Sustainable means forever
How to Reduce Population
There are several ways to reduce human population.
The first one is to let Mother Nature take her course, as she typically does with any population which has overshot its limits. The resulting Malthusian collapse would be absolutely devastating, and, of course, not a very desirable situation. Unfortunately, that is where I believe we are headed, and people like James Lovelock seem to agree.
The second one is to begin consciously reducing our population through a variety of means, specified below. Note that I believe that we are already so far into population overshoot that I do not claim that this is a disaster relief plan, only a disaster mitigation plan. Demographic momentum, ingrained growthism, and human greed and gullibility will likely ensure that any measures to reduce population voluntarily are minimal at best.
There are several phases to this plan, including the policy itself and the implementation. Regarding the policy, there are clearly many issues which need to be addressed. One that is frequently mentioned is immigration. Immigration drives population growth in many of the developed countries, where a population decline would actually be occurring without immigration. Japan, with extremely restrictive immigration population policies, is experiencing a decline right now. They seem to be willing to accept the consequences of population decline, and of an aging population (which is only a demographic anomaly anyway, and will be corrected within a generation if we do not interfere), as necessary steps towards establishing a sustainable human presence on this planet. Unlike those who promote unchecked population growth, the Japanese seem to be a sane and civilized voice for the future of the planet, and for leaving behind a less polluted, less crowded world for their children.
Immigrants from Third World countries typically magnify their ecological footprint by a factor of four or more in their new countries, thus undermining any attempts to reduce consumption and implement efficiencies. So, as long as there is one unemployed and trainable citizen in any country, why would we support more immigration? Whatever happened to looking after our own, and to concern for the environment? Immigration as well provides a safety valve for other countries, so that they can delay dealing with their own population issues.
Along with halting immigration, we would also halt all aid to other countries which is not directly linked to education (especially of women) and contraception. Lester Brown (large pdf download) has some excellent data on the success of these sorts of measures in reducing the birthrate. The usual knee-jerk response to this is the suggestion that it shows callous disregard for people in other countries. Studies of the effects of our current aid programs indicate that, for a variety of reasons, they have only made matters worse, so why should we continue with this?
We must implement policies in our own countries to remove any supports for having children (note that I have not proposed, as some do, actual penalties for having children. That may come if the situation is finally perceived to be sufficiently dire). The supports to be removed include preferential tax treatment for families, baby bonuses, and the like. After implementing those policies internally, we can then link our aid to implementation of similar policies in other countries.
If anyone reading this has other ideas, I welcome them.
Regarding the implementation of these measures, the very fact that there is rabid opposition to the idea of population reduction any time it is raised demonstrates some of the difficulty. Implementing voluntary population reduction, unlike a Malthusian collapse, will clearly be a slow process, with incremental increases toward the critical mass required for social change. That is why I support and participate in efforts like the Global Population Speak Out, and that is why I am willing to engage in discussions. I am under no illusion that I am preaching to anyone who might be converted, but I do know that, without discussion, without support for articles like Tim Murray's, the first plan is inevitable.
So, for all you cornucopian overpopulation deniers out there, I have my own challenge. Without fossil fuels, how would you feed and provide a decent standard of living for the current population, let alone an increased population? What other energy source currently exists with the energy density, flexibility, and portability of fossil fuels? As well, how will you overcome the existing and looming water shortages, without the energy provided by fossil fuels? Please do not succumb to the hype and resort to speculation about alternative energy sources (which are heavily fossil fuel dependent), fusion (which is no closer to implementation than it was 50 years ago, and couldn’t replace fossil fuels anyway), and other daydreams. And please don't invoke the god of technology. Technology has allowed us to overfish the oceans to the point of ecosystem collapse, and has allowed us to continue with our apparently fatal addiction to fossil fuels. What is in place now, and what is practical?
How do you propose to repeal Liebig’s Law of the Minimum? How can you care so little about our children, and theirs, that you won't even consider the possibility that where we're headed is disaster, and that we need to do everything we can to minimize the suffering.
And finally, people often claim that, because the predictions of Malthus and Ehrlich have not come to pass yet, they were wrong – just Chicken Littles under a stable sky. Given the temporary ability to overshoot the planet’s carrying capacity provided by fossil fuels (just like the temporary overshoot of other species caused by a surplus in their prey population), I argue that another fable is involved here: The Boy Who Cried Wolf.
And the wolf did eventually come.
