Overpopulation and Population Control

Spring-boarding off of comments in this thread, what are your thoughts on over-population and population control? With no offense intended towards anyone, here are a few of my own opinions. Some of these are more well-reasoned than others, and I'm sure that there are strong counter-arguments, but for the sake of discussion...

1. I agree 100% with Stan and Jim's comments that overpopulation is the cause of many if not all of the environmental stresses that exist. Over-consumption compounds the problem, but overpopulation is the root cause. Supply follows demand; if over-forestation and drilling in ecologically sensitive areas offends a person's sensibilities, they should also consider what demand their own children will place on the planet.

2. The replacement rate is somewhere around 2.5 children per couple, though it fluctuates and is geographically specific. At this rate, population remains relatively static. Is it irresponsible, from an ecological perspective, to have more than 2 (or 2.5?) children?

3. Driving a vehicle that gets 30 mpg instead of 15 mpg is applauded, even when that 30 mpg vehicle is being driven by someone with 4 children, who, collectively, will consume far more fuel and energy and will place far greater environmental strain on the planet than the one childless person who is driving a 12 mpg vehicle. Who is actually being more environmentally responsible?

4. Tax deductions for "dependents" is a form of government-sponsored procreation. Why are people financially rewarded for having children? Sure, the deduction doesn't compare to the cost of raising the child, but why offer any financial relief at all? Or, why not offer dependent deductions only for the 1st child?

5. Arguably, the more children you have, the more taxes you should pay since those children are placing demands on the planet, non-renewable resources and social infrastructure.

6. The planet does have a carrying capacity. What it is and whether we've already exceeded it are debatable, but it's likely that we'll exceed it before we realize that we've done so. The planet's capacity to withstand and recover from human overpopulation is likely greater than our ability to evolve in response to the changing environmental conditions. In other words, it's far more likely that we'll change the planet to the extent that we drive our own extinction as opposed to actually killing the planet. Earth gets the last laugh.

I agree with everything you said, Rick, and often quote #3 when put on the spot for driving a pickup. In my day-to-day life I consume relatively little, produce very little trash (my trash can fills about once a month, while my recycling bin fills about once a week). My vehicle runs at about 20mpg and my total impact is such that if everyone adopted my lifestyle, we could all be driving 18-wheelers without sacrificing sustainability.

I would recommend "The World Without Us" as a fascinating read. It discusses this issue as well and the author sums it up nicely: either we manage ourselves, or nature will do it for us.

Guy

Great thread, and I agree with all your statements, even though my wife and I just had our first(and likely only) child. This topic has been on my mind for a long time. I realized at a pretty early age that our population growth wasn't even close to sustainable, and as a result there would be more and more conflict over natural resources. Oil may be the hot topic right now, but I believe our consumption of fresh water, food, minerals, and every other natural resource will reach a level that is not sustainable, in fact I think it's already happening. There is just not enough to go around.

This is an issue that is hard for a lot of folks to wrap their mind around, 6.5 billion people is hard to imagine, and even harder to get your head around is how much those people consume. I don't mean to sound too dramatic, but I think unless we get a handle on our exponential population growth, there will be severe consequences for our species as well as all the others species that depend on this beautiful blue island in space for survival.

I think 2 children should be the limit, but I also think this will be nearly impossible to achieve at this moment in this country. Once the effects of our overpopulation reach a more critical level it will become more conceivable.

I agree, Nature bats last.

It seems that eventually the planet will come up with a way to cleanse itself of humans once we've reached critical mass. Maybe an airborn HIV Chicken Flu SAARS combination.

Shouldn't take too long to heal itself once we're gone.

Rick and others,

If you haven't already done so, check out www..overpolulation.org. Lots of interesting information in there.

Hey Rick,

Close, but no cigar. 5% of the world's population has more environmental impact than the 51% that live in the other 5 largest countries. We, of course, like to say 'overpopulation' is the root of the problem because then we can point our greasy little fingers at developing countries and their 'out-of-control' birthrates, their massive population densities, their non-whiteness, and continue on our merry way - the problem, of course, remains external, it's the dreaded "them".

Cheers

Carl

Carl, I'm not sure where you numbers come from, but they do not excuse over population on any part of the planet. Too many humans = too much stress on ecosystems, regardless of whether they walk into a jungle barefoot to cut it down for livestock grazing or live in a McMansion and drive an Escalade 40 miles to work every day to a high paying job to support it all. That said, I agree that the American way of living is the model of excess, as it should rightly be.

Rick, I think you observations are right on from an American perspective.

Everyone who has big thoughts about this, please do yourself a favour and read Daniel Quinn's "The Story of B", preferably after his "Ishmael".

According to Quinn there is only one thing that will lead to population decrease: less food. Each and every species on the face of the earth responds to growing food supplies the same way: more food is a larger population. Our species and even our modern 'developed' culture that always likes to think it is well above such laws of nature, clearly responds to it. Look at history and you see it happened every year.

Quinn demonstrates that the idea of increasing food supply to remedy hunger in the world is in fact a huge mistake by looking at a cage with two mice. Put a set amount of food (say 5 kilos) in the cage, take the remains out the next day and put in the same set amount again and keep on doing that for a long time. Naturally the population will start to grow rapidly at first because food is not a limiting factor. Given that the size of the cage is not a limiting factor either, eventually there will be so many mice that all the food will be consumed. What happens then? Will there be food riots? Will there be wars amongst the mice? No. What happens is that the population will stop growing and remain steady. There is enough food for every mouse to survive. The births are limited by the amount of available food and thus the population will be in balance with a number fluctuating only slightly. Now, if you would very slowly decrease the amount of food you put in (so slowly that it won't result in mice going hungry overnight), fewer mice would be born and the population would decrease slowly as well. Again, without food riots and wars.

What we are doing in our culture is saying that hunger comes from not having enough food. But that's simply not true. Hunger comes from bad distribution of food, caused by power games and the strange ways in which marketing works. If all available food would be spread evenly, no person on earth would go hungry. From this stems the theory that increasing food supply to feed a hungry population will only result in a growth of that population, thus increasing the problem. Yet this is what we keep doing and so the problem grows. What are our ideas of solving the problem? You saw with the mice what the simple solution was: decreasing food availability. This would not kill people. It would not be inhumane, certainly not if the available food would be spread evenly! It would just result in less births and so in fewer people and the solving of overpopulation. But for some reason this would still seem extremely unacceptable to many people. So instead food supplies will go up and instead, to control the problem, we introduce contraceptives... Do you think that would have helped in the mouse cage?

Quinn does a magnificent job explaining this, much better than I can of course. The book has explained me (MSc. in biology) a lot that I didn't really understand yet and taught me a lot I simply didn't know yet. Much of it certainly isn't taught in university, but it makes perfect sense once you open your eyes to it.

" I agree that the American way of living is the model of excess, as it should rightly be. "

Hey Jim,

The numbers are readily accessible.

I'm not sure why you said "as it should rightly be"? Are you saying we have a right to excess, or that our way of living is a perfect model of excess?

Rick, while population control may be a way to try to manage things, I think it's more accurately a diversion from the greater problem - it's dealing with the symptom rather than the problem, and that never works. From an American perspective, population clearly isn't the problem at all - rampant excessive consumption is. Is one billion people too many for China or India? Possibly, but more definitely when those countries follow our lead and become steeped in consumerism.

A classic example is the current devastation of the bluefin tuna population .. it's not because people are starving to death, it's a delicacy. People are paying a premium price for the fish, and that drives fishermen and women to pursue them even more keenly - and the species is being wiped out.

I consider Guy Tal a wise and learned man, a good friend, and if we left the "management" of such things in his hands, I'd rest assured the world would do just fine, but I disagree with the idea that population is the cause of the problem - it's a symptom, perhaps, and maybe one of the factors to consider in finding viable "problem management methods", but in the long term, I think it's a red herring.

In another thread, Jim asked what I think is the fundamental question here: "Are we having fun yet?" I just posted a lengthy and detailed blog spurred by that question that pertains to this subject:

Blog.

Thanks.

Cheers

Carl

Rick...I agree with you 100%. Especially numbers 4 and 5. Also it should be commended that we have a place to discuss this issue civilly. Most other forums I know would have already been blasted by the typical one line comments you would expect.

Arthur - While I think I understand what you're saying, I think it may be a very oversimplistic way to look at humans. The biggest difference is that we can choose to change our reproduction needs/wants. For most animals, it's more instinctual, and they reproduce as much as possible for, as you said, given food supply and other conditions. For humans, we can certainly choose what we want to do, for our own interests as well as others - it's not simply survival of the species.

I think this is shown by the correlation of education with birth rate and age of mothers. Also, the food issue doesn't explain why the population in Europe is expected to decline over the next 50 years.

From this stems the theory that increasing food supply to feed a hungry population will only result in a growth of that population, thus increasing the problem.

It seems to me that you're assuming a lot about humans. I would assume, not having read the book, that the mechanism for population control via food control is that everyone only gets enough to survive. Would you really advocate trying to create a society like that - where food availability was artificially controlled? So that you essentially got your ration, which would theoretically drive you to not have any kids because you knew/felt/instinctually-knew that they wouldn't be fed properly?

Also, the implication of this for areas where the birth rate is high but food is scarce, is that allowing people to starve is the mechanism to control population growth. In other words, while you're getting to zero growth, you're letting a lot of people die of hunger while doing not much about the birth rate. Many people would find a problem with this.

It seems that if epidemics could sweept the earth killing a few billion people, problem solved? What does gas mileage have to do with overpopulation? Where are the majority of people being born? In countries with tax deductions for dependents, I think not! May I suggest more critical thinking than surface political talking points. Arthur; thanks for an answer backed by thought, observation, and science.

Thanks for your reply David.

It is a common thought that we people can control our population growth at will. Indeed, there are countries that have a population that is not growing or is actually getting smaller. But then you are looking at just parts of the population. But because we have made food availability a global matter, looking at the full problem only works if you look on a global scale as well. Year after year, the positive connection between rising food availability and global population growth is proven. Even if a country's population doesn't grow while it actually produces a lot of food, this does not render the theory untrue because that surplus of food is transported to other parts of the world, where it does its job in increasing the global population.

Here's a quote from "The Story of B"
The experiment run 10.000 times
Let's see what happens if we increase food production this year. Hey, whaddya know, our population increased too! Let's see what happens next year if we increase food production.
Hey, whaddya know, our population increased again! Do you suppose there's a connection?
Nah, why would there be?
Well, what shall we do this yera? Increase production or decrease it? Well, we gotta increase it, don't we, because we've got more mouths to feed!
Okay, let's increase food production again this year and see what happens. Wow, look at that! Population up again.
Well, let's increase production again and see what happens. Who knows, maybe this time the population will go down.
Nope, up again. Amazing.
These Thumbnail conversation describe the results of five annual experiments performed in ancient times. Imagine nine thousand nine hundred ninety-five more of them, bringin us up to the present year, 1996, when we have to ask ourselves, well, what are we going to do this year? Decrease food production?
No way, don't be ridiculous.
Well, whaddya say, let's just keep it the same as last year just for once. You know, see what happens?
Are you kidding? Civilization would crash and burn.
Why? If we produced enough food for five and a half billion people last year, why should civilization crash and burn if we produce enough for five and a half billion people this year?
Because enough for five and a half billion wasn't enough. Millions are starving.
Yeah, but everyone knows that this isn't because food is lacking. The food is there, it's just not getting to the people who are starving.
Look, didn't we have this conversation in 1990?
Sure we had it in 1990.
We had it in 1990 and in 1921 during the Russian famine and in 1846 during the Irish famine and in 1783 during the Japanese famine and in 1591 during the Italian famine and in 1315 during the European famine. God, I can remember having this conversation in the sixth century B.C. during the Roman famines.
Well, that's the point I'm making. How many times have we run this experiment?
About ten thousand times. Ten thousand times we've decided to increase food production, and ten thousand times the population has gotten bigger. Doesn't prove anything, of course. This time could be different. This time the population might go down.
Well, okay, let's try it one more time. We'll increase food production again this year and see what happens...
Hey, whaddya know. The population went up again this time. Quite a coincidence, huh?

Next point: you are suggesting that food availability is not artificially controlled now. I would say that it very much IS! Think of all the food that is produced in countries where hunger is a common thing. That is because the food is not for the local people. It is controlled by rich countries that use these poor areas to make cheap food for their own supplies in their cheap supermarkets! If that isn't artificial, I don't know what is! Of old, in particular of course before the totalitarian agricultural revolution, every group of people could manage very well with the food that was supplied simply by their surroundings and there were only so many people that could survive on that food supply. No overpopulation, no need to suppress other people to steel food from their mouths. The people living in the arctic did not go hungry, nor the nomads in the dessert any more than those in lush Africa and Europe. That is the uncontrolled way of food availability, not the way we are living now! The old way works, ours obviously not. There were no food riots in those times, nor wars over other people's resources. Those are things that our culture introduced during the past 10.000 years, after 3 million years of NOT having those problems. Indeed, people would not have huge numbers of children in those days because they weren't able to feed them. Is that a bad thing though? It's not murder. It's natural birth control. Birth control that works. The birth control we offer to developing countries now is basically this: "They (well-intentioned organizations that undertake to improve indigenous agricultural techniques in Third World Countries) want to give technologically undeveloped peoples the means of increasing their population (by introducing them to totalitarian agriculture) with one hand and birth-control aids with the otherhand."

In your last paragraph you state that many people would find a problem with these ideas in general. That may be true. The wish to feed those who are hungry is undeniably part of us. However, in doing so, all we achieve really is a further growth of population. Especially in poor countries that lack the natural circumstances to grow enough food for themselves, this spells only a bigger disaster: you end up with even more people who cannot depend on their own means of survival and so more food will have to be sent to them every year. Is sending the food in the first place a humane thing? It certainly feels that way. But as history so far proves, it only leads to more suffering people; more people with more hunger... IS that really humane?

We have created a huge problem and like all huge problems, solving it is not going to be easy. We have created the problem by living our Evolutionary Instable Strategy for 10.000 years. Abandoning the strategy will cause pain, but will eventually be for the best. After all, if we simply continue the strategy, it will wipe itself out without our help. In that case, 12 billion people are likely to suffer the consequences, while right now that would be only about 6 billion...

Our choice. Are we going to increase food availability again and see what happens?

A couple of notes Arthur :

One, it's a bad use of the word "unnatural" on a Nature Photography site, but by "unnatural" I meant counter to normal market forces. My bad.

Two :

No overpopulation, no need to suppress other people to steel food from their mouths.

And a daily struggle to find food in many cases, or risk starvation. I think what you're missing is the mechanism by which producing less food, or food redistribution, would control population growth (and I'm not sure what it is, either). If it's something inherent in people that the global food supply lessens the desire for children, then I'm all for it. I doubt that's the case though - I would think less food would simply create more competition for it, which would serve to drive down population growth via starvation, other difficulties in life, or simply a concious decision not to have kids you can't feed. Either way, that seems like a harsh and unwelcome existence.

Perhaps I need to read the book....sounds very interesting.

There are two related, but separate concepts and they frequently get intermingled. Population is not the same as population growth. While reduction of consumption may bring any given "population" within the carrying capacity of the planet or prevent it from reaching that limit, there is no consumption rate that will support indefinite "population growth". The only question is what forces will act to stop growth and possibly reduce the population. Food is one possible answer, as discussed above; extreme climate change is another; disease is another....

