I just wanted to inform you of the following Population colliding with Depletion, Finite and Scarce Resources Issues Campaign.

Firstly, I agree it is controversial; and may I suggest before you totally discard the idea, you please make a fully informed enquiry. It is controversial, because — in my opinion, based on jsutification in the report — it goes to the root of the problem. And furthermore, it is a root cause that is very unpopular, particularly in Patriarchal cultures, and with those who endorse patriarchal cultural values.

Secondly, if the campaign is supported, it would provide an opportunity for a quality of ‘root cause’ conversation, such as we have never had in South Africa, not to mention the World; such as that would make TRC et al, appear to be a mild tupper wear tea party; because it would require all of us, to take a look at how our procreation policies, — our perceptions to what is ‘loving’ procreation’ and ‘family planning’ and ‘committed child rearing’, and ‘loving cultural family values’ — are a DIRECT CAUSE OF LOCAL AND NATIONAL OVERPOPULATION COLLIDING WITH SCARCE AND FINITE RESOURCES: AKA CRIME, UNEMPLOYMENT, POVERTY, RACISM, XENOPHOBIA, FOOD PRICES, INFLATION, RESOURCE WARS, FASCISM CONFORMITY PRESSURES, ETC…..

Thirdly, I imagine, the three TRC-RSA individuals referred to; if they really care about South Africa, and particularly the Third Worlds Poor — which I think they do, — would in the final countdown, happily contribute a bit of a dent to their reputations, if such a dent, would contribute to waking up millions of slave and cannon fodder breeding white, black, green and purple poor, to the realities and consequences of Patriarchal cultural procreation policies; which most politicians prefer to keep them ignorant of; for thier future or current human resources as economic, political or military — ignorant easily manipulated by emotive blame game issues — cannon fodder.

Here follows a brief overview of the Campaign:

Legal and Political Petition to the Nobel Institute: Norwegian Nobel Committee

Notice of Legal and Political Request to:

(I) Withdraw Nobel Peace Prize’s from Nelson Mandela, F.W. de Klerk, and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, for (a) Intellectual Dishonesty & Hypocrisy; (b) Moral, Political and Religious Prostitution; and (c) ‘TRC-RSA’ Fraud and Betrayal; and

(II) Accept Nobel Peace Prize Nominations for Dr. Albert Bartlett; Dr. Garret James Harden, and Dr. M. King Hubbert, for Intellectually Honest and Politically Honourable Ecologically Sustainable, Human Rights, Peace and Social Justice Advocacy.

Full Copies of Lettters to Nobel Institute, and TRC-RSA Peace Prize Recipients

Sign HARTSSTARH Petititon to Nobel Institute

As I doubt anyone will see these comments at this point (I get them emailed to me.) I’ll be brief.

First a belated thanks for the insightful comment from josephD.

Next, I think what you see in some of the critical comments above are the thoughts of folks who are committed to a certain political ideal, but who have not taken the time to study a little ecological science. Comments to the effect that concerns over population are racist are seldom if ever heard among natural scientists. That’s why a majority of Nobel laureates signed on to the “World Scientists Warning to Humanity” back in 1992:

http://www.actionbioscience.org/environment/worldscientists.html

William Catton’s book, Overshoot makes clear the tendency to miss the ecological bases of some problems, and to view them as political instead. I would recommend it to anyone who thinks it’s not worth some concern that for 2.5 million years we numbered in the millions (at most), then shot into the billions during the last 0.0008% of our history.

Finally, you raise the issue of immigration, probably the most contentious sub-issue in the whole population discussion. I agree it’s a legitimate environmental issue. It’s a tough one though. In my heart, I’d like the US to have open borders. But I think that would no doubt spell the environmental (and therefore social) end of the country. In the interest, then, of leading by example, I do think there has to be some limit on immigration. There always has been; it’s just much larger now than in past periods of US history. It should be open to discussion from an environmental point of view. Anyone coopting the topic for racist purposes should be exposed for what they are. In the meantime, I try to focus on simply raising awareness of population growth on the largest level. Here’s a paragraph from another article which kind of says as much:

“And the discussion of population growth in the US need not become fixated only on divisive controversies concerning immigration policy. Achieving widespread awareness and acknowledgment of the need to halt and then reverse our population growth would be a tremendous first step. Movement must proceed, as well, on other components of the solution. They include social programs to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies, thereby lowering fertility rates to the sub-replacement levels seen in other developed countries, and assistance to Mexico to improve its citizens’ economic opportunities so they’re not forced to come to the U.S. to earn even a subsistence wage.”

