Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on February 1, 2015
Population: Four Out of Five Scientists Agree
A new poll of American scientists suggests that a large majority of them (82 percent) regard population growth as a major challenge, almost as many as those who believe that climate change is mostly due to human activity (87 percent). The poll, which was conducted by the Pew Research Center, indicates that a clear majority of the American public (59 percent) are concerned that there won’t be enough food and resources to accommodate a growing world population, but the level of concern in the scientific community, as with climate change, is noticeably higher.
On one level, the poll results are not surprising. For decades now leading scientists have been warning that humanity is overusing planetary resources and inflicting dangerous harm on the environment. Earlier this month 18 scientists authored a paper in the journal Science warning that humanity is encroaching on nine “planetary boundaries,” and that we have already crossed four of them: deforestation, the extinction rate for plant and animal species, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and the runoff (from fertilizer) of nitrogen and phosphorous into the ocean.
What is remarkable, however, is that given the levels of scientific concern about humanity’s impact on the planet, more scientists are not talking publicly about population. When it comes to climate change, there is no shortage of scientists willing to speak out about the need to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. So if humanity is breaking “planetary boundaries” and imperiling, in the process, humanity’s future, why aren’t more scientists speaking publicly about the human-population trajectory and its implications?
Good question. The answer, I suspect, is that many scientists do not want to “intrude” into decisions regarding how many children women should have. Very few scientists, I suspect, believe that women should be coerced into having fewer children. Most scientists, simply put, do not want to trample on reproductive rights. Good for them: Women should be able to decide, free from coercion, how many children they will have and when.
In reality, however, many of the pregnancies in the world are unintended, unplanned, or unwanted. Even in the U.S., where we consume a disproportionate share of the world’s resources, almost half of all pregnancies are unintended. In developing countries, where large family size is a major contributor to hunger, poverty and environmental degradation, many women have little or no control over how many children they will have. Population growth in many developing countries today is largely propelled by gender inequality and antiquated child-marriage practices that effectively deny women the freedom to make informed reproductive choices.
There is, quite simply, a vast amount that can be done about global population that is fully supportive of the reproductive health and rights of women. In this country, we can stop the harebrained political assaults on family-planning clinics and increase the number of women eligible for contraceptive services under state Medicaid laws. There are, unfortunately, plenty of reasons that a recent 50-state report card on reproductive health and rights gave 15 states a failing grade, “F,” and another nine a “D.”
Overseas, there is much that can be done to expand and improve contraceptive options for women in developing countries. At the same time, far more needs to be done to advance gender equality, including the education of girls and the elimination of child-marriage practices. In addition to combating hunger and poverty, empowering girls and women in developing countries would do much in the long term to reduce water stress and environmental pressures.
To be fair, the scientific community has not been entirely silent on population. Twenty-three years ago the Royal Society of London and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences issued a powerful joint statement on population growth and resource consumption, and three years ago the Royal Society published a compelling new report on People and the Planet. Still, if more than four out of five U.S. scientists believe that population growth poses a major challenge with respect to food and resources, the public should be hearing a lot more from the scientific community about the need to do something.
Just as there are climate deniers, there will always be population deniers who refuse to acknowledge the impact that population growth is having on the planet. But that should not deter scientists from speaking out. Population, in one form or another, touches upon a whole host of scientific concerns, including climate change. Recent studies indicate that slowing population growth could make a major contribution to slowing and ultimately reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, if world population grows, as currently projected, from 7.2 billion to 9.6 billion over the next 35 years, it’s hard to imagine that we will succeed in meeting the ambitious targets that must be met to avoid the worst effects of climate change.
If more than four out of five American scientists believe that population is such a significant challenge to humanity’s future, more scientists need to be speaking out publicly.
24 Comments on "Population: Four Out of Five Scientists Agree"
Go Speed Racer on Sun, 1st Feb 2015 9:43 am
there are too many fat stupid self-destructive substance-abusing people.
