"Every single person, with the possible exception of desert Aborigines and other hunter/gatherers, departs this life leaving the Planet a bit poorer than when they arrived on it."

(:>( That's a tad depressing!

I don't believe it is the case. There are many many good frugal people who in themselves are not doing any damage to the planet. They may be having a negative impact, but that is due entirely to the fact that there are just far too many of us.

Crikey, what about the hundreds of millions of people who are living extremely frugally, to the point that are only just managing to survive, across much of Africa and Asia. They are doing damage purely because of their (our) sheer numbers. Of course, gross overconsumption in the developed world has got an awful lot to do with it as well.

However, the main tenet of this article is of course rock solid. The human population size and the fact that it is still growing rapidly is our overriding problem. Intertwined with climate change it certainly is, but much bigger than climate change it also is.

The whole climate change awareness and call for action seems to have actually diverted attention away from the more urgent population issue, IMHO.

The climate change issue and the population issue should by now have led to a global 'war' against unsustainability and brought about maximised efforts to secure a sustainable future. But it just hasn't done anything of the sort!

In fact, there seems to be next to no will in the G20 nor developed nations overall, nor in their peoples' level of concern, about us striving to achieve a sustainable future, despite the grossly unsustainable path that we are so obviously on.

Anyway, good on you John for putting up this article.

Good one John and absolutely right Ludwig. But while our politicians are in the pockets of the developers and miners and financiers, nothing will change and we will still be going down the road to oblivion at an accelerated rate for the foreseeable future.

David

"you must face the alternative ... we must drastically reduce the human population!"

Replace "human" with "Jewish" and this rhetoric seems frighteningly familiar.

This is a good article by John Reid addressing the major problem that threatens humans and life on this planet.

Too bad the United Nations who could work together to solve a lot of the issues driving wars and human misery on this earth can’t make an all out effort to provide contraception,drugs and medical care through womens clinics set up in areas within reasonable travelling reach of most women on the planet.

I doubt whether the planet itself will be destroyed, who knows, maybe it warms up and the water re-covers a lot of the earth in a cyclical cleansing and renewal cycle. The warming may even become intense enough after a while to reactivate old and new volcanoes to reform new land masses as it did millions of years ago. I doubt the planet needs us to survive.

Mass overpopulation will of course result in mass starvation and death through conflict over territory and territorial resources, that’s how nature culls species who overpopulate whether it be man or beast.

I realize that the above truths are too scary for the fundamentalist religions who prefer the mind deluding opium of religion. Quote-“religion is the opium of the people . “ Their inability to face hard truths is the main reason theUnited Nations cannot solve these problems.

Since most nations seem to be going to Copenhagen.
But for the moment serious competition sports are likely to be limited to the developed nations. We really need to consider broadening the range of events.

How about, at the same time as we talk about cutting GHGs by 20% ,we also table the issue of cutting population by 5 -10% ( not world average, which would allow for a lot of free riders but, 5 -10% per nation).

This would provide opportunity for everyone to get involved.

And just think of the GHG emissions we would save by lumping both issues together, rather than running a (second) population conference –and flying them all back at a later date.

Ludwig: "However, the main tenet of this article is of course rock solid. The human population size and the fact that it is still growing rapidly is our overriding problem."

I didn't see that as the main tenet of the article, Ludwig. I thought it was far bleaker than that. I read John as saying we are incapable of anything about the population problem. Despite our wonderful brains we are driven by the same basic instincts as bugs in a bottle. We will breed without without regard to the constraints of the environment, then die like flies. About the only thing our intelligence has given us is the ability for foresee this, and then worry ourselves sick about it. Bugs, and clownfish it seems, are spared this curse of intelligence.

I agree with John. Actually, long ago I decided this was the inevitable path we humans must go down. It is not only inevitable, but normal and natural. This last century of exponential growth is the abnormal thing. I wonder what other species has managed to run riot for a century, unconstrained by food and disease, exploding with exponential growth like a cancer through Gaia. There can't be many.

Still, I am ruled by instinct and desperately want to delay the inevitable - at least for me and mine. To that end I can't help but notice that while the world is over consuming, we in Australia produce twice as much food as we consume, and we have a birth rate below replacement - at least for now. The only thing we lack is the political will to put off our own downfall. The thought "Surely, we must be able to find that" is the foil I use to shield me from visions of the 4 horse man and the apocalypse gracing my backyard in my lifetime.