=========================
Ross, I'm afraid that you haven't carefully read my post. Gas mileage has nothing to do with over-population; I was providing an example of how oversimplified we've come to define certain "environmentally-friendly" practices. I'm not convinced that I'm the one who needs to be more critically minded; as I stated in the first part of the post, I am intentionally presenting "talking points" to generate discussion. They are, as I stated, opinions that are definitely debatable. If you have a counter-argument, I'd personally appreciate hearing it. But rejecting someone's opinion without providing any reasoning of your own is the atithesis of a critically minded approach to discussion and debate. It's flamboyant - which is to be expected in these hot topics, I suppose - but it's also disappointingly non-constructive.

But... to answer your "question" about whether an epidemic wiping out billions of people would solve the problem, I'd answer that "yes", it's possible. As long it happens each time the population exceeds the carrying capacity, I think it would do just fine. Think of it as the human equivalent of a forest fire - eliminates the weak (and some of the strong), but arguably "resets" the population to something below the carrying capacity and possibly allows the planet to regenerate at a pace that temporarily exceeds our consumption of it.

David, I'm glad you are taking an interest in the book. Let me assure you that quite a few of these thoughts were strange to me as well, even after many years of studying biology and having had a huge interest in these subjects for even longer. But the more I read and the more I think about it, Quinn makes some of the thoughts I already had for quite a while, but couldn't formulate, concrete by formulating them.

There is a good answer to your objection that abandoning totalitarian agriculture would lead to a daily struggle to find food and the risk of starvation. It is that, contrary to popular believe, our lifestyle is by far the most laborious and demanding ever. Never before has humanity worked so hard to survive and has had so little time to actually live. Most of us struggle day in day out to earn money, something that did not even exist before totalitarian agriculture was well established and started demanding for marketing. Before totalitarian agriculture, you could depend on the world around you. You would know roughly what it had to offer you and could rely on food to be there. After all, your ancestors could depend on it as well, otherwise you wouldn't have been there. Naturally there would be fluctuations in the availability of food and so sometimes it would be harder to come by it than other times. But the idea that it was always a struggle to survive is just nonsense. Again, we work harder than those people ever had to. We always look forward to achieve goals (a new house, a new car, pension, etc.). When the goal is far off, it seems huge, but when we finally reach it, it doesn't seem all that big anymore and even if it does, attention is taken away from it because there are new far-off goals that we set ourselves for the future. We always look forward without having time to look around at the landscape we're passing through. This is true in the literal and figurative way. The real landscape around us mainly functional because it allows us to reach goals. It is free to be used for agriculture and whatever other development can be conceived that will bring us profit and power. Just so, the landscape of our life, the now if you will, is free to be used and sacrificed for reaching future goals. This is really something only our culture (signifying the culture that has adopted totalitarian agriculture) has come up with. Not one other culture in past and present has lived this way and for them enjoying the landscape around them and the landscape of life were the goal. They lived in the now and quite probably appreciated life much more than we do, but at the same time feared death a lot less, because it was just part of the circle of life.

Now, how about this: totalitarian agriculture does not solve starvation, it causes it. That is a big one, but it makes sense. This way of agriculture that allows us to take whatever we want and to destroy everything that stands in our way, has indeed allowed us to become what we are today. We have overcome all but a handful of other cultures that still live in the olden ways in which they not only are part of nature (as are we) but actually think of themselves as part of nature and bound by the laws of nature (as we are bound to find out possibly within our lifetimes).

So how does totalitarian agriculture cause starvation? It does so by first creating huge amounts of food, which result in a population explosion (as predicted by the theory that increase in food availability unfalteringly leads to an increase in population) and then by failing every now and then, dominated by natural fluctuations affecting the results of agriculture. The big famines of our ages (during the past 10.000 years) were caused by a failing agriculture, so that the enormous surplus of food that we started taking for granted suddenly was not available anymore, causing grave problems and the death of many thousands or even millions. Of course these natural fluctuations in circumstances happened many times in the almost three million years before the totalitarian agricultural revolution as well, but never with such disastrous effects. The number of people living in an area then depended on what the natural circumstances on average could offer them. The fluctuations would have sometimes led to tough years of course. But there would always be some food. People back then depended on many more sources of food than these days. Natural fluctuations always affect one source more than the other, so even if the average amount of food would decrease, there would always be a number of sources that would still provide. Nowadays however, we depend on a relatively tiny amount of species to feed us. If natural fluctuations affect those species very negatively in a given year, then it is a true disaster: the huge surplus is suddenly not available and we have either destroyed other potential sources of food, or have simply forgotten how to utilize them.

One further explanation why totalitarian agriculture leads to starvation is that the strategy has led to power struggles and inequalities around the world. The rich get richer and pull all the food towards them, while the poor suffer, especially when circumstances are hard. This difference between rich and poor is also something purely from after the totalitarian agricultural revolution. Before then (and of course in the few surviving other cultures) people were much more equal. Either a whole community would have ample food, or the whole community would go hungry. No power struggles, no food riots, no unequal distribution of food.

As you say, a decreasing global food supply most likely will not lessen the desire for kids, but it would simply set uncrossable barriers for the number of kids that could survive. This to many sounds inhumane and tough, but really it isn't! It is not murder of an existing individual, it simply is that the individual just isn't even conceived. If that still sounds like a crime, we should all be in prison for failing to use each and every egg women around the world produce. Still, your argument that a conscious decision not to have kids you can't feed seems like a harsh and unwelcome existence sprouts from that thought I think. But what you are saying sounds to me like it would be better to get a kid you cannot feed than to not have a kid you can't feed. In the first case you harm nobody. In the second, you harm your kid. That should be an easy choice!

So, would decreasing food availability now, as you suggest, result in more competition for it, in its turn leading to starvation and other horrible things? I will be honest and say that I don't have that answer yet. I will let you know when I finish the book though. What I do know is that this is an extremely urgent matter. We do not have that much time left to completely change our culture, or the change will be made for us by the laws of nature. Again, it should be an easy choice to make: I would much prefer to have a hand in my own destiny than to have destiny lead me.

It's not so much that humanity can't reduce population, but that our culture can't! That is where the big change is needed! Our culture is the only one, past and present, that lives our current Evolutionary Instable Strategy of totalitarian agriculture. In order to save humanity and the world (though yes, the world would undoubtedly go on without us), we need only change one culture. A revolution is needed. Fortunately, however, our culture is quite proud of a number of previous revolutions. It shows we have it in us to make huge changes. This would be the biggest by far. Are we ready for the challenge?

But... to answer your "question" about whether an epidemic wiping out billions of people would solve the problem, I'd answer that "yes", it's possible. As long it happens each time the population exceeds the carrying capacity, I think it would do just fine. Think of it as the human equivalent of a forest fire - eliminates the weak (and some of the strong), but arguably "resets" the population to something below the carrying capacity and possibly allows the planet to regenerate at a pace that temporarily exceeds our consumption of it.

Rick, I'd agree it could do the job. I also agree that it may very well well come that far if we continue on this road. But wouldn't it be far better if our culture changes so that it won't have to be wiped out so violently? All cultures apart from our own has crossed the boundaries of carrying capacity like we did. All those other cultures have proven, some better than others, but all indefinitely better than ours, that humans can live perfectly well as just another part of the natural system. It happened continuously for about three million years until our way of life emerged and even now there are cultures around that still manage to do it.

Arthur - yes, I agree completely. It would be far better - for many reasons - if we were wise and enlightened and diligent and creative enough to study the problem and develop a solution before nature does it for us. Admittedly, I'm not optimistic that that will happen. In my more cynical moods, I believe that humans have an almost infinite capacity for ignoring and/or dismissing that which we find inconvenient.

First Arthur - I realize now that I was trying to fit what you are saying into our current culture, and you were talking about a total cultural change. Big difference in my mind, and to me that makes your proposition less feasible (and honestly, I don't like your idea of such a radically changed civilization). It would probably only happen if there was a big driver, like a massive scarcity of food.

Still, your argument that a conscious decision not to have kids you can't feed seems like a harsh and unwelcome existence sprouts from that thought I think. But what you are saying sounds to me like it would be better to get a kid you cannot feed than to not have a kid you can't feed. In the first case you harm nobody. In the second, you harm your kid. That should be an easy choice!

Not quite - I was implying that being forced to conciously choose not to have children simply because of a scarcity of food would be rough; Given that we would know we had a way to feed them, but would be choosing not to produce that food. (I know that's the spawn of more food=more people as you've stated, but that feeling doesn't just go away because people want to control the population.) So you essentially would have parents who wanted more kids, and they'd be forced to choose not to because of restricted food supplies (which would be bad, in my head, in and of themselves for everyone).

Granted we're really talking about human psychology here, so maybe you can just say "they'd get over it".

With some interest, I think I have to agree with everyone to some degree. When our developed nations have more children, we tend to have a larger impact on the environment because of our consumption. Third world countries however have less environmental regulation and control, so as their populations increase (at a proportionately greater rate due to a higher birth rate) who is to better judge which is worse? There is an increasing number of countries whose population is already exceeding food and water supplies. When this happens the result is political and economic unrest which leads to border wars, threatened international peace, and genocides. Indeed, population is an issue, but it isn't as simple as us or them and isn't the only problem. The other big issue is that emerging economies want to live according to western standards and there just isn't western style wealth on the planet to go around.

I think populations and consumption are indeed self-regulating, but the periods of readjustment will not be pleasant for anyone. I like "The World Without Us" as a good reference on some of these things, and would also suggest "Plan B 3.0 Mobilizing to Save Civilization" by Lester Brown. I bought my copy but is also availible free online. Can probably google it.

I'm childless and barring the unforseen plan to stay that way. And also try to do my part on a relative developed nation style of living to help the environment, but have to say that even in the best of predictions, I think we are only delaying the reversion to the norm as populations and consumption exceed the carrying capacity of the environment.

And finally, it's indeed crazy to give tax benefits per child. But unfortunately our whole economy is growth based.

I guess I have to ask what child birth and the control of it has to do with Nature Photography.

It looks to me like someone has a hidden agenda. Why don't we follow China's lead and make it illegal to have more than one child. Also while were at it why don't we start clubbing people who disagree with our Government.

Haven't we learned yet that when "people" start messing with the Natural balance of things
it gets worst not better! Whats wrong with giving people a tax credit to help raise their children. Were giving tax credits, food stamps, welfare checks, etc. to everyone else!

Hang in there with the Natural disasters and disease thats coming down the pike and thats already here it will take care of itself.

Don asked:

"I guess I have to ask what child birth and the control of it has to do with Nature Photography."

Hey Don,

While maybe not specifically "Nature Photography", I'd suggest that issues like this are only relevant, and best discussed, in other contexts. Any discussion of, say, birth control, overpopulation, environmental destruction, and countless other issues of our day are relevant only in how they pertain to our lives. In and of themselves, they're completely devoid of any meaning.

Arthur, I agree with much of what you've written. Just to add to the list of books, Derrick Jensen has recently released a 2 voume book called "Endgame", which is a comprehensive look at the subject matter you're referring to here.

Cheers

Carl

I guess I have to ask what child birth and the control of it has to do with Nature Photography.

In addition to Carl's reply, it's worth noting the statement at the very top of this page explaining the purpose of the Hot Topics Forum: "This forum is intended for the discussion of environmental issues, habitat conservation and photography ethics."

I have no hidden agenda; just forwarding an argument that overpopulation and population growth are factors contributing to, if not causes of, severe environmental stresses.

Rick is right. This forum was created to discuss these topics, with the understanding that they are of interest to the NPN community.

Guy

Rick, thanks for your reply. I was under the misunderstanding that your questions was; what are your thoughts on over-population and population control? First off, I guess who says the world is overpopulated and what proof is provided? Assuming there is overpopulation are taxes at fault or is it medicine? As I said a few good epidemics would solve some problems. Killing more people in wars would also assist. Killing excess newborns and the elderly that are no longer productive would also help. It would also help if diets changed in the US where there is an abundance of dogs and cats to feed the hungry. Maybe people could be genetically altered to be smaller say three feet tall. Think of the reduction in area and resources used. You know if we used the nonrenewable resources faster economies would collapse reducing production, increasing civil strife, and so on which would reduce population. Then again if we increase global warming that should reduce population and population density. The one thing I can guarantee is no matter what would be a viable solution government will never be able to implement it. Wait, how about two feet tall?

Good thread, as is usually the case here!

Carl, by "rightly so" I am agreeing that the American lifestyle is geared toward excessive consumption, not that we have a right to be that way.

Hey Jim,

Thanks. On first reading it I thought it sounded the other way around, and then re-read it and wasn't sure which of the 2 meanings it carried.

Guy, the comments in your first response seem to align with the idea that a reduction in consumption is the critical factor, which I'd agree - if more people lived as carefully as you and Sarah do, I don't think the environment would be anywhere near the critical point it is today.

Cheers

Carl

"Carl, by "rightly so" I am agreeing that the American lifestyle is geared toward excessive consumption, not that we have a right to be that way."

Yes I agree too. Look at how we are trained to think in this society. And all of our mainstream media skews this way as well. if the stock market is down, newspaper make it seem like the end of the world. If a movie didn't gross $300 million then it is a failure since they spent $150 million to promote it. Home prices in Southern California were down for the first time in years due to foreclosures and being so overpriced to begin with. Well for someone like me who can't afford a $450,000 house, I consider the price drop a good thing. The federal reserve might not think so, but he's just a numbers guy. where else can someone earn $60,000 and be barely scraping by? it is too much about work in this country. work to have this, to have that, to have that. and yet a large percentage of people are still depressed. it is clear that material goods and excessive consumption do not really add worth to one's life. true solid relationships have taken a backseat to achievements and bragging rights. that is unfortunate. He who has the most toys still dies.

i don't know how any of that fits into the discussion here, but personally I don't think overpopulation is the problem. Population control has its own problems. It is what you do once you are a part of the population that counts.

Overpopulation -I think- is very near the basis of many current problem. Even if we all start living much more sustainable lives, the fact of the matter still is that -to feed all people present- we need much more food than natural resources can offer us. That means that there is no other way to feed us than to take more then we are given, which is only possible by large-scale agriculture with all the looming threats I described in previous posts. At this point, the lot of us is extracting way more than is sustainably possible. In other words: we are well beyond the carrying capacity of the earth. We are draining all natural resources and the only result that can lead to is that we will eventually, rather sooner than later, grow hungry and poison ourselves.

Making a start towards more sustainability is a necessary step, but it most likely won't do. The roughly six billion, by adopting a much more sustainable lifestyle, might just be able to go towards the carrying capacity again, but I honestly really doubt it. I haven't got numbers handy to confirm that though. So, apart from more sustainability, or maybe rather as a part of it, we also need a stop to the growth of food production. As I said in previous posts, there is a proven positive link between a growing food production and population growth. So even if we would start living much more sustainable lifestyles in all other ways, if we continue to increase food production, we will soon be at twelve billion. twelve billion... imagine that.. twice as much as today, and it would happen within most of our lifetimes! Even if those twelve billion would per persona have half our footprint (which would be extremely difficult, if not impossible to do), they would still have the same impact we are having right now. By that time, it is not unlikely that the natural resources that our culture is built upon are as good as depleted. Without a basis, the structure will collapse and all our trouble to increase efficiency with which engines work, insulating buildings, produce cleaner fuels etc. will just have proven to be tiny tissues used to mop a flooding floor while the tap causing the flood is still spouting happily.

