7 billion and growing
"It's no use reducing your carbon footprint if you keep increasing the number of feet,"... "Any resource shortage is in part a population longage" -Roger Martin, chair of Population Matters (UK)
The United Nations says that the world's population will reach 7 billion people this month. This milestone has produced many articles and opinion pieces. Some sound optimistic citing that the global human reproduction rate is slowing significantly. But many are pessimistically blaming the world's environmental crises on overpopulation.
In New York's Times Square, a huge and expensive video declares that "human overpopulation is driving species extinct." In London's busiest Underground stations, electronic poster boards warn that 7 billion is ecologically unsustainable.
More, the same or less? More humankind means fewer wild places and biodiversity. A stabilized human population gives us hope. Fewer people means a better more sustainable world.
But most of the 7 billion are not strip-mining, deforesting, endangering species, and all out polluting. Most environmental destruction is caused by corporations that care more about profit than about humanity's survival. The wealthiest 1% own a majority of all corporate equity, are therefore are directly responsible for most environmental destruction.
British organization, Population Matters (formerly Optimum Population Trust), recently chided David and Victoria Beckham for adding a fourth child to their jet-setting brood.
But I can't blame the wealthy. For nobody gains a fortune without "earning it" off the backs of those less wealthy then them. Even Posh Spice had to sell records to somebody to afford her yacht. I mean there would be a lot fewer wealthy people if there were a lot fewer poor people. 1% is 1% regardless of the sum total.
Do you remember when the world hit 6 billion? That was 12 years ago in 1999. The world seemed so much brighter then. Clinton was President. 9/11 hadn't happened yet. The global economy was on the rise. Hunger and poverty seemed beatable. Oil was $13/barrel. Food prices at historic lows. Heck, we were even signing accords to stop carbon emissions.
In 1999 global population, er over-population, wasn't on anyone's radar. If it grew higher, we could overcome the associated problems. If it declined, we could handle that too.
But out population did continue to swell. The direct consequences are mostly environmental. Even if you don't believe that, you know the very last Vietnamese Rhinoceros was killed EXTINCT just last week (and captured on film to add insult to injury!!!) The direct consequences of population are economical, political and biological.
Like the Kyoto accord is for carbon emissions, the UN-FPA`s Millennium Development Goal sets 2015 as the target year for achieving it's goal universal access to family planning services) And like Kyoto the 2015 target is far from being met.
Family planning has had remarkable success in Thailand, Bangladesh, and Ireland (not to forget China). Not just at stabilizing population growth but giving remarkable economic boosts as well. However there are just as many failures of stabilizing populations globally. The global economic downturn of 2008 has setback advances in family planning, most notably in Haiti, Pakistan and central Africa.
There are several NGO's like Population Matters which lists "PopOffsets" as a program that lets you "offset" your family's carbon footprint by funding family planning elsewhere.
Not sure there is a conclusion to this issue. In future, our hindsight will be 20/20, with all the amusing answers fairly evident. Right now it seems fairly obvious that reducing global population will solve most if not all the issues we're facing, from the energy shortages to food shortages to property shortages.
The United Nations says that the world's population will reach 7 billion people this month. This milestone has produced many articles and opinion pieces. Some sound optimistic citing that the global human reproduction rate is slowing significantly. But many are pessimistically blaming the world's environmental crises on overpopulation.
In New York's Times Square, a huge and expensive video declares that "human overpopulation is driving species extinct." In London's busiest Underground stations, electronic poster boards warn that 7 billion is ecologically unsustainable.
More, the same or less? More humankind means fewer wild places and biodiversity. A stabilized human population gives us hope. Fewer people means a better more sustainable world.
But most of the 7 billion are not strip-mining, deforesting, endangering species, and all out polluting. Most environmental destruction is caused by corporations that care more about profit than about humanity's survival. The wealthiest 1% own a majority of all corporate equity, are therefore are directly responsible for most environmental destruction.
British organization, Population Matters (formerly Optimum Population Trust), recently chided David and Victoria Beckham for adding a fourth child to their jet-setting brood.
But I can't blame the wealthy. For nobody gains a fortune without "earning it" off the backs of those less wealthy then them. Even Posh Spice had to sell records to somebody to afford her yacht. I mean there would be a lot fewer wealthy people if there were a lot fewer poor people. 1% is 1% regardless of the sum total.
Do you remember when the world hit 6 billion? That was 12 years ago in 1999. The world seemed so much brighter then. Clinton was President. 9/11 hadn't happened yet. The global economy was on the rise. Hunger and poverty seemed beatable. Oil was $13/barrel. Food prices at historic lows. Heck, we were even signing accords to stop carbon emissions.
In 1999 global population, er over-population, wasn't on anyone's radar. If it grew higher, we could overcome the associated problems. If it declined, we could handle that too.
But out population did continue to swell. The direct consequences are mostly environmental. Even if you don't believe that, you know the very last Vietnamese Rhinoceros was killed EXTINCT just last week (and captured on film to add insult to injury!!!) The direct consequences of population are economical, political and biological.
Like the Kyoto accord is for carbon emissions, the UN-FPA`s Millennium Development Goal sets 2015 as the target year for achieving it's goal universal access to family planning services) And like Kyoto the 2015 target is far from being met.
Family planning has had remarkable success in Thailand, Bangladesh, and Ireland (not to forget China). Not just at stabilizing population growth but giving remarkable economic boosts as well. However there are just as many failures of stabilizing populations globally. The global economic downturn of 2008 has setback advances in family planning, most notably in Haiti, Pakistan and central Africa.
There are several NGO's like Population Matters which lists "PopOffsets" as a program that lets you "offset" your family's carbon footprint by funding family planning elsewhere.
Not sure there is a conclusion to this issue. In future, our hindsight will be 20/20, with all the amusing answers fairly evident. Right now it seems fairly obvious that reducing global population will solve most if not all the issues we're facing, from the energy shortages to food shortages to property shortages.