lives a living hell.

"Thus, we should ensure that every child is a wanted child and that women are empowered, recognizing that with fewer of us, the planet will offer a greater chance for better life. At all cost, we must preserve a woman’s right to choose. Since Roe vs. Wade, 50,000,000 legal abortions have been performed in this country, equivalent to 15% of the current U.S. population. In the U.S., recent declines in the rate of abortion are linked to better and more widespread use of contraceptives.[4] Even conservatives must agree that, done well, universal family planning services would largely make the abortion issue disappear. Now is the time to restore the U.S. support for family planning services at home and abroad, where Alan Weisman finds women desperately want fewer children.[5]"

1. Media must stop promoting large families. Instead promote responsible parenthood, starting early in school.

2. Stop tax credits for children at 2 max.

3. Make family planning a free service, including birth control.

4. Shut down the right wing attack on women's reproductive healthcare.

in a Third World country.

First world people generally don't want to hear that.


edited for clarity

It struck me as odd when I first heard him say it. Then it makes sense when put into the context that impact is a function of what is being done, and how many are doing it.

The irony of it all is that our wealth is also our unhappiness.

And let's not get into that "Americans consume more resources per capita" versus "Third World countries have greater need for population stabilization and reduction to deal with their poverty." This isn't a real debate -- it's an excuse for inaction.

I'm part of the middle class by American standards. Other than wishing for a few more things (my house paid off much sooner, a less rusty truck, maybe some $$$ tucked away for my daughter's education...), I'm pretty content materially. But I'm not interested in getting poorer. And I don't fault anyone, anywhere in the world for wanting the very moderate comforts that my family enjoys.

It might be theoretically possible for humanity to sustain itself if all seven billion of us started living like poor Third Worlders, but no one wants that. I'd rather see drastic (preferably voluntary) limits to population, with a better quality of life for all.

-app

Check this out. Believe me, absolutely no one's denying population growth!



That incredible, almost vertical takeoff began with the Industrial Revolution that made it possible for more people to live. Before that, for all of human history population barely rose.

BUT, we're here now, and it's about us. It's about SUSTAINABLE living, and a lot of people are busy working on what we have to do to achieve just that. It will happen, tragically belatedly, because it has to. Change begets change, after all.

Regarding population, right now growth projections range from peaks of about 9 to 11 billion by the 2040s with decline thereafter. Those predicting lower numbers point to the current rapid development and urbanization of less-developed countries and the proven effect that has of dropping birth rates dramatically.

The rates in developed countries have been falling continuously from their peaks last century. The U.S. rate is higher than most because of immigration, but in 2011 it was still literally HALF what it was in the baby-boom years. Turns out our immigrant mothers also want fewer children. The birth rate for the American middle class is something like 1.6+, i.e., not nearly enough to replace both parents.

Until birth rates go into the negative numbers all across the globe, slowing rates just delay the inevitable.

We don't need "lower birthrates." We need fewer people.

from 1.63 in 2003 to 1.70 in 2011: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/factbook-2014-en/01/01/02/index.html?contentType=%2fns%2fBook%2c%2fns%2fStatisticalPublication%2c%2fns%2fOECDBook&itemId=%2fcontent%2fbook%2ffactbook-2014-en&mimeType=text%2fhtml&containerItemId=%2fcontent%2fserial%2f18147364&accessItemIds=&_csp_=4374d590db006092dd2523f252772f34

It's only unsustainable when it is actually unsustainable. That's why it's so frustrating for everyone. We think we can measure it, but we can't take every variable into the equation.

If we can do it in the moment, it's sustainable. If we can't do it in the moment, it's not sustainable. We don't care about the future. We don't care about the past.

In fact, it's precisely what has caused the mess we're in today. I call it "hit and run". One generation does whatever they want at the expense of future generations.

If you would care to look around a little you'll notice that fisheries are more than half dead, forests are no longer forests, but shreds of monocultures used for single purposes, carbon dioxide has altered our oceans to the point where we're just on the crest of losing one of the most important factors that keeps us all alive, and on and on. Is that what you call sustainable?

It's like quantitative easing. We don't like limits.

http://www.context.org/iclib/ic07/schmoklr/

The new human freedom made striving for expansion and power possible. Such freedom, when multiplied, creates anarchy. The anarchy among civilized societies meant that the play of power in the system was uncontrollable. In an anarchic situation like that, no one can choose that the struggle for power shall cease. But there is one more element in the picture: no one is free to choose peace, but anyone can impose upon all the necessity for power. This is the lesson of the parable of the tribes.

Yet I agree with some of it. We didn't have to care about the planet. We were built to care about it. Otherwise we'd just crap in our own caves until we couldn't live in them. And we don't do that.