So... out with totalitarian agriculture! No more agriculture that says that you must produce to the max at the cost of everything else. No more laying waste of natural areas to use them as agriculture grounds or to extract other 'commodities' (read Carl Donohue's excellent article about this word here) in unsustainable ways. Agriculture should be about providing the food that people need, not about producing ever more to earn more money. And with the proven fact that more food invariably leads to more people, food production will have to go down. In previous posts I argue that this would not lead to food riots, famine and wars, but just to a decreasing population.

Growth is deeply embedded in our culture. From the very start we learn that growing is good. Development always means growth, whether it is growth of your personal capital or global economy, your house or the city you live in, your physical being or the human population (go forth and multiply). Growth is good, staying at the same level signifies laziness and growing smaller is evil. That principle will have to go overboard.

Curious to hear what you people think about that..

Richard, good points that I concur with - especially the "work, work, work" trap to try to make ends meet (been there and still doing it). But like Arthur, I think overpopulation is at least a major factor in the problem. Too many people consuming, regardless of how careful they are about it, can reach a point of over burden on natural resources.

First Arthur - I realize now that I was trying to fit what you are saying into our current culture, and you were talking about a total cultural change. Big difference in my mind, and to me that makes your proposition less feasible (and honestly, I don't like your idea of such a radically changed civilization).

David, I understand what you say. A total cultural change is quite a big thing. But if you'd agree that the basis of our culture, i.e. totalitarian agriculture, the wish to conquer and rule and the wish to always grow, is flawed, then changing those things would also mean a total cultural change. After all, if you change the basis, the structure as a whole changes as well. I myself think that if our civilization manages to pull such a radical change, it would actually be more than wonderful!

Maybe your not liking the thought of such a radically changed civilization is based on a certain image you have of life away from totalitarian agriculture. You mentioned before the assumption that such a lifestyle would probably mean a constant struggle for food and the risk of starvation. I tried to dispel that myth in a previous post. People then did not continuously live on the verge of starvation. They lived full lives and most likely were able to appreciate life a lot more than we can because they really had the time to live in the now and not towards a vague goal in the future. I also touched upon the theory that totalitarian agriculture led to power struggles. It is totalitarian agriculture that led to the distinction between rich and poor. This was something unheard of before the totalitarian agricultural revolution, because there was no need for such a division. Your tribe functioned as one. In dire times you would never grow hungry alone, your whole tribe would suffer with you. If there would be plenty of food, the whole tribe would prosper. In the new culture, even in times of plenty often the rich people pull everything towards themselves and leave the masses with just their basic needs or less. This is the cause of beggars in the streets. They would not have been beggars in another culture. This is the cause of single mothers having to work hard to earn just enough not to let her and her child starve. They would just get their fair share of food in another culture. But, there would also not be whole starving peoples in Africa. If our culture hadn't been imposed on them, there would be far fewer Africans right now, being very well able to still live off what the land offers them. The same goes for Native North Americans and all those other cultures that were still living outside totalitarian agriculture before we gulped them up. If we continue as we have for about 10.000 years, it will also mean the end of the few remaining other cultures.

Once our culture hits, it causes inequality between people, power struggles, population explosions, depletion of natural resources and eventually famine. It may take many years to get that far, but until now there is nothing to prove otherwise. If a move away from the basis of our culture would mean that 'civilization' would once more be without inequality between people, power struggles, population explosion, depletion of natural resources and eventually famine, I fail to see what is not to like about that.

Whether or not such a cultural change can be willingly made... that remains to be seen. We have only just began to see what our culture causes and how it endangers its own existence. Moreover, to the very very few really rich, our culture still seems paramount to anything else. With all the power they have, they may well try until the end to hold on to it. To the rest, with your eyes opened it should actually look rather horrible!

While i totally agree with the points made about rabid consumerism etc, i personally believe that population drives consumption more than Carl would allow. I cant prove it, but i bet 20 *EDIT* billion perfect conservationists would do more damage than 2 million rabid consumers. At the very least, they'd keep getting in the way of my photos.
Reading the above discussion strengthens my conviction that our global pop. will continue to rise until we're so uncomfortable that we start looking to get off this planet--hopefully we'll do so before we destroy it

Hunting and gathering cultures have the most free time and a leisurely lifestyle. Only downside is your life expectancy decreases. Is this a plus? If so go for it, but don't demand it of everyone else. If you want to starve in the wilderness hey who am I to stop you. Numerous wonderful ways of living are being posited. The only problem is they all require big government!

you cant possibly promote habitat conservation worldwide for all the species that we are trying to "manage" and "co-exist" (terms that seem to go hand in hand with animals being given very little of there natural ranges and space to have the honor of staying on the planet with us) and all at the same time saying you dont think human population is the major source of it,, doest matter who is consuming the resources, or what color the people are that are doing the over populating, we are overrunning our planet with sheer numbers and destruction of resource...and if you are one of those who is promoting haveing an jr or the III in the family tree or telling your grown kids that we need a grandchild,, or if your are 40plus and taking fertility pills becuase you want just one more, or couldnt have the one, i would suggest you are just as irresponsible to the demise of the enviroment as someone driving a humvee or what ever the newest buzzline is on irresponsible environmental behavior,,, funny how when it comes to us,, we are different when we try to "manage" ourselves, and when we come up, someone tries to justify why its ok for us to continue to explode in numbers

An amazing thread. I have a book to add to the recommended reading list, Jared Diamond's "Collapse." Among the subjects he discusses is the destruction of the trees on Easter Island, which doomed (and trapped) the people living there. What, he asked rhetorically, did the guy think when he was cutting down the last tree?

Diamond's thesis is that the inability of a culture to adapt appropriately to its environment dooms the culture, the environment or both. The Scandanavian colony in Greenland died out because it refused to adopt, even in part, the successful subsistence techniques of their northerly Innuit neighbors. The colony died out, starved to death, because it refused to adapt.

The implications for our culture and for world population are chilling. U.S. policies in this regard - opposing all manner of birth control, for example - appear to be hopelessly wrong. Even the fundamental principle of U.S. population efforts, that raising the economic status of over-populated areas will reduce populations simply shifts the crisis from a great many demanding very little to a slightly smaller group demanding much more. It doesn't solve any of the critical problems. It may even aggravate them.

Diamond manages to remain fairly optimistic that we will adapt. I am less so.

I drive a Prius and I have no kids. But as anyone in the Avian Forum can tell you, I like to travel, and probably put more than my share of CO2 in the atmosphere. I live in Alaska and that takes an unholy amount of fuel just to keep warm. I have a lot of toys. I can't claim to be leading by example. But, like any thoughtful person, I wonder if we are any different from the Easter Islanders or the Norse Greenlanders, except that we're gambling the entire planet.

Stan Wrote:

" I cant prove it, but i bet 20 perfect conservationists would do more damage than 2 million rabid consumers. "

Hey Stan

How much we betting? How do you propose 20 conservationists will do more damage than 2 million rabid consumers?

I think it might be useful to establish the premise of the discussion a little more completely. Human overpopulation, perhaps, contributes to some problems with people getting food, though I agree with Arthur that this is largely due political and economic reasons, not sheer numbers of supply and demand. On the other hand, the bulk of environmental stress today, from global warming, to deforestation, to depleted fisheries, and so on, is definitely from rampant consumption.

The pattern is no different today than it was several thousand years ago when the desertification of the Middle East occurred - the human population of the area, while not known exactly, was far, far less than it was today - certainly sustainable. What wasn't sustainable was the unbridled desire for 'more', which led to the once Fertile Crescent now being, largely, desert. The same pattern moved through Western Europe that Middle Eastern culture/civilization moved through that region. Move forward to the US. From the blog I linked to in my initial post here:

We've consumed:

* Approx 60-100 million bison.
* Flocks of passenger pigeons once numbering in the billions (Billions, with a B, as in “B-I-L-L-I-O-N-S)
* The Great Auk, once found from Canada to Norway, and as far south as Florida and Southern Spain
* Stellar’s Sea Cow, first identified by western explorers in 1741, extinct 30 years later.
* Eastern elk, wiped out so quickly we still don’t know exactly where they once roamed and where they did not.
* Carolina parakeet, a gorgeous bird , exctinct because their bright plumage made them (apparently) excellent target practice.
* The innoncent beaver, nearly extinct in the eastern US by 1800, and nationwide by 1930 (fortunately the population has been granted a stay of execution and numbers are rebounding.
* Sea otters, once numbering nearly 300 000, reduced to 1-2000 animals by 1800, (currently c. 8000).
* 7th highest rate of primary forest loss in the world - by the mid 1800s, nearly all of the indigenous forest along the eastern seaboard was gone.
* The United States is both the world’s leading producer and consumer of forest products.
* In 1997, the U.S. consumed 99 million tons of paper and paperboard products, or 738 pounds per person. We consume more than 30% of the worlds paper.
* In 1990 over 12 000 new products hit the shelves in the US. This number is in the vicinity of 30 000 at this time. That’s over 80 new products on the shelves every single day.
* The USA constitutes 5% of the world’s population and consumes 25% of the energy. That same 5% has more environmental impact than the 51% that live in the other 5 largest countries. The United States is the world’s largest single emitter of carbon dioxide, accounting for 23 percent of energy-related carbon emissions worldwide.

These numbers aren't a function of overpopulation. The US population in 1880 was around 50 million people. Much of the environmental devastation I just referenced had already occurred, or was occurring. Some estimates have put the Native American Indian population of the US, prior to European settlement at this figure, some as high as 125 million people. Why were they able to live in similar numbers and not cause such a rapid and possibly unstoppable devastation of their environment?

Ross wrote

"Hunting and gathering cultures have the most free time and a leisurely lifestyle. Only downside is your life expectancy decreases. Is this a plus? If so go for it, but don't demand it of everyone else."

Where do you propose one might try this?

"If you want to starve in the wilderness hey who am I to stop you. Numerous wonderful ways of living are being posited. The only problem is they all require big government!"

This might surprise you, but we here in the US currently have the biggest Govt the world has ever known, so I don't quite understand your point.

Cheers

Carl

Hi Ross,

The ancient choice between leading a good and fulfilling, but relatively short life on one side, and a long, but stressful and shallow life filled with sorrow on the other, right? I know I'd go for the first one every time.

And who said something about starving in the wilderness? Totalitarian agriculture is the big bringer of famine. If our crops would fail one day, and it's a miracle that it didn't happen on a large scale yet in our time and in the rich west (or did it, but was it the poor countries who had to suffer for us?), I would not want to be anywhere near a large city. Supermarkets would empty in riots in days, if not hours. While in what you call wilderness, there will always be some food left.

And I'm not entirely certain what you mean by saying that big government is required to achieve 'wonderful ways of living'. Do you mean that big government is needed IN wonderful ways of living? In that case, hunter gathering cultures do as a rule not have government or a leader in the way we know it, simply because it is not needed. Same thing with law. There are laws, but not invented by people, but laws that evolved with the culture. Or do you mean that big government would be needed to make the change? I disagree there too. It would be lovely if government would agree and would help, but there's small chance of that because it would take away a lot of power from them for exactly the reasons mentioned before. No, this will most likely have to be a bottom-up movement.

Hi Carl,

I think it might be useful to establish the premise of the discussion a little more completely. Human overpopulation, perhaps, contributes to some problems with people getting food, though I agree with Arthur that this is largely due political and economic reasons, not sheer numbers of supply and demand.

I'm afraid that's not right. What I mean is that there is a very simple and direct link between food availability and population. If the first goes up, population will always grow. Just for clarification: because food availability these days is a global matter, you should look at population growth on a global scale as well. There's no direct link to politics or economics here whatsoever. However, there are plenty of indirect ones of course. When we invented our way of agriculture, our first goal was NOT to feed people, but to make profit and generate power (though often not power for the farmers themselves, but for the lords they worked for). Naturally the growing population could come in handy to have more hands to fight for the lords in their wars, but it was mainly a secondary thing in our eyes. So once again, in our eyes (or those of the wealthy few at least) more profit and power were the big gain of totalitarian agriculture. Population growth only came as a secondary thing, if that... because the direct link between food availability and population growth is not very accepted. We think we are above this natural law, but have been proven wrong every year since we started this way of living.

Some estimates have put the Native American Indian population of the US, prior to European settlement at this figure, some as high as 125 million people. Why were they able to live in similar numbers and not cause such a rapid and possibly unstoppable devastation of their environment?

It is population and culture. The American Natives could live with a certain number of people without devastating the natural world the same way we do because their culture was not one of totalitarian agriculture. They depended completely on what nature (of which they considered themselves to be just another part) could offer them. Obviously it offered them enough for those numbers, or they simply wouldn't have been around. And for all this, they did not have to put one shovel in the earth to plant stuff (there are signs that some American Natives have been farmers for a certain period, but gave up on it because it didn't work as well for them as being a hunter-gatherer). It was just taking from their surroundings and -of course- giving back to the circle of life what they took when they died.

Arthur, hunter gatherer societies do not tend to starve nor do they have digital cameras. I will opt for digital cameras.

yeah... you know Ross, who says you might not be able to hang on to your digital camera if we would dispose of totalitarian agriculture? It wouldn't necessarily mean that we have to dispose of all the good things we made as well. Man, think of all the extra wildlife and landscapes that would result from this change!!!

And if worst comes to worst, I would rather have food and pick up painting again than trying if my D2Xs tastes as good as it looks

What I mean is that there is a very simple and direct link between food availability and population. If the first goes up, population will always grow.

I'll have to pick up Quinn's book. I think I understand the nature of the experiment, but don't agree with the conclusions being drawn from it.

I think that there's a case to be made for a correlation, but not for causality. Based on the info above, Quinn demonstrated that increasing or decreasing food availability would yield - but not cause - an increase or decrease in population.

I suspect that the actual cause of the change in population wasn't availability of food. That would require some kind of conscious or intellectual response on the part of the mice, choosing to not procreate. I don't know about that. More likely, as the amount of food was reduced, the mice responded biologically, and were no longer physiologically capable of reproducing. Maybe there was enough food to sustain the current population, but as births declined and deaths occurred, overall population decreased.

Would people respond the same way? If people will fight over an XBox at Walmart while Christmas shopping, I suspect any attempt to limit food availability would be met with an even more violent response.

And then there's the honeybee problem. I suspect that if we keep tampering with natural processes, shortage of food could be a factor in limiting human population.

I think that there's a case to be made for a correlation, but not for causality.

Rick, that's very well put and pretty much what I was thinking about above, when I wondered what the actual mechanism for less births would be. Seems to me that on a global scale, if the less food = less people correlation holds, mass starvation would almost have to occur (or very high infant mortality). The fact that I'm very much speculating right now is what makes me want to read some of these books though...

Hi Rick,

I do very sincerely hope you will read the book. Even if you won't agree with all of it, it is an eyeopener in many ways. And naturally Quinn is much more expert on these things than I am so far. I am an avid reader, but have never read a book before Quinn's "Ishmael" and especially "The Story of B" that actually very directly changed my life. These two really did and I have heard many more people saying the same.