There are NOT too many intelligent academic well-balanced rational people.
Everytime i see this topic, nobody seems to understand quality vs quantity.
how about we stop handing welfare checks to all the fat stupid people. then maybe they would stop breeding their foul DNA.
ghung on Sun, 1st Feb 2015 9:53 am
Who listens to scientists anyway? And you’ve got to love this part:
“In this country, we can stop the harebrained political assaults on family-planning clinics and increase the number of women eligible for contraceptive services under state Medicaid laws.”
In case the folks at HuffPo didn’t notice, The US moved even farther right last fall. Human population will be self-limiting,, eventually.
ghung on Sun, 1st Feb 2015 9:58 am
Go, Speed, Go! Why not eugenics while you’re at it? I’m sure you don’t include yourself among the select elite; the ‘quality breeders’ in your plan?
JuanP on Sun, 1st Feb 2015 10:19 am
I had a Vasectomy and no children. This is no longer my problem. I can’t care any more. Most humans are simply not smart enough, and most of those have too many kids.
I highly recommend living childfree and getting a Vasectomy. Those were the ten best invested minutes of my life.
Davy on Sun, 1st Feb 2015 10:46 am
Speeder you forgot to mention to stop giving free money to the banksters. I see no difference from that and welfare checks in fact the welfare checks should be given as restitution for a hijacking of a great country by a global plutocracy or a cabal of politicians, industrialist, and financial thieves.
penury on Sun, 1st Feb 2015 11:02 am
I fail to see where what these scientist say has any bearing on what occurs in the real world. Less than 1 in ten thousand people would be able to understand this article. Fewer than that would give a furry rodents rear about this. Politicians who might be able to propose actions, want more “voters” not fewer. Corporations want more “consumers” and humans want more “babies”. The answer my friends is “Mother” when nature culls the herd it will not be the choice of the people. Even a nuclear war is out of the control of the breeders, In the words of GWB “this sucker is going down”
Perk Earl on Sun, 1st Feb 2015 11:36 am
Face it, people want what they want, which usually includes lots of kids. So if 7.+B people want more kids, guess what, population rises.
However, we are starting to get into peak oil repercussions and at some point they will slow, stop and reverse total population. For example, here’s a new article on China’s manuf. slowing into contraction.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-01/china-s-factory-gauge-sinks-to-two-year-low-as-slowdown-lingers
“The government’s Purchasing Managers’ Index fell to 49.8 last month from 50.1 in December, missing the median estimate of 50.2 in a Bloomberg survey of analysts and below the 50 level separating expansion and contraction. The slide follows the biggest weekly stock market drop in a year and fiscal data that showed the weakest revenue growth since 1991.
Central banks from the euro zone to Canada and Singapore last month added monetary stimulus as slumping oil prices damp the outlook for inflation and global momentum outside the U.S. moderates. China’s central bank, which cut interest rates in November for the first time in two years, has since added liquidity in targeted measures rather than with follow-up rate reductions or cuts to banks’ required reserve ratios.
“We expect such data will weaken further and push the government to take further easing actions,” said Zhang Zhiwei, chief China economist at Deutsche Bank AG in Hong Kong.”
Davy on Sun, 1st Feb 2015 11:46 am
It will be interesting when the bumpy descent directly affects people’s lives with food insecurity, grid instability, bankruptcies, unemployment, social unrest, and criminality. Will people in the developing world choose to have kids facing these crisis situations? In the third world you already have this but what are they going to do when there is outright famine, wars, and failed governments. Are they going to choose to have kids? We may see everyone in this latter situation if we have another WWIII. We also have a destabilizing climate that at any time could become an abrupt climate shift turning all agriculture modern and traditional difficult to impossible. It is possible humans will choose to have fewer kids with pain and suffering the norm. We can also expect in these situations far more of the vulnerable parts of the population dying. This coupled with a choice to have less could be a new phenomenon of declining population. I don’t see this for a decade though.
