An article by James Kanter on the New York Times website "Farming for 9 Billion People" explores how to feed so many people by 2050, while minimizing the impact on the environment. He cites the research at the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison that the planet's caloric needs will double by 2050. The questions his article asked are "can it be done?" and "how?"
The more basic question is "should it?" Why do we need 9 billion people? Or even 1 billion? I have no doubt that human ingenuity can probably figure out some way to keep 100 billion folks alive and kicking. As someone who has been through staff reductions at several companies, it's a given that even "good" people aren't needed, when the needs of the business change. As a species, I'm not sure that our prosperity is dependent on the total number of people alive.
In fact, as a father of five, my individual comfort is much less than if I had no children. It's a personal question of how far do you procreate until you lapse into poverty, i.e. the Octomom?
In the last few days, I've been commenting on the "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009" . Much of that bill includes clever ways to conserve energy and reduce Anthropogenic Global Warming gases through a series of government regulations and incentives. AGW is a fancy way of blaming people for the increased temperature of the earth since the industrial revolution, while ignoring the possible effects of sunspots, volcanoes, forest fires, etc. Climate Change crusaders might be right. And if so, they are just tinkering around the edges of the real issue. We just might have too many people. Running out of food is far more serious than having the clouds heat up a few degrees.
As more people are born and fewer people die, resources are consumed at a faster rate. The global population is increasing annually by about 1 to 2 percent. With more people, greater demands will be placed on energy exploration, food production, waste treatment, pollution controls, etc. Wars in the Middle East will brew again with the need to control the oil. Until something better comes along, oil is still our most cost-effective fuel source, regardless of the environmental impact.
The Act I mention above goes to great lengths to make energy "cleaner", while attempting to address employment and security needs. It assumes that the population will always become larger.
Limiting population may be a factor in China's explosive economic growth. By limiting the need to provide for its own people, China now has the capacity to produce goods for other countries, and enjoy the rewards of its labor force through export.
Yet, I don't expect to see any serious discussion of limiting the number of Americans. Immigration, legal and illegal, tends to benefit politicians in their districts by giving them more people to represent. Money for programs is dispensed based on the latest census. The debate heats up in an election year, and then fades when other priorities surface.
Family planning is completely missing from the Act. Abortion has rightly been called the "third rail" of politics. Like the third rail on an electric commuter train, you don't want to touch it, lest you get burned. Any politician who dwells on that issue is bound to alienate half his constituents, so he's motivated to have other things to talk about. The Pro-Life group believes that all life, before and after birth, is deserving of protection by the government; whereas Pro-Choice groups want the government to protect and subsidize the individual's right to continue or terminate a pregnancy. Neither group would want the government to limit family sizes, as is policy in China. China's one-child policy might even be loosened as the government determines a large, stable number of people are necessary for sustained growth and prosperity. Young Chinese couples may go the way of upwardly mobile Americans known as DINCs (dual income, no children), choosing a BMW over daycare.
But according to the Global Warming advocates, our problems today stem from industrial activity started in the 19th century. It's obvious that pollution and energy consumption increase with population. The world population in 1900 was about 1.7 billion people, far less than the 6.8 billion today.
If that's the utopia we're striving for, we have a long way to go.
For more info: Congress plans to raise your electric bill, World Population Growth History, Pandemic Flu:There's still no reason to panic, Chinese Family Shrinking in Size., OctoMom -- It Was a Very Goodyear.
Comments
Dear Bob,
Thank you for trumpeting the call for attention to overpopulation as it ties to every consequences facing our nation: energy crisis, crowding, quality of life, carbon footprint, water shortages, climate destabilization, gridlock and much more. I encourage all Examiner writers to address our greatest and most pressing dilemma of 21st century America: overpopulation. Yes, it's being driven by legal and illegal immigration and arrives from a line that grows by 77 million more people added around the planet annually--but it must be addressed and we must stop mass immigration. We can help all those fellow humans in their own countries around the world. We cannot sustain the projected 100 million added to the USA in 30 years. Thanks, www.frostywooldridge.com
Mexico desperately wants a piece of the USA,by flooding
the USA with human waves of illegal Mexican nationals
they have achieved the Balkanization of major U.S. cities
where U.S.Laws on the Books are ignored and local
immigration anarchy is the rule of the day.
American Citizens are against this overwhelmingly.
Make your voice heard.
