What if there were far too many people, but no one had the courage to talk about it?
What if there were far too many people living on planet Earth, but no one had the courage to talk about it?
According to Global Population Speak Out, that is exactly our situation.
Consider that we repeatedly see news reports about scarce and dwindling resources (e.g., water, food, fish, fuel, topsoil), but these news reports rarely consider the exploding population on Earth as a major contributor to these problems. This refusal to consider the carrying capacity of Earth is truly staggering. As a thought experiment, consider how our “environmental” issues would be altered if each country had 25% fewer people than it currently does. Or 50%. Instead, we the human population of earth is at 6.5 billion, headed toward at least 9 billion by 2050.
When it comes to discussing sex, reproduction and birth control, we freeze up, even when out-of-control population growth threatens our way of life. Why don’t we discuss this important issue of overpopulation? We’re afraid that the conversation would get out of control and we’d insult each other. Therefore, we choose silence, thus continuing on our path to horrific environmental decay that is ruining our standard of living.
GPSO has a plan for dealing with our collective reluctance to discuss this critically important issue. The trick is that we all need to jump in at once to draw attention away from the vast number of trivial stories that currently swamping our “news.” Many prominent scientists and other people of prominence have already made their pledges. I sent in my pledge today and so can you. GPSO also offers templates for letters to the editor and blog content.
Here is the recent GPSO press release:
Scientists from around the world have pledged to speak out publicly in February, 2009 on the problem of the size and growth of the human population. Speaking out as well will be environmental and science writers, social activists, and representatives of environmental groups. The event, called the Global Population Speak Out (GPSO), aims to weaken a decades-long taboo against open discussion of population issues.
So far, GPSO has received pledges from scientists and others in 16 countries, all agreeing to speak out during February. Many will do so through the print media. Others are planning interviews, talks, and conferences.
Endorsers of the project include, Stanford University scientists Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Cornell University ecologist David Pimentel, and co-author of The Limits to Growth Dennis Meadows.
Those pledging to speak out include botanist and past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science Peter Raven, Duke University ecologist Stuart Pimm, University of Delhi professor of community medicine Jugal Kishore, University of Tehran environmental scientist M. F. Makhdoum, and social activists Jerry Mander and Harvey Wasserman.
One of the project’s endorsers, Ohio State University anthropologist Jeffrey McKee, said, “If you look at the key issues and goals of our time — economic prosperity, clean water, sustainable energy, and biodiversity survival — they all have a common denominator. They all point to the need immediately and responsibly to stem the growth of the human population, and to return our population size to sustainable limits.”
But, said environmental writer and GPSO organizer John Feeney, “Despite its central role in nearly every environmental problem, many have for years viewed the population topic as politically unpopular. In fact, despite the urgent need for solutions, it’s become taboo to state publicly that population growth must be humanely stabilized and reversed.”
He added, “Environmental groups have been reluctant to talk about it because they know it will trigger criticism and may compromise funding. Scientists have hesitated too, knowing any mention of population is sure to stir controversy.”
GPSO is designed to make it easier for participants to raise the issue by bringing together a collection of voices so participants know they are not alone in speaking out.
The project grew out of a simple idea, said Feeney. “We wondered, what if a large number of qualified voices worldwide, many of whom might not have emphasized the topic previously, were to speak out on population all at once? With any luck it will nudge the subject closer to the center of public discourse.”
Another goal of the event, said Feeney, is to bring new voices to the population issue. “This is a matter of profound importance. There are experts, such as the Ehrlichs, who address it regularly. But we need many more voices. We hope GPSO might help bring a few to the world’s attention. Our hope is that after February it will be a little easier to talk about population and there will be more people doing just that.”
Consider, further, this link to Miniature Earth.
Erich, this is what Lisa wrote
I interpret this as human beings not having an innate right to procreate since they are not much more than animals.
Here’s the poster-boy for the need to discuss population control: a now-famous 13-year old dad who doesn’t have a clue about raising a child.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7884138.stm?lss
Here are the results of the GPSO (Global Population Speak Out). http://gpso.wordpress.com/pledgers-efforts/
As you can see, there was a phenomenal response. I haven’t yet visited any of these sites, but I plan to. This is too important an issue to fail to discuss it as responsible adults.
[...] writers on this blog are generally aware of the problems caused by population growth, for example here and here. But there is a movement in modern American Fundamentalist culture that puts the Catholic [...]
This reeks of Eugenics. Lets start exploring space instead of thinking of ways to kill us off.
Your point is well taken, in fact here is a short list of rights.
The Right to carry a concealed gun, requires a permit.
The Right to drive a car, requires a license.
The Right to cut another persons hair in exchange for money, requires a license.
The Right to run a daycare or school, requires a certification and license.
The Right to get married requires a class, blood test, and license.
The Right to have as many kids as you possibly can, requires NO LICENSE. Why isn’t there a license required for procreation? What is a fit parent?
It’s even worse than just over population. The amount of children in a family is usually inversely proportional to the intelligence of the parents and their ability to properly provide for and raise the children.
Thowing the word “eugenics” into the conversation is a way to kill the conversation, sidestepping the need to determine the carrying capacity of the Earth. This is all backwards, in my opinion. Let’s set aside what we’re going to do about the problem, if there is one, just for a moment. Let’s first determine whether there IS a problem. Too many people shout “eugenics” because they lack the courage to determine whether there is a problem with overpopulation. In my opinion, they do this because they fear that there’s no palatable solution.
Again, the point of my post is that we should first determine whether there is a problem with overpopulation. The way that humans are savaging the Earth’s resources and destroying biodiversity strongly suggest that there is a huge problem. Can we even have this discussion? Apparently not.
Bob,
While my sentiments lie in the direction of your suggestion (by all means, let us find another place, off the Earth, to live), the fact is the energy requirement to tranship enough people off the Earth to make any kind of a dent in the population pressure is, literally, astronomical. We’ll make colonies, but the costs of moving billions of individuals off the Earth, and all the required work on the environment to which we’d be moving them to make it viable, beggars the imagination.
From NPQ:
[T]he slum population constitutes a staggering 78.2 percent of the urban population in less-developed countries—fully a third of the global urban population.
Not only are today’s slums larger than in the 19th century, but they are more dense. Though they are low-rise structures, the square footage is tiny with a lot of people living in each shack. They are built haphazardly along narrow footpaths, not the broad grids of the inner city. A small fire can spread to destroy 1,000 units of housing in 15-20 minutes. Infectious diseases travel rapidly in such an environment.
Slums as contiguous swaths of settlement are largest in Latin America—the largest being on the southeastern edges of Mexico City.
http://www.digitalnpq.org/archive/2009_summer/16_davis.html
From the Independent:
Professor Chris Rapley, director of the British Antarctic Survey, and Professor John Guillebaud, vented their frustration yesterday at the fact that overpopulation had fallen off the agenda of the many organisations dedicated to saving the planet.
The scientists said dealing with the burgeoning human population of the planet was vital if real progress was to be made on the other enormous problems facing the world.
“It is the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about” Professor Guillebaud said. “Unless we reduce the human population humanely through family planning, nature will do it for us through violence, epidemics or starvation.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/overpopulation-is-main-threat-to-planet-521925.html