We rightfully improved our situation. That was the first step, and one that has continued on until it no longer served us. But, we got here by being very clever. A few brilliant people gave us all the ability to live with comfort. And there is a simple answer. Stop breeding. Now breeding is an instinct. But we are very bright as a species. We even landed on Mars and the moon. Realizing that we've pushed the natural equilibrium away from it's default position through the use of petroleum, etc., is trivial in comparison. It's not that we don't know, it's that we're lazy. After all, how many people stop smoking before they have coronary artery disease? There are even a few who don't stop even after they've had their coronary angiography to show that they're in trouble. It's not that they don't know. And comparing previous civilizations is apples and oranges in the sense that we are on a very different part of the exponential curve. When India and China actually engage in modern lifestyles, what we see today will seem quaint in comparison.

It's all about taking steps early in the disease phase, rather than waiting until the methane, etc., force us to change without the involvement of our will.

I see two solutions: one is voluntary and relatively painless, while the other is forced upon us, and most likely extreme.

You'll note that the link in the original post is from Stanford university. It's not just some wacky blog. I personally have a line of communication with Paul Ehrlich, if it means anything. These are the same caliber of people who created the modern society in which we live. So we can't say we don't know, and or have no power to change.

Furthermore, peace is obtainable. It starts with me. I'm not buying into the hopeless, powerless, ignorant context.

Well it's a simple answer, but a complicated process. Stop breeding. It's never been that easy, and it's not going to be that easy. To have fewer people, what have we done? We either do it by force, or we consume more. Resources take the place of people. 6 of one...

We didn't have to care about the planet. We were built to care about it. Otherwise we'd just crap in our own caves until we couldn't live in them. And we don't do that.

Sorry, recent TRENDS have indicated that world population will peak around 2050 then go into a slow decline. Europe is looking at a 10-14% decline in Population by 2050, Europe today is NOT producing the children to replace people who are dying of old age. The same is true for the East and West Coast of the US, if it was NOT for immigration from Mexico, Central America, Ireland, India, Russia and a few other countries, Both Coasts would be in population DECLINE.

The US between the Appalachians and Rocky Mountains is producing more babies then people are dying and is the single source of new people for both coasts, but that is a very marginal surplus (without immigration the US as a whole would be in population decline today).

Immigration from Mexico is in decline and has been in decline since about 2005, when the price of corn went up and the Mexican and Central American Farmers could feed their families off the corn they grew on their farms (NAFTA had lead to massive dumping of US Corn into Mexico and Central America starting in the 1990s that forced these farmers to look elsewhere for money to feed their families, thus caused a massive movement into the US, that has slowed since the price of Corn has gone up with the massive increase in Bio-Fuel from Corn).

India is expected to pass China by 2038 and the country with the highest population but has a serious problem with its rural poor NOT being able to feed themselves. Nigeria and Ethiopia are expected to see the largest increase in population between now and 2050 at present trends, but like India and Pakistan those trends are NOT sustainable. Thus many observers expect all four countries (India, Pakistan, Nigeria and Ethiopia to see population peaking and then dropping over the next 30 years but that is NOT the trend at the present time).

Thus the issue of population is being addressed. Most parents are having only one to two children for children are expensive. Only in rural areas without mechanization of farming is having children "profitable" and only if you have unused land for such Children to farm.

Now, Nigeria and many Moslem Countries are encouraging parents to have children to expand Islam, but without financial support such children have proven to costly so even Egyptian and Indonesia (the two Moslem Nations with the highest population) is seeing most families have less and less children.

In fact as Income goes up, the number of children people have goes down, thus economic good times today, produces less children and thus a drop in the population. The countries with the largest population growth also have the least educated and poorest populations in the World. As that slowly changes, population growth also declines.

Another factor is, until the 1960s you still had high infant mortality in the third world. It appears that as infant mortality declines, the first to second generation after that decline you see a population increase. Then in the third generation you start to see less and less babies being born as people adjust to NOT having to have extra babies to cover those no longer being killed off by child hood diseases.

One factor over looked is that till the modern Welfare State was invented in the post WWII era (through some parts started in Germany in the 1880s), the only way for a person to make sure someone would take care of them in their old age was to have children (and this was mostly male children, Females Children married males of other families and took care of her spouses parents).

Please note I use the term "Mostly" in the above paragraphs for woman taking care of their mothers and fathers in their old age has a long history, but historically the "norm" was the wife of the Parents son that took care of his parents.

With the invention of the Welfare State, the duty of taking care of people in their old age was assumed by the State. Today such care is the PRIMARY cost of Welfare in the US (Traditional Welfare is a minor cost compared to nursing home care). With such care the duty of the State, many parents no longer have to make sure their have a son who reaches majority to take care of them. This has had a tremendous effect on large families, as people either decide NOT to have Children or be happy with one or two.

Thus we are heading for a world wide population drop after 2050 and the business community is already complaining for that means wages will have to increase do to a shortage of workers.

More on the coming population drop:


http://www.pop.org/content/facts-of-global-depopulation-1518


http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2080404,00.html


http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=12