Rodster on Sun, 1st Feb 2015 11:59 am
Exponential population growth is needed to keep BAU operating. The problem now is that there aren’t enough good paying jobs to keep the BAU system running, thanks to GLOBALIZATION, which Ross Perot, LONG ago warned everyone about.
Population growth is fine for the Elite as long as the eaters are feeding the system. When the eaters become a liability then the Elite QUESTION the very existence of the eaters.
That’s central planning for ya. 😉
J-Gav on Sun, 1st Feb 2015 1:03 pm
Ghung – “Human population will be self-limiting.” Exactly. Just like all the other species on the planet when they get too far out of balance with natural ecosystems. The difference being that a majority of our species is too arrogant to even accept that we are still a part of nature.
Kenz300 on Sun, 1st Feb 2015 2:26 pm
Endless population growth is not sustainable…….
Finite resources mets endless population growth with bad results for the population……..
How many fish can you put in a fish tank before they start to kill each other?
Energy Investor on Sun, 1st Feb 2015 3:38 pm
There is a fact that everybody misses. If species developed on the basis of the survival of the fitest we are now going in the wrong direction.
We now cure (temporarily) the “un-fitest” and encourage them to breed. We fill our private hospitals with long term disabled (referred to by some folk as “cabbages and zombis”) and in many places we enshrine the right of the physically and intellectually handicapped people to breed. Individual rights have since 1950 trumped the need for our species to endure and grow stronger.
Our welfare systems are designed to support those who cannot participate in the workforce and the funding promotes their breeding.
Our liberal classes are focused on outlawing GM products and have no idea that we are genetically modifying our own species.
So, what are we as a species doing right?
Seems to me, not a lot.
gdubya on Sun, 1st Feb 2015 4:50 pm
EI, you discuss the Topic Of Which We Must Not Speak. When discussing dogs, dairy cows and fish the primary consideration is genetics. When discussing pyromaniac apes the primary consideration is human rights.
Unfortunately do We choose to breed dumb consenting workers or brilliant shit disturbers? It depends if Coke is paying for it. Obviously the best system is to have a population of dumb happy Eoli and a group of clever Morlocks.
GregT on Sun, 1st Feb 2015 5:09 pm
“Earlier this month 18 scientists authored a paper in the journal Science warning that humanity is encroaching on nine “planetary boundaries,”
Those boundaries are:
1: Stratospheric ozone depletion
2: Loss of biosphere integrity
3: Chemical pollution and the release of novel entities
4: Climate Change
5: Ocean acidification
6: Freshwater consumption and the global hydrological cycle
7: Land system change
8: Nitrogen and phosphorus flows to the biosphere and oceans
9: Atmospheric aerosol loading
Of the 9 planetary boundaries listed above, 6 are directly caused by modern industrial society. Not human population numbers per se.
If we all learned how to live more sustainably, and stopped acting as if though the planet was put here for our own personal consumption, greater
population numbers could be sustained.
The biggest problem that we face is not the growing populations in the undeveloped/developing parts of the world, it is those of us in the developed countries
that are causing the greatest damage to the Earths biosphere.
Those at the bottom are causing much less damage than those in the upper echelons of our societies. If we got rid of the top 20%, the bottom 80% could be sustainable.
J-Gav on Sun, 1st Feb 2015 5:15 pm
Energy Investor – Species didn’t develop according to the “survival of the fittest” (with a double ‘t’). They evolved, at least according to Darwin, thanks to their adaptability – not quite the same thing. Your conclusion may be correct but it doesn’t appear to be for the right reasons.
Makati1 on Sun, 1st Feb 2015 6:32 pm
Actually, Kenz, too many fish means they will die from oxygen starvation if they are in a closed system (that would be earth for humans). The killing only happens if there is just the right climate that allows them to live to kill. And then, it is the aggressive types that kill, not the passive. Size does not matter, for the most part. I had tropical fish for a hobby for years as a teen. You can learn a lot about real life when you work with plants and animals in closed systems.