Yes, overpopulation is a large factor in what ails us. At the root of all environmental issues is the human factor — too many people.

It is good to see enlightened thinking and troubling to see the extent of misguided thinking on some of the posts, but I’m hopeful if people are motivated enough to write, they’re motivated to read more on the subject!

There’s lots of criticism of capitalism and overconsumption, and of course there’s a huge dark side to our economic system (looking for a better one … who’s figured that one out?). That said, one can’t criticize the system without recognizing its huge contributions as well — and acknowledging that by using it effectively positive change can manifest. Look at the Al Gore effect … companies are starting to see how going green CAN have ROI.

And to all those who think large population numbers really aren’t an issue, can you really say that when you look at India and China — quite awakened — and wanting the consumption-driven lifestyle of the U.S.? Our overconsumption has been so successful, the two most populous countries on Earth want to replicate it. That’s not a pretty scenario.

Finally, in California, in recent years, the huge population growth is attributable to immigrants and births to immigrants. [The "white" or "Anglo" population in California -- and the country (as well as Europe) -- is at replacement level, or below.] In recent years, California essentially has added the equivalent of a large size city annually with 500,000 more people. A large portion of this population growth comes through illegal immigration.

Americans have the right (and responsibility) to determine the direction (and size!) of our country; we have the right to demand that our laws be enforced; and we have the responsibility to take care of our citizens — unchecked, unplanned population growth is not good (for a list of reasons too long to get into in what was going to be a brief post). Those seem like pretty simple concepts to grasp — apparently they are, as more than 70 percent of the people in the U.S. want our immigration laws enforced.

For the people who think we should allow everyone in who wants to come to into the United States, I would simply ask what’s the moral number on that?

There are more than 1 billion people on this planet living on less than $1 per day. No doubt many of them would like to come to America (or Europe, or any country that has some workable economic system). Do you let them all in, or is it just the ones who can walk across the border?

Education, green technologies, sustainable economic opportunities, sustainable growth and, yes, family planning … that’s what we should be sharing with the world … how are you going to keep ‘em down on the farm? Give them a reason to stay.

What is there to quibble about, John & Max?

If some people have a small footprint, and other people somewhere else have a huge one, it is nonetheless the presence of people that makes any footprint possible. We do not speak of the ecological footprint of non-human species. We are the only creatures that can be said to operate outside the parameters of the self-managing natural system. We do not behave instinctively; we are conscious creatures capable of systematically altering our environment.

If there are no people there is no excess consumption, resource depletion, pollution, and the other ills that have accompanied the human experience since the revolution in Eden. Without humans there is a planet consisting of an astonishing variety of other species living harmoniously within a self-sustaining system, with each behaving in such a way that does not threaten the existence of any other species. The truth of this is self-evident in the great abundance and variety of other species. Peering through a keyhole, modern humans perceive competition among species for survival, when in fact an overview demonstrates a grand cooperative scheme in which each species enjoys the lebensraum required for its survival and quality of life.

James Lovelock calls this self-regulating system “Gaia”, but we don’t in fact know much about it or how it works. We speculate, we develop little thought experiments like Einstein contemplating space/time. Out in the field hard data is developed by diligent scientists, ice cores drilled, heads counted, assays conducted, and so on, in order to quantify the elements of this system which will then make it accessible to our empirically-based reason.

We are struggling to define Gaia like the proverbial blind men examining the elephant. We gather our data and assemble computer models of something that bears a resemblance to the whole thing. We run the model a few times and may get a few accurate predictions. But we haven’t actually snared Gaia in the net of our reason because the models become increasingly irrelevant the more we use them. James Hanson would be the first to admit it. We can’t even predict the weather with any impressive degree of accuracy.