The first one is to let Mother Nature take her course, as she typically does with any population which has overshot its limits. The resulting Malthusian collapse would be absolutely devastating, and, of course, not a very desirable situation. Unfortunately, that is where I believe we are headed, and people like James Lovelock seem to agree.
The second one is to begin consciously reducing our population through a variety of means, specified below. Note that I believe that we are already so far into population overshoot that I do not claim that this is a disaster relief plan, only a disaster mitigation plan. Demographic momentum, ingrained growthism, and human greed and gullibility will likely ensure that any measures to reduce population voluntarily are minimal at best.
There are several phases to this plan, including the policy itself and the implementation. Regarding the policy, there are clearly many issues which need to be addressed. One that is frequently mentioned is immigration. Immigration drives population growth in many of the developed countries, where a population decline would actually be occurring without immigration. Japan, with extremely restrictive immigration population policies, is experiencing a decline right now. They seem to be willing to accept the consequences of population decline, and of an aging population (which is only a demographic anomaly anyway, and will be corrected within a generation if we do not interfere), as necessary steps towards establishing a sustainable human presence on this planet. Unlike those who promote unchecked population growth, the Japanese seem to be a sane and civilized voice for the future of the planet, and for leaving behind a less polluted, less crowded world for their children.
Immigrants from Third World countries typically magnify their ecological footprint by a factor of four or more in their new countries, thus undermining any attempts to reduce consumption and implement efficiencies. So, as long as there is one unemployed and trainable citizen in any country, why would we support more immigration? Whatever happened to looking after our own, and to concern for the environment? Immigration as well provides a safety valve for other countries, so that they can delay dealing with their own population issues.
Along with halting immigration, we would also halt all aid to other countries which is not directly linked to education (especially of women) and contraception. Lester Brown (large pdf download) has some excellent data on the success of these sorts of measures in reducing the birthrate. The usual knee-jerk response to this is the suggestion that it shows callous disregard for people in other countries. Studies of the effects of our current aid programs indicate that, for a variety of reasons, they have only made matters worse, so why should we continue with this?
We must implement policies in our own countries to remove any supports for having children (note that I have not proposed, as some do, actual penalties for having children. That may come if the situation is finally perceived to be sufficiently dire). The supports to be removed include preferential tax treatment for families, baby bonuses, and the like. After implementing those policies internally, we can then link our aid to implementation of similar policies in other countries.
If anyone reading this has other ideas, I welcome them.
Regarding the implementation of these measures, the very fact that there is rabid opposition to the idea of population reduction any time it is raised demonstrates some of the difficulty. Implementing voluntary population reduction, unlike a Malthusian collapse, will clearly be a slow process, with incremental increases toward the critical mass required for social change. That is why I support and participate in efforts like the Global Population Speak Out, and that is why I am willing to engage in discussions. I am under no illusion that I am preaching to anyone who might be converted, but I do know that, without discussion, without support for articles like Tim Murray's, the first plan is inevitable.
So, for all you cornucopian overpopulation deniers out there, I have my own challenge. Without fossil fuels, how would you feed and provide a decent standard of living for the current population, let alone an increased population? What other energy source currently exists with the energy density, flexibility, and portability of fossil fuels? As well, how will you overcome the existing and looming water shortages, without the energy provided by fossil fuels? Please do not succumb to the hype and resort to speculation about alternative energy sources (which are heavily fossil fuel dependent), fusion (which is no closer to implementation than it was 50 years ago, and couldn’t replace fossil fuels anyway), and other daydreams. And please don't invoke the god of technology. Technology has allowed us to overfish the oceans to the point of ecosystem collapse, and has allowed us to continue with our apparently fatal addiction to fossil fuels. What is in place now, and what is practical?
How do you propose to repeal Liebig’s Law of the Minimum? How can you care so little about our children, and theirs, that you won't even consider the possibility that where we're headed is disaster, and that we need to do everything we can to minimize the suffering.
And finally, people often claim that, because the predictions of Malthus and Ehrlich have not come to pass yet, they were wrong – just Chicken Littles under a stable sky. Given the temporary ability to overshoot the planet’s carrying capacity provided by fossil fuels (just like the temporary overshoot of other species caused by a surplus in their prey population), I argue that another fable is involved here: The Boy Who Cried Wolf.
And the wolf did eventually come.
Add a Comment
About
© 2009 Created by Rick Shea on Ning. Create Your Own Social Network
You need to be a member of Sustainable Salmon Arm to add comments!
Join this social network