Harquebus on Sun, 1st Feb 2015 6:36 pm
If the world does not reduce populations voluntarily, nature will do it for us.
All plagues end the same way.
Davy on Sun, 1st Feb 2015 6:46 pm
Greg, I disagree with your “population numbers could be sustained” if we live differently. The issue is food production from fossil fuels. There is little chance of supporting much more than half the current numbers without fossil fuels. POD & ETP of oil tell us oil’s days are numbered as the primary driver of our society. Personally I think the numbers will be less than 1BIL eventually. We may be able to move down in numbers gradually if we have some beneficial conditions but the eventual number seems to be 1BIL or less based upon history. The beneficial conditions mentioned would have to include cooperative efforts globally because of our interconnectedness.
Food is just one of several issues related to population numbers. There is water issues. The modern urban areas are far too large and there is zero chance those modern urban areas can be supported with less FF. There is little chance of those urban areas depopulating into the countryside significantly. There is not enough material to build housing and the already stressed food producing land in the countryside would have to be further stressed by new settlements.
There is really nothing that can be done because systematically the system cannot degrowth without failure. The brittle complexity we have today cannot simplify. A situation of degrowth will be a situation of failure. We do not know how large the fall will be before reboot. Our complex global production, distribution, and financial system is essential for all delocalized locals for survival. All locals are not the same. Some are highly at risk others less so but overall we would see a huge drop in economic activity from the disruption of interconnected production by failing networks and resource availability. In essence we could drop to a level of salvage within our local regions much like locus devouring themselves in a desperate attempt at survival
Depending on how fast this descent happens would be the key to the destructiveness. The degree and the duration of the systematic disruption is the key and the reason why we have to get on this danger fast and in a cooperative way. If we fall too fast the result could be catastrophic. If at some point we as a global society acknowledge a descent paradigm that would be our plan B. Mitigation and adaptation to the destructive force of a failing global system would be the only option or IOW the only plan B.
The point of profound importance is time. Time is of the essence. Without a global awareness like we have with climate change in regards to a global systems collapse there is little chance of a cooperative effort to mitigate this fall. The results will be completely random, dysfunctional, and irrational. We are truly at risk for a catastrophic failure. This is why you as an individual need to evaluate your local for its potential for failure.
MSN Fanboy on Sun, 1st Feb 2015 8:17 pm
I second the motion Energy Investor.
Welcome to the Age of Stupid.
The survival of the fittest may not be a phrase Darwin used himself, but I bet he wish he coined the term.
Its a perfect description of evolution, All those human’s today born with type one diabetes etc… have a greater chance their offspring will be born with the same defects.
As time goes on, the human gene pool weakens (if that is the right term) HOWEVER, this does not matter as the environment we inhabit of BAU ensures their survival.
When they find themselves outside of civilisation… say it crumbles then collapses from energy starvation (amongst other black swans) they will be forced to meet the reality that is the natural world.
This reality will kill them.
So forget fascism and eugenics, lol
Nature is the ultimate form of Eugenics
Luckily the second dark age will restore human equilibrium.
GregT on Sun, 1st Feb 2015 10:41 pm
Davy,
I agree with you, of course. I probably could have chosen my words more carefully. I have a group over right now for dinner. Superbowl party. Not really my cup of tea, but an excuse for a get- together.
What I meant to say was , greater population numbers COULD have been sustained, if we had a different attitude than we do now. I have read more than once that our scientists believe that the earth WAS capable of sustaining a population of around one billion. The Earth isn’t so healthy anymore, so I suspect that the numbers must now be much less than that.
theedrich on Mon, 2nd Feb 2015 4:29 am
Energy Investor is absolutely correct (although our ubiquitous political correctors will sniff diabolical evil in what he writes.) The obsession to save the genetically disadvantaged and to interminably maintain terminally incurable cases on life support (thereby sluicing vast sums of money to “care providers”), not to say pouring trillions of dollars into eternally hopeless Africa and other world sewers, derives ultimately from the distortion of Western religious principles by brainless prelates. We send our best genetic material off to war to be killed while protecting and preserving the most dysgenic. It makes us feel so good and righteous. Onward, BAU!