What we call the “environment”, the sum total of all that physically sustains life is essentially mysterious insofar as we can only predict its behavior in terms of probabilities and cannot ultimately control it. When people are introduced into this environment the unpredictability of the system increases in direct proportion to the size of the human presence. The numbers of people can be quite small to produce large effects according to some paleo-archeologists who speculate that Stone Age man caused the extinction of the Ice Age mammals. If a butterfly flapping its wings in the Amazon can “cause” a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico, then a few thousand humans can do a great deal more.

Chaos theory, ironically, was developed to try to explain the mysterious anarchy of the natural system.

Without realizing it, we contemporary humans are as intimately connected with the environment as is the Amazonian butterfly. We strive to be objective and step apart from it, but this isn’t possible because everywhere we look we see ourselves – there are PCB’s in artic seal blubber, there is a floating island in the Pacific three miles wide and five miles long composed entirely of prophylactics, rubbers. We are only now beginning to awaken to the effect we have. The most oblivious among us, those most alienated from the knowledge of that intimate connection protest that humans could not be causing global warming or otherwise impinging upon an entire planetary destiny. Herman Melville pronounced that whaling could in no way affect the great bounty of whales in the seas in the grand naïveté of his day.

Even a handful of humans acting beyond the constraints of instinctual patterning will affect the environment in incalculable ways. The human presence in the natural system is transformative and cataclysmic. Among aboriginal predecessors of contemporary humans this fact was keenly appreciated in the ritual observances of American Pueblo Indians who believed themselves directly responsible for the rising of the sun. If they did not practice their rituals faithfully, they believed the sun would stop rising and the world fall into darkness.

The nearly 7 billion modern humans doing their thing with no sense of responsibility for the functioning of the world system are most certainly a driving factor whether they consume a little or a lot, whether they are subsistence farmers in India, or New Yorkers. The brute fact of human numbers has devastating consequences that are only exacerbated by technological development.

It is meaningless to argue the virtues of low consumption societies over high consumption societies, especially when these low consumption societies desire nothing more than to increase their levels of consumption. The environmental impact of the nearly 7 billions cannot be substantially reduced because such numbers are not possible except by means of technological exploitation of nature at the expense of every other species and the stability of the global system itself. If it has not been proven that the existence of all other species is irrelevant to the stability of the global system, then no rational person should assume that the snail darter or the black rhinoceros, or any other non-human creature is ephemeral and expendable.

We are engaged in a great experiment. Can the global environmental system support such unprecedented human numbers? We understand in our bones, so to speak, that the answer is “no”, if we are capable of such honesty, but science-based reason and political correctness demand we suspend judgment until all the data is in and the global system has come down around our ears.

We cannot pretend that we are somehow co-creators of the world, like superstitious aboriginals, when we seem to break everything we touch.
That would be intellectually embarrassing, even though it is the truth. There is no possibility that our way of life is survivable, but there is hope that we will one day recapture the undeerstanding of our aboriginal forebears. That is the only hope we truly have.

There is a strong inverse correlation between per capita wealth and population growth. Does per capita wealth slow population growth? The bulk of empirical evidence solidly backs this assertion. If true, this implies two modes of positive feedback spirals.

The first mode being a society in which economic growth exceeds population growth, resulting in an increase in per capita wealth. The increasing wealth puts negative pressure on population growth, which in turn increases per capita wealth until a social/biological limit is reached. The end result is what is seen in western Europe.

The second mode is where population growth exceeds economic growth. In this case, per capita wealth is on the decline, which in turn pushes the rate of population growth upward until the biological/social limit is reached and the population is in abject poverty. This social mode can be readily observed throughout the world.

The only ways to counter the trend in both declining per capita wealth and increasing population is to either artificially restrict population growth and bring it into line with economic growth or by pumping additional natural resources into the economy at a rate exceeding population growth.

Given that natural resources are finite, global reserves have been declining on a per capita basis for a number of decades, and net available energy is flattening and may be on the decline in the proximal future, the prospect of damping population growth by way of economic development appears futile and counterproductive. Global population growth can be curbed by raising the per capita wealth of poor nations to that of western Europe, but we lack the resources to sustain this objective. If we reduce the per capita consumption of developed countries, this will result in boosted population growth, thus negating the savings. Houston, we have a problem!

