The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Population is not a front page issue > Comments

Population is not a front page issue : Comments

By Valerie Yule, published 17/12/2007

Not openly discussed at the Bali Climate Summit 2007 is a factor that will make it harder to stop increasing greenhouse gas emissions - population growth.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
Divergence, where did I imply that "technology alone" will solve all our problems?
Keeping population growth in check will be important, but realistically there simply isn't much that can be done to keep our numbers below 9 billion. I could argue that if it were that easy to convince people to have less babies, we would have succeeded doing so by now - however it's also a false dichotomy to assume the only alternative is to "consume less". My whole point is that there isn't a *necessary* link between increased consumption and increased environmental destruction - up to now, it's simply been cheaper to do it that way. And I certainly don't see the solution as some sort of "technological utopia", where brand new unproven technologies save us all: in many cases it may mean reverting to older technologies, or at least older patterns of use (such as increased reusing and repairing, rather than tossing away and buying new). We have the technology right now to design consumerables to be mostly recyclable, with reusable components. We have the technology right now to produce energy in a manner that doesn't pollute and compromise the atmosphere - indeed it's existed for decades. Once we have clean energy and goods made out of largely recycled materials, our environmental impact could be a fraction of what it is now, to the point that 9 billion of us could potentially all enjoy a high standard of living and still not be comprising the planet's ability to support life.
Posted by wizofaus, Tuesday, 18 December 2007 2:07:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would take exception to wizofaus' points. If we are today using resources at a rate that would require 2 or 3 Earths to do so sustainably, I think it's a mistake to think technology has the ability to make 9 billion of us happy on the planet without an earth-shattering change in consumption patterns.

Renewable energy is far from perfect. It requires mineral extraction and petroleum products to manufacture the wind turbines. Manufacture of photovoltaics is not environmentally benign. And I've recently read of an analysis that found if our energy use continues to expand at current rates, in 250 years we'll be using all the solar energy the sun bestows upon us.

Technology CANNOT enable us to continue to increase consumption if population isn't declining significantly.

Dave Gardner
Producer/Director
Hooked on Growth: Our Misguided Quest for Prosperity
www.growthbusters.com
Posted by Growthbuster, Tuesday, 18 December 2007 4:19:41 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes indeed. Wizofaus also fails to take account the additional food requirements of additional population. Even if the additional energy grows on trees, that will take away from the production of food which also grows on trees. We live in a closed system and we have apparently reached the point where expansion is no longer possible so that sooner rather than later a massive correction will be necessary.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Tuesday, 18 December 2007 7:37:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually, the Earth is certainly not a closed system - and while there certainly are limits to the amount of energy that mankind can safely harness for our own use, I don't think it's fair to say we really have a good idea of what those limits are. I also foresee a good case for substantially reducing our per-capita energy usage, which will help things.

Look, either we will find a way of reducing our per-capita footprint, or many millions, if not billions of us are going to meet a nasty fate. There's no way the human population is going to voluntarily reduce itself in the next 50 years.
Posted by wizofaus, Tuesday, 18 December 2007 7:58:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Look, either we will find a way of reducing our per-capita footprint, or many millions, if not billions of us are going to meet a nasty fate. There's no way the human population is going to voluntarily reduce itself in the next 50 years.
Posted by wizofaus,

That would have to be the most profound observation you have ever made. I salute you.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Wednesday, 19 December 2007 10:21:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Commuter “The credit/inflation treadmill generates continuing pressure to build population, thus more consumption & more profits”

Nice conspiracy theory, population growth represents the interests of central banks and bankers.

Problem

The provision of “Credit” is tied to a responsibility of “repayment”.

When the world bank lends money it attaches some significant “strings”, which I recall Malaysia’s malignant rat-bag Dr Mahatir blamed for his governmental incompetence.

I would further note, cycles of high or low interest rates are influenced by a government prudence (surplus national budgets versus deficit governmental budgets (directly influencing state credit ratings and interest rates), consumer confidence and defaults.

I disagree, credit policy is not the “propellant” for the population boom. Credit policy is merely a sideshow.

What does motivate population growth is the irresponsibility of people who think they are “entitled” to breed more children than they can support. This applies epually to governments as it does individuals.

Gore and the climate change wallies go on about “climate refugees” and the implication not of 100 thousands refugees but 100 million people seeking new places to live.

Well, the first step to dealing with that “potential problem” is to ensure those 100 million stop “breeding” beyond their current resources, so they will not need to look for new lands to populate (when that “new land” is your back yard).

Back to either tax inducements for responsible breeding (no baby bonus / family tax breaks) or encouraged (/ enforced?) mass vasectomies (easier / cheaper than female sterilisation), which I think was popular in India for some years.

Btw I recognise, the idea of continuous economic growth is not “sustainable” indefinitely. I do not know how long it can go on but anyone who thinks it is about to end should seek a reliable work source, something at the bottom of the “reward / desirability” chain. Because when the recession comes, the high-flyer, advertising, spin and hype roles will evaporate over night.

If you can save some money, you might buy some nice real estate (provided you can service the debt) because mortgages “snatch-backs” will be plentiful
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 19 December 2007 12:55:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy