As someone who has been exploring the world’s most isolated wilderness regions for nearly half a century, I have some insight into the state of the planet and the human race’s current environmental befuddlement. I’ve watched the condition of the earth plummet before my eyes within my own lifespan, to the extent that I no longer recognize it as the beautiful, diverse supporter of all life it once was.
So let me start by addressing a few key points of confusion that seem to affect both keen activists and head-in-the-sand deniers in equal measure:
Climate change is not the biggest threat to the world’s environment – we are. The world’s rivers and seas aren’t choked with floating piles of rubbish, toxic chemicals and plastic waste because of climate change. They’re that way because we have 7.7 billion people crammed onto a planet that’s dying under the pressure of our greedy, selfish abuse. Two decades from now, the earth’s oceans are on target to contain more plastic in them (by weight) than fish. Climate change didn’t do that. Way too many people did that.
Climate change hasn’t covered the world with concrete or replaced healthy ecosystems with canal estates and shopping malls – we and our ever-increasing numbers are the culprit. Climate change is only one of many symptoms of an out-of-control disease – human overpopulation. The irreversible environmental damage stemming from having too many people on a finite planet is already painfully evident. Our bloated population is diminishing our children’s futures in ways that have very little to do with the planet’s temperature.
I keep hearing people say “Humans have always found a way to solve difficult problems, so don’t worry – it’ll all work itself out”. Alas, the problem the earth faces now is one it has never dealt with before – a plague of nearly 8 billion humans. It can’t cope anymore.
We’ve been so distracted making money, embracing our agendas and spreading myths about ‘growth’ and ‘progress’ that we forgot to notice we’ve turned our only viable planetary home into a spherical garbage dump. Humans may be impressively intelligent, but they’re also profoundly self-focused and short-sighted.
No politician talks about our population epidemic. All you hear from them is ‘jobs, jobs, jobs’ and ‘more growth’. You don’t hear climate change activists talking about overpopulation, either. It’s too dangerous a subject, too painful a reality. It permanently occupies the ‘too hard’ basket.
Instead, we’ve all jumped on the global warming bandwagon. We stridently blame governments for lack of action on climate change – while secretly hoping that whatever they decide to do doesn’t adversely affect our consumer lifestyle.
Let’s not confuse activism with action – they’re not the same. One is about social inclusion and feeling good about your outrage; the other is about doing something tangible to make things better.
I hate to burst this old-school bubble, but there’s no longer such a thing as economic growth – not in this century. There’s no true sustainability, either – not any more. The ‘environmental tipping point’ everyone loves to talk about was actually reached around 1980, when science tells us that humanity began to consume more of the earth’s resources than the planet could possibly regenerate. We’ve gobbled up more of our planet’s resources in the past fifty years than in all previous human history combined and polluted our way to prosperity in the process. Climate change had nothing to do with any of that – and still doesn’t.
Economic growth needs population growth to sustain itself. But when a depleted planet can no longer carry the burden of an existing population and its endless demands, growth is nothing but a dangerous illusion. Today’s ‘healthy economy’ is tomorrow’s dystopian misery.
In this century, what we still mistakenly call economic growth is environmental destruction, pure and simple. Nothing we do today can be called sustainable on a planet that has already endured four solid decades of irreplaceable resource use. The 1970s were the last sustainable decade for mankind. Unfortunately, at the time, no one took notice that a tipping point had been reached and passed.
Our current environmental woes have almost nothing to do with the climate and everything to do with how we’ve been treating the earth – not just recently but for many centuries. We’ve always abused the earth horribly and managed to get away with it because our numbers weren’t significant enough to cause lasting damage. Now our numbers are out of control, and that presents us with limited options.
In hindsight, we should have addressed rampant overpopulation shortly after WW2, when the global population was still around 2.5 billion – less than a third of what it is today. But we were in the midst of jubilant post-war optimism and still believed in the delusion of ‘nature’s endless bounty’.
If you could go back in time to around 1604, to the spot where Manhattan now sits, you would see a tiny settlement of about 150 people enjoying a pristine coastal wilderness with superb growing soil, ample wildlife and rich timber forests – a genuine paradise on earth. Back then, whales would wander up the clean, fish-rich Hudson River and you could pull lobsters out of the sea half as long as a man. Huge flocks of passenger pigeons blackened the sky.
Today, that same place is wall-to-wall concrete, with one of the highest human population densities on earth. We’ve been so busy ‘improving’ things that we’ve destroyed practically everything. In the end, our legacy as a species won’t be about all the wonderful things we’ve created while we’ve occupied the earth. It will be about all the wonderful things we’ve destroyed.
The most astounding explosion of human population in history happened on my generation’s watch, so we need to take ownership of that lack of foresight. Our own children are now paying the price for our blunders and have every right to be worried about the earth’s future – and theirs. But let’s not heap all the blame on baby boomers. Previous generations helped the planet’s degradation along just as blindly, and today’s young people still expect the sort of prosperous lifestyle that a dying planet can now only provide in the very short term.
So, I would patiently urge all climate-change activists to direct their environmental concerns at those who really deserve it. They can start with the economists, developers and politicians who blissfully believe that the status quo of ‘perpetual growth’ still works. They can then move on to the religious zealots who still spout the mantra of ‘man’s dominion over nature’ and abhor the idea of contraceptives. After that, they can apportion a hefty dose of blame to the world leaders who purposefully sidestep the overpopulation issue like the political hot potato it is, despite the fact that it’s killing our planet and robbing future generations of the spectacular biodiversity and viable ecosystems that older generations took for granted. And finally, they can look in the mirror and ask themselves what they are personally doing (besides protesting in the streets) to make their planet a better place for all the life that dwells on it.
What are the solutions to an overcrowded planet? Firstly, to stop getting sidetracked by the climate change industry and recognize that the problem is our sheer numbers and blatant disregard for the planet’s health – not the climate. We must replace political and economic agendas and warped ideologies with better education (especially in science). We need more global promotion of family planning, more female empowerment and government incentives to have fewer children – not more. And sadly, we should have been proactive about all this stuff at least 60 years ago, instead of just waking up to our self-inflicted predicament now.
While it’s reassuring that today’s young people are increasingly aware of the seriousness of their environmental plight, they are protesting up the wrong tree. They should direct their passionate attention to the real enemy – a greedy, arrogant, two-legged species that’s in furious denial and has become far too adept at making excuses for the inexcusable.
Image credit: Nyancho Nwanri/Arete
Thank you for this well written, superb article.
I ponder these very issues and so appreciate someone like you articulating them so well!
With appreciation, Lindy
This article hits the nail on the head – it really articulates what I have been thinking for some time!!! Many people have essentially voted Brexit to try and control the population of this country!
In the end, our legacy as a species won’t be about all the wonderful things we’ve created while we’ve occupied the earth. It will be about all the wonderful things we’ve destroyed.
So frightenly true!!!!
We are 100% in agreement. This is EXACTLY what the problem is and no one with any clout ever mentions it, out of either fear or self interest. A major human change or possibly an inevitable, self-inflicted cataclysm, is needed soon for a natural rebalance of the web of live and ecology to be repaired and gradually restored.
Thanks for expressing this point so very well for all of us who care.
These have been my thoughts for a long time, and you put them so eloquently on paper. Thank you for your brutal honesty. Do you have any other written material? I would love to read and share.
I have been arguing about the world’s over-population ever since the time of the World Economic Summit in Brazil that was held in the wake of the Brundtland report. In their wisdom, politicians would not even allow the size of the human population to be on the agenda. I thought at the time, and still think, this was a complete disgrace. Further away in time, circa. 1958, I recall the natural science teacher at my school arguing that it was time to forget about death control and to worry about birth control.
By the way, I am an environmental economist. I would not say that ‘climate change is an irrelevance, economic growth a myth and sustainability is forty years too late’. I would say rather that climate change is largely a consequence of economic growth, that, because of human population growth and industrialisation, sustainable development is more and more difficult to achieve with each succeeding year, and that, unless politicians and everybody else focus on the human population issue, there is no hope for our planet.
Thank you. Very well written. I mostly agree. However, in my opinion it’s rather our greed not our need which is destroying the planet. If we would follow a regenerative lifestyle, this world could even support more people. Hence, let’s develop a more regenerative and circular economy.
Trying to understand the point of this article? Much of it appears to be a newish angle of Climate Change denialism, attempting to spread doubt and confusion, rather than contributing any particular coherant argument to tackle the multiple challenges the planet faces. Its absurd to blame all the world’s Environmental problems solely on population growth. The worlds (unsustainable) economic growth, has been largely driven by developed countries, where the population is stable or indeed declining. Most of China’s economic growth has taken off, after the population was stabilised by government intervention. The poor billions of the world are not driving global consumption, but rather a relatively small wealthy population, along with corporate interests. All of the many systems of the planets undeniably ill health are driven by an economic system that takes no account of the impact of mass consumption on water, land, the atmosphere etc. We are facing multiple interconnected crises, so trying to pretend that one of them doesn’t exist will not assist in finding a way out of the mess. This does not mean that population growth is not a challenge or indeed one that we would have done well to have addressed decades ago. The problem with population growth has always been successfully tackled by championing equal access to decent education and healthcare, with women having choices about the number of children they want. Climate Change is undoubtedly an enormous challenge, with overwhelming scientific evidence to back it up. In tackling Climate Change it is clearly essential to tackle the mountains of garbage, toxic waste, ecosystem destruction etc, as they are symptoms of the same problem. Ignoring/ massively underplaying a key symptom is not an option.
Mon 25Nov 19
Great piece Kevin , its exactly what many of us believe but we are treated as pariahs in the denier tent !
But don’t really agree on blame , think it is what it is . Blame causes heat ,heat causes fire . Accepting personal responsibility help put the fire out .
Its modern human nature too . Greed essentially . The complacency of the all powerful industrialised homo sapiens .
Thanks for that ..
Thanks for a wounderful article what I noticed missing is the impact of industriluzation of food in essence is link with overpopulation
This article contains a number of interesting nuggets of information, a different perspective on the published views on climate change, and attempts to alter the generally accepted public view on some of the issues raised. While the contents will certainly open various points for debate, the hysteria of the general population adds little value into the challenge of:
1) clearly defining the actual issues at hand,
2) getting a broad consensus on the actual issues,
3) articulating a path to a sustainable solution to each of the identified issues,
4) getting some semblance of agreement on the proposed path to resolving the identified priority issues.
For example, given that the climate system is so complex and not, as yet, fully understood by even the most astute scientists of the modern era, how can any attempt to alter the natural occurring phenomena of climate be altered, especially given that the adverse implications of any man-induced changes have not, nor cannot yet be known. The climate has always and will always change. Dealing with the implications of the expected changes will be difficult, but must be accepted, as climate change will occur, no matter what mankind attempts to do about it.