I suspect that the actual cause of the change in population wasn't availability of food. That would require some kind of conscious or intellectual response on the part of the mice, choosing to not procreate. I don't know about that. More likely, as the amount of food was reduced, the mice responded biologically, and were no longer physiologically capable of reproducing. Maybe there was enough food to sustain the current population, but as births declined and deaths occurred, overall population decreased.

Agreed, the mice responded biologically. There is no reason to assume that it was a conscious or intellectual response. After all, all other species respond in the same way, be they beetles or dolphins. But, if that's a given, why would humanity -really just another species on the face of the earth- respond differently?

An attempt to limit food availability could indeed lead to very violent responses, but only if the change would be huge and cause famine overnight. You can bet that the mice would not take it lying down either if suddenly only half the usual amount of food was given.

So the first step might have to be to stop the growth. Consider the fact that last year there was enough food to sustain the people alive today. After all, they are alive and could only be alive if they had enough food to sustain life. Granted, a staggering number of people did not have enough to keep them healthy, but that is NOT because there isn't enough food globally. The difference between rich and poor and powerful and powerless is the reason for that.

So, suppose we would find a way to distribute food more equally, but NOT increase the food production (to keep safe, we could refrain from actually decreasing the food production just yet). It was enough to feed roughly six billion last year, so it will be enough for those roughly six billion again this year. In fact, with more equal distribution, it would actually be possible to feed many more mouths!! What this would do though, is prove that not increasing food availability globally would not lead to famine. Once that step would be taken, we could in theory try to take the production down step by step. Not enough to let people grow hungry, but enough to let the biological response kick in. I do not see a reason why that would not work for us if it works for all other millions of species on earth. And not only that. It has worked for people in exactly the same way for almost three million years. It only hasn't worked for ONE culture: the one that introduced totalitarian agriculture.

At least, that is what we like to believe and in fact what we're taught to believe. But current developments suggest that the law just wasn't really in a hurry. Only about 10.000 years after we started living this strategy it really seems to be catching up with us and starts giving us signs that we ARE biologically controlled, just like all other species.

There's no doubt that at least some of the people of our culture will not all be all that interested and enthusiastic about such a drastically changed civilization and objections will be plenty and fierce. Unfortunately for them, however, the laws of nature don't mind such objections one bit and will just go on enforcing themselves.

The good thing is, without a doubt, that we have a choice! It is not an easy choice and it would take nothing short of a revolution, but a choice nonetheless. Choice equals opportunity!

If you (or anyone else) would decide to read the books, I'd be extremely interested to hear what you think!

By the way, might I just express my amazement and appreciation of the fact that this discussion so far has been extremely civil without calling ugly names at all. Thanks guys!

I don't think we have to worry at all. McDonald's, KFC, etc will take care of the living at the rate we are going. Over population or over size. They will get us. We must be the most pickled population ever, added this, modified that and why not destroy our water as well.

If you take the mice as an example there and not give them enough food, what next, cannibalism ???

Danny.

Yes, soylent green is the answer!

Arthur, i will definitely have to check into that book. From this discussion, i tend to agree with Rick. We are not 'just another species'. If that were the case, my numerous genetic weaknesses would have doomed me from the start.

Carl, Sorry for the confusion--i corrected my typo. You may be wrong on both counts:
you will have to give me a reference for 50 million natives, my references range from 2 to 20 million. Also, according to Denevan ("the pristine myth"):

The evidence is convincing. By 1492 Indian activity throughout the Americas had modified forest extent and composition, created and expanded grasslands, and rearranged microrelief via countless artificial earthworks. Agricultural fields were common, as were houses and towns and roads and trails. All of these had local impacts on soil, microclimate, hydrology, and wildlife. This is a large topic, for which this essay offers but an introduction to the issues, misconceptions, and residual problems. The evidence, pieced together from vague ethnohistorical accounts, field surveys, and archaeology, supports the hypothesis that the Indian landscape of 1492 had largely vanished by the mid-eighteenth century, not through a European superimposition, but because of the demise of the native population. The landscape of 1750 was more "pristine" (less humanized) than that of 1492.

Well, dunno bout that, but something to consider!

Hey Stan

One of the problems with estimates of populations back then is just that - they're estimates. Nobody knows even what the population of European cities were in 1492, so it's a rough guess at best what the population of Native American Indians may have been prior to the arrival of Europeans here. I'd typically stray away from referencing Wikipedia as a source, but a quick glance here supports this, and the numbers I suggested. David Stannard, of "American Holocost" suggests around 25 million people were living just in the Valley of Mexico at the time of Columbus' arrival. If you look around, you'll find estimates even higher. Another problem with population guesses here is a political one - some scholars don't want to put the figure too high, because it makes the genocide look worse .. others inflate it (Stannard probably does) for this same reason.

There's lots of myths about the modifications indigenous people made/make to their native landbase - not just the American Indian. Certainly some nations were more directly practicing land management, and some were not - but you'll note I never claimed any of it to be "pristine" - people lived here, and as such, their footprint was noticable (that said, anyone who'd suggest the American landscape of 1750 was more "pristine" than that of 1492 whilst simultaneously referencing the genocide of native American Indians is an idiot - anyone who might reduce that destruction to "the demise of the native population" is simply being intellectually dishonest). I suggested they (Native Americans) didn't destroy the environment like the culture that wiped them out did/does. And I'd propose anyone who'd submit otherwise is somewhat out of bounds. People aren't above the laws of life - we live and die, we consume other life, and we must "use" the landbase if we're to continue to exist. But how we use it is another subject all together, and that's really what we're talking about here. Regardless of the specifics of how Native American populations impacted local soils, microclimate, etc, they didn't (contrary to what idiots like Paul S. Martin might like to think) engender the same kind of extinction of life and biotic community that our culture has/does.

Compare the impact those people had to, say, the civilizations of the Middle East a few thousand years ago. Better yet, simply re-read the numbers I posted above about the destruction wrought by Europeans on the North American ecosystems, and realize that, regardless of what ecological footprint "ethnohistorical accounts, field surveys and archaeology" might express, there were, in 1492, tens of millions of bison roaming the plains, bison roaming the eastern seaboard, healthy and proliferate old-growth forests, billions of passenger pigeons, Great Auks, and so on. Very quickly after our arrival here, those creatures and features were gone, or almost gone. Native American Indians lived in North America for over ten thousand years. Denevan apparently didn't deign to consider any of that when he wrote his little synopsis.

As for your edited 'bet', sure we can construct any hypothetical scenario and say 'what if', but the reality is not hypothetical. The reality is the US population is 300 million people. The reality is that fisheries, forests and healthy ecosystems are collapsing, that planetary climate is changing, that fossil fuels are rapidly dwindling, etc - those realities are not a function of excessive global human population. Examples abound - the bluefun tuna. Oilfields. the Arctic ice pack. That relatively small percentage of the global human population is responsible for an inordinate environmental impact. That's true of most of the "developed" world, but especially so of the US and Canada.

Contrary to what Arthur suggests, I'll go along with Peak Oil and Olduvai Theorists suggest, and say that I think energy is a more pressing concern than food - though it obviously directly impacts food. We CAN live without fossil fuels and electricity, we can't live without food, this is true. But the bulk of our energy consumption isn't being put toward the production or distribution of food - it's merely wasted in the pursuit of more 'stuff'. That's what's the driving factor (no pun intended) in energy consumption - we want more stuff.

Cheers

Carl

Hey Arthur,

I read and re-read your reply to me above, and we seem to be saying the same thing, as far as I can tell. My suggestion wasn't that overpopulation is driven by politics or economics, but that people going hungry today is largely due to economic and political reasons. You said the same thing "our goal was not to feed people, but to generate power and make profit" - and I'd agree completely with you.

My point about indigenous people is that they seem to be able to live in a way that doesn't destroy their landbase - our lifestyle, at a similar population, destroys the landbase - I'd go so far as to say that our culture is intrinsically destined to destroy the landbase, because we don't value it, we value dollars, which are infinite. Our addiction to 'more' has repeatedly destroyed our landbase - historically, we've managed OK not because we're smart or clever or adaptable, but because we've simply moved over the hill to the next watershed and plundered that one .. and then the next one, and the next one and so on. The problem is, of course, we've gone all the way around, and there's no more hills to ascend and move on to the next landbase. We haven't so much as reached 'carrying capacity' as we've run out of new territory to steal from.

Cheers

Carl

Jim wrote:

"And then there's the honeybee problem. I suspect that if we keep tampering with natural processes, shortage of food could be a factor in limiting human population."

Hey Jim,

Yes, that's a big issue. For some really good reading on this subject, check out "A Language Older Than Words", by Derrick Jensen - he was a beekeeper for a number of years, and talks at length about his experiences and this situation you linked to. That book is one of the best reads I've come across.

Cheers

Carl

Carl:
your original statement referenced the population of the United States. The 50 million number includes Mexico and South America (37 million) leaving 13 million in North America, obviously even less for the present day U.S.
Anyhow, I dont disagree with 99% of what you are saying. But i do say that the 'realities' you talk about are most definitely related to population growth, although obviously that is not the only factor. To some extent, we're more 'environmentally conscious' than we ever were; it would be hard to imagine us directly and intentionally wiping out a species like the Bison for example. Yet, as you acknowlege, the threat is greater today than ever before. At a very basic level, it's driven by simple statistics: hypothetically, if 10% of the population is inherently hell bent on destroying the environment, regardless of what the accepted cultural norms are, and the population doubles, so does that threat!

Although not related to over-population, here's a decent web video describing the problem of over-consumption that I feel is worth mentioning at this time.

http://www.storyofstuff.com/

Oh, and yes, mice do cannabilize their dead quite regularly, even when other food is in abundance.

Arthur, i will definitely have to check into that book. From this discussion, i tend to agree with Rick. We are not 'just another species'. If that were the case, my numerous genetic weaknesses would have doomed me from the start.

Stan, this is actually not an argument that we are different or, as often implied, better than all other species. I know it is often used for that purpose, but it doesn’t stand. Many species help their weaker kin. A wounded lion will be provided for by the rest of the group. A buffalo attacked by a lion is sometimes freed by its group. Some monkeys and apes take care of their weak and there many more examples. We are not the only ones doing that. Obviously it's an Environmental Stable Strategy for these species, including our own, to take care of the weak. The strategy works for all those species, because the physically weak can still contribute to their way of life. The strategy evolved along with, or into the way of life because it finds its way into the next generation better than another strategy. Other species do not care for their weak. That is not because they are evil or just plain dumb, but simply because such a strategy would not work for their way of life. You can bet on it that if it would benefit their survival to take care of the weak, they would. Simply because the trait would find its way into the next generation and grow stronger.

This doesn't set us apart. It is true though that we have carried it to new heights, but that did not happen before the totalitarian agricultural revolution. As small tribes of hunter-gatherers, we already took care of the wounded and the sick, and with our intelligence and resourcefulness we even managed to perform some crude operations. It was useful to do this because it kept elders (with all their knowledge and experience) alive longer and because they physically weak were not useless. In a relatively complex society (compared to something like an earthworm or a snake) there are often tasks that can also be performed by these people. Furthermore, taking care of the weak ones near you made sense because they were almost always next of kin or at least people you could count on to meet time and again for the rest of your life. By lending a hand to a weak person, you would also increase your own chance of survival if you would lose your strength for any reason.

When people started totalitarian agriculture, soon the number of people living together also started to grow. After all, there was plenty of food for that. People had lived in small groups of next of kin for about three million years and naturally all their strategies had evolved along with that habit. Something that evolves during such a long time is not easily lost. Even when groups started growing dramatically and no longer consisted entirely of next of kin, and even when the groups started becoming so big that it could very well be that you would never ever meet a person more than once, the strategies held. They hold to this day. But that is hardly surprising really. It is a strategy that evolved during three million years in a perfectly normal biological way and 10.000 years away from that way of life is not nearly enough to lose it. Interestingly, biologically speaking it might well be interesting for us to reduce the amount of care we give the weak in our culture. But before you make the leap to conclude that this is what makes us special and maybe even better than animals, think and see that this is actually as far from the truth as possible! We don’t care for our weak because we as a species are good and noble (which doesn’t mean that a person cannot be good and noble), but because it is just a part of our genetic and phenetic inheritance which we cannot escape by just changing our way of life practically overnight! In other words: many prefer to see our caring for the weak as a sign that we escaped some laws of nature, while in fact it really shows that we are just as bound by them as any other species on the face of the earth!
Richard Dawkins covers this subject very well in “The God Delusion”.

To show how out of context our rushed development pulled things, we are now so strongly connected to our strategy to care for the weak that, even when they are so sick there is no hope for them anymore and all they do is suffer every second of the day, we artificially keep them alive. Even against their will…

Contrary to what Arthur suggests, I'll go along with Peak Oil and Olduvai Theorists suggest, and say that I think energy is a more pressing concern than food - though it obviously directly impacts food.

Carl, this is a subject where subtle-seeming differences can actually be huge. I am actually agreeing with you. Energy IS a more pressing concern than food. The problem is that as a culture we tend not to agree. This is obvious when you see the standard reaction to famine: we will have to increase food production! As I argued before, increased production is not the solution; it can only lead to problems. I’ll once again take Africa as an example. When Europeans entered the continent they found tribes that managed to live off the land just fine. But because the colonists were certain that the way of agriculture was the only feasible one, they started forcing the tribes to leave their Evolutionary Stable Strategies -proven stable by three million years of 'experimenting' for their modern and thus unproven and, as has become clear by now, Evolutionary Instable Strategies. How instable they are is beautifully, albeit tragically, made clear. The peoples in Africa that adopted totalitarian agriculture managed to grow dramatically within a relatively short time span, all dependent on that totalitarian agriculture for which they sacrificed many natural resources. But, circumstances in Africa are not the same as in the Middle East or Europe. Yet Europeans forced the African people to work exactly like in Europe, because it worked in Europe. This was of course disaster waiting to happen. And it did, often. Crops failed, simply because the circumstances in Africa could not sustain totalitarian agriculture. The land died after a few crops and there is only so much forest to burn for new land that will yield a few more crops. The new methods forced upon them had brought their population level to soaring heights in no time, but now they failed to feed those numbers. And so the people went hungry and died in staggering numbers. The option to go back to their former way of life was taken away as well, because natural resources had been destroyed to work the new way. And so the only way the rich world saw to help them was to send food. A noble cause indeed and meant very well no doubt. Food was seen as the most pressing concern. But unfortunately the food only made the problem worse because it kept the population still much higher than local resources could support. On average, the population actually kept growing, with the help of food sent to them to help… to help them soar ever higher and higher above the carrying capacity.
So, what I’m saying is not that food is the most pressing matter. The problem is that it is perceived to be the most pressing matter. So it would appear that indeed we agree on most things!

Finally, for now, I would like to add my two cents in the discussion about the impact of Natives in general. Often an accusing finger is pointed towards them saying that they had an impact on the world around them. They also killed animals and even led to the extinction of other species. The conclusion then is drawn that they were not all that good after all and so their way of life is not better than ours.