The implications are highly unpalatable for the majority, who will deny this truth vehemently. If we do not artificially limit population growth or cap consumption to sustainable levels, we can only expect to see resource depletion increase, while standards of living fall. Given that western societies will be reluctant to voluntarily forgo their present standard of living, we can anticipate further resource wars and an unhealthy helping of sustained poverty in the unfortunate nations lacking the means to defend themselves.

Ultimately, the theft of resources from the third world will be insufficient to sustain the western lifestyle we have become accustomed to and something will have to give; the cult-of-infinite-growth will come to an end. You have to admire our species ability to pursue a unsound ideal to its logical conclusion, no matter how much it hurts.

I judge this by the simple reasoning that apparrently concerned environmentalists never mention the US or UK military machine consumption/ pollution when they exhort me to replace my light bulbs with insanely expensive dim ones, and that I should be happy to pay double for my electricity, gas and the tiny supply of petrol I need to run my little Fiat- Then, additional to the (UK) fuel tax of 85%. that I should pay a pollution tax to use the roads, that I allready pay annual ‘Road tax’ for, and then on top- an extra ‘toll charge’ to use certain roads- all ‘for the sake of the earth.’

When Ishould meet a politician- fired up as they all are with this season’s fad for’environmental issues’ I suggest that for my reduction of carbon boot-print, let me continue to tootle along the highways of thirty miles a week, as I do, at 60+mpg in my Fiat, and that they- the government, decommission MY tank, My Eurofighter- or rather, that bit of the Eurofighter that my ‘Green taxes’ have paid for.
Also, they could just not fire, or even not make, that shell, rocket, bomb which has my tax-name on it.
They will reply that this is irrellevant- these things do not consume resources, do not pollute. The world’s survival depends on me- my replacing my fillament bulbs that I can see to read with, by a rediculous dim thing, which, if the label is truthfull and it realy does ‘produce the equivalent of a 60 watt fillament bulb’- then it must be mostly light of some strange spectra, discernable by environmentalists, politicians and light bulb pushers.
But anyway, I should continue to pay my taxes, and further restrict even what little autonomy of movement I still retain, with each new ‘Green tax’ that the goonish ‘Greens’ campaign for and which the government is all too ready to keep imposing.
I should be delighted that they in return are able to build even bigger and better submarines, aircraft carriers and weapons, with which to distribute their seemingly endless stocks of depleted uranium to the ungrateful Serbs, iraqis, Syrians and Iranians.
America no longer has any industry- any scientific research project to speak of, that is not in some way or other psrt of the military/ surveillence/ enforcement machine.
It is not merely ‘the American way of life’ that is so ruinous, it is the American way of death, which consumes dar more resources- does more damage, than would be the case were individual Americans to indulge their most profligate lifestyle, ideas or scientific research.
They don’t, someone else- in the United States of death-the gangster state, takes their taxes, their labour, and hock’s their future aspirations and that of their children’s children, and turns it into a very efficient mechine for spreading destruction, death and hatred.
Unless one is brave enough to stand up and regain control from the Ziogangsters, such as the current Emperor of the world Rothschild- who was recently exposed as having a lunatic plan to decimate the surplus peoples of the world (and hence has ushered in as ‘an OK-permitted- subject, the present discussion of ‘population control’) then all talk of environmental issues is mere deckchair shifting.
Similarly the

Now let me give you an analogy (to try to punctuate what I’m saying, not to be condescending in any way):

If you are hunting deer with a bow and arrow and I come along with an M16, who do you think is going to start killing everything in sight?

If you put down your bow and arrow, and I gave you an M16, and keep mine; now we have two “maniacs” out their spraying the wilderness with missles, hitting anything and everything that moves.

If more and more people to our little massacre campaign with the M16, we have devistation.

Now, there’s a mandate, we all must put down the M16 and go back to the bow and arrows. Even if we add more people to the bow and arrow hunting club, it would take a major factor of X to begin to reach the level of devistation we introduced witht he M16.

