect small nature reserves. More funds are to be directed to the recognition and purchase of vegetation remnants with recognised high heritage and conservation value to be declared nature reserves when there is an organisation able to support its management. Our wildlife need more care!

Dozer, on Tues 6 Nov. wrote:

"There appears to be an assumption that somehow the Western World “doesn’t get it” about population growth. This is completely wrong- the West has actually stopped reproducing itself at sustainable levels. The average European and Japanese woman bears 1.3 children. In Australia this is 1.76."

1. Our current population numbers are unsustainable: we are fouling our nest and fighting over territory. Why would we try to keep up these never-before behemoth populations, let alone increase them?(You must be completely out of touch with reality. Do you ever go outside the city and suburbs?)
2. Our levels of reproduction are such that our population would keep on growing until about 2040 with zero-net immigration. As it is, between December 2003 and November 2007 Australia's population grew by one twentieth of itself and in that time ABS projected population for 2050 went from 30 million to 34 million.
3. One person in Australia does not stand to be counted alone: they must be counted with their car, their house, wardrobes of clothing, electric devices, and the impact of the extractive industries which provide these things, not to mention the industrial scale cruelty of our farming system and all the soil lost because of it.
4. The economic wealth based on this model is an illusion; our individual activities are more and more in conflict. Choice of living is reduced mostly to wage slavery with increasing insecurity in a Spencerian landscape. Land competition means that the choice of modest self-sufficiency is beyond most people. The collectively suicidal imposition of the profit motive on everything we do and to justify transferring land to fewer and fewer people is horrific and depends on population growth.
5. Australia and the rest of the world were perfectly viable when they had much smaller populations. It is a dogma to insist that we must grow.
6. This dogma is primarily an anglophone economics one. There are many other kinds of economics.

I have been watching your comments on this matter, and to try and save all of nature while we are still growing, is! and Iam sorry to say, its just a whole wast of time and effort. We are the problem!
And until we see what we are doing, there is nothing I can do.

I hope you like the word, EXTINTION! Because you are all looking right down the barrel.

Message to the leaders of the world. The way we are going, in three hundred years, its all over. AND THATS A FACT!

Interrogator: Do you now, or have you ever, possessed plastic vomit?

Suspect: Well... yeah. When I was 9.
It was a prank.

Interrogator: A Prank!
You support the waste of non-renewable resources just for a joke?!

Suspect: I don't see the harm... It's just a little thing.

Interrogator: Oh, you don't see the harm.
Frogs are dying, forests are destroyed, the ozone is depleted.
Just so you can have your STUPID JOKE!!

Well, you're living under the Green Fair Government now, buddy.
And there'll be no more plastic vomit EVER AGAIN!!

Here me: NO. MORE. PLASTIC. VOMIT. EVER!!

I've heard enough.
Take him to the execution chamber.