This is false reasoning. Each and every species on the face of the earth has an impact on the world around it. The rise of any species will result in the world around it having to adapt to it. Some species will indeed be able to adapt to the newcomers and survive. Others, however, fail to adapt and go extinct. The rise of the cat family led to the extinction of many species that could not adapt to the relatively sudden presence of these super predators. But many others did. This is not evil, but one of the driving forces behind evolution! So naturally the arrival of humans on any part of the earth had an effect. Some of the species that had lived there for thousands or even millions of years could not adapt and died out, but many others did adapt and managed to live in the circle of life with the newcomers.

This is completely different from the way our culture has wiped out passenger pigeons or the great auk. We did that for profit and to clear the earth for our way of life. The Natives did what they did as just another species making a living within the laws of nature and within the circle of life. Yes, they did have an impact, but no more than any other species.

Hey Stan

Actually, yes and no. I said I've seen pre-European US human population of 50 million, as high as 125 million - I should've said North America, including CA and Mexico - but not all the Americas. Stannard's numbers are in the upper realm, I don't remember exactly which. Other estimates also run much higher than 50 million - Henry Dobbyns and Peter Montague both estimated a human population of over 100 million for the Americas - I don't recall this stuff exactly - it's been a long time since I read any of this stuff. I know Denevan estimated around 50 million in his book on Pre-European native populations, but even he pointed to other scholars who suggested a number double that. I'd say the average population I've seen for pre-European Americas is 70-80 million people. One of the reasons folks use a lower number is to marginalize the native people - it's hard to support the idea that the natives were savages and the Europeans the noble and lofty if the native people were actually more populous.

the point is (a)estimates vary widely, (b) they're inflated or deflated for various agendas, and (c) lots and lots of people were living here and maintained a reasonably harmonious existence within a flourishing landscape - a similar sized population from our culture quickly wrought a massive ecosystemic destruction, which may well be unstoppable.

Even a beaver impacts it's landscape. The point is not the existence of a footprint; only ghosts don't leave a tangible footprint, but the relationship of a culture/species to its landbase.

Hey Jason, thanks for the link to the Story of Stuff - very cool.

Cheers

Carl

To show how out of context our rushed development pulled things, we are now so strongly connected to our strategy to care for the weak that, even when they are so sick there is no hope for them anymore and all they do is suffer every second of the day, we artificially keep them alive. Even against their will…

Completely untrue, but i wont bite since it's way beyond NPN bounds. At any rate, Mice don't do this.

Carl: Of course, the population of Europe at the time was comparable to modern US population. What do you think fundamentally determines "the relationship of a culture/species to its landbase"? Is it just a societal chioice, or is it inherent? To me, Arthur's argument implies the latter. Incidentally, rabbits are overunning this part of Colorado, and if it were up to me we'd reintroduce large numbers of voracious (preferably man-eating) carnivores to help stymie their numbers

Stan Wrote:

"What do you think fundamentally determines "the relationship of a culture/species to its landbase"? Is it just a societal chioice, or is it inherent? To me, Arthur's argument implies the latter. "

Hey Stan

Huge, huge question. I don't see how cultural relationships can be "inherent", if you're implying biological inherency. I suspect they develop over millenia, and have numerous factors that shape them, including but not limited to the cosmologies of the landbase itself.

Cheers

Carl

It may be that there simply is no conceivable, reasonable way to promote sustainable population dynamics. There would certainly be no significant social support for the concept. This thread suggests that a significant % don't see it as a problem or threat, or see it only as a symptom of a larger problem. And this is a group that is arguably most sensitive to these types of issues. When the issue surfaces with a more generic audience, it's particularly disconcerting.

I can't recall how many times people have looked genuinely surprised when they ask how many kids my wife and I have, and we respond "none". A common reply is along the lines of "none yet?". Even more peculiar is the response when we tell them that we have intentionally chosen to not have children - "oh, you'll change your mind; you're just young."

It is the norm to procreate. Genetically, we're programmed to do so. As others have pointed out, some religions explicitly encourage it; others are more subtle in their approach, discouraging contraceptives. The gov't facilitates it via tax credits for dependents. Our friends and neighbors mostly express surprise and even dismay when we explain our choice to not have children; people have actually tried to talk us into having children. Conversations with our non-secular friends can be even more bizarre. Society overwhelmingly expects it, and I suspect that it's a small minority that goes beyond thinking whether or not to procreate and actually gives consideration to a responsible, sustainable number of progeny.

So, with intellectual solutions being very unlikely, we're left with "natural" solutions. But it's unlikely that natural mechanisms of population pressure and control will work on humans like they work on other species. With the possible exception of viruses, there is no species on the planet that behaves - with regards to population growth and resource consumption - like humans.

Most organisms exist in a state of dynamic equilibrium with their environment - natural pressures such as food availability, disease, climate, predators, etc. - act on a population to keep its numbers in balance with the available resources, even as their numbers wax and wane. What's most important is that a population be susceptible to those natural ecological pressures, and respond accordingly.

But humans are arguably impervious, thought it's more accurate to say that we're largely impervious at this moment in time, and eventually nature will exert such a pressure that instead of the ebb and flow of a natural population dynamic, the human population will experience a dramatic "event" that could possibly threaten the entire species. Humans eliminate predators, control climate (heat, AC), fight disease and manufacture (and fight for) food. Wars over food (and water) have always been a part of history. These pressures exist for humans, but we manipulate our environment to bolster our advantage over nature as opposed to being influenced by those pressures and having our numbers remain in balance.

I think balance will be restored at some point, but not on our terms. I think the saying that "the bigger they are, the harder they fall" applies here.

Hey Rick,

A well thought-out and very well articulated post, thanks.

I suspect it can't be a piecemeal solution to the environmental problems we're looking at, and that's one of my worries every time I hear 'over-population' - that if we can lower the population, it'll all be good - that's why I think it's largely a diversionary subject, and one that distracts us from the real problem that underlies it all. If we're to make any real headway with this stuff, we'll no doubt need to make an awful lot of changes to our lives. Lowering the population may be one of those requisite steps, but I think it'll need to be accompanied by greater and more fundamental steps as well - anything else is simply painting the toilet another color. :)

Cheers

Carl

I agree 100% with everything Rick said. It is at least reasonable to get everyone to agree that our rabid consumption and waste is a bad thing, but even hint at the idea that runaway population is harmful, and you get the reaction Rick mentions--its considered anathema, an attack on one's religious or personal makeup. That's why i consider it the more fundamental problem. I was only half-facetious in mentioning the rodent problem--too many rodents can cause environmental harm just as too many humans, the difference being, as RIck points out, that humans are much more adept at preventing nature from intervening (which was my point to Arthur).

Stan, we seem to agree on most things really. Even on part of your last sentence. Indeed, we have been mostly successful in preventing nature from intervening for about 10.000 years now, which has allowed us to grow to such staggering numbers. In fact, it might hold for a few more generations so that we can make it to 12 billion humans. However, I wouldn't call it being adept at preventing nature from intervening. We have merely been successful at circumventing the laws of nature, and doing that for about 10.000 years has made us believe that we made it without nature noticing. But by doing so, we have only broken the law more and more. Nature's laws can be quite patient, but they make no exceptions. They will be enforced sooner or later and the more we broke them, the tougher the punishment will be. I figure we are in for something really rather rude and painful, especially if we keep on breaking.

I'm actually guessing, Stan, that you think along the same lines. If I'm wrong, please let me know.

The thing that keeps me busy these days is the solution. I'm far from convinced that we cannot do anything about it. After all the realisation that this is really wrong is relatively new. So new in fact that most people just aren't even aware of the problem yet. I think it's way too early to give in then already. If you keep in mind that solutions will be painful, but always less painful than what will happen if we continue as we are, it would be very valuable to start looking for the best solution. What that is? I'm not certain yet. It's relatively new stuff for me too.

here are some reports off of cnn related to food,
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/03/24/food.ap/index.html

I do agree with that Arthur, and aplaud your efforts. Kim, stop depressing me
I already mentioned what i feel is the obvious solution, given the history of our society, is to leave the planet. A nice space war with China or other nation should get us started. Ironically, the party i am more inclined to vote for is the one more likely to slash the space budget even further (to feed the children).

For many years I've been a voice against over population and agree with what Rick said and more. The impact of overpopulation varies enormously from country to country or place to place. India versus Austrailia, Manhattan versus southwest Utah.However eventually the impacts will effect not only every living person but also every living creature and lifeform. Our blue water planet has limitations and we humans have long since passed the point of insignificance in our effect on it as was the case just two centuries ago.

Here in the United States, consumption and growth are more destructive problems. I was born in Los Angeles decades ago and today there are three times as many people living in the SoCal metropolis that has had utterly vast destructive influences on the natural landscapes and ecological environments. The dominant attitudes of growth in the economic world is a runaway freight train heading for Dead Man's Curve. Endless new track housing, shopping, and commercial centers at every freeway interchange sprawling out endlessly in our big urban areas is a formula for eventual decline of everyone's lifestyle and irreverseble permanent environmental decline. However the corporations, banks, politician and powers that be in our society would rather stoke the fire of growth and population as much as they can get away with for their own greedy reasons. That is one reason we have such an insane illegal immigration problem that politicians only stick their heads in the sand over or give double talk lip service to because that immigration is stoking fires of both growth and birthrates. All our southern border states are staggering under huge numbers of illegals and all the rest of the country did for years was yawn and laugh at us. Very few of those in power really want it to change at least in their lifetime. Let the next generation make the sacrifices that stable growth necessarily entails. The worldwide population issues are complicated by distances, cultures, and religions beyond what we or the United Nations can ever hope to influence strongly. However we in the United States and other Western Nations ought to provide examples in our own backyards first before expecting the Third World to do the same. ...David

Rick,

You raised a significant bunch of questions. As I was out today photographing and just driving around the Dibalo Range in No. Calif, I was thinking about this thread, and the topic of overpopulation as I think I saw a whopping total of about 5 people out there today.

Several thoughts occured to me. First was Guy's comment on how his little impact compares with those of a large family. The problem Guy, is that we need more people like you, and that can't happen if people like you don't bring up another generation. If the only people that have children are the very ones who don't care nor even think about the environment, then we are all losers. If anyone here has had the great misfortune of seeing the film idiocracy will know what I mean.

I have four children, and thankful for each one of them, and each one of them is getting a very stiff lesson in caring for the Earth, any opportunity I get to instill in them a caring and conservation minded approach to how we live I take it. We too as a family generate three to four times more recycled stuff than garbage.

But the problem of over population is one of an anomoly in the natural world. For the most part, when a given speices out grows its food supply it usually starts to die off until a natural balance is reached. I recall studying such a phenomena with coyote and rabbit life cycles and was able to model it mathematically. It turns out to be a harmonic solution, that is the populations of coytes and rabbits oscillates, when coyote populations are high in a given area, the rabbits are down and vice versa and they don't balance out as one might think, but actually swing back and forth.

The problem is that we don't allow the natural coarse of things take place. We are so averse to dying, to allowing a person to die, to the point that it almost seems illegal to die, that we expend great effort to avert diseases of all types, diseases that would normally and naturally cull the population down. Its to such an extent that I don't think the pharmacutecal industry could let it return, as they would lose too much pocket change - and so in return we are choking ourselves to death. One way or another, our numbers will have to stop growing. We further the problem by continually trying to extend the life span of those who are elderly as well. Billions are spent each year on drugs keeping people alive, even if they are not productive citizens in any way shape or form. I am not saying we should just stop caring for our elders, no not in any way, but death is a part of life. I have lost both of my parents, one to an accident the other to cancer. My mother, God rest her soul, put in her best fight until she could not fight anymore and then allowed herself to bow out gracefully, and we made it as comfortable for her as possible. It hurts when a loved one dies, yes, but it is part of life, it makes living for those who stay behind that much more special. I don't think we in the developed sterilized world value life the way we should, or realize how temporary it is that we live each day to its fullest because we are too concerned with trying to live forever unstead of just living.

The way to "control" the population is not by controling the birth rate, but by just allowing people to just live naturally, with no life extending interventions. Children don't use as much of the resources as a full grown adult.

I don't know - just my blathering for the day as it was on my mind.

I wonder if bacteria have these debates?

Humans are a pesky infection that will likely be gone in the blink of an eye on the geological time scale.

Pete D. not to say we should drag this infection out as long as possible....

That's what GREAT about the USA ,we have theses choices

And with choices come consequences and responsibility to others, no? Sorry - the "it's our right to do whatever we want" mindset isn't really an argument for or against anything. It's an excuse to not think about difficult issues.

Speaking for myself, I'm not judging anyone. 4 kids, 6 kids, 8 kids... doesn't really matter to me; it's water under the bridge. I come from an enormous family - 15 aunts and uncles; 3 brothers and sisters; 60+ cousins and counting. I'm not signing up to have them or myself wiped off the planet.

What matters is how we think and act moving forward, and what's of greatest concern in my mind is the mentality reflected by the quotation above.

I have to agree. Rob, like Rick i dont judge people's choice to have any number of kids.
But i don't understand your reasoning. It may be the unfortunate way you phrased it, perhaps you meant you are "proud of" your kids, rather than proud that you were able to have them??

Since this is a 'hot topic' im surprised it took all the way to David's comment for the subject of illegal immigration to come up. Look what happened when a faction of the Sierra Club bravely tried to introduce a statement against that problem--it was buried by the club's leaders since it was too 'politically incorrect'.

Hey Stan !!!

I meant i was proud to have 4 kids and not in the least ashamed of the number , They are all grown up know and i wish we had a few more . Raising our children have been such a honor and joy . But we do have 6 great grand-kids ( and counting ) .

I consider my family the greatest accomplishment of my life , and have taken great care in teaching them to enjoy this beautiful country . Every time i see a new born baby it just amazes me how very special they are . Its a shame that we have so many being born by parents who don't take care of them , drug addict parents , or parents who get more welfare $$$$$ for every one they have

Illegal aliens , now there is a real pet peave of mine !!!


Hey Pete D.!!!

Humans are a pesky infection ??? Please Please Please speak for you self , i sure don't consider us or myself that !!

Take care and buy the way , I sure love you photos , good work job
RobK.

Nobody even bothers to really figure out if the world has too much population or has a few people consuming too much?

You could solve all of Africa's hunger and starvation problems if all of the food that Americans throw into their garbage cans is instead sent to Africa.

It's amazing to find a whole bunch of people (part of the existing "excess population") wishing that others weren't around so that they could enjoy life a bit more ... how about setting an example before wishing for the non-existence of other people?

I am 6'5 235 lbs and eat everything on my plate !!!!!! No wasted food by me .

I eat as much as two people . My boy are both 6 '4 and eat like a horse . So my two boys and i eat as much as 6 other people , What do you think will be next , no big eaters allowed ?? Do i have to tell one of my boys he has to go ??? Sorry Jason or Cody your eating way tooo much food !!!!!!! When i got married should i have signed something stating i would have only one child because a may have big children that eat too much . Asians can have more , Samoans have to have less ,short people can have more also.



RobK .

