Who is willing to frankly discuss whether there are too many people on planet Earth?

Population Media Center is willing to discuss the elephant in the room--that number of human animals appears to have exceeded the ability of the Earth to sustain them.   It's not that simple, of course, because the number of people combines with the type of lifestyles they are living to determine carrying capacity.  Here is the Mission of PMC:

Our mission is to collaborate with the mass media and other organizations worldwide to:

  1. Bring about stabilization of human population numbers at a level that can be sustained by the world’s natural resources
  2. Lessen the harmful impact of humanity on the earth’s environment

The emphasis of the organization’s work is to educate people about the benefits of small families, encourage the use of effective family planning methods, elevate women’s status and promote gender equity.

Who else is willing to speak frankly about this critically important issue?   Global Population Speakout.    The GPSO home pages states:  Population Seven Billion:  It's Time to Talk.   Here is the GPSO mission:

The United Nation's Population Division reports that on October 31, 2011, world population reached the 7 Billion mark. The U.S. Census Bureau says it will happen in April, 2012. Regardless of the exact moment, each and every day world population grows by 227,000 people. That means we are adding more than one million people to the planet every five days. The implications for people, posterity, and the planet are of global importance.

Because the population of the world ultimately affects most of the issues that we all really care about, the 7 Billion: It's Time to Talk campaign is working to open up the conversation on population to new audiences around the globe. When everyone recognizes that there is a need to talk openly about population growth and the importance of family planning, the empowerment of women, and reproductive health and rights, we can more easily find the solutions to issues like global hunger and the environment. When people discover how a rapidly growing world population affects them and their hopes for the future, we know that more people, particularly young adults, will want to lend their voices to the global discussion.

I recently attended a lecture by Dr. Peter Raven, who also directly addressed the issues of overpopulation and carrying capacity of the planet.  This  is an excellent presentation, which begins at the 6 min mark (and see here):

Continue ReadingWho is willing to frankly discuss whether there are too many people on planet Earth?

Time to declare war on the war budget

Mitt Romney says we can't afford to support PBS, National Endowment for the Arts or Amtrack. This is a disgraceful lie. These three programs add up to barely more than $2 Billion/year. Let's put that number in context. How much are we now spending on the militarization of America? $1.2 Trillion per year (carefully count the zeros and make sure you add it ALL up, like Tom Dispatch has done). That comes out to $600 Million per working HOUR (assuming that there are 2,000 working hours per year) to militarize the United States (don't call it "Department of Defense," because this is largely a lie). In other words, with FOUR HOURS of our warmongering budget, we could afford all of the things Romney says we need to cut. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingTime to declare war on the war budget

Post-Olympics

For all of you Americans who insist that you watched the Olympics because of the athleticism, I'd like to know whether NBC's coverage left you with goosebumps? How many times did you root out loud, along with the announcers, for the American athlete to win? How many times did you weep while listening to the United States National Anthem? How many times did you think it perfectly normal for the announcers to obsess over the 18th place American, while glossing over the best athletes in a sport? You insist that this is not about jingoism, not about nationalism, but only about sport? Then how many times over the next 3 1/2 years are you going to watch a game of water-polo or tune into a synchronized diving match? Never? Because you really don't actually give a shit about the sport? Then are you SURE that you were watching the Olympics because of the athleticism? Did you hang on till the end of the broadcast day for the "medal count?" Did you say "Yeah!" when the U.S. had a couple more gold medals than the Chinese? Did you feel that YOU accomplished something by watching athletes who don't know you receive awards? Did it ever occur to you that these medal tallies are raw numbers, and that maybe it would be more relevant to athleticism to show medals per one-million population? Or how about medals per college graduate? Or medals per installed solar panel? How would the U.S. do in such a case? It's all good fun until you realize that the best part of the broadcast would actually be experienced by turning off the sound, ignoring the color of the uniforms and reminding yourself that the coverage is wildly skewed toward the coverage of Americans--in short, realizing that NBC has been satisfying your nationalistic craving by skewing it's coverage. It's no longer athleticism when the athletes wrap themselves in their own countries' flags and strut around with a victory lap. Then it becomes clearer that this Olympic broadcast was not designed to cover athletes. It was designed to cover American athletes, and especially those who have a chance to medal. It's not really about the athletes or athletics, or else you'd be seeking out these sports year round. It's not about the athletes, but about the TV viewer, and 20 minutes of commercials per hour, and flag waving and "We're better than you. And even obese Americans that are sitting couches are thinking that they are better than people from other countries sitting on their couches.

Continue ReadingPost-Olympics

The lendendary Paul Ryan

This article in New York Magazine discusses Ryan's fiscal vision:

In 2001, Ryan led a coterie of conservatives who complained that George W. Bush’s $1.2 trillion tax cut was too small, and too focused on the middle class. In 2003, he lobbied Republicans to pass Bush’s deficit-­financed prescription-drug benefit, which bestowed huge profits on the pharmaceutical and insurance industries. In 2005, when Bush campaigned to introduce private accounts into Social Security, Ryan fervently crusaded for the concept. He was the sponsor in the House of a bill to create new private accounts funded entirely by borrowing, with no benefit cuts. Ryan’s plan was so staggeringly profligate, entailing more than $2 trillion in new debt over the first decade alone, that even the Bush administration opposed it as “irresponsible.”

Continue ReadingThe lendendary Paul Ryan