I’m not against the appropriate use of technologies (in fact I’m for it), but increasing efficiencies and ever excellerated churning of non-renewable resources takes the problem to another level; in fact several levels.

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/07/when-environmental-writers-are-part-of-the-problem/#comment-3304

If the US suddenly ceased to exist today, replaced by another China, do you think the earth would no longer be facing an ecological crisis?

But I wonder if you understand my point, John? I’m trying to be clear but apparently not enough. If you “load” the total non-renewable utilization of an average American and compare that to say, the average Indian (we could use almost anyone outside of the US – even the EU) you would see that the total human non-sustainable consumption (a term that should cover all environmental degradation by human beings) we Americans dwarf all others.

In fact, the Indian wouldn’t even appear on the radar screen compared to the American who would skyrocket your Y axis. This considers not only the auto, the oversized house (relative terms), the food delivery from thousands of miles, but your non-essential I-Pod, microwaves, your PC, your phone, your closet full of seasonal clothing, shoes, roads, highways, EVERYTHING – all the STUFF. All of that needs to be loaded into the per capital carbon footprint which is related to the total environmental cost of the material world we inhabit.

Again, the US is in the driver seat; we are not incidental or simply a big consumer. We and the consumption machine that is propagated by our cultural drift in the global economy DOMINATES the landscape.

To think otherwise is to trivialize this elephant in the room.

The carbon footprint of a Bangladesh native is a fraction of that of an American. How does that negate my points though? We have to consider some additional points. First, we have to ask, is the Bangladesh economy growing? Does that mean per capita consumption is rising and will continue to do so? Does that mean the impacts of any continued population growth will be increasingly magnified? See my point?

Second, I have emphasized that population size and growth is just as much a problem in the US as in developing countries. I’ve said, in fact, “arguably more so.”

Third, we have to consider that there’s more to ecological impact than carbon use. I think a lot of the mass extinction we’re seeing, for example, is related to other aspects of our outgrowing the earth.

Anyway, again, the article said things like, “In all the talk of ways of reducing per person consumption, how often does anyone mention the need to address the other factor in the the equation?” There was no intent (and I don’t think any wording) to argue population was *the* root cause of ecological degradation. Look at the two links I provided to articles on my site. Their whole point is to show it’s incorrect to say either pop or per capita consumption is the dominant factor. They’re both huge issues. I termed per capita consumption “half the story.” That’s oversimplified, but not far off with regard to energy. Yet *only* per capita consumption is ever mentioned by typical environmental writers. That was the point I tried to make. I don’t know why the article reads differently for you or why it would seem I minimized the importance of consumption. I look it over and see nothing to that effect. Perhaps its more the way I’ve defended the importance of the population issue in these comments. The consumption issue gets lots of press and needs no defenders. So in these comments I may seem to emphasize population at the expense of consumption. But I’m really just emphasizing that population *is* a crucial issue.

So I want to underline that if *either* population or per capita consumption is ignored, we will have zero chance of achieving sustainability. Right now, with an occasional exception, one of them is being ignored.

Not that my personal view is particularly important, but if you want a fuller view of my stance on the big picture just peruse my site. You’ll see there that I give a lot of attention to economic issues.

I’ve taken a cursory reading of your links. For the most part, without picking at them, they are pretty much where I’ve been on the issue. Adding the population component (if you will) is not what I’ve been arguing. I read your article as making an unambiguous statement about [1] the neglect by environmentalists (even though you used them to support your population point; and including a political element) [2] that population is a predominate (my word/interpretation of your article in its entirety) factor in ecological degradation.

I’ve been taking issue with your emphasis on population growth, down playing consumption. I sense we are converging. I’ve always stated that population is a factor amplified by human economic models which are driven by technologies to produce goods for endless consumption. Obviously, the relationship is multiplicative.

But the test of my point is the answer to these basic questions: What is the per capita carbon footprint of a Bangladesh native compared to that of an American? How many Bangladesh natives would it take to equal the carbon footprint of an American? This is the crux of my argument.

BTW, I agree that root cause or cause and effect is always debatable but they serve to provide the basis of rigor. Applied Statistics and probability theory can provide reasonable rationales.

Thank you for your links; and persistance.