I do much better than that overpopulation, i always eat my plate, I also have only one car,,how many you and your wife and your litter have, ,,,, i have no offspring to suck up more air, or to drive aroiund to soccer, music lessons and ball games at six different balls fields which sucks up gas, and they are gonna need lots more paper from trees to do there school work and need land ot build there houses and there childrens houses which will require destruction of more farm, timber and wild lands,,, and on and on and on, ITS NOT JUST ABOUT FOOD!!! its destruction of the resoursces we have. In my opinion, all this talk about food is a sideline,,just look at the maps of africa and south america over the last 30 or so years,, rainforest are gone, to make room for addtional people who need to subsistence farm ,, its the destruction of all the other resources trees, water, excessive groundwater needed to make corn for ethanol, how about a million barrells of oil each year to make the plastic bottles you drink your filtered water with,,this is in addtiion to all the food.

We always tell the current president, about the kyoto treaty and clean air, that we should sign the dang thing, they say, lets as americans show by example,, dont smoke up the air, etc,, well, we should also show by example that rampant breeding in the human form is wrong to, so why not lead by example here,, its arrogant and selfish, practise whatever form of population control fits your bill, but at least do it,, you may not be around to see it. but your children and your grandchildren will certainly see it,, all this talk of cloning people, hell we cant feed and house what we have,, do we need more body part clones to make us live to 110 years old, that too, is where many problems lie, we arent dying off as fast as we used to...so if you want to have litters of kids, dont dare tell someone they need to be driving a vw or a prius, or turn down there heat or air,,,

Come on Kim !!!

your litter ,?? no offspring to suck up more air, or to drive around to soccer, music lessons and ball games ??? rampant breeding ??? Kind of rude don't you think .

I am sorry ,but it seems like a very very sad lonely life to me, with out children . I just could not imagine it. But if that what you want , good !!! If it makes you feel good having only one car , not having children and not enjoying fun activities with them and seeing them grow , For each his or her own . But please don't expect , or tell me to do the same .

Also please don't say "we"' always tell the current pres to sign the Kyoto treaty , i have never asked him to and i am glad he did not . Not every one thinks it's a good thing . I know that's shocking !!

I know you and i , and many on the forum will not agree on this . But that's ok with me . I am probably way out numbered "HERE" on this web site , but that's ok . I hope that because i have 3 cars , 4 children , 6 grand-children , love to hunt and not necessarily agree with all the environmental issues discussed on the forum , that i am still welcome .

Kim , I checked out your photos on you WWW site and they are awesome !!! Very nice !!!!!




Rob

I am sorry ,but it seems like a very very sad lonely life to me, with be with out children . I just could not imagine it

Bingo! That is why i am of the opinion that there is no solution to the problem, short of leaving the planet. Having children is primarily a selfish decision. Note that i am not criticizing this decision, since living is primarily selfish too and im not advocating suicide!
Im just poinitng out that humans have an inherent need to procreate, that cant be easily curbed. Rob's stated motivations are about as noble as they come (and yes, you are very welcome here, Rob, so long as you limit your exclamations to three !!! ) but here are some other reasons people have kids (primarily from a male perspective):
1) to live vicariously through them
2) to attain what they see as a form of immortality by advancing their genes
3) to fulfill perceived religious obligations
4) to get someone to take care of them in old age
5) financial reasons (note the food stamps issue mentioned by Rob is not urban legend--i routinely witnessed this phenomena as a Public Defender in NY)
6) Because they are miserable without kids.
I could mention many more, but you get the point.
As Kim correctly point out, more people = more loss of environment. It's a simple equation. We can't convince people to live in crowded conditions, so sprawl is inevitable. Anyone who has seen what has happened near any major metro area (Seattle, Srn CA, the CO front range etc) knows the results of increased population. It has nothing to do with food or consumerism (you still with us, Carl?) it's the bottom line!!! (would add one more ! but dont want to be a hypocrit )

You could solve all of Africa's hunger and starvation problems if all of the food that Americans throw into their garbage cans is instead sent to Africa.

No, no, no, this is not true! What is true is that you could feed all present people in Africa with the food that is available, but this would not as such solve the hunger and starvation problem. In fact, it would not only feed the people, but also the problem. Why? Because our culture has imposed its ways of agriculture onto people in Africa (and everywhere else). This gave them a lot of food for a while, which made the population grow very rapidly. However, to maintain production, they had to burn forests and destroy natural resources until nothing is left. After all, the ground there was not like the ground in Europe and other moderate places in the world and was exhausted within a few years. That is roughly where we are now. The result of all this is a severely damaged continent with an explosively grown population that can now no longer feed itself and survives only on the food that is sent to them. Unfortunately, one of the unintended side effects of sending food is that the population keeps growing while nothing much is being done about the fact that the once plentiful continent can no longer feed the people present. Continuing this way can NEVER lead to the solution to the real problem. The real solution is a smaller population. No, that does not mean that I advocate leaving the people in Africa to die off by the million to go towards a sustainable population size again. I advocate looking for a solution to the problem of overpopulation on a global scale. No, that does not mean that I advocate letting millions of people die around the world, but that something has to be done to reduce the growth. Please, if you don't immediately see the difference, think about it for a while!

We either reduce the growth, or it will be done for us by nature's laws. THAT is the choice that we have.

It's amazing to find a whole bunch of people (part of the existing "excess population") wishing that others weren't around so that they could enjoy life a bit more ... how about setting an example before wishing for the non-existence of other people?

Saying that wishing for the non-existence of others is a bad thing is ridiculous. It is the same as saying that every time a couple makes love with any kind of contraceptives is bad because it denies an eggcell and a spermcell life. There is no suffering in not being conceived! However, there IS suffering in conceiving too many people. We live that suffering and it is only getting worse at the moment.

Overpopulation is a direct (although often unintended) consequence of totalitarian agriculture, just like the destruction of natural resources, the distinction between rich and poor, greed for power, richess and thus economic growth. Totalitarian agriculture is the source for all these problems, so if we really want to make big changes, it is totalitarian agriculture that we need to target and thoroughly change! For an explanation of this, either scroll up and read my previous posts, or -much better still- read Daniel Quinn's "Ishmael" and "The Story of B".

Rob, you are confused between the distinction of having children and rasing them.
Note i never siad being selfish was a bad thing (although its commonly interpreted that way), just that the motivation is self-centered rather than on some altruistic goal. I just find it very hard to believe anyone has children in order to be "altruistic" (unless your genes are just so fantastic you figure you're doing the world a great favor). But i dont have children, so maybe you understand better than i. However, there are many ways one can be altruistic without having children! How we treat each other is definitely important (and i love your photo, BTW) but saving trees, caribouo, and whales are very much related to how we treat people!!!!!!!! My quality of life and everyone elses depends on it most directly.

Rob, thank you for sharing this part of your story. My heart goes out to you and your mother. Thank you for posting that very beautiful picture. I have done a fair share of care-giving myself the past year or so, under which my photography business suffered quite a lot. Even though my situation is likely not as tough as yours, I do understand what you must be going through at least a bit.

If you don't want to go on with this thread, I'll understand, but I hope to clarify a few things still.

In no way do the things I say mean that I don't care about people. I would say that the reason why I will not have children is really that I would care too much for them to live in the coming period. Almost as important is that I do not want to contribute to the problem of overpopulation. For me, that is the opposite of being selfish. I love children (have been not too far from a situation where I could have adopted two) and would love to try my hands at being a father. I actually think I might be good at it, at least a whole lot better than my own old man (my parents are going through divorce right now). If I would only look at my own wants, I would do all I could to get a nice family going (finding a wife that would be crazy enough to be happy with my strange personality would be a first condition however ). However, I think that such a decision would only lead to a very tough life for my descendants. I live in a world of roughly six billion people now, with plenty of problems caused by overpopulation already. My kids (and quite likely me myself too) would live in a world with 12 billion. The problems already here will not be lessened by that growth. My kids would not only contribute to those problems, but would have to live through them as well. This might sound like doom thinking to some, but having studied biology and some parts of the history of mankind, I don't see a good future for mankind and many other species on the earth. I hope with all hopes that I am wrong, but can't really imagine...

So please don't think that I don't care about people, and even less that I begrudge unborns the right to live. It's quite the opposite: I want everyone to have a good life. But if the only life ahead is one of hardship and possibly the end of civilization as we know it when the laws of nature finally catch up with us to control our population to something that is well below the earth's carrying capacity after our greedy culture has completely destroyed every natural resource that was available to us, I would rather spare them that. And because you can't hurt someone that does not exist, I see nothing at all like sin in not getting my own kids.

I hope that this has dealt with the idea you might have had that I don't care about people and might even think badly of you for being so happy with your children and caring so much about them. Neither of those things is true. I think it's the same for everyone who worries about overpopulation. If they wouldn't care about people, they might just as well content in sitting back and watch our culture destroy itself by plodding on on the way we are going. It will probably not last too long. Instead, these people try to change our ways, so that we can avoid catastrophe. We care!

But, however much I care for people, I will not deny that I care at least as much for the natural world. There is life after humanity and I can have perfect peace with the thought that one day (sooner or later) there will no longer be people. The world will still be a place of wonder for the species alive at that time. The world will not be a lesser place without people. That's the biologist in me talking though and not so much the family member and friend of my friends.

This is complex stuff and a painful problem we're talking about. It's bound to have some very painful ideas in it, and plenty taboos as well that our culture instilled in us. To find a way out, for the best of all people (and most other species) alive today, they will have to be lived and dealt with. Either by our own design, or that of the laws of nature.

The experience of having and raising children can still be had, even while contributing to a steady or declining population. Something less than ~2.4 kids, and a family achieves both. It's not an "either/or" situation.

Whether or not more than 2.4 is selfish is debatable (I'd argue that it is), but what's not debatable is that it is contributing to a very real and largely unacknowledged problem - we will get to a point where the planet simply cannot support more people, no matter how well we treat each other.

i would clarify,, given that we know there is limited resource availalbe, to continue the pursuit of large numbers of offspring is just ingnoring the facts,, and imo,, no better than criticizeing someone who drives big cars or other abuses of resource.. its just that simple..

Kim
That old saying ( it's not what you said , but how you said it )comes to mind . Rude is Rude , just that simple !!! You will never convince anyone with name calling/criticism like that. You just come across as being very bitter . But it probably does not matter here , you just singing to the choir .
One thing about people who think like you , you are always going to be out numbered in your way of thinking . My wife and i have 4 children , 2 out of the 4 have 6 children ( so far ). So , just in my family alone , you are out numbered 12 to 1 .

P.S
Thank you very much for leaving more room , and resources for my family/littler and i !!

RobK

Stan wrote:

'We can't convince people to live in crowded conditions, so sprawl is inevitable. Anyone who has seen what has happened near any major metro area (Seattle, Srn CA, the CO front range etc) knows the results of increased population. It has nothing to do with food or consumerism (you still with us, Carl?) it's the bottom line!!! (would add one more ! but dont want to be a hypocrit )'

Hey Stan,

I'm around, checkin in. I doubt I can add much more though. I've seen pretty clearly urban sprawl, i lived in Atlanta for 15 years .. the fastest deforestation the world has seen happened right there in the late 90s. But it's TOTALLY fuelled by our consumptive culture. You ever see Baraka, or Koyaanisqatsi -- check 'em out sometime.

Cheers

Carl

Mein Gott! I didn't think anyone used the word consumptive - exceptin' me. I love words, but that is only because they are useful.

Pete D. ... apparently not frequenting the forums that use consumptive and other such high faluttin'.......

Pretty sick and heartless to even suggest that the only less food (starvation) will limit population growth. Here in the US we were at one time a couple of decades ago headed toward zero population growth. We would have leveled off at some point (maybe now?), but instead we filled the gap with the highest exodus of immigration in our history these recent years. But, growth rate can be halted, and without starving people, theoretically, as we ALMOST demonstrated. Having fewer babies and at an older age is the key. But now, we encourage people to come here, and then we pay them to have babies. (You get more of which you subsidize) In all our compassion, as well (not just immigrants) we pay 18 year olds ,etc) to have babies (thru Medicaid, and mandatory indigent care which shifts costs), absolving responsibilty from the boyfriends or the parents. (The parents can be affluent, but since the 18 year old is of age, she can claim poverty.) Some day this century we'll surpass half a billion, the West will be jammed with cars and subdivisions, and we will wonder how it all happened. Must have been the big evil corporations and developers, not us.

Stan Rose >>>"Since this is a 'hot topic' im surprised it took all the way to David's comment for the subject of illegal immigrations to come up. Look what happened when a faction of the Sierra Club bravely tried to introduce a statement against that problem--it was buried by the club's leaders since it was too 'politically incorrect'.

Actually Stan its worse than that. Today pro illegal immigrant have become so entrenched in the Sierra Club as well as the Democratic Party that they seem to use the club's machinery to promote their political issues:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bushs-border-fence-destroys-wilderness-804005.html

Why in the world would the Sierra Club otherwise use such stupid arguments against building the border fence? In fact why ought they be involved in that issue at all? I'm sure many of their members would disapprove. Obviously they are grasping at anything they can use. The reality is the illegal alien trash and environmental abuse at border areas is well documented. Though the club has and continues to do much good, it has also become a hotbed of legal manipulators that use it for their own purposes that in some cases most club members would likely not approve of if they were aware of what was occuring. On the larger issue of overpopulation and resulting growth and sprawl how can they deny how that has impacted Southern California? By sticking their head in the sand where the stench of political correctness is to their liking.
...David

Pretty sick and heartless to even suggest that the only less food (starvation) will limit population growth. Here in the US we were at one time a couple of decades ago headed toward zero population growth.

Mark, you seem to have missed a very important part of that suggestion, namely that it naturally should not be a very sudden decrease of food leaving millions without food overnight. I also argued that a relatively slow reduction of food production, along with a fairer sharing of the available food (!!) would not result in hunger. Ideally this should be combined with slowly but steadily decreasing the number of miles that food has to travel before it arrives at the place where it is consumed. The absolutely ridiculously long transport chains that exist today cost shockingly much water, oil and polution. Besides, they give rise to many painful situations in poor areas where food is produced for the rich west, leaving the people in the land itself hungry. THAT is sick and heartless, yet most of us daily consume food that was produced that way. We might not realise that, but we still contribute to keeping that practise going and even strengthening it.

Just for argument's sake, suppose that the rich parts of the world would stop using third world countries for cheap production of food, thus leaving that valuable food for the people living there and producing it. That alone would create a much fairer sharing of the world's resources. It would make those poor countries more independant and they would require less food aid too. It would certainly 'untwist a whole lot in this twisted world'. The rich countries would then have to start producing their own food again after rethinking how to do that most wisely.

Honestly, if you still think suggestions like this are "pretty sick and heartless", please let me know. I understand that these things may seem that, but really, they aren't. Much the contrary! In the meantime, I really really suggest Daniel Quinn's "Ishmael" and "The Story of B" again, because they do a terrific job at explaining all this and so much more (or look at www.ishmael.org).

Your next point that the US was headed towards zero growth, along with quite a few other countries in the rich 'developed' west in fact, is obviously meant as an argument that population growth is not controlled by the amoung of food available. Immigration and policies to let the immigrants get children have spoiled that, as you say. David also talks about immigration.

But I'd say that migration is irrelevant here, at least when you look on a global scale. And I'm convinced that the global scale is the only one that makes sense here. Look at that almost zero growth of the US and a few other countries. It's tempting to say that they produced more food than last year, but managed not to translate that into population growth. However, what then happened with the food they produced but didn't use themselves? They sold it to feed people in other countries. And if the math would be done, it would show that the overproduction of that country did in fact in the end lead to population growth after all. In the olden days, when communities or maybe even countries used only the food they produced themselves, it made sense to look on a local scale, but not anymore. This development led to the long chains and the unfair sharing and... to wealth in some parts and famine in others. That has to go overboard!

