The last book from today’s guest, Alan Weisman, was thought-provoking, award-winning, and best-selling. The World Without Us, which was made into a powerful documentary, imagined what would happen to planet earth if humans disappeared. Our massive infrastructure would collapse and vanish without human presence, and nature would swiftly begin to heal without our daily pressures.

But, Weisman, would rather Imagine a successful world with us, and that led to his newest book, Countdown: Our Last, Best Hope For a Future on Earth. For this one, he traveled to 21 countries asking politicians, scientists, family planning specialists, doctors, and religious leaders, crucial questions about how we can successfully deal with the size of human population.

25 Comments on "Slowing Population Growth Our Last, Best Hope for a Future on Earth"

action on Tue, 7th Jan 2014 9:47 pm 



Another book plug, gay.

ghung on Tue, 7th Jan 2014 11:59 pm 



The rub is that limiting population growth doesn’t necessarily translate to reduced consumption and environmental impact. History tells us that these things generally require quite a bit of forcing. The end of the age of surpluses will eventually, I expect, dramatically cull the human herd.

Too bad it’s not just us.

stilgar wilcox on Wed, 8th Jan 2014 1:18 am 



Something I’m completely convinced of is humans do not differ from other species in one specific respect; they all take everyhting they possibly can.

All species are limited by resource availability. It’s just that we have access to and use of thousands of types and forms of resources including all other species. The only limiting factor is the law of the minimum, which many think is oil (due to its energy content), because as extraction of that resource gets more expensive, it reduces our ability to extract resources at an ever increasing pace. Finally we may hit a (law of the minimum) resource wall and be forced against our will to consume less overall resources.

Makati1 on Wed, 8th Jan 2014 1:27 am 



ghung, you are correct! We could lower the population back to less than one billion and there would not be enough to let them live an American lifestyle. And, if they lived a Philippine life style, there would be room for 14 billion.

What we need is for the ‘for profit’ capitalist system to crash and burn and reset to a level closer to that of the 3rd world. I see this coming, but maybe not fast enough to save the species.

GregT on Wed, 8th Jan 2014 4:45 am 



” humans do not differ from other species in one specific respect; they all take everyhting they possibly can.’

This is completely not true. Other species take what they NEED for their survival. Humans have never been happy with that, we always want more. The big difference between us and other species, is greed.

dashster on Wed, 8th Jan 2014 6:36 am 



“The rub is that limiting population growth doesn’t necessarily translate to reduced consumption and environmental impact.”

I would say that limiting population growth has a better translation to reduced consumption and environmental impact than not limiting population growth.

dashster on Wed, 8th Jan 2014 6:38 am 



One thing that the Peak Oilers and the Cornucopians agree on, for the most part — population control is not something to work on.

dsula on Wed, 8th Jan 2014 12:20 pm 



GregT: big difference LOL! whether you take what you NEED and use it to multiply as often as you can or you take as much as you CAN and don’t multiply ends upt to be the same thing

FriedrichKling on Wed, 8th Jan 2014 12:32 pm 



‘Beware the beast Man, for he cometh from hell as Lucifer’s spawn. Alone among God’s primates, he kills for sport, and lust, and greed. He will murder his brother to possess his brother’s land. Without conscience, he wrecks devastation upon the good and bountiful Mother Earth. Shun him: If he is permitted to breed in great numbers, he will make a desert of his home and yours. For he is, The Great Destroyer, The Angel of the Abyss.’~~~29th Scroll, 6th Verse.

J-Gav on Wed, 8th Jan 2014 3:50 pm 



Dsula: You may not find the difference that big but there definitely is one between taking what you need and what you can. In fact, Steady State economics, Permaculture and the sustainability sought by the Transition movement are all based on it.

James on Wed, 8th Jan 2014 4:52 pm 



What I notice when I think about this is that we appear to be the only species that builds non renewable infrastructure, which is possibly because of the speed of population growth, everyone needs a home right? This infrastructure can only be built quickly without enormous human labour involved by using fossil fuels instead, which is what burns the juice.

I guess we are where we are now, but the only sane solution I can think of is to voluntarily reduce consumption and reduce birth rate voluntarily. I think if every woman in the world only had one child the population would reduce by half in 50 years (that’s what I read)

Then you would still need to deal with depleting resource base, so I think using certain robust hardy plants in areas available for growing would help produce food.

My way of reducing consumption is to learn about the intangible, spiritual side of existence, and appreciate nature as a work of art, a masterful creation, and reasonate with it in a way that enables continued existence without the destruction of anything or anyone else.