Given the widely diverse and differing priority needs of individuals around the globe, and the inability of mankind to even articulate the actual issues at hand, I have little faith that the self-centred political elite have the will or the ability to implement any globally positive changes. Humankind will most likely continue on its current path until something breaks and nature takes over.
Thank you for raising some very important points Action as opposed to activism. I think both are needed but we do need to understand the difference. Climate change is ALSO and issue … so too all the others you have raised. And of course it’s not entirely the NUMBERS of people only that’s a huge dilemma but also HOW they live – the average footprint of us in the so called first world … even us privileged in the so called third world. So it’s not people per se but the arrogant and entitled over-consumption and of course burning fossil fuels all the time. So we cannot blame the poor folk who eek out a living on the land and have essentially no harmful footprint at all. It’s us folk typing on our laptos, communicating about the crisis .. and then all those who insist on extensive and unnecessary holidays all over the place … and the list goes on and on. Yes, stop the population explosion urgently but also curtain the spending to a minimum. Now the poor Earth must also bear the senseless Christmas shopping madness … I cannot understand that this is still allowed to be punted in every shop. Breaks my heart. The question is of course HOW to step off the insane, suicidal bandwagon and create a friendly life?
Thank you for an eloquently written article about the issue that will put an end to humankind as we know it.
No read on doom is enjoyable. However, getting a clear perspective on what is what is important. The more we can concur on the diagnosis, the bigger our possibility to join forces in the pursuit of a cure.
A piece of good news from there I live (Lofoten, North-Norway): It seems that the sea around this paradise on earth (google it!) will be permanently oil free, as a result of a very long activist fight to keep oil companies out. It`s a struggle that Fight for the Bight has just started in Australia, against the very oil company we are fighting against, Equinor.
Idea for follow up commentary: A list of the 10 most important actions for limiting our impact of the ecosystems.
I`ve googled this a couple of times, and although I find some lists like this, few of them are well written and/or have the appearance of being well researched.
One of the greatest emitters of greenhouse gas is cement/ concrete production (higher than transport) , which is entirely population dependent. Most of it is used in civils – dams for water, bridges, and of course housing across the entire spectrum of human kind, wealthiest to poorest. Population growth is directly linked to the availability of potable water across the last couple of centuries, and every graph – whether pollution, greenhouse gas, habitat loss, deforestation – follows that line. Even in places like the Kruger park – avaialbiltity of fresh water through artificial means pushes mammal populations beyond the point of sustainbilty and destruction of the environement follows. In parks, the solution is culling – artificial control of the population – which wouldn’t go down so well when it comes to people. In the parks, reducing the artificially water supply means the population naturally reduces itself – no more culling. The real problem is the proliferation of ‘human rights’ with no concern for ‘human duties’ – You’d think that the supposedly most intelligent specie on the planet could manage it’s own breeding habits when presented with an idyllic abundance of a scarce resource…
You have taken the words and thoughts in my head and put them on the page for all to see. Sometimes I feel like I am the only one who sees this happening.
I pray for the well being of all. I have two beautiful granddaughters whom I love with all my heart and soul. I want them to have a good life, free from harm and free to express their ideas without reprisal.
Thank you
Excellent article and I agree with all you say. I have always thought the exploding population was the real problem.
I can remember way back in the 1950s saying to my mother “I never want to have children as there are too many people in the world already”. Now, more than half a century later, I still feel the same, and my (only) wife and I have no offspring.
Excellent article, in the late 60’s they were promoting 2 to replace 2. Thus my husband and I decided to only have one child. Reducing Overpopulation needs to be a world wide initiative.
An exceptionally well written article, delivering a message that many of the voiceless would agree with. However those in positions of power will not allow much light to be shone on it. It is an article that I would have liked to have articulated. I would like to express my view that
most unsustainable resource exploitation is directly related to environmental issues, and I believe that environmentalists at all levels help to bring the disconnected populations to awareness of the issues and urgency. HOPE TO SEE MANY MORE ARTICLES OF THIS QUALITY AND PERSPECTIVE.
I can do little more than concur with this article. Although I see global warming as a reality, man has far more to do with what is happening. And only WE can do anything about it.
I completely agree with everything you said! Thank you for taking time to write this.
I would urge y’all too think about how the encompassing “we” and “our” terminology used to diffuse guilt on to humanity as whole perpetuates the capitalist, imperialist, and white supremacist structure(s) that fail to carry the burden of a colonial history. Climate change is the cause of capitalism and the pervasion of capitalism is the fault of colonialism and slavery. Please consider that effective climate action begins with social action and reconciliation. And not a generalization and a diffusion of responsibility.
Interesting how easy it is to ignore the driving force of our economic system. Blame the economists but god forbid, let’s not talk about capitalism, the driver of the growth ethic….
It is specifically the explosion in numbers of those adapting a Western Capitalist consumer driven lifestyle that is the biggest problem.
Climate Change is not the problem but will be the solution by completely destroying or decimating the Human Race with a probable extinction event. Either that or World War 3 which would be more just in eliminating mostly those of us living a Western lifestyle.
Those that survive, if any, should consult our anthropologists to select and adopt a sustainable lifestyle where people are enculturated to be largely content and grateful to subsist on the resources that are available. This in contrast to deliberately brainwashing people by advertising to be discontent and to want more and more stuff that they dont need which is how our Western Capitalist Consumerist culture works today.
I was born in 1946 and when I was at School the world population was 3,000,000,000 we were told and in this article the writer states that it is now 7,700,000,000 it is obvious that this is not sustainable but it is human beings that are at risk we will use up all the worlds resources that sustain human beings but when we are all gone the world will carry on and go back to being the beautiful place it was before we messed it all up
Nick, you cannot ignore the fact that overpopulation is exactly the cause. Whichever class of people, rich ,poor, educated uneducated, the fact remains that there are too many humans on this planet, and whether we chop down rainforests for profit or to feed starving poor, the planet suffers just the same.
While I concur with the priorities of the article, the topics of Climate Change (Catastrophe) & Human Overpopulation are not mutually exclusive, nor should be the ‘actions’ to stop them. Ignore one and the other is affected. Which, in full irony is Nature finding balance — though at the cost of so many innocent Beings (Human and non-Human). While having the ability to think past it, human animals are hardwired to procreate and far too seldom elect not to follow this self-oriented drive. How unfortunate. How like bacteria in a petri dish… which grow remarkably in that finite world until they have used up all their resource and disappear overnight.
Kevin Casey drops mic, walks off stage into the untouched wilderness. Wow this was a fantastic read. Please develop in into a TED talk!!!
I would like to see activists become “actionists” favtbis we are mostly all “aware” so please calm down ppl. What if we had a system where any activism had to be bundled with an equal amount of action?. Certainly would increase the credibility of the cause if folks who are prone to complaining about the problems of our modern world would actually go out and do something about them.
I counted 15 comments, offering kudos to you for a well-written article, which means there are 15 intelligent people who cared enough to read & respond. I make 16.
Collectively, the thoughts presented here offer a template for action. In so much as the realities are dismal, awareness is a starting place for solutions. Doing nothing is not an option! It’s reassuring that everyone brought meaningful dialogue to the discussion.
16 is a healthy group! What name shall we give ourselves? When & where is our next meeting?
So glad I read this today. I’ve been feeling profoundly down about feeling stuck. Are you up to the task of writing an agenda Kevin, making your insights mean something, making this a call to action?
If so, I’m in!
The population problem has been understood and widely discussed since the middle of the last century. (Google Thomas Malthus, Garrett Hardin, or Paul Ehrlich.)
The fundamental question: is it possible to have a growth economy without a growing population?
My intuitive sense is that it’s not, at least as currently defined (GNP, etc.). That puts us in a box. We need to redefine growth in terms of progress towards a better world in stead of progress toward the depletion of its natural capital.
This may require a new religion that replaces the command to be fruitful, multiply and subdue with one to nurture and respect the only living planet we know.
This is so right on. I have felt this for decades. The human species is the only species on earth that purposely and knowingly destroys its nest for its own pleasure. We are like an infection – a virus – in the web of life on this planet. The dinosaurs and their evolving predecessors walked the earth for millions of years without destroying it. We humans will not. There have been five major extinctions on the planet separated by millions of years caused by natural, climatic events. We, humans will be the unenviable cause of the next, sixth extinction ( Read the book by Elizabeth Kolbert of the same title). Our technology has far outpaced our intelligence/intellect, a quote made by none other than Albert Einstein. The only good news for those who mourn what is happening is that the earth will go on after we become extinct. We need the earth. It does not need us.
A lot of people are in agreement but how many of you had or have children because you “needed” them to feel loved or to satisfy a maternal instinct? It’s simple, just stop having kids already,
Absolutely spot on.
I have maintained for a long time that it is not the world as a whole that is in trouble. It is us, and what we have made of our environment. What we seem to have forgotten is that the planet we live on is a vast, interconnected, ever-changing, living system. It has been viable long before us and will continue on just fine long after we are gone.
What we are talking about, unawares, is the world AS WE KNOW IT; the world we evolved into and have now effectively destroyed. We have set up the conditions for our own extinction, and that of many species who depend on us or whose environments we have also destroyed.
When we are gone, as is inevitable, (every species ends sooner or later) the world system will adjust and continue on in its revised version. Our dramas and pollution and squabbling will fade into oblivion with very little trace.
If, by some miracle, we can drastically change our behaviour, can we postpone our disappearance, as least for a couple more generations? That’s really the question before us. I don’t think the answer is encouraging.
Just one more point, if I haven’t been depressing enough. To be practical but very cynical, one way to drastically reduce our population and encourage a ‘reboot’ of our impact on the world in the long term is a good, old-fashioned nuclear war. If we don’t wipe ourselves out completely the survivors would be much freer and better equipped to fit into the new world and have a chance to continue as a species.
There. Now I’m depressed.
Right on the money, bravo!
While I agree for the most part, this piece leave out a huge and crucial detail: an average person in the “developed” world has a massively higher negative impact than the average “third world” person, while the population explosion is happening much moreso in the “third world.” Even if we cut back massively on the sheer number of humans (through less births or more grisly means), it would be a much lower overall impact on pollution if those reductions happened in the third world vs developed world. I’d argue the bigger issue is first world consumption patterns with population being secondary
Excellent analysis
I frequently listen to the overpopulation podcast and recommend it. A 1 child policy worldwide would reduce our global population to a sustainable level (under 3 billion) within 100 years
When i was a teenager in the 70’s, world population was high on our list of concerns along with anti logging.
The governments / corporations appear to have done an exceptional job of putting that train of thought well and truly to bed.
This article is both well written and thought out.