Once again, if you only glance at these thoughts, they might seem sick and heartless, but they are exactly the opposite!

Arthur, I have to cordially disagree. But I have yet to look at the link, and will later. But I already have great skepticism and distrust of anyone promoting the argument that treats people like wildlife biology- ie less food equals less reproduction, and alas less pop. growth. This kind of 'engineering' sounds pretty scary.
I used the US zero population growth (what we almost had, anyway) as an example to contradict that blank statement. It is theoretically possible to have zero pop growth without limiting the food supply. And heaven knows, we have plenty of food here. (We just get bigger ) We import food because it makes a lot more sense in the market economy, for us and for them. Why not trade, and we all fair better.
And another, invariably when the discussion goes to what the US may be doing right, the discussion shifts quickly to the world in general. We found a way to set zero population growth in our own country, without producing less food, while importing food as well, and without any dire measures. It was cultural, not biological. BTW, the latest I hear in wildlife biology, even the animal kingdom will eventually limit population growth because of behavior, and not food, after a certain limit. Food supply is not the ultimate factor.
Now back to our own growth, which is mostly fueled by immigration over the last few decades, the highest in history for our country and probably anywhere in the world at anytime. Just think in Japan, a few years ago, about three (yes a total of 3) illegal immigrants came in from China (or somewhere). It was like a national crisis for them. For the US it's like 3 a second, and we don't care. Plus we pay them to have more babies. To make it a little more clear, there would have been X number of people in the total world population, but because we in the US, and all our compassion, subsidize people to have more babies, thus increasing the net number of people on earth. Ultimately that is not good for our country's health, we'll grow physically leaps and bounds. From a naturalist's, conservationist's and wildlife photographer's perspective, we will lose a lot of what we still have in the American West, and it will be irreverible. I'd love to see millions of buffalo roam, more grizlies, and wolves on the federal lands of the West. But there will be so many people here with other ideas, that you can kiss a lot of opportunities good-bye.

Mark, thanks for your cordial reply . I'm sorry that I won't be able to answer your post in full now and probably not within the coming three weeks either because I will be out of the country and not near internet for a while most likely. So here's just a small thought to keep things busy:

But I already have great skepticism and distrust of anyone promoting the argument that treats people like wildlife biology- ie less food equals less reproduction, and alas less pop. growth. This kind of 'engineering' sounds pretty scary.

We seem to be on completely opposite lines here, cordially fortunately! While it seems to be obvious to you that humans are not wildlife because you say we know better and can guide our actions, the first thing I think is that we are just another species that will find out eventually that we too cannot help to obey the laws of nature. The thought that we are somehow better, wiser etc. is what I find scary. If we really would be better and wiser, we wouldn't be in this dire situation now. Many of our actions defy the laws of nature... for now. But they cannot last because they are just Evolutionary Instable Strategies. More food = population growth is one of the laws we can't seem to escape. It's been true for as long as people have been around and I hold up my point that it doesn't work to look at just a single country in this case. However, the achievements of one country COULD give a hopeful sign for what is possible in the whole world. If food is spread out more evenly, and when we start seeing we don't need more and more food to feed the same number (or hopefully a declining number) of people (!!), then we might yet be able to turn overpopulation around in a peaceful and relatively painless way.

It's a given that there was enough food to feed the people present now. After all, they are alive. Why make more food? To feed the hungry? Not necessary. Why not? Because the rich would do well to lose some weight so that the hungry can eat. You give a lot of credit to the importing (and thus exporting) of food, but don't do that too easily because it DOES lead to dire circumstances in the poor areas where food is produced to feed livestock -not the people living there- so that we can eat more meat for example. It's always about more, but more food is not needed. So why would we want to increase food production? What on earth for if not for population increase? Well, that's just a by-product of course of wanting ever more profit, but unfortunately a rather important and lethal one.

I'll see where this is in three weeks from now!

Cheers,

Heaven knows both China and India have always had a scarcity of food, yet their populations grow radically. On the contrary the indigenous populations of western countries do not grow without immigration, yet their food supply is over abundant. It seems axiomatic to me that this notion that we can control food supply to control human population is pure bunk.

Agreed, one of the prominent theories in wildlife biology is that populations of animals will increase with the increase of food supply. That is a well-known theory, and I don't deny otherwise. But, it's a general theory with faults, at least I can attest, from another recent postulation that has come about.. That is because even with unlimited increases in food, some if not most species will actually reach a maximum density point, and the species limit their own populations. People don't follow this principle probably because of technology.

Last I heard, the US was an exporter of meat (ie beef), not an importer. We are not, as far as I know, exporting feed for cattle to poor countries instead of people, so we can import their beef. Is that what you're saying?

To show we are in agreement in some areas, yes I would like to see a stablization or better, a decrease in the world population, and I do think as well, we have had this war against nature which has been a huge mistake, imo.

Mark, maybe I should start at it from a different direction then. Would you agree that we do not neet more food (production) to feed the people present today, but rather a more fair distribution? Forget about what you deem possible or not, but do you see that there IS more than enough food to feed all people on this planet. Keep in mind that only the UK throws away 550.000 chickens every single day that are not sold, to name but one small example in but one country.

Acknowledging that fact will make it absolutely clear that it would be really odd to look to the production of even more food to solve the problem of famine. What on earth is there to support the idea that all this extra food will end up with the hungry? Nah, rather than that, the UK will have to throw away a million chickens every single day. After all, that is how it got to that staggering number in the first place: step by step. And together with all other countries that produce -or have produced for them by poor countries- more than they need, it will throw away more food than goes to food aid daily. This food is almost completely lost. It will rot in landfills or be burned.

Daniel Quinn writes in "Beyond Civilization":"
"Right now our food race is rapidly converting our planet's biomass in human mass. This is what happens when we clear a piece of land of wildlife and replant it with human crops. This land was supporting a biomass comprising hundreds of thousands of species and thens of millions of individuals. Now all the productivity of that land is being turned into human mass, literally into human flesh. Every day all over the world diversity is disappearing as more and more of our planet's biomass is being turned into human mass. This is what the food race is about. This is exactly what the food race is about: every year turning more of our planet's biomass into human mass."

I find it an interesting observation that throwing away enormous amounts of food that could be extremely well used in other parts of the world is actually a good way for a rich country to show that it is wise enough to not let a huge food production lead to population growth. In a way though, that is what you are saying, is it not?

Interestingly I indeed think that we agree on many points, just not exactly in the same way. I agree with you about the maximum density point, but I think that it is definitely valid for humans too. Technology doesn't resolve us from that natural law, but it rather makes it possible to make that maximum density point a lot higher. We will still reach it though and I think that we are very close to it. In fact it could be argued that we are over the point already if you would see things like the current troubling news about food shortage as signals for it.

Rather than limiting our population knowingly, we are so stuck in our ways that we go on the only way we know: to produce ever more food for ever more people. This will push us over the maximum density point only further, which will make the inevitable 'limiting' only come down harder on top of us, in which case it will not be a process we control, but one that is forced upon us by natural laws. It would be extremely ugly.

In what I can sort of imagine must be starting to sound almost obsessed, I do want to express the hope that all those thinking about these subjects will at least give Daniel Quinn's book "Ishmael" a fair chance. You will be surprised by the answers it gives to some questions that we are programmed to answer completely the wrong way by our culture of totalitarian agriculture.

In fact, I recently found that a recorded version of the book is available online. Please do check it out here.

For the point of the direct link between more food and an increasing population, I would like to point to the following abstract:

Russell Hopfenberg & David Pimentel

Abstract:
Human population growth has typically been seen as the primary causative factor of other ecologically destructive phenomena. Current human disease epidemics are explored as a function of population size. That human population growth is itself a phenomenon with clearly identifiable ecological/biological causes has been overlooked. Here, human population growth is discussed as being subject to the same dynamic processes as the population growth of other species. Contrary to the widely held belief that food production must be increased to feed the growing population, experimental and correlational data indicate that human population growth varies as a function of food availability. By increasing food production for humans, at the expense of other species, the biologically determined effect has been, and continues to be, an increase in the human population. Understanding the relationship between food increases and population increases is proposed as a necessary first step in addressing this global problem. Resistance to this perspective is briefly discussed in terms of cultural bias in science.

Unfortunately I have not been able to find the whole article yet, at least not a free version that used to be available once, but if you look a bit further, you'll find that more research is being done on this subject.

By increasing food production for humans, at the expense of other species, the biologically determined effect has been, and continues to be, an increase in the human population.

I think there's a fundemental problem with the concept that abundant food causes population growth. An ample food supply can "enable" population growth by increasing the carrying capacity, but I see no way that it could "cause" it.

Yes and no, Rick. Firstly, even if that was the mechanism, the effect would still be the same, right? If you enable population growth, it will happen. Despite some numbers of countries that seem to go against that rule, I insist that the only right way to look at this is global numbers. Global food production increases every year, and so does the global population. Having a few countries stand still or even decrease their numbers does not change the total numbers. The numbers go up and up and since people are made of food, the link should seem quite obvious.

Bringing in the carrying capacity does not really work though. It is well possible for a population to grow beyond the carrying capacity if they can defy the laws of nature for a while. But no, it simply is not possible to defy the laws of nature, but some laws are just a bit slow to catch up with the ones who break them. You can turn an enormous part of the other species on earth into food for your own species, which in fact only decreases the carrying capacity ultimately, but nonetheless you keep being fed while edible species remain. But of course in the end some species will not be able to stand the pressure and start dying out. Very clearly that is where we are now. We are simply eating up the world, and while there is food (but also other resources like oil) enough, we can continue to grow and eat up the world ever faster... until we run out. The world cannot support the combination of our numbers and our way of life. We have not in fact increased the carrying capacity.

Rick Dunn wrote:

'I think there's a fundemental problem with the concept that abundant food causes population growth. An ample food supply can "enable" population growth by increasing the carrying capacity, but I see no way that it could "cause" it.'

hey Rick

Isn't it a moot point though? If abundant food consistently enables population growth, and our agricultural industry consistently produces excessive food supplies, I don't think it's unreasonable, in context, to argue causation. Further, there are a number of species of animals who's reproductive biology is intrinsically tied to food supplies - lower food supplies can mean a almost indefinite gestation period, while abundant food sources yield increased fertility (my terminology might not be spot on, but that's the gist of it, as I understand the process).

Cheers

Carl
Guided Hiking and Backpacking Trips in Alaska.
Stock Nature Photos.

There's an enormous difference between correlation and causation. Chase the wrong one, and you can compound a problem instead of solve it. There are many things that increase every year along with population. Most or none of them cause population growth; many are consequences of population growth. I'd argue - and I believe - that food production is driven by population growth (ie., demand), not the other way around.

With regards to the statement, "if you enable population growth, it will happen"... that's the tragic problem, I believe. For all animals except humans, I think that statement could be valid. But, unlike other animals, we have the ability to reason... and choose. We've uniqely, even if temporarily, nullified nature's mechanisms for population balance; we can now choose to procreate at unsustainable rates or we can choose to procreate more responsibly.

I think the food thing is a hopeful distraction to the inconvenient reality - we'll either figure out a way to achieve sustainable populations by choosing to procreate wisely, or we'll out-pace resources like food and fuel at which time nature will exert its influences once again. My money is on the latter - I have little hope that, globally, people 1) understand the issue and 2) would voluntarily choose to limit themselves to one or two children.

Rick, indeed this food/population story is a tough one for cause or consequence, correlation or causation. Traditionally it is indeed held that food production follows population growth. That's what you learn in school, right?

So, do you think that the enormous population explosion in Africa (for example) came first, only to be followed by food production, interestingly and coincidentally enough right at the time that colonists pushed them into the Western way of agriculture? It might not have been that we introduced totalitarian agriculture there, causing a population explosion and then, because this agriculture wasted the land, causing enormous famine in the increased popluation?

Or do you consider the driving force behind the wish for farmers to produce more crop, for stockfarmers to produce more meat and for supermarket chains to grow and sell more foods to be the fact that people need to be fed? Or would their wish to grow and/or sell more be very much more directly connected to the wish to simply earn more money?

Once more I argue that there WAS enough food to feed the people present at this time. After all, they are alive. Better still, IF the food is spread evenly, there would not be famine anymore. If you see this, then what on earth would you want to increase food production for? What, besides more profit for the production line and its owners, is the result of producing more food than you need? More human mass, and -in some countries where the population is relatively stable- enormous amounts of food being thrown away daily (like the 550.000 chickens in the UK).

I will grant you the point that people here and there are making a choice not to increase their local population. Yes, we can make that choice. But before the whole world will be ready to make that choice, there will be no food left. It doesn't matter if a handful of countries makes this choice if the rest of the world's population is still climbing steeply. And how will you make that large part of the world stop procreating while in the current system they see that more children are a better bet for having a good old age themselves? How will you force them to procreate wisely? Moreover, how will you force them to procreate wisely while there is enough food to always keep increasing (and there IS... if a population is increasing, there obviously must be food, because people are made of it!).

This seems like a deadlock, given the need many people in poor countries see for more children as a sort of insurance for their own old age. But that is not something that loads more food is going to change. People having to live in such a system will gladly take that food and live better for a while, but its ultimate result will be still more people, because it enables them to have more children and more of these children survive. Before long, the problem will be back, but with even more people going hungry. To solve this, the having of as many children as possible as a survival strategy will have to become unnecessary. If providing ever more food is not the answer, then it has to be something completely different. It would help a lot more if these people wouldn't have to depend solely on their own children for support, but on their country. Not more food, but better circumstances. Only focusing on more food will only make the problem worse. More food feeds the problem more than it feeds the people.

With regards to the statement, "if you enable population growth, it will happen"... that's the tragic problem, I believe. For all animals except humans, I think that statement could be valid. But, unlike other animals, we have the ability to reason... and choose. We've uniqely, even if temporarily, nullified nature's mechanisms for population balance; we can now choose to procreate at unsustainable rates or we can choose to procreate more responsibly.

And I'd like to react to this point as well, after all. I think this argument all too often is used to credit us humans, while in fact I would almost rather see it as a point of weakness. Because, what have we chosen since we started practicing totalitarian agriculture? When the choice became available by enormous new amounts of food, we chose to start procreating INresponsibly. Unlike our ancestors in the almost three million years before that and unlike all other species, we chose to start procreating inresponsibly. That does not sound like something we ought to be proud of. If we would somehow return to a responsible way of life (I wish we can), I would almost suggest that we do that with a heavy blush of shame on our cheeks for making such enormous mistakes for so long than with boysterous shouting of "Victory" and slapping each other on the shoulders, congratulating ourselves with a great achievement; an achievement that comes naturally to all other species and all other human cultures (those that do not practise totalitarian agriculture) in past and present...

Rick, indeed this food/population story is a tough one for cause or consequence, correlation or causation. Traditionally it is indeed held that food production follows population growth. That's what you learn in school, right?

Having had a bit more time to think about this, I want to pursue the thought a bit further and rephrase a few things.