All the best

Kenz300 on Wed, 8th Jan 2014 5:12 pm 



An ever expanding human population makes all other problems harder to solve……

Food crisis, water crisis, declining fish stock crisis, unemployment crisis, Climate Change crisis, poverty crisis………..

andya on Wed, 8th Jan 2014 7:57 pm 



“Dsula: You may not find the difference that big but there definitely is one between taking what you need and what you can. In fact, Steady State economics, Permaculture and the sustainability sought by the Transition movement are all based on it.”

BS! All you need is food, clothing and shelter, permaculture, steady state and especially transition towns ‘want’ a whole lot more then that. Some people ‘need’ a great big 4×4, some people ‘need’ an electric car, solar panels, bio-powered electricity, whatever. It’s just a different type of consumption to fulfil wants.

Stilgar Wilcox on Wed, 8th Jan 2014 8:47 pm 



Sorry to differ with you GregT, however does a bear eat the whole salmon? Only if it’s really hungry. Once full it eats the roe only and leaves the rest to rot. If it had a net and knew how to use it, it would catch more. If bears could work together they would damn off the whole river and catch them all. If they had a freezer they would keep them for the off-season. If they could they would sell them to other bears for berries, roots, bulbs, etc. When the number of salmon plummeted they would play a blame game and then institute conservation laws.

The point is in spite of our new brain we are still unable to act differently than our lower brain basic instincts.

GregT on Wed, 8th Jan 2014 8:57 pm 



dsula,

If our ancestors had of taken everything that they could, and not ‘multiplied’, none of us would exist and we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Your argument doesn’t make any sense.

The indigenous peoples of North America lived sustainably on this continent for some 16,000 years. They believed that they had a responsibility to take care of the natural world, not to
exploit it for profit. They only took what they ‘needed’ and respected the natural world for sustaining their lives. Their ideology could have lasted for eternity.

It has taken less than 400 years for us ‘white’ folk to completely fuck everything up. Capitalism, and consumerism is going to lead to a dead end for our societies, and quite possibly for all life on Earth.

That is the difference between taking what we need, and whatever we want.

yellowcanoe on Wed, 8th Jan 2014 9:14 pm 



Yes, the indigenous people of North America lived sustainably for thousands of years. However, that did change once white fur traders appeared on the scene and offered useful and previously unavailable items in trade for furs. The indigenous people proved to be just as capable of over harvesting animals as white trappers and some of the trade goods made hunting more productive. Beaver became scarce in large areas of North America and a large share of the trapping was done by the indigenous people.

J-Gav on Wed, 8th Jan 2014 11:06 pm 



Andya – “All you need is food, clothing and shelter.” Uhh, have you ever read a book? And what does ‘want’ have to do with ‘need’ and ‘can?’ It seems you could use a bit of Philosophy 101.

GregT on Wed, 8th Jan 2014 11:39 pm 



Stilgar,

Arguing that if a bear could do something, when it clearly cannot, is not much of an argument. No basis on reality. There is absolutely no way to prove, or disprove your speculation. I do, however, agree with the point that you make.

yellow,

What changed with the indigenous peoples? Could it have been the capitalist, and consumerist ideals that the white people brought?

Not all of the indigenous peoples were very happy about this, and many fought against it to their deaths. Would they have eventually gone down the same path on their own? Maybe, but we will never really know for sure. I do know one thing, I have spoken to many ‘native’ elders that still believe very strongly in their roots, and if the SHTF they will be the first capable of surviving in the natural environment here on the west coast. They have had lots of practice living off of the land. Most of the rest of us, wouldn’t survive the first winter, and most in the cities, wouldn’t even make it through the summer.

Twin Performance on Wed, 8th Jan 2014 11:44 pm 



Not really, we could sustain a population of 20 Billion at American levels of consumption with renewable Technology, Recycling and Endless Money Printing.:)
If not, tell me why?
BTW climate change does not exist. Peak oil isn’t until 2027 and God will save us.

Stilgar Wilcox on Thu, 9th Jan 2014 12:09 am 



Indians lived a subsistence, stone age life. No refrigeration. Their surroundings could only support so many people. In many ways they were like animals, taking what they could until the lower numbers of prey reduced what they could take and kept the population in check. The plains indians population rose to greater heights because of the buffalo could be taken down by shooting arrows from horseback.