IMO humans should not worry about what we are leaving our children and their children, because no matter how poorly or how well we treat and control our enviroment, those who come after us can only treat and control it worse than how it is now.
Over population is compulsory. As compulsory as the sun setting, but if we treat our planet the way we are presently, hopefully the natural cycles that our planet goes through will be sped up by humanity to the point where life is unable to live.
This will not change anything because almost all planets in the Universe are lifeless.
I agree that population growth is a core driver of the eco problem. When that is true, we have to rethink the rescue plan. For instance, we always say the industrial world has been the big culprit and that the rescue plan must focus on the industrial economies. But, Africa, South-America and India will add the biggest numbers to the global population in the next decades. As such, they will be the big culprits in the next decades and that is where the rescue plan must focus today. Greta and her followers should raise awareness in these countries of the importance of exercising discipline when it comes to having children. Politicians cannot be relied upon to push for discipline.
Agree with you, Nick about the absurdity of blaming all environmental problems on population growth, and your point about where the rapid population growth is occurring and where the unsustainable economic excesses are occurring–they do not coincide. I feel the title of the article was intended to draw attention and, after the initial nod to population growth, some more inclusive points were made. Yes, champion education, and empowerment of women’s choice. And change the mindset of continual (unsustainable) growth. Champion climate justice, less dependence on animal farming, teach interconnection, systems theory, living biosphere that we are part of. Environmental conscience and responsibility at local, regional, national and global scales can only happen if each individual feels they have a voice as well as a stake in the game, and they recognize their agency in the whole.
I agree with you Nick, while population growth and human waste is a major issue, I found it very odd that the author would tell people to just ignore the perils of climate change. The author also provided no specific evidence to support his claims, and also provided no data/advice on which specific policies and regions best to tackle the issue.
Totally agree 100% – Jobs and Growth Im sick of hearing this as I have seen the decline for 60 years. Unfortunately the greed is caused by people with money and power. This will not change until All PEOPLE stand up. Again too many people these days dont even know the news of the day or understand history.
Great article.
Hit the nail on the head Kevin.
Often find myself thinking about how long it will be before everything comes crashing down like a house of cards.
Not long I suspect.
The RULES of the game need to be changed. The real COST of things needs to be reflected in the PRICE of things. We need to harness the power of economics and policy to change behaviour, and hope that in conjunction with technical innovation we can turn this mess around. It is LATE but not TOO LATE. Beauty still exists. BUT our fricking global governments need to ACT and ACT NOW. Let’s give them 5 years, we all need to threaten to resort to anarchy with their inaction.
As a scientist, professor and environmentalist, I completely disagree. Climate change is going to bring down human civilization. It is by far a greater problem than various forms of pollution. Pollution can be cleaned up. Climate change is going to keep getting worse for many thousands of years.
Agreed! BRAVO!! About time someone tells it like it is. How many school-strikers take their plastic water bottles on their strikes, and more, how many take them home and reuse them and how many just throw them away (in or out of the litter containers?)
What a watershed to read the truth at last! I enjoy sailing & there used to be fish all around when I sailed. Now you seldom see them in the same area. We have weather that does not “belong” to the seasons it should be in. We are looking at electric cars to “save polluting the world with hydrocarbons, but does anyone understand the danger & pollution we are causing mining the lithium we need to store the electricity? Worse than petrol. I am 60 years old & now am only realising the damage I have inadvertently caused. I will be dead before the world’s pollution starts to collapse it but my children & grandchildren won’t be and for that I am eternally sorry. What can I do about it? I don’t really know. WE are growing our own vegetables and fruit, using one small car only & recycling all we can but that is not enough – and sadly nothing we all do will be enough. Our beautiful planet is doomed for the future – and all we hear is that the polar caps are melting! Shame shame!.
Seems the overwhelming majority agree with the author (as do I). However, identifying the problem is only the start.
We need to determine what a sustainable global population is and then develop a global plan to reach and sustain this level. This plan needs to be agreed by every country.
Then the plan needs to be actioned by every single country. There would be enormous financial and social cost.
The UK has so far failed to extricate itself from the EU (a much smaller and simpler transition than what we need). So I have zero expectation that our species can humanely manage our population and its effect on the planet.
I’m not picking on the people of the UK – I just can’t see any nation agreeing to a negative growth plan for 20 years and self interest will hijack any attempt to achieve true sustainability.
Here’s a challenge for a concerned advocate for a reduction in population growth with the required skills.
Create a flowchart that recognises the negative impacts of over-population on almost every of the problems we face. Such a chart would, show the direct and indirect paths and links.
The Elephant finally has a voice !
Climate change, jobsongrothe, pollution, population, environmental collapse, over urbanisation, species extinction are all not silos. They are all linked.
The real question is – “Why are we still taking about these things?”
Pollution and plastic waste, anthropogenic climate change and our own over population of the planet are all parts of the same whole. We have to address it all, though the simplest and bluntest instrument is us reducing our numbers, but along with that we still have to be far more judicious with our use of resources and creation of mess, we have created more than enough already, which is not going to be going away any time soon.
“less dependance on animal farming” yet soy is one the biggest causes of deforestation of the amazon! Trying to produce lettuce for 8 billion people is unsustainable.
Whose to say there is a solution? Civilisations have disappeared in the past. Mostly through over farming, followed by drought and hunger. Despite our so called intelligence we are still animals with urges we can’t control. Maybe being self destructive is our fate and everything is a waste of time.
I agree you , Dana,and Siegfried….. There are 3 forms of denial.
1. Literal ,where the facts are denied….mast people watch the news and are passed this now!
2. Interpretative,where the facts are accepted to a certain extent but action to rectify the situation are denied.
3. Implacatory denial where the Moral….Political…Psychological ….physiological and all the other implications of taking action to move to a sustainable ,ecologically balanced planet.
We are all most ALL guilty of at least the last form of denial…I know I have been.
We All need to take responsibility for our failures of 3.
Thank you for this article. I have argued for a long time now that overpopulation is the greatest problem facing our world. We are are the greedy generations stealing from our children and grand children. It’s time we got involved and start to deal with the real issue.
Finally another voice giving the real truth. I’ve also been blogging to get some focus on the real issue for years. But whether in blogs or replies like this people magically find a way to deny the truth (that population is the real problem). Never underestimate the power of belief or gut feeling to overwhelm scientific fact. Clearly to get the message heard we need to educate people in the art of thinking practically and controlling denial… by starting at an early age. Even if it doesn’t save the world that new way of thinking would at least elevate humanity sufficiently that the next era of civilisation can avoid the mistakes of the past… mistakes made in the name of culture or religion.
Kevin, Thanks for the article which reminds us squarely that it is in the first instance the number of the people on the planet that drives consumption in absolute terms and in particular our burgeoning ‘middle class’ with increasing discretionary income who impose a disproportionate burden through greater demand on energy and resources, who consume indiscriminately for the most part and who generate more waste – much of which we cannot, or refuse to, recycle. It’s no secret that we cannot get a handle on the overwhelming volume of our waste, either because it is poorly designed, ‘uneconomic’ to re-process or because we simply cannot be bothered. And all the while our population, even as the overall rate slows, is increasing at almost the equivalent of a Germany-worth of people per year. Yes. truly population growth, along with the irrational and short sighted demands of our exuberance and greed, has wrought one catastrophe upon another, from toxic pollution to loss of habitat and biodiversity – and a warming planet. And it is at this point that you lost me somewhat in your narrative when you wrote, “stop getting sidetracked by the climate change industry and recognize that our problem is the sheer numbers”. Indeed if we were to look at the root cause of population growth it would be the energy of fossil fuels that promoted industry, made energy available, sparked advances in medicine and health, thus fostering population growth and the rise of consumption. One thing begets another – the sum total of our individual emissions, spewed into the finite volume of our atmosphere has a limit beyond which our global average temperature will soar ever upward with alarming consequences. Now we still have the opportunity (however slim) to arrest or reverse loss of habitat and to moderate consumption and reduce pollution, BUT if we do not immediately address planetary warming (climate change) we will unleash untold chaos, massive loss of life and risk destabilizing global order (such as it is). So yes, you are correct on the driving forces and the things that need to be fixed but as much as I agree that all these factors are priorities, the need for urgent decarbonization stands above the others as an imperative – simply because if we miss the deadline on climate action then the rump society that is left clinging to the shrunken temperate zones will have little capacity to clear up our mess.
Surely you wouldn’t be so cynical as to suggest that we should all just ignore the fact that a cabal of ecocidal industries that would collapse without public subsidies (including the free use of our commons as a tip) have captured democratic systems? Srsly? While, much of this article is true and humans are a plague, it’s also a dangerous (and seemingly intentionally disempowering) distraction at a time when we need to focus on confronting corrupt decision makers and ecocidal industry apologists at all levels. And as history shows non-violent civil disobedience by diverse communities hitting the streets in large numbers, backed by the rule of law, is the most effective means of cleaning up corrupt political systems. Thank you Greta and All who are supporting her pure truth to power tactics.
I’m amazed you cannot see the point of the article. The author is stating that in order to decrease the consumption binge that we humans are on (and which underpins climate change as well as all other environmental concerns) we need to control both the number of people and their per capita consumption. He makes that explicit when he states :
“So, I would patiently urge all climate-change activists to direct their environmental concerns at those who really deserve it. They can start with the economists, developers and politicians who blissfully believe that the status quo of ‘perpetual growth’ still works. They can then move on to the religious zealots who still spout the mantra of ‘man’s dominion over nature’ and abhor the idea of contraceptives. ”
I think to imply (as you do) that that author is a ‘denier’ or at least in league with ‘deniers’ is an unfortunate effort to distract attention from the fact that people arguing for urgent action on climate change wilfully ignore population numbers as one of the root causes of the problem – and a root cause that is assiduously ignored by almost all activists.
“We need our policies to be in touch with the views of voters. I am all in favour of us being a middle of the road party, but some in our party interpret middle of the road as doing what big business wants. I believe being middle of the road is doing what voters want”.
If we did what voters want, on issues like population growth, migration, planning, foreign ownership, live animal export, rather than what big business wants, we would do a lot better.
The above was suggested by Kelvin Thomson MP way back in 2013 (to the Labor Party) but all major parties/politicians are still ignoring this. Dick Smith was saying the same back then. And now the buzz by politicians is that infrastructure spending is the only solution to any woes
Keep your head in the sand and keep having children and promoting population growth as a great thing. when the world is starving and dying of thirst with no water for crops and fodder every thing will be rosy for you and your family. Cheers
Excellent article – wouldn’t it be great if the politicians read it and took notice
History says the world is stuffed and can’t be fixed. Why? Because systems without adequate controls can’t be controlled. Leaders make dumb decisions. A business psychologist explained it to me once. Nearly all people in management roles have average IQ and logical reasoning ability. But they get ahead because they had to develop other skills to compensate. So people in power are never going to be good at making optimum decisions Part of the problem is that they don’t understand what the problem is..
And I think it’s mostly true based on my observations from a career spent in government and blue chip corporates. For example, Churchill has a reputation of being Britain’s greatest leader but his deciison making cost tens of thousands of lives unnecessarily. History is full of idiots at the helm. And it’s the ordinary people who end up paying for it. That’s the way the world has worked since time began. The difference then was the stakes weren’t as high as they are now.
Thank you for this article that really resonates with me. I agree we meet more action rather than activism and yes the population size is a burden with our current somewhat careless lifestyles. But since we are already so many people and we won’t just start wiping out people, my big question that I can’t seem to find a decent answer for (and I’m hoping you can help) is what can each of us do to take action. Concretely. What every day changes can we make to lessen our impact on the world, what companies should we support or not to encourage them to change and so on. I believe there are lots of people who would like to take action but it’s so fuzzy and unclear what things really make a difference. I buy organic, go to the market so I can buy fruit and veg that is more local (but even that is hard to find) but at least not wrapped in plastic, I don’t own a car, I will be using reusable diapers and wipes with my baby, but mostly second hand clothes and natural materials… and it’s hard. It takes a lot of energy because much of this goes against convenience and convenience seems necessary to lighten the load of our over-busy lives. So if you have any advice or know where I can find some, I would love to find a website where people share what they do and how they take action, or where we can measurably see what to look out for, what makes the biggest difference, etc. that’s the education I think we are missing. Thanks again
Absolutely agree with you! I am sick of listening to all the climate change devotees! The climate has always changed! Not man made!
Articles like this come along at regular intervals. It is well written and I agree with every word.
But do enough people care enough to do anything about it? Politicians are afraid to go there because they fear quick deselect ion if they do. Who can blame them? An out-of-job politician is no use to anybody.
We all want pensions. Growth pays for them.
It is so depressing. Is the problem too big to even think about?
As a cousin of mine said to me 15-20 years ago, “Take a suburban block (in Australia that means a quarter acre), grass it nicely and rabbit-proof the fence. Put a pair of rabbits in there and see how long it takes for them to eat themselves and breed themselves out of existance – that is what we are doing to the planet”. I have been saying for years, that if we curbed the population, the other things would take care of themselves! If we were all living like we did in the 60s, with that population level, things would be sustainable. All I can say is, as my mother was an only child, and I am an only child, and I don’t have children, I have done my bit for the world – just wish governments and religions of the world would take this problem seriously – how bad does it have to get?
Some of the comments are actually more insightful than the article which wafts of Denialism – particularly in dismissing Climate Disruption as wholly and entirely irrelevant.
Certainly the willfully reckless failure of governance is worthy of relentless criticism and pushback.
Placing the blame solely on population is mathematically incorrect.
It is the _product_ of population and per-capita resource consumption and destruction rates.
Even at that, not everyone consumes / destroys at the per-capita rate.
Also, the behavioural aspects of willfully choosing to throw plastic and chemicals into the ocean, and cut down the last bits of forest etc are not inherent to pop numbers alone.
Consider something like a music festival.
Consider the mountain of garbage left behind.
That is not inherent in the numbers alone, but in the behaviours.
Many choose to do the leave-no-trace thing and literally contribute zero to the pile.
Other irresponsible slobs cannot even be bothered to walk a few steps to the nearest garbage receptacle.
The key element of climatic disruption are the feedback effects.
Plastic in the ocean, serious as it is, does not inherently cause more plastic to appear in the ocean… etc
In his anal-ysis, he also caricatures the entirety of climate activism as merely outrage management with no honourable intention nor action.
Me thinks that is mostly projection.
Certainly any activist PoV which evades DeGrowth and DeepAdaptation and relies on GND, renewables, and continuation of BAU cronyCorpirate capitalism and unrestrained consumption is non-optimal, but is still better than reckless hard core Denialist BAU to the #BridgeOut who are typically no more concerned about any of the other “way more important” issues.
The real nutty problem is that we have, in modern society, a reluctance to die (and I say that with every respect and empathy for anyone facing this condition and the decision surrounding it). Birth control was never an issue because people were born and died within a shorter space of time, allowing for a more freely flowing cycle. If you prolong life, then you need to control birth to control population.
So the very simple issue, to my mind, is our loss of connection to nature, to the cycle of life and the eternal transforming energy that we are all part. Lack of faith (no religion implied) gives rise to fear. Fear of death in combination with our learned scientific skills gives rise to the increase in population. The choice is to control birth (which could be seen as an injury to the natural evolution of the soul 🤔) or tackle the fear of death and evolution itself. It seems to me that a shift in consciousness is the only way forward for us and the planet.
Tremendous article that confirms my view that the worlds problems are due to over population. Written clearly and in a manner that is understandable to all – well done
I simply cannot bear to send a bottle or jar to the recycling ( they are so beautifully made.. glass or plastic) they ought to be re-used again and again.. but my offspring are appalled at my saving habits.. he he
Being saying this for years now! At last someone with common sense.
I believe that Sir David Attenborough said something along those lines a couple of years ago. Unsurprisingly, but Dall sadly, he was panned for it.
Dear Nathan and everybody else all bringing in the North-South debate – that is a social justice debate, and has almost nothing to do with the sustainability / overpopulation debate. To put it in very, very simple terms that every farmer that has to deal with carrying capacity understands, if you have 10 cows that eat 50 kg each, or 100 cows that only get 5 kg each, it makes no difference – the impact on the environment is the same. Sustainability is measured by total impact, not per capita impact. And because the earth is one big ecosystem, all impacts are shared, and spread around.
This is one of the best written pieces I have come across in a long, long time. Every single environmental issue that we face is careening out of control, and every single one of them has a population growing out of control driving them.
All I would add is that I have very rarely come across anyone who says that they have enough and are content. Everyone wants more, bigger, better, newer. Humans are as greedy as gravity, and I’m not proud to be one.
Thank you for this article. As I read more and more ‘posts’ on fb I really wonder if people know what is going on at all. In Sydney – we are told we are running out of water – yet – we keep moving thousands of people into the region which draws from Warragamba Dam.
Something has to happen – if there is a finite amount of water that falls into the dam’s storage area – well that is it – I said at the time of the 2000 Sydney Olympics that there would be a new sport – standing on the edge of Warragamba Dam – and watching the water go down. Speculating that in the ‘ad breaks’ a lot of people would use the toilets – and flush – at about 9 litres a flush – that would be a lot of water.
The population of Australia is exploding – the population of the Earth is exploding – we have to slow down. Why do we allow the spending of huge amounts of money for IVF programmes etc., – Adoption and Fostering can allow families to have the children then want – IVF is an abomination – except for things like trying to rebuild our devastated Koala population. – Thank you.
One point that comes to my mind as I watch the daily news broadcasts is that on the one hand the masses are complaining that they don’t have high enough wages and that wages haven’t had an increase in years and yet the ABC news this morning (28/11/2019) stated that consumers in most major cities will spend many millions of dollars on purchases this pre Christmas season. My question is, how can the general wage earner afford to spend this sort of money, when most claim they don’t have enough to pay their electricity bill or pay their mortgage bill or have enough money to put food on the table every day! I find it completely obvious that the population of the planet is excessive and needs to be curtailed. When you actually sit down and read the various articles on these subjects, it makes absolute common sense that most of the problems can be traced back to the number of people on the planet.
Would it be fair to say that the people who are not born cannot suffer, whereas the great majority of humans born in the near future on an overcrowded, depleted planet Earth will definitely suffer greatly? (and that the exception, the minority, to this may be a very small super-elite perhaps fleeing to Mars). I am looking for the right wording here. For the best argument for limiting the planet’s human population.
In the early 20th Century, fertility rates in what is now the developed West were routinely 3.5 to 5 babies per woman. These rates fell in the 1960s and ’70s after the introduction of the contraceptive pill. Much of the environmental destruction was set in place by the rapid industrialisation of the west at a time hen it had fertility rates that are now common in Africa.
We need to short-circuit change and rapidly reduce fertility rates everywhere since overpopulation will overwhelm any attempts to deal with its symptoms. This has been achieved in places like Thailand in the 1970s and Iran in the 1990s.
“government incentives to have fewer children”
The Child Benefit High Income Charge is an excellent incentive to have fewer children. You should be thanking George Osborne.
Thank you Nick
I too believe many people in the media, activist groups and society at large have misguidedly blamed the causes of a symptom (climate change) and ignored the cause of the disease that is destroying our planet.
It is so disheartening to try to explain to others that our species and its relentless ‘development’ of the environment has hastened our extinction along with many other organisms who did not deserve their fate as much as our species does.
We are a clever bipedal ape that thought itself apart from nature. Perhaps this has happened many times on other planets, species briefly evolve into a self centered swarm and consume their worlds?
I think that blaming governments is ludicrous. Governments are elected. We elect them. We are the guilty party.
Governments will generally do whatever is the most popular , in order to stay in power.
I think this is an excellent article and very thought provoking, but I wonder if it misses the real point which, to my mind, is not tht there are too many people but there are too many people with creation destroying life styles.
What needs to change is the First World’s way of living and exploitation of natural resources.
It may be true that the sheer number of humans imposes an insupportable burden on the earth and that no possible changes to behaviour or innovation can outweigh this; but that argument is not proven here. Nor is it proven that the harms arising from sheer numbers outweighs those of climate change. You could argue that the one leads to the other but even if we were fewer, action to reduce the CO2 load would be necessary. So the the whole argument is a bit silly: both matter. And, by the way, good luck with reducing human numbers without catastrophic consequences.
Great article. David Attenborough has consistently spoken about the need for population control as has Chris Packham – they are in no way ignoring the problem
Thank you for your explanation, you are so right. Australia has twice been covered with Ice, ind between it was tropical, this was before there were any human pollution, yet the changes happened. They are caused by explosions from the sun, not by human. However, the human pollution is causing serious problems to any living creature, including humans, so let us get it stopped.
Very well written article — captures the essence and root cause of the problem, and defines what are the symptoms that so may people believe are the cause. Society is all too eager to discuss the symptoms while avoiding any serious discussion regarding the cause — overpopulation. The final chapter in humankind’s legacy will be its inability to understand and act collectively. Individual freedom is great, except at this juncture, when only united understanding, planning and action can solve the problem, such freedom does little good. It seems the sixth great extinction is inevitable. The only question remaining is how many years will it take and what kinds of species will evolve and inherit the earth 10 million years from now. I wonder if they will make be smart enough to understand root cause and solve existential problems collectively.
Happy Thanksgiving everyone.
At a conference in Canberra in the 1970s I argued that growth {in population and economy) could not go on for ever and we needed to transition to a sustainable system but noone listened and they’re not listening still.