Davy on Mon, 2nd Feb 2015 5:45 am
Thee, while I agree with you on some levels other levels I don’t. Who is to judge gifts and talents? What are the chosen ones what are the undesirables. Is it physical or mental? I know plenty of highly physical that don’t have a brain. Many brains that can’t lift a box. Many evil or bad physicals or brainers. I know some handicaps with the gifts of compassion and empathy from their disabilities. It takes a community to raise a child meaning diversity.
I agree in the pre-modern age we weeded out the weak naturally and by convention. Further back the mentally inferior probably were eliminated. I also agree with BAU perpetuating significant poor DNA by the sheer numbers. It is completely absurd to spend the resources we do to prolong the end of life for a short time or allow marginally survivable newborns. In many cases this period is one of poor quality of life. Vital resources are spun away from the backbone of the population to the weak. This is likely to change in the descent when medical care dollars get triaged by lack of resources.
I am basically an egalitarian. We are all the same in the “Great Spirit’s” eye’s (whatever that Great Spirit is?). I also agree with Goldwater when he caveated that with “that is where it ends”. Once we are born our equality quickly ends per the position and talents of our place in society. Being a compassionate egalitarian I cannot play God and determine the above questions. Yet, I will also call into question the absurdities of BAU with allowing anything and everything vital resources to survive. This thought is academic and detached into the abstract macro so without emotions.
I would not be worried about the level of DNA and BAU because of the vast numbers of people we have probably achieved some remarkable DNA, talents, and formative development that could never be achieved otherwise. With that comes the waste and trash unfortunately. Some of the reason for so many loons today is the vast number of people. We would have proportionately less crazies and criminality in a different population environment.
We would have much better population control in a small community and tribal arrangement of the seminomadic hunter gather societies by necessity. Seminomadic hunter gatherer with small agriculture is our true evolutionary nature. BAUman is not our true nature because FF are not a sustainable food source for any species. It was a fluke and will end in a very every short time and we will go back to our true human nature.
Chubasco on Mon, 2nd Feb 2015 4:45 pm
“we enshrine the right of the physically and intellectually handicapped people to breed”
I’ll take every one of the physically or intellectually handicapped people I’ve met over most of the general populace any day. Greater challenge often engenders greater adaptation. YMMV; I’m not suggesting there’s any benefit to keeping grandma on life support after her time has come, but the physically infirm still have brains, and the mentally infirm still have hearts and hands, and the general population seems to take all of the above for granted…
Yea eugenics!
As others have echoed, I ain’t worried…Mam Gaia gonna take care of the population her way, in her time. We never had a choice in the matter, except as individuals.
We have reached the inflection point, and it don’t look pretty for the home team.
Desert
theedrich on Thu, 5th Feb 2015 2:51 am
Davy, one can always postulate salami-slice, “what-if” arguments about brainless or corrupt healthy specimens of humanity and wonderful and/or genius-level types in need of expensive TLC. Yes, there are Steven Hawkings in the world. But I am talking about the norm and the grave situation in which the planet finds itself. Let individual families take care of grandma. No one gets out of this life alive, and it is absurd to turn society upside down to pay for unsupportable numbers of the dysgenic, not to say all the system-gamers. When push comes to shove, societies overthrow all their politically inspired “compassion” anyway. Bible-reading “Honest Abe” murdered between 600,000 and 700,000 of his fellow citizens to make sure his system maintained control. Then there were Hamburg, Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to prove just how moral America was (and to get to write the history books). We need not even get into Communism, which sent over one hundred and fifty million people to the grave as it sought to erect a workers’ paradise. In the face of such numbers, we need to reconsider all the “compassion” our politicians claim to want to provide us with redistributed money.