I think that the understanding that food production follows population growth is merely a relic from times before the totalitarian agricultural revolution. Then indeed it was true that food was hunted, gathered and sometimes cultivated only in those quantities that were needed to feed the people present. Of course it wouldn't make sense to spend more time hunting, gathering or cultivating than needed, because the extra food would just go to waste. You might argue that this extra work could be put into making more children. However, this was not necessary. These people depended on their tribe for their survival, not only on their children. Only the tribe as a whole could go hungry, because they would share. And if there was enough food, then everyone would have enough. Making as many children as possible was not a good strategy. It would only mean much more work that would not increase their chance of survival.

When totalitarian agriculture started coming up, food production was by default first to make profit. Eventually it grew into the food industry that we know today. This industry is not one that keeps an eye on the people in the world, occassionally saying: "hey guys, unfortunately we can't keep production levels where they are right now, because a few people over there in the world are going hungry. Alas, we'll have to increase production. Oh well, at least we'll make some extra money in doing so." No way... The industry is one that kicks itself in the butt continuously to increase production to make more money! Like argued before, the "side-effect" is more people. This of course is good for industry, because that means that there are more customers.

But nonetheless, of course the food industry is much better of with the supposed fact still in place that their every-increased production is without doubt a good thing, because it feeds people that go hungry.... It's nothing but a lie, or a dangerous misconception at best!

Could you please define "totalitarian agriculture?"

Hi Jason,

The answer is not too easy. I can give some definitions, and will do that below, but there would be no better way to really come to grips with the term than reading the books written by the person who thought of the term: Daniel Quinn. If the things mentioned in this whole thread keep you busy even just a few seconds every now and then, I can advise nothing better than to read his books "Ishmael", "The Story of B" and "My Ishmael". Just in case, a recorded version of "Ishmael" is available here. Quinn has been thinking and researching many of the problems mentioned in this thread, as well as many other subjects, and his ideas are nothing short of revolutionary. Even if you will not agree with everything he says, your view of the world will never be the same after you read those books.

Before giving a definition, you need to know that agriculture has been around a long, long time before totalitarian agriculture came into being. It was developed by hunter gatherer tribes all over the globe, but most certainly not by all. For those tribes that started doing this, it was a way to have a relatively certain source of food that they liked, on top of all the other food that the world around them had to offer them. However, none of these tribes started depending on agriculture completely. For them, the reasons not to make that step were beyond obvious because getting an amount of food by practising agriculture takes much more time and effort than acquiring that same amount by hunting and gathering. For them, spending more time on agriculture would just mean having to work a LOT harder, leaving less time to live, while you can just find food in your surroundings as well.

So agriculture for these people was (and is) not a very intensive thing. It provided only a part of their food, and it would not be worth the time and trouble to intensify the process. In contrast, totalitarian agriculture is all about intensifying and, as Quinn says, about production to the max. To achieve this, the following characteristics developed:

*food dedicated to human use may be denied to all other species;
*any species that would compete for human food may be destroyed at will;
*food needed by other species may be destroyed at will to make room for the production of human food.

These rules were completely new. They forget that all those other species are most definitely important. The rules sound rather terrible to me, and selfish and shortsighted too. But take a minute to consider and realise that this is exactly the way the agriculture around us works. Ideally a farmer only has one kind of plant on one field. Any other plant is rooted out or poisoned. Any animal found eating the crop is chased off or killed. Livestock too is protected that way. Any animal that would prey on it, has to be killed. Moreover, any plant species that the stock does not like, has to be rooted out too, in favour of plants that the animals do eat and grow fat on. Cultivating wilderness into farmland is also a good thing (take some time to think about the word "cultivating", which sounds almost holy). Wilderness by defition is useless and dangerous, while farmland is productive and good.

Of course views on this are changing somewhat in the past decades, but they most certainly have been the driving forces behind all the development that has made the world into what it is now: a place where many species have gone extinct because they did not seem directly useful for agriculture; where almost no place has not been touched and changed by humans to accommodate at least some form of development and cultivation; and where balance is utterly lost.

Still, when you hear about tribal people of past and present living sustainably without any trouble and having plenty of time to live the way they wanted to, you may find it sounding like idealistic bogus. If so, just try and consider that this might be a myth that our culture has raised. We like to think of ourselves as developed way beyond that tribal time. Moreover, we have a strong tendency to find the tribal people that can still be found today undeveloped. Often the only way we see to make their lives more bearable, is to develop them and push them into totalitarian agriculture (but trust me, they find their life pretty bearable and would rather go on the way they are). We like to think that totalitarian agriculture is the only right way for people to live. We like to think that any road leading away from it is a step back and a step towards having to give up things. Give up what? Work?

That totalitarian agriculture was developed was not a destiny, or a logical thing, despite what culture has to say about that. It was much more like a freak development. But unfortunately one that had great initial success. For people to start doing this, it meant that from that time on, virtually all their food would come from agriculture. As I have argued (Quinn spends a lot of time making that point clear), that meant that they had to work harder and longer than ever before. Why on earth would they start doing this? What benefit is so great that it would be worth sacrificing all your time, the time that you used to spend on doing what you wanted, to work? The answer: great wealth and power.

But of course wealth and power are only granted to a few. A larger number of people is in the middle class that generally does well. By far the largest number of people, however, is destined to a life of poverty of which they have to use almost every waking hour to work for almost nothing so that they can buy just enough food to stay alive (food that used to be free...).

But for those in power, it proved relatively easy to force the powerless into this way of life. That way was to put food, but other resources like building materials and even land too, behind lock and key. All that stuff that used to be free, simply because nobody owned it, now was property. And the only way to get some of it, would be to buy it. To be able to buy it, you had to work. The harder you worked, the more you could buy. Even before money was invented, this already worked, but rather than coins and paper, people would trade products. The more products you produced and traded, the more other products you could get from others. Of course, in this system, people did start seeing the benefit of spending ever more time on producing products, because it would enable them to get more food, resources and property. All too soon the old ways were forgotten and people thought this was the way in which people have to live. But knowing what we know, did it improve their life at all? For the extraordinarilly wealthy and even for some in the middle class, the answer may be positive. However, for most people by far, it meant that they no longer had freedom and were caught up in jobs they didn't really see the use of, spending ever more time working (time that could no longer be used to do what they really wanted and thought of as useful), just to be able to buy the products that you really need to survive. We still live in that system. A German newspaper I read once said that, if people are still around 100 years from now, they will think of our culture as one of almost complete slavery...

Back to the reason why this thread started: overpopulation. One reason why the "superculture" of totalitarian agriculture has been able to take over the world is the thought that this is the only right way for people to live. That made the people of this culture very anxious to convert any people that did not "understand" that yet. The second reason, the reason that gave them the power to "convince" (often involving a lot of violence and the death of many people that really did not want to be convinced and the death of cultures), is the power of numbers. Agriculture that aims to produce to the max (not as much as is needed to feed the people present), automatically leads to population growth.

The result in the Near East, which roughly 10.000 years ago was the cradle of totalitarian agriculture according to the current theory, was a culture (or rather an ever-growing conglomerate of what used to be separate cultures) with the idea that their way of life was the only right one, and with the numbers to "convince" the surrounding cultures of their point, or subdue them if they would not want to be convinced. Either way, the land inhabited by that culture would then be cultivated so that it could add more food, more products and more people to the "superculture" of totalitarian agriculture. The last great 'conversion' was North America. The Native Americans often fought to the death only to defy a way of life that they thought was abhorrent, but any victory they had was easily countered by the Europeans with sheer numbers and of course superior weapons.

Well, the reply became a whole lot more lengthy than intended. I hope it is clarifying. If not, after recommending the three mentioned books again, I will be very happy to try and answer further questions that all this migh raise.

I was expecting a response that "industrial agriculture" is about the same as totalitarian agriculture, and perhaps it is since it is rooted not only in commercial industry but also in government. Your response will require a second or third read before I will know for sure. I've been getting up to date on much of this fairly troubling stuff through books such as "Omnivore's Dilemna" by Michael Pollan and "The Last Days of Ancient Sunlight" by Thom Hartmann and it's clear to me that planetary homeostasis will require drastic changes in the way our society behaves and thinks. Overpopulation is probably one of the most important issues driving the problems we are starting to see, but sustainability will require many more things to change besides just the number of mouths to feed.

Jason, industrial agriculture may be a good alternative name in many cases (mostly in modern times), but I think the term totalitarian covers it better.

In my previous post I wrote:

The last great 'conversion' was North America. The Native Americans often fought to the death only to defy a way of life that they thought was abhorrent, but any victory they had was easily countered by the Europeans with sheer numbers and of course superior weapons.

I would like to add to that that this conversion is not ready yet. It is still going on. It is still often thought that we have to make these lazy and often drunk "Indians" see that they have to get an education and a job so that they can make something of their lives. In other words, they have to forget their old successful way of life so that they too can start dedicating every waking hour to work and to consumption of products. I have spoken with a few Native Americans and by now can see quite well why they just really simply do not want this development away from the way that worked for them. There is no way back to that old life anymore in this system though. So caught between two worlds, many of them refuse to dive into that new world and rather have a poor and unfulfilling life, all too often filled with alcohol, than one in which they have to adapt.

In fact, the news here this morning said that Africa is doing well in that respect. Economical growth is picking up and more and more people work in the various industries. For those who want to invest in Africa though, it was said that some caution was needed, because you would never be completely certain of what would happen in Africa... Dare I say that Africa will NOT fully embrace the life that spins around money and consumption?

If you still doubt the direct link between increased food production and population growth, the seriousness of the situation ànd the way to get out of trouble, here is a very interesting read about that. Check it out!

I wrote the following after some thoughts about this organisation after finding info about it in this post.

Because it is about the stuff this thread contains, I will add it here to maybe give the thread a bit more life again. Here comes:

I cannot help but wonder what the effect of all their goals will be. After all, no mention is made, as far as I've seen while browsing through the website you linked to, of two steps that would undoubtedly lead to almost immediate increase in biodiversity in many places without having to steward it. In fact, I think these could well be the only working steps to achieve that goal. The idea of stewardship at all is one that makes me cringe because it ought to be clear by now that we are simply not good at stewarding at all. That is why the two steps that would really matter will work: they are not about stewarding, they are about letting go. Instead of having us humans rule the world, they will eventually let the whole community of life (of species, not just humans of course) determine where the future will go. And that is as it has always been before we started attempting to take things over from all other species, which is exactly where it started going wrong. That is the way that works.

The two steps are reducing our population and reducing food production through totalitarian agriculture. In fact, you could see this as just one step, because reducing food production will automatically lead to a smaller population (there are countless arguments against this, all taught to us by our culture, but I think that many of them are answered and thrown aside in Daniel Quinn's books "Ishmael", "The Story of B", "My Ishmael", "Beyond Civilization" and "If They Give You Lined Paper, Write Sideways"). There is no way of increasing biodiversity when ever more matter that used to be biodiversity is transformed into human flesh. There is only so much of this matter than can make up living tissue and that is why you could say that the estimated 200 species that currently go extinct every day go extinct mostly because we need ever more of this matter to produce our growing population, which will reach 7 billion pretty soon and there is no end in sight yet. If at a current level of just under 7 billion we directly and indirectly eat up 200 species a day, than wouldn't it follow logically that 8 billion will only eat up more species a day? In 30 or 40 years (if development continues roughly like this and barring any huge catastrophes that would drastically reduce our numbers (which seems pretty likely)) we will reach 12 billion. How many species will go extinct per day then?

There is no way to conserve biodiversity while our population is at its current size. It is even more impossible to do so while our population grows further still. Think about this.

If this is kept in mind, it should be clear that only bringing down our population can maintain (and hopefully eventually increase) biodiversity. The beauty of it would be that it would go automatically. The matter that used to make up human flesh will become available to other species again. The space that was usurped to produce food and for other kinds of human development would become available to other species again. And none of this would not have to be stewarded. Quite naturally, those species would rise to the opportunity. That is just what life does by itself after all: what is available will be used in the most economical way and in the way that works because this development follows the laws of nature and not the laws invented by humans.

Undoubtedly our numbers will go down pretty soon. Either because the laws of nature will finally catch up with us and show us in rather terrible ways (for us at least) that our way of life is ultimately unsustainable and that the world cannot sustain our numbers and way of life either, or because we start recognising this fact ourselves and do something about it out of our own free will.

I like the first sentence of the opening statement: "We are connected. To each other. To our environment. From faraway places to our own backyard." However, I like this quote from Chief Seattle even better: ""Whatever befalls the Earth befalls the sons and daughters of the Earth. We did not weave the web of life; We are merely a strand in it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves.." It shows even clearer that we are just another part of the community of life. We are special and unique, of course, but no more so than any other species. We are no more and no less valuable than any other species either.

That, of course, is totally against the vision that has brought 'developed' people to where we are now. That vision is that Humanity and Nature are not only two separate entities, but opposing ones as well. If anything, modern religions (unlike those of tribal people in general) embrace this vision. That is why the idea of stewardship appeals to them. That is however also why Chief Seattle would abhor the idea of stewardship, and I agree wholeheartedly. We are not meant to rule the earth. We also have not evolved into something that is fit to rule the earth successfully. Maybe we could one day, but we would need minds as omnipotent as any of the gods that the modern religions believe in to make decisions that would be the right ones to rule the earth. It might be possible, because evolution has pulled off some pretty neat tricks already, but honestly it seems extremely unlikely.

That is, without wanting to provoke and hurt people, why I don't see a real place for religious organisations here. I am very happy that religious people start seeing that we are part of the community of life, and maybe even no more ànd no less special than any other species though. It is just that I cannot see how one could believe in that vision of special equality while still holding on to a religion that advocates the complete opposite: where humans are made to rule and all other species are there just as commodities for them.

A whole culture that believes in the distinction between Humanity and Nature is not likely to be very successful in surviving much longer either. We are just a strand and a strand only survives if the web survives.

Hi all, this is turning into a bit of a monologue now, but I do want to try and keep this thread alive because I think it's rather important.

I am currently writing an article about overpopulation for an american magazine and while doing research I just ran into an article that I read long ago, but couldn't find anymore. Until now, that is. Here's the abstract:

Human population growth has typically been seen as the primary causative factor of other ecologically destructive phenomena. Current human disease epidemics are explored as a function of population size. That human population growth is itself a phenomenon with clearly identifiable ecological/biological causes has been overlooked. Here, human population growth is discussed as being subject to the same dynamic processes as the population growth of other species. Contrary to the widely held belief that food production must be increased to feed the growing population, experimental and correlational data indicate that human population growth varies as a function of food availability. By increasing food production for humans, at the expense of other species, the biologically determined effect has been, and continues to be, an increase in the human population. Understanding the relationship between food increases and population increases is proposed as a necessary first step in addressing this global problem. Resistance to this perspective is briefly discussed in terms of cultural bias in science.

Find the full article here

Not a new issue. I've posted this before but it needs to be in this thread.

“The power of population is so superior to the power of the Earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race”.—Thomas Malthus, 1798 as quoted in the Wall Street Journal, 24March2008, pg. 1.

and another new one:

“If the present growth trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next 100 years.”—The Club of Rome think tank, 1972 as quoted in the Wall Street Journal, 24March2008, pg. 1..

So what is your response? More control? More government?

Beware for what you might ask--you might just get it.

the fisch

So what is your response? More control? More government?

Not "more" control; how about self-control?