This is absolutely brilliant and we need to send this message to governments all over the world. Let’s clean up the planet and make a difference where we can and should. The whole question of climate change needs proper discussion and an open mind. Thank you Dick Smith for your amazing insight.
Brilliant article, thanks so much.
Hold on!! Everyone seems to be For all his wonderful insight and ‘clarity’ on the issue- he fails to mention the single greatest cause- and only when this is ‘solved’ can we start to ‘heal’ the planet. Get rid of central banking that creates debt, slaves, and corruption on multiple levels.
also if we gave every man, woman, and child a house- we could fit them into the state of Texas so this human overpopulation malarky is another myth that needs to be realised. We have a production and distribution problem is ‘all’. Guilt is such a wasted emotion and this dude lays it on way to thick. Why? to keep the robbery of the Human consciousness to continue and deepen.
Ultimately, of course this is true. The problem with this argument, like all of the arguments about overpopulation, is that by the time we get enough vasectomies done and distribute enough birth control medication, and by the time the world’s population reduces as a result, it will be too late to save our environment. So, before we can possibly reduce our population, we must address climate change, insect die-offs, ocean depletion and habitat destruction. Arguments about population are true, and no doubt they are the ultimate answer (although they are also problematic in terms of class and culture), but they can also put a brake on the things our species needs to do right now: stop using fossil fuels, stop using so many pesticides, stop overfishing and stop building on wilderness and cutting down trees.
I do love this sentence, though: “In this century, what we still mistakenly call economic growth is environmental destruction, pure and simple.”
A well written commentary that provokes reflection, thanks Nick!
The one reflective animal on earth, look where we are today. Part human, part robot (by virtue of our robotic activities).
So far removed from our natural existence and the richness of life lived fully in our senses. We now live largely in our minds, rekindling past, imagining future, that for most of the modern world we seek external entertainment at a ridiculously high rate (take a look) and with devastating cost to the natural world, through excessive consumption and waste, all in the name of FUN, in an attempt to bring our senses back from where they have been robbed, straying from the natural living patterns this animal was created for. But then who am I to say, it is only my observation after all .
It is nothing new though, and where we find ourselves today (with all our highlighted calamities) comes off the back of a trend that spans hundreds or thousands of years. You’d have thought we would have learnt better by now.
There is no point denying it, we all partake (to a lesser or greater degree), this is the who we are, extremely clever and stupid at the same time.
The way I see it is that our values are incorrectly placed, for that which is valued will be nurtured. Clearly, at large, we do not value other life forms and the living ecosystems they depend on to exist. We have tipped the balance of nature in favour of ourselves, with our exploding population, at the expense of other life forms. Is this not plain to see?
We have dominion on Earth, over all else, we have the means, and it is not for me to say otherwise, but we we are poisoning ourselves, the air, the water, the food, every other living creature, and the blessed Earth itself. What a shameful act of indulgence!
Clearly the human mindset needs to change. Is that possible? Does the Leopard change its spots? Can the human animal become divine in his and her existence, become the caretakers of our Earth, to value that in every sense, to place its value in every decision we make?
Well, it’s a dream some of us had …..
There is one suggestion I put forward. That each and every one of us, to some extent (minute or grand), get our hands in some dirt and grow food. For are we not made from the elements of the earth and biosphere? Our deep Spirit is one with the Earth, and to the degree that we connect with it we shall value it.
So I say, “Happy gardening and garden to your heart’s content!”
some interesting points but you fail to mention a huge reason there are so many of use – medicine
we’ve wiped out diseases – we are living longer…
further, your comment about who climate activists should target – have you not been to a rally? your list is exactly who they are crying out to
our planet is being trashed by too many humans living in a buy buy buy, single use and throw away society.
Thankfully between clever people creating new systems, and inventions, education (much of adults by kids) and actions by activists there may be some hope for us all – and we’ll be living longer to see what happens next too….
7 billion+ world population is unsustainable, because farmers are already clearing vast areas of the worlds forests for farmland. No farmer would do that, if the population didn’t want the extra food he produces. Like Kevin says, the problem was obvious before the seventies, when 1970 Nobel Peace Prize winner for saving millions around the globe from hunger, Norman Borlaugh, warned in his acceptance speech:”If the frightening power of human reproduction is not curbed, my work will be ephemeral”.
Every human, even living frugal has quite an impact on our environment. It ‘s Kindergarten economics. You can’t blow up a balloon forever. It will blow up into your grandchildrens face. If more want to eat from your birthday cake, everybody gets a smaller piece. It is really as simple as that. But don’t ask economists, big business or the religious. I think the Bible says: There is no-one as blind as the one, who doesn’t want to see.
We have wasted 50 years and blame farmers, who struggle to keep us alive. Why does the world need so many people?
Agree and it’s up to us individuals to take action in our back yard really to have an impact on our footprint. Start thinking of the stuff you have and whether you need them. I walk, I cycle, I catch the bus and I drive but I’m conscious of what I do. I have 1 small car, 1 TV, 1 phone (also acts as a computer). I go walking and along the way will occasionally collect rubbish left by others. I have a small house big enough for me. I enjoy my caffè latte so stop being so greedy. Just have what you need, become a minimalist and you will see the positive effect you will have on the planet, when everyone uses less to survive well. We must become strong willed and stop blaming others and look in our back yards to see what we can do instead.
Thanks for this article, I agree wholeheartedly. Now that we have the world wide web, we are able to communicate globally. I don’t think this fantastic tool come about at this time entirely by chance. We must use this to awaken. Governments must start looking at alternatives to ‘growth’. Populations are already doing so, creating alternative economies and currencies. The next generation is fully onboard and aware of the task. They also have the tools. This will be worked out, otherwise …..
You need training and a licence to cut hair, to massage a person, to be able to use a ladder at work!!!!! but anyone including :
insane , corrupt, homeless , 4 kids from 4 different men type, child/teen moms , criminals, illiterates, can have a baby declaring its their right . No it’s not your right ! Its the right of a child to be born into love , safety, wanted , protected ,
it’s a privilege and honour to have a baby and they shouldn’t be popped out because you feel like having a baby . If you want to be sterilized you have to undergo psych evaluation and sign Consent forms but nothing in place to protect the rights of a baby to be born to healthy functioning individuals who have the means, time, and intent to dedicate their lives to raising this small angel of life. . Instead we pick up the mess of these neglected children’s lives through social services , juvenile/jail centres foster placement, adoption agency’s , behaviour problems etc traumatised messed up children because no one considered their right to be born into safety . Why are there no laws ? Blame the religious institutions for speaking out or banning contraceptives, blame the insatiable greed of business who want an every increasing cheap labour force and consumer market, blame governments for not implementing laws , blame the selfish who insist on multiple births . We can land on the moon but peanut fund safe effective contraceptive and education . Yes population is the singular most destructive force . Imagine being on a lifeboat and keep adding people, you will sink ! And there is no planet B so no chance of rescue . We need to curb population for the safety of our children’s well being and survival.
You can’t “kill our planet” You can make it temporarily uninhabitable by destroying the soil that supports life, through deforestation, desertification and bad farming practices such as slash and burn. But you can’t kill Earth. It will be rinsed of life and has probably been through this cycle many times before. Those dinosaurs did exactly the same as we are doing today.
The Sahara desert was once the bread basket of the Earth, with lakes, rivers and rich diversity of life. Yes humans did this!
These assumptions that the World is overpopulated are dangerous and will fuel future wars, aimed at decreasing humans. In a way it is another form of greed. Remove the people from the land and we can have it all is in their field of vision. When in reality, we need people to wake up to find ways to restore and replenish the soil, by planting trees. Especially close to the coast line, where rain clouds form.
I agree with the author on concreting over fertile ground, laying tarmac roads to facilitate “better drainage” All of which speed water on it’s way back the the ocean. When slowing it down is the solution.
Good soil is made up of organic matter, mostly from vegetation and tree cover. Animal droppings carry seeds far and wide and providing the soil is moist, will restore the planet to abundance. Rivers will run clear again instead of bleeding soil into the ocean.
Egypt is exporting timber from forests grown in a once arid desert, using waste water from toilets.
“The problem with population growth has always been successfully tackled by championing equal access to decent education and healthcare, with women having choices about the number of children they want. ”
Isn’t that what the article proposes?
It isn’t climate change denial! It is pointing to the ultimate cause of the problems. Humans!
#smallfamiliesarebetterfortheenvironment #condomscutcarbon
Excellent article. Worries me that some people find fault with it. Population numbers a massive contributor to the problem, especially when multiplied with consumption patterns. One thing that is mentioned just briefly is the self-centredness of the human being. This is a necessity for us to survive and thrive (so a fundamental force in life) but comes with a negative side (with destructive potential) to thrive and strive at the expense of others and the natural world. The strong link between capitalism and individualism has further emphasized this focus on the self. In buddhism the ninth highest life state is that of boddhisatva, selflessly caring for others and the world around us. To be in that state needs conscious effort. The state of self (or ego) is regarded as one of the lower life states, little effort needed to be in that state. Each state has both positive and negative potential [The ten worlds or conditions of life].
The best and most profound comment was, ‘We need the Earth, the Earth doesn’t need us, we survive on this planet by pure unadulterated luck, what did the dinosaurs do that they deserved to be obliterated by some cosmic missile, The Planet has been through lots of phases of unsustainability, and completely uninhabitable, and came through it, I’m sure the other creatures on this planet are aware that the upright naked, two legged beast is also destroying their planet, but make no mistake balance will be restored.
I see this argument pop up that goes something like this: “The absence of Industrial development and technological advancement causes increased population as evidenced by the increasing populations in less developed places like India and Africa compared to the stabilized populations in places like North America and Europe.”
If this were true then why didn’t we have an overpopulation issue prior to 150 years-ago for the 300,000 year period humans were here with none of the industrial/techno development we have now?
This is not new news, and all the environmental activists I’ve worked with are well aware of the actual causes of our problems, and their/our efforts are towards addressing these causes.
‘The Earth has enough resources for everybody’s needs but not everybody’s greed’ the saying goes, or something like that. It’s not our numbers that is the problem, but our behaviour. This is something we absolutely can and must change. Our use and distribution of resources is what we’re doing terribly wrong, and while Capitalism exists, it will continue to be done badly.
“You don’t hear climate change activists talking about overpopulation, either. It’s too dangerous a subject, too painful a reality. It permanently occupies the ‘too hard’ basket.”
No. It’s because the only humane way to enact this policy is to do the exact opposite of what you suggest. The only guaranteed way to reduce population is to create such an affluent, prosperous society that having children becomes a net economic loss rather than a net economic gain. That’s why every first world nation has a declining population.