Modern people are not governed by anything other than what the mighty dollar can extract from this Earth. A few people have common sense and set boundries, but many do not recognize those limits. Look at poaching of bears and exotic cats for their parts to be sold. Look at continuing to burn fossil fuels in ever larger amounts in spite of GW and the prospects of that getting much worse. Sure, some know the consequences and are willing to make sacrifices, but most are not and profit is the main driver because we live in an economic world, not the wild.

My wife just bought some tupperware type product on TV and they charged her 4 x’s what they quoted. Why? Because they thought they could get away with it.

Ever read Animal Farm? You can’t judge humans by the sane one’s but by the overall effect of a very wide spectrum of activity unleashed on the planet. Look at what is happening to the Pacific ocean. Many parts of it are dying off.

Why did they stop killing the whales? Because they were close to extinction. Why have they resumed whaling? Because they act like its for scientific research. The count this year is to take 950 minke, 50 finn and 50 humpback. The only people to try and save them are a band of people in ships trying to run interference but the heads of country’s don’t give a crap and do nothing.

It’s a species that in the final analysis is a virus to this planet, just like the agent in the Matrix said. We are a plague, especically at 7,000,000,000 people.

Makati1 on Thu, 9th Jan 2014 1:03 am 



Arguments (discussions) go on and on, but the human species is greedy and destructive. It was when a few farmers learned that they could live off of the produce of others (priests, and then kings) that today’s problem began. Prior to that, Mother Nature was in control as She will be again and soon.

As for animals taking more than they need. I don’t know of any. The bear example is a fallacy. They need fat to survive the winter. Roe is a high fat content so the more they can consume the better for their survival. That is not like the “need’ for a new ipad. If they had access to salmon all year long, they would only consume what they needed, when they needed it like all other animals do. Only man dies of overeating, to my knowledge.

GregT on Thu, 9th Jan 2014 1:15 am 



Stilgar,

My father grew up on the prairies in Alberta, with no refrigeration, no telephone, no television, no electricity, and no running water. He is still very much alive, and more active than many people I know 50 years his junior.

Our surroundings can only support so many people. We are not like animals, we ARE animals. We are bound to the same physical laws of nature as all other animals. If we are fortunate, we are born, we live, and then we die.

We have managed to create a temporary environment, within the wild environment. Without the wild environment, our man made environment will cease to exist. This is exactly where we are headed. We are destroying the natural environment, that our man made environment is dependent upon, in order to maintain that same man made environment. As you point out in your views, we are completely out of touch with reality.

The so called economic world that you believe that we live in, is a fallacy. Everything that we base our economies on, comes from the wild world. Without the resources from the wild world, we have no economies.

Our populations are in overshoot. There is not one single ecosystem on the planet that is not in a state of decline. When those ecosystems die, we die. All life on Earth, is (was) in a delicate state of balance. We have upset that balance, in a huge way. The balance will be restored, eventually. The longer we swing the balance away from the wild, to the human ‘economic’ state, the further and harder the balance will swing back. Unless, of course, we kill the Earth. If we do, obviously, it is game over for us as well.

action on Thu, 9th Jan 2014 2:47 am 



We aren’t PART OF the Universe, we ARE the Universe, recognizing itself. Our brains can perceive the singular resonance that is existence. The Universe does, because it can.

Stilgar Wilcox on Thu, 9th Jan 2014 3:24 am 



I don’t disagree with any of your post, except “the so called economic world that you believe that we live in, is a fallacy.”

Our limits may be resource based but we have seperated ourselves from the natural world in so many ways. What about when someone buys meat. They didn’t rear it or slaughter it. They just made some money and bought it at the store.

Look, I don’t think we’re as far apart on this topic as it may have seemed at first. Let’s just agree to disagree on definitions and agree humankind are in the process of bumping hard up against resource limits.

My opinion is human consciousness has progressed since the games in the Colosseum in Rome some two thousand years ago. My hope is consciousness will take another big leap for the better via the impending bottleneck to come. Nothing like being humbled to change our ways.

GregT on Thu, 9th Jan 2014 4:59 am 



“What about when someone buys meat. They didn’t rear it or slaughter it.”

Just because they didn’t rear it, or slaughter it, doesn’t mean that it wasn’t reared or slaughtered. It means that the people buying it are either ignoring reality, or they are unaware of it. The reality still exists, whether we choose to pay attention to it or not.

I don’t believe that we are that far apart at all, and I totally agree that we are very close to some very serious limitations. I used to believe that we had progressed as a species, but recent events have really made me give my head a shake. Another big leap for the better? Hmmm. I really hope that you are right, and I am wrong.

Cheers