Populationism rears its ugly head again
As I have said before:
No. There is no overpopulation problem. There’s an over-consumption problem, a racism problem, a blaming-the-poor problem.
What countries are responsible for the most environmental damage? The wealthy countries, with low population growth rates.
What countries are responsible for exponential resource depletion? The wealthy countries. The US, for example, has 5% of the world’s population and consumes 25-30% of the world’s resources, and contributes 30% of the world’s greenhouse gases.
The population growth rate is slowing down, and we will reach our peak in approximately 2050, at 9 billion. There is enough food produced right now to feed that many people.
People aren’t starving because of our population. The environment isn’t being destroyed because of population. So why are we blaming our problems on population? The only reason I can think of is to lift the blame from the wealthy nations, from ourselves. Treat people in the Third World like over-breeding cattle who can’t think for themselves. Force sterilisation on unwilling women. Breathe a sigh of guilty relief when a few of those cattle die from a natural disaster (that was most likely caused by global warming, a problem created by industrialised nations).
Stop playing the anti-PC game: You know, the one where you claim that anybody who suggests being humane and looking at facts is just being “politically correct.”
I’m glad some of you found solace in the fact that the OP feels the same way you do. Just know that that doesn’t make you any more of a moral person.
I agree with this and unfortunately, this fear has been on the rise again:
http://bensix.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/on-regretting-lives/
Over-consumption is indeed a big problem, but the problem of over-population shouldn’t be neglected neither.
Just visit China and India… People are everywhere, it’s a huge task to feed everyone in these two countries, let alone providing everyone with the basic living condition. A lot of environmental destructions in my home were, unfortunately, unavoidable, because cities have to develop and the economic growth needs to be increased in order to provide jobs and raise the living standard. This is in big contrast to Australia and New Zealand where the population densities are so low that everyone can get a fair share of resources easily. Of course, it’s impossible for everyone on earth to live like the first world people, but then it’s a moral dilemma. How do you have the rights to enjoy those good living condition for so long and now ask those less fortunate ones not to strive for those good living condtion?
Have you read any books from Ted Trainer? I first came across with the over-consumption and uneven distribution of resources from his class. Unfortunately his solution was a bit too idealistic….
The problem with population lies in lifestyle. China’s lifestyle has changed dramatically. We have this idea that “development” is desirable and the only way for people to have happy lives. Development involves an adherence to a very destructive economic system that requires infinite growth and increasing resource depletion. None of these things are necessary.
If you look at traditional subsistence agricultural methods (not to be confused with subsistence lifestyles – subsistence ag just means you provide food for yourself/community and don’t grow cash crops), they are superior to our current food production in many ways. They don’t involve the use of petroleum or toxic pesticides or fertilisers, they provide for everybody, they require significantly less water, and they create an economic structure that isn’t based in disproportionate distribution and destruction of the environment. We don’t need millions of electronics to be happy, or lots of flashy brand-name clothes that were created by child slaves.
Look at my post about GM crops again. India doesn’t have trouble feeding its population because of overpopulation. It has trouble because it’s busy feeding the rest of the world. This is the underlying problem with exports-based agriculture. The same is of course true for China.
Cities do not “have” to develop. That is the dominant belief system, but it is far from true. If we changed our economic structure, we wouldn’t need growth or development.
Oxford economist (and former employee of the World Bank) Raj Patel’s “The Value of Nothing” is a good place to start. It explains the deadly flaws in current economic theory, including how price theory is a farce.
We don’t have the right to have so much excess when the rest of the world has nothing. They are following in our footsteps because we have indoctrinated them with the idea that having lots of cheap stuff is the equivalent to good living conditions. It is not. Even within the wealthy countries, there are miserable, poor, hungry people. And none of us need the mountains of food, plastic, and other stuff that we throw away every day.
I haven’t read Ted Trainer or heard of him, but I’ll check him out. Unfortunately, the solutions to our problems may be considered idealistic to some. But the fact is, if we don’t try those idealistic solutions, we are all screwed. So while it may be unrealistic to expect our global economic system to change, the alternative is that we let it destroy us all.