Telling people in poor countries where children are a net economic gain to stop having children is basically white people telling brown people that they’re the problem and the solution is for them to stay poor.
Furthermore, any concrete action to reduce population would require literal fascism, i.e.: State-regulated breeding. While that might work in a Communist dictatorship, that isn’t going to fly in a free, liberal Western democracy. Nor should it.
And of course, when anyone starts talking population control, the obvious rejoinder is “you first.”
“If you could go back in time to around 1604, to the spot where Manhattan now sits, you would see a tiny settlement of about 150 people enjoying a pristine coastal wilderness with superb growing soil, ample wildlife and rich timber forests – a genuine paradise on earth. ”
Oh look, it’s the myth of the Noble Savage. It’s a genuine paradise so long as you don’t consider the high rates of mortality required to maintain a population of that size. The same people who drove mastodons and woolly mammoths into extinction weren’t voluntarily maintaining the “circle of life” through their enlightened wisdom. They just lost a lot of people to infant mortality, diseases for which they no cure, daily intertribal violence, and the injuries sustained procuring that ample wildlife and rich timber.
Which I guess ties into your previous point about population. External controls are population only create a genuine paradise on earth so long as you’re not the one dying.
It’s not too many people or too many frogs it’s too many consumers the human entity doesn’t have to embrace consumerism.I cld have ten kids and cause no damage to the ecosystem or I cld have one self obsessed child demanding we kneel to their confused toxic demands..It is the quality of people that is lacking not the quantity in excess..
The problem is not over population, it is over consumption. People are also ignorant and should be educated in what really matters, how to be self sufficient while being more friendly to nature.
Poor mothers and very young brides – themselves still children – living in societies with patriarchal cultural patterns cannot possibly influence the size of their families. Ignorance, oppression and poverty are main culprits in many parts of the world Yes, greed and struggle for economic and political power, of course, but oppression of females, not letting girls have equal oppoirtunities, should not be forgotten.
At last! Al Gore- this article is the real inconvenient truth. Thank god we are beginning to discuss it.
QUOTE: Climate change didn’t do that. .. Climate change hasn’t covered the world with .. The world’s rivers and seas aren’t choked with ….because of climate change. UNQUOTE
Not sure what this kind of argumentation is called but it’s not logic ..
I understood the theory to be that HUMANS (due to their numbers and lifestyles) are having such an effect on the planet that WE are now affecting NOT ONLY our planet but also our ATMOSPHERE and thus CLIMATE, with the consequent run on effects in a pretty much closed system.
No argument with the gist of the essay.
Perhaps this author’s twisting of cause / effect is designed to appeal to “head-in-the-sand deniers” – in which case, Good Luck !
For the past 45 years I have been saying that the answer to nearly all the world’s problems was to bring the birthrate down to 2 successful pregnancies maximum per couple. There will always be twins or triplets but that will be balanced out by those who cannot or do not have any kids.
However almost nobody takes any notice and they continue on a race to breed humanity into extinction.
When I was 15 years old I already preached population control was the single best way to avoid the calamity we are in today. People were shocked or just thought I was insane. Still today they will feel uncomfortable with the idea. But saying that climate change isn’t a problem is a bit of s stretch. Of course it is a symptom and not a cause. But it is the one that has wider reach and stronger impact and since population control failed but growth is also naturally reducing, doesn’t make sense obsessing about it over the rest. It is simply one thing among others that we need to address, as zero waste, circular economy and degrowth.
A good read and would definitely include – education & awareness for men relating to family planning, along with empowering women.
From the article…….. We need more global promotion of family planning, more female empowerment and government incentives to have fewer children – not more.
At last,someone has connected the dots and explained the actual problem, with a simple truth.All economies are based on the ponzi scheme principals,keep it growing at all costs.
Yes, “the poor billions” are not driving global consumption. So is your proposal then to keep them poor forever, and focus on reducing current consumption of the wealthy??? The whole point of the essay is to note that human-centeredness will drive us, as we are already doing, to slowly raise the standard of living of every human on earth. Even an incremental increase in consumption spread out over billions is a massive impact on the earth. Numbers matter!!! Too many!
The number of farm animals reared globally each year now stands at approx 70 billion and has increased by 10 billion within the last five years. The insatiable demand for meat and dairy products is driving ecological destruction. So yes the world is over populated but not by humans. It’s the way we live that’s the problem and for anyone seeking concrete action that’s possible by us all,you know what you have to do.
The island of Manhattan is about 60 square kilometers – so if we covered the entire island with one gigantic 135 storey building, you could fit all of humanity into it. … Alaska covers about 1.7 million square kilometers – so there would be room there for everyone – with about 210 square meters available per person
Dear Kevin,
so happy for you that you got the chance to travel the world for 50 years, but maybe you should have put some more time in reading statistics report and data analysis also, if you wanted be taken seriously.
The world population is not growing because we are having sex like rabbits without using any condoms, or because our politicians tell us to do so.
It grows because we live better, we are healthier, we have access to medical care, and there fore we live longer.
In fact UN statistics shows very clearly (listen to this carefully) that the global fertility rate (number of children born for women) is 2.5 (!!!) and decreasing EVERY YEAR, already since mid 60s (5 children per woman back then).
But, we live longer, therefore population increases.
Obviously we will not leave longer and longer, nature itself puts a limit to that (for now) so that number is coming to a natural to a stop.
In all modern countries the number of birth per woman is LOWER then 2, and that includes China (1.6 per woman in 2016) in case you are wondering.
In India is 2.2 in 2019 and decreasing.
So as you can see, the natural tendencies is to reduce the number of births as soon as health and education is introduced to a country.
Those countries with a very high fertility rates are also the countries with and high children death rate, and it is obvious why.
So that is to say, you don’t worry about overpopulation any more. Let’s instead worry about bringing instruction and health (economic health and physical health) to those countries who still need that, and you’ll see that their birth rate will also settle on (or lower then) 2 children per woman.
But beware: that doesn’t mean their population will stop the growth, on the contrary. It will increase because they will also live longer.
But the good news is, the growth will come to a stop.
World population’s number will settle.
There will still be a lot of us, but all is left to do is create a sustainable economy for those 10 billions people, and we are set.
And yes, sure as hell that also means that we need to worry and do something for our climate changes because that is NOT gonna fix it by itself and 10 billions people in 2050 can make huge damages.
But while you can’t avoid the 10 billions (unless you wanna stop giving vaccination and medical care to infants), you can act in order to avoid the damages (i.e. climate change).
What a great article.
Whilst the arguments are obviously sensible and true, the climate change argument is still valid.
It is also very, no, incredibly important to clear the oceans of the plastic so carelessly deposited by us.
Let’s hope there is still time, and a great desire to learn, work and behave correctly in the future.
Climate change is a pressing problem. In my country, Australia, we are the largest per capita CO2 producer and contribute 1% of the world’s CO2. We have a vast empty dry country habitable mainly around the coastal fringes. On the eastern side of the 3200km long Great Dividing Range on the relatively small eastern coastal fringe, is the bulk of Australia’s population. The Great Dividing Range (and Tasmania) are around about the only places that large dams are located hydro-electric power is used in almost all feasible areas. Building more dams to support a growing population is difficult due to environmental concerns. Solar farms generally need large open flat spaces, and we have plenty of that except not near enough to population centres making transmission costs and losses relatively unacceptable. This leaves Australia quite dependent on coal reserves which also thankfully are along the eastern more populous parts of Australia, not just for domestic use but also for income from export.
Australia suffers from bushfires (ie wildfires, forest fires) and is hot and dry with predominantly highly combustible eucalyptus (gum) trees. Because of climate change our fire season is getting longer, now the fire season starts in October/November and extends into March/April. Population increases push the limits of our cities into these bushfire prone areas. We how regularly have deaths during the fire season and not just property losses, making bushfires an increasingly hot topic.
There are many calls from environmental activists, and even just the more general population to do something about the mitigation of climate change. Discussion about climate change and bushfires have reached roaring proportions, with activist saying that the reason Australia now has so many bushfires is the inaction of our politicians about steps to mitigate climate change, the argument seems to have a belief that reducing CO2 emissions in Australia would have stopped the bushfires, it is almost as if they think that our CO2 levels are quarantined from the rest of the world. Activists also think that if Australia stopped exporting coal that would help – as if users in other countries wouldn’t just source it elsewhere. Australia has large coal reserves but pales in comparison with total world reserves.
Australia’s total CO2 emissions per annum are about equalled by China’s year-on-year increase in CO2 emissions. China has been an economic powerhouse, with great improvements in GDP and living standards but by world standards they still have a long way to go. China population is not growing by as much as it used to, but it is not the population but the aspirations of its people and increasing energy demand. China has massive coal reserves and to feed an energy-hungry population each year they increase their coal usage by an amount just shy of Australia’s total coal use.
But China is not the only country that wants to see it people improve their lot. In the last 40 years, world poverty has reduced from 40% to 20% – congratulation world. But reductions in poverty are closely linked to increased energy use and CO2 production. So even without an increasing population people would prefer not to be in near starvation, they also want refrigerators, heating and cooling, cars and other transport services.
Population and improvements in living conditions are the elephants in the room when it comes to climate change. It is not that everyone is having more children but that the worlds average life expectancy has more than doubled in the last 100 years. In 50 years ago in Australia a person retiring at 60-65 had on average 12 years left in them, today that has nearly doubled. So the proportion of older people is increasing putting a greater burden on younger people to support them in old age with government pensions etc. There is no real answer to population growth – if we encourage people to have fewer children it only exacerbates the age imbalance in the population. If we forestall medical science, relax road and occupation safety, increase wars, bring back capital punishment we might bring that life expectancy – but who really wants to suggest that we should cut our lives short.
Perhaps mitigation will work, science, technology and economics may bring us answers, but I think in the shorter term we are going to have to get used to hotter climate. No-one wants to talk about adaptation, it will make our houses more expensive, change the places where we build, change our expectations.
I am not against attempts to mitigate climate change. Our reliance on an extremely finite set of fossil fuels is absurd. They are not making new fossils like they used to. So bring on wind, solar, wave, hydro-electric, geothermal power generation, and anything else, but just acknowledge that these will not solve climate change but at best will arrest its impact in the distant future.
Thanks for the article.
I have to disagree with you a little. You are absolutely correct that the current parlous situation is largely not due to climate change. However, when we look forward, climate change will become as large a factor as the other things you have described. Decades into the future, the impacts of climate change will have been just as profound and possibly more so, than all the other things that you rightly discuss. If we are only looking at climate change we are missing the problem. If we ignore climate change we are missing the problem. The only answer is to look at everything.