NumbersUSA.com
alipac
capseeb
ccir
saveourstate
Bob, thanks for posting an article on a way underreported issue. i agree that a growing population shouldnt be a foregone conclusion. that's part of the problem, eh? that people don't even seem to question the conclusion. china's policy is very sensible to me. what right does anyone have to make babies all they want? its a cultural thing in India, families often have children until they have a boy because females aren't allowed to be full citizens.
i disagree that oil is the most cost-effective fuel source. food is. but beyond this out of the box thinking, what about the costs to the environment and ultimately to quality of life for folks on the planet. i think the costs far outweigh the benefits.
all in all, thanks for your article. from Asheville, North Carolina
You conveniently forgot that China is now in a gigantic social crisis from their 'One Child Policy' (not to mention the evil of decreeing the murder of billions)! Now there are no women for their 'One Child' to marry! And sometimes the 'One Child' dies in an earthquake, and the family has no child! The society doesn't have enough children to care for their elderly parents, so Bob, you wouldn't have a comfortable old age, it would be cold and lonely and tragic.
Here's an element that rarely if ever gets mentioned: human worth. The more of something there is, whether it be gold, oil or people, the less it is considered to be worth. In a world of seven billion, or nine, or 100, an individual person's life, liberty, etc, becomes even less of a concern that it is now.
Bob,
Thank you for pointing out the obvious. It's like there is a 6.8 billion pound gorilla in the living room that no one will acknowledge is there! I especially applaud you for pondering that we probably could support 100 billion, but should we.
Human life should be about quality, not quantity.
I wish these politicians would wake up!
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca
Consider that until humans change their fundamental beliefs of their place on Earth, the good idea of considering managed human population efforts will escape us. The relationship of the human to the rest of the creatures is one of human contrivance. We are taught from day one in (almost) all religions, that man is the king of all creatures, top of the food pyramid. We embrace that premise and behave accordingly to the sacredness of human life (and to the detriment of other creatures and ecosystems). It is "our right" to behave accordingly. And to suggest otherwise is a violation of religious doctrine, an affront to political systems. What would this world be like if religion and politics were not bedfellows? Is it even possible? Consider the next article exploring the religious-political-economic systems that underpin the absence of the argument you hope to see debated.
Bob,
Wow, you are so right. Since there's no near term solution to the population crisis why not set an example and kill yourself and your family right now and show us all how much greater the world is with less people.
The problem in the world is that a tiny elite class have bought up the world using their fractional reserve fiat money scam and now they want to execute their endgame, namely a dramatic decrease in human population.
While they use climate change as an excuse for this they all know that the earth has an extremely dynamic climate that has never been static over any extended period of time (when looking at the big picture).
This is all just a grand scheme to tax the expenditure of energy. CO2 is being painted as a dangerous toxic gas when in reality it's what plants breathe in and what you and I exhale.
Population control is an offshoot of eugenics, the religion of the elite. If you really believe in it then do your part and go first.
No, the issue of overpopulation isn't being hidden, it's known, but it's not the most important issue, because:
(i) the need to cut pollution is immediate, not wait 50 years for this generation to die out - we need to work out how to cut pollution per capital in the developed world.
(ii) the population growth (since 1900, even) is not in the high-polluting developed world, but mostly lesser-polluting developing countries - the extra 5 billion in the developed world use up less carbon (oil) than the existing 500 million in the western world.
(iii) population expansion usually stops by itself when a country gets universal education, women have meaningful career opportunities, and a society becomes less religious.
(iv) population decline brings other social problems (elderly care, etc) that would need to be tackled, too.
Of course it would be easier if there were fewer mouths to feed but the US currently overconsumes so gratuitously it doesn't matter what the rest of the world do
Well said Bob.
There's a great piece by Dr. Albert Bartlett, one of the earliest advocates for zero population growth, called "Arithmetic, Population, and Energy"...it's available on youtube or Global Public Media here: www.globalpublicmedia.com/dr_albert_bartlett_arithmetic_population_and_energy
Excellent, concise lecture. Wonderful stuff, I use it in my courses on energy policy.
I would also suggest that your readers check out sites like theoildrum.com and energybulletin.net to learn more about how net energy and energy return on invested works and why it's important to our social concerns as well. It too is related to population and energy concerns.
Malthusian scenarios assume that the resources available to meet human needs are fixed — that each new human being requires a fixed amount of land, metal, and fossil fuels to live. But human values are ever-shifting, and so are the means to provide those values. Each baby born not only creates new demand for the products of civilization, but also provides new resources and insight for meeting those needs.
Our living standards are rising because we are finding more efficient ways to harvest existing resources, and improving the technology to produce the goods we consume. We are also exploiting new resources to create those goods. Whale oil, rubber trees, and native forests for paper and fuel have been replaced by petroleum, plastics, tree farms, and coal. This is possible because a free society allows a growing capital and knowledge base to be multiplied by entrepreneurs who find new methods to improve human life, resulting an exponential growth in wealth.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!