There are undeniable truths in this rant, but this author states the obvious and misses the mark completely in terms of providing a take away message that has any practical meaning. The argument is that we are the problem, not climate change…. So what’s the message here? should we be protesting and petitioning against our species? No that doesn’t make any sense. Of course we know the onslaught of global environmental degradation is our fault, who’s else would it be? But in what reality are we honestly going to just disappear overnight, or slow our population or reduce our use of resources. He is simply reiterating the obvious and not providing and constructive information or solution. Yes the state of the environment is dire, yes its making us sick and threatens our way of life and the life of many other species on this planet. But the only thing that’s going to drive us to change our self destructive behaviors is the motivation to save ourselves, not the planet, or some remote chunk of wilderness, it never has and likely never will. We need to correct our mistakes of thinking we can grow our industries and economies without limits and create more circular economies and sustainable lifestyles so that we don’t shoot ourselves in the foot by destroying the very life support system that we depend on for clean air, water and food. When it comes to climate change, it’s simply a by product of changing the earths balance of cycling energy and matter between the surface and the atmosphere too much too fast. What we dump in the atmosphere has to be treated as pollution when it starts causing issues and disrupting the well being of us or others, just as pollution in our water and soil must be properly managed if we don’t want to eat where we shit. Both the issue of plastic waste and gas/energy waste needs to be better managed if we want a healthier planet to live on. And it’s clear we should have started doing this better decades ago but very few if any living thing on this planet is capable of developing behaviors for waste mitigation before the problem severely impedes the growth of that organism. We learn through trial and error just like everything else on this space rock. That’s no reason to not try to do better now though. It’s never too late to improve, both as an individual or as a population. That’s called cultural evolution 😉
Well written article. Thought provoking. The arguments are sound but human nature will prevail and we will not be able to get the leaders to line-up behind a strategy that addresses the issues. Greed has been mentioned a few times. People look after No.1 and we will continue to damage this beautiful planet because of the social and economic systems that we have put in place.
To all those that think that adding 80 million people net to the face of this earth every year without any consequence to the environment are just as denial focused as the people who are stating that climate change does not exist. We have to understand that if there was to be a drought in the north American Prarie region and grain crops were destroyed for many years like the 1930’s when the earths population was only 2 billion or less. we would see world wars driven by food and survival alone.
I disagree. This is a dangerously deceptive article.
There is no ‘climate change industry’.
And no, economic growth does not rely on population growth, it relies on ‘upscaling’ of lifestyles – consumerism, buying more.
Growth is not a bad thing – in SA we have probably 40% of the population in shacks. Getting them into houses is economic growth. People getting more literate is also growth, but a fairly non-consumptive kind.
And 1 American consumes about as much as 100 Africans, so again, the problem is NOT population growth, it is consumerism/materialsm.
And as for climate change not affecting us – nonsense – ocean acidification is already having devastating consequences on fish populations, as one tiny example.
And that comment that climate change is not affecting us – total BS! Ocean acidification due to increased CO2 already having devastating effects on marine life, coral bleaching etc.
population explosion not on ‘my’ watch – chose not to procreate – onslaught of consumerism neither – buy almost nothing ‘new’ – re-purpose more than re-cycle – never travel to ‘vacation’ … and why saying this ? honestly, not joining this orgy of collective liberal guilt
Could not agree more….
Thought provoking. The seas are rising, Scotland already sees this over the past 30 years. No longer does the post ice age tectonic plate “bounce” (due to relief of ice age pressure from 25,000 years ago) keep up. A claim that over 1/3rd of the world’s commercial centres and seats of Government comprise districts within 3 meters of 2019 MHWS. Major cities have also dug down, Tube systems, drains and basements. Lower stretches of major rivers all round the world already flood more frequently, inundating coastal levies, displacing the poor who live there.(eg New Orleans- Venice ) Very soon now it would be necessary to have in place such huge, high, sea defences simply to protect places no longer viable, whole populations will need to be relocated. As commercial districts, administrative hubs and seats of governance are overwhelmed, a grab for new space will follow. On current trends,masses of people will need move inland to places never previously fit for large scale habitation. They will actively compete for crop growing space and meager water resource with those already there. If disease or warfare does not end current Human population trends first, This dystopian projection of water IS certain to be the end game. Even if population growth was successfully reversed today the magnitude of effort needed to protect coastlines, capital city drainage system ,- never forgetting the toxic former Coastal nuclear sites and oil storage facilities- will be impossible.. Accurate charts of world coastlines are less than 200 years old. No coastline is now the same the Sea is rising.
A very good article. Readers postulating about “destroying the planet” are way off beam. The planet won’t be destroyed. Human and other forms of life will suffer immensely, if not become extinct just as has occurred over the aeons. You can’t beat Mother Nature, she’ll establish the balance, one way or another. And if that means sorting out these piddling humans, so be it..!
Thank you for putting into words what I have been trying to say for a while…at the same time having people talking over me because they don’t want to hear an alternative POV. Our planet and the current issues we face have more than two positions, for or against Climate Change
The article is truthful . I decided not to have children for this reason . I teach children instead and love them all as if they are my own . My only objection to this article is that ‘your children ‘ are likely having children too. The current generation who have no future actually are having babies regardless ! I know people who talk about the state of our planet and that it is due to overpopulation ….then they have babies themselves ! 2 or 3! I am talking about The current generation, they Are also contributing to overpopulation so there’s no point blaming the 70s . No one wants to sacrifice even if it means that the children they birth now will suffer ! They still force new souls into a dying world because they are conditioned, lonely and unhappy and having a family gives them purpose or they are simply ruled by their biology . All you have to do is look at The British Royal Family to see how quickly couples , recently married , just roll out babies . It is selfish but without an awakening , even people in war torn countries will bear babies amidst the bombs.
The author is right with many things, but also he makes the mistake to blame “overpopulation”. There is no overpopulation. The earth could easily handle 8 billion consumption-conscious vegans who watch their footprints.
Too bad the author is propagating that myth, and thereby demoralizing everyone who is actually trying to do better.
Our watered down weak complaints and thank yous wont do squat.
The economic leaders, media and politicians have NOT been working for the common man or the good of the planet — they have been aggressively destroying it, and also working every day to prevent repairs, and to establish the far reaching, deep reforms that they know are obviously necessary to protect the earth.
You need to apply some maths also, in many of the above comments.
Time window for action of limiting catastrophic effects from crossing tipping points of no return: next 5-7 years at most.
Time window for “stabilizing” world population at 10bn around 2050 (although could be earlier).
Even with a stable current population, we’d still be headed for disaster.
So why not tackle both, there are enough supporters.
Population growth is even harder to tackle, as it is additionally incentivized by economic growth (more consumers) and majoritarian democracy (! increase the population to increase voting power) and family line continuation culture (as a means of personal legacy). So just to add some factors to your plate. But you could imagine an easier adoption scheme, and global one-child policy.
Novelists have fantasized about sterilization weapons with random effect as a just way. The idea of ‘ownership’ of the children needs to change. …
In theory, you can have a “guardian” type economy, where every member contributes more than they cost the eco-system, probably among Indigeneous – but we are not there yet. So quality matters a lot, quantity currently matters more.
Project Drawdown lists girl’s education at #6 of 100 as a means to tackle climate change. But #1 is safely disposing of ACs. Climate protesters are among the first to take an ethical pledge against having own children – maybe you are talking about different activist individuals.
To Kevin Casey.
I agree with everything you wrote except in my opinion I go back further than 60 years I go back 100 years.
I grew up in Queens we had an older man on the block us kids called Pops. One morning Pops was outside his home I said Hi Pops I heard grunting Whats wrong Pops. See the air how gray it is I said yes
(this is early 1970’s) Pops said it should not be this way I answered why? I drove an Electric Truck and Made Deliveries in Manhattan and the area I said Ok Pops. don’t believe me! pulled out his wallet opened it took out a license handed it to me. It was an Electric Truck License from 1915,1920’s Pops said the Oil Companies killed the electric trucks and cars. So in my humble opinion that is the tipping point when it started to go bad for the planet.
We did not learn about Electric cars and trucks in school. just electric cars and trucks how much cleaner the air and planet would be IMHO.
Very well written however we are where we are and discrediting climate action is promoting fatalism. If only we implemented a one child rule or rounded people up for sterilization in the countries where over population is occurring or let the sick die ? That would take years to implement and racism in that scenario would be rampant. You are assuming no one is working on birth control and family planning in many countries or is it just not fast enough? We the people who have wealth and insight have to learn to reign in our expectations, purchases waste , and adopt standards for products that dont break down five years after purchase and elect leaders who will force those standards. And yes fossil fuels and toxic chemicals need to be phased out but waiting for edicts on childbirth or withdrawal of medical life support is providing and yet another reason to do nothing.
Would it not be important to end Armed Capitalism and all it’s wars/invasions of aggression meant to enrich the few and impoverish the majority. Being that it is poverty which leads to over population, in the sense, history shows us as soon as a population reaches a comfortable standard of living birth rates then decline.
Fertility rates the world over have already dropped dramatically.
It’s armed capitalism which needs to be brought to an end, and the for profit consumerist economy.
One hundred percent true but people will not listen. I have said this for over fifty years. Every problem on our planet can be traced back to overpopulation. Just combine power and greed with overpoulation and you have the perfect combination for the mess our planet is in today.
Brexit seemed more like controlling the borders regarding immigration no? This article is about world wide population… not border control
Stepping off the bandwagon is up to each and every person. It has to be a personal decision to do so, and unfortunately, people tend to get caught up in their shopping, technology and vacations, so it is a significant sacrifice for most. With that said, I’d assume most will continue as they have been.
i don’t producing more electricity will work (no matter how its produced) as you say its all the things that need it is the problem .
i should and could have happy and well served by the list of cars i have owned since 1962 , however there was a whole industry in production and sales temping me and after a while they were hard to fix and keep going .
although at one non productive time i did manage to retrieve 3 cars from the wrecking yard and make them usable that covered 3-4 years .
so we’ll guilty as charged .
I’d like to see more “actionists as well” What good does it do to march on Capitol Hill, block roads and scream at the top of your lungs that somebody else needs to fix this problem? (or any other problem for that matter)
I’m sure that a purge via nuclear war would result in damages that could possibly be greater than the damage caused by over population, and the survivors of the purge would be sick and barely able to enjoy a revived “nature”, if it even existed following such an devastating event.
Educating people about the dangers of over population, and encouraging them to reduce offspring would be a good start.
Part of our problem maybe that we’re willing to wait for governments to do something. We are the people who grant the government power, so who’s really in charge, and whose responsibility is it? This needs to be a personal crusade not another tool for governments to tax.
To all those saying “we” should (have) control(ed) the (global) population …
and implicitly saying “we” should have done nothing about over consumption of resources and energy, and over-emission of GHGs, all despite the Silent Spring and Limits to Growth warnings…
What _exactly_ is it that _you_ propose be done ?
Forced sterilizations, imposed by foreign ground troops?
Trade sanctions against countries in the Global South who fail to control their populations ?
A repeat of Genocidal Exterminations as executed in the “Discovery” and invasion of Turtle Island?
Knock off your kittens-and-bunnies philosophizing and substantiate your throw away admonitions with specific recommended action plans
There will be no Legacy. It’s just gonna be a big garbage dump that remaining species will survive in to various degrees: not in my lifetime, but right after.
The criminaity and greed of the bankers is what has driven this unsustainable “economic growth”. Creating money out of thin air and charging interest on it with no or minimal reserves in place started in around 1913 and has just gotten worse. With a sound monetary system, we just might still be okay as it would be much more difficult to have a lifestyle based primarily on credit. Read Creatue from Jekyll Island for a synopsis of this issue.
Agree – Capitalism is the driving force, and greed is the human weakness that encourages its proliferation. That same greed ensures that socialism doesn’t work that well in practice (but lovely theory – equal shares!) Our attempts to restrict the excesses of Capitalism are vigorously attacked and thwarted by the rich & greedy. So… what’s the answer? Is there an answer?
Pessimism as a Northern Ireland survivor is not one of my traits I’m afraid. The Worlds problems may have a connection to population growth but ultimately they have more to do with how we look after the Planet and ourselves. The electric car is after 120 years finally coming into its own, as is the revolution in energy production. That energy revolution may lead to much more than windmills, solar panels and batteries in a few years if nuclear fusion becomes a reality.
As to plastic and the other garbage we manufacture in great amounts, whether the population was half what it is now, we would still be producing it. Better we all decide to do something about it, as so many are now fighting to do something about Climate Change.
It is so misunderstood by so many that a revolutionary change in how we look after ourselves and our Planet was never going to be easy, but yet it is gradually happening. As the UK and Australia once came to a momentous decision to do something about guns, then so sometime soon will the World do something not only about Climate Change but also about Plastic. If it becomes cheaper to own an electric car and cheaper to use an alternative biodegradable plastic or alternative then which will we use I often ask.
If the alternative to this is the end of mankind whose existence is all but 2 minutes on the Planet clock, then so be it. I’m afraid. I got a little more optimism.
I agree that overpopulation is the biggest threat to the planet. The destruction of natural enviroments and deforestations and the pollution of rivers and oceans is disastrous. Consumerisim has gone mad with
the throw away society that certainly wasn’t around when I was born 80years ago. We lived well with very little money. My father grow all our vegetables and fruit crops, my mother made our clothes and we walked
many miles each week as we had no car. There were very few cars on the road as most people in cities could not afford them. My father leaned to drive when he was 55 and before that rode his bike to work every day.
We never ate out and took our egg sandwiches with us when we went on holidays. We could actually have a 3 week holiday each year in those days. We learned to live economically and learned to apply these principles to our own lives. We were warned about overpopulation when the planet got to be 1 billion people. It is way past that now. So many homeless people and so many refugees with nowhere to call home. It makes you weep
That’s all well and good if each person stands still and doesn’t move from their few square metres of space. But how much space does each human require to keep them clothed, fed, housed, educated and living a meaningful life? It is a known fact that the resources used and wealth created by a tiny minority of the population enable them to live a luxurious lifestyle. A small number of people live a very good or good lifestyle and a large number of people have an adequate lifestyle. Then you have the vast majority who struggle to obtain almost every basic human need, including food, housing and medical care. I feel that it’s not so much the population size that is the issue, but rather it is the inequity of the spread of resources that is the problem. I don’t know what the answer is to achieving fairness for all when we are such a self-absorbed species.
I think you are spot on Kurt Klingbeil
I totally agree that overpopulation is a big problem.Our government, both major partis (Australia) seem to believe that a large population is needed for a strong economy.If the finances were managed efficiently this would not be necessary.
The smaller European countries manage quite well with small populations. And they do not have the wealth of natural resources.
George
Over population in Africa is in two or three small pockets. The average family has 2.4 children. So stop blaming Africa and India. One American consumes more than 7 Africans and pollutes the environment 10 times more. It is about greed and the addiction to “growth” by the North. Africa can feed itself if the big corporation would just get out and leave the small scale farmers to do what they have done forever; all they need is help with storage and logistics. I see a slow shift back to community living away from the cities. The definition of “poverty” should not be a dusty little kid in the bush, but a child stuck in a tin shack with a candle. One day your children will as what you did. What will you say? Neoliberalism has made us feel guilty as individuals. We have minimal power alone. We need a global mobilisation to force corporations, politicians and churches to make better choices by boycotting their products and ideologies.
Thank you, Kevin Casey, for this piece. You are very right when you say “They can start with the economists, developers and politicians who blissfully believe that the status quo of ‘perpetual growth’ still works.”
I believe this is the core of our problems. But I also think that you are not properly assessing where young people are now. You say “Climate change is not the biggest threat to the world’s environment – we are. ” I believe that most 16 year old kids of North Europe (I will only mention what I know best) fully agree with that statement. That we are the cause of the environmental disaster that we are in is clear to the younger generations (at least to those individuals who have the luxury to think about these issues instead being busy looking for clean water, escaping a bomb or a deadly infection). So I find your last paragraph quite unfair.
In a race with Mother Nature, she always wins. I am truly sorry to the young people. I’m in my 50’s and worked for Sierra Club, worked in a lot of grass roots politics and even hosted a Ralph Nader party back in the 2000’s. Gave it my all and never stopped caring. I hope you won’t either. My hope is you all would appeal to the WHO and the UN to stop the madness. I see the problem as economic driven to create ever growing markets by encouraging population growth driven by greed that cannot be sustained or stopped. There is also a population race between religions which enhances the population increase. Stressed population procreate more & are more violent as resources dwindle. We are heading toward 12 billion people. Teach your kids the wisdom in the Foxfire books and Farmers Almanacs. Teach them to plant and can food. Teach them weather and to plan 7 generations out any decisions made. Buy them tools and gear to sustain. Get them ready to start over.
Okay … but to say that one is more relevant than another is to crush the enthusiasm for change … it is good that kids are engaging in the world they will be growing into. If we also need to deal with over population than lets look at that as well. But constantly heading to the “its over and we have done this to ourselves” argument means that many will give up and add to those devastating effects. There must be ways to encourage change without making people fall into the paralysis of “we can’t do anything right” mode. I don’t find these kind of articles wake me up to what I have to change in my life … they make me feel powerless. I think this is the wrong tactic … Better to add the factors that can help us to improve or make change … and to the argument that we as a human race are the problem … I think that is too myopic an approach … There are always going to be adverse affects on an eco system when one group becomes dominant and seeks to survive over others. The issue for us is that we are cognizant of it. The other road that might be travelled in this supposition that we are the problem … then we need to eradicate the problem. Well how do we do that? Are there going to be a group of more powerful people who will determine that they have more reason to survive and the others must be eradicated for the “best preeminent beings” to survive. Haven’t we been down those roads too often already. I think we need to understand how to motivate change not beat people up into states of mind which could lead to dangerous hierarchies.
I made an action plan in the early 80’s and chose not to have kids. It was clear then and it’s clear now. There are simply to many people using too much crap. I think it is well past a tipping point though and there is little point in trying to convince anyone.
Humans are already dead, they just don’t know it yet.
I’d appreciate it if the author or someone else has the source for these assertions “The ‘environmental tipping point’ everyone loves to talk about was actually reached around 1980, when science tells us that humanity began to consume more of the earth’s resources than the planet could possibly regenerate. We’ve gobbled up more of our planet’s resources in the past fifty years than in all previous human history combined.”
Craig, there’s going to be a lot less land mass as global heating continues to melt the ice that covers much of the land. Of course I suppose people could move to the arctic and antarctic regions, or clear-cut the forests in Alaska, and put skyscrapers in Manhattan on stilts.
Great commentary from intelligent voices, all coming from varying perspectives, with most pointing in generally the same direction, a resoundingly good thing because direction has more coherence than goal. I agree with Kurt Klingbell; what is needed are specific action plans that address these multitudinous but interconnected issues, and then, of course, actually acting on such plans in the strongest, most affirmative manner, collectively, smartly, and always with compassion.
This article trumps just about everything I’ve heard or read about the subject:
We are a plague of locusts. The only thing that will save earth is a mass extinction caused by a virus, and that is a very real possibility. Doom and gloom, sure, but it’s not like humans have done anything positive during our time on earth.
Let’s not confuse activism with action – they’re not the same. One is about social inclusion and feeling good about your outrage; the other is about doing something tangible to make things better. AGREE!!!
One important action is landscape scale ecological restoration. Think locally Act locally.
Well, you all can do somthing about it right now, Dont have any offspring, do your bit. Come on put your money where your mouth is.
Very pessimistic outlook. “No economic growth just economic destruction,” please. Please explain tech companies. Technology is the answer for this population problem because the answer won’t be a mass genocide. Advanced education is the answer. “Condition of the earth plummet in your lifetime,” are you implying that quality of life is less now than it once was? Because on basically every metric, quality of life has improved. I’m sick of this fear mongering, yes there is an issue of pollution, no you’re not going to burn to death in 5 years. People need to relax.
I read this article with great interest. The problems discussed here are indeed the problem facing the earth today – greed, corruption, lies and everything else making up our political and social world today. I agree with almost everything expressed here and in some of the comments. The only thing that distresses me is that we do not talk with a united voice. Instead of suggesting ways of to achieve this some are beating the drum while criticizing people working for the same goal – saving our planet. Why criticize the the amazing wave of youngsters moving for climate change with silly accusations that they “drink from plastic bottles” and throw them away. The problems facing the world are many faceted. We are being hit from all sides and need to wake up and see just how big the problem is. Join the climate protesters. Support them. They are becoming a strong group dedicated to helping the planet. Bring in our own views on overpopulate, pollution, destruction of the environment, enslavement of people, war etc. Just look at the latest world figures on human trafficking that is taking place right now. We can only win this battle if we combine forces and face the true problems caused by the human race as a whole. As I said, I agree with the sentiments stated by the writer, but we need to look at the bigger picture and fact it united.
Your misandry and dislike of poor brown people is showing.
There’s a name for the system that got us here and it isn’t “overpopulation.”
Soy, of witch about 80% goes to feeding live stock. It is a waste of about 90% in energy /calories to process vegetables through an animal before we eat them.
For every 10 people who responsibly recycle their waste there are another 20 who don’t give a toss. And that’s how they deal with it, by tossing it away
The problem with the overpopulation argument is that it is solved by the problem which the advocates of the arguments want to change. The argument is based on premise 1. That the world is becoming uninhabitable premise 2. that over population is making the planet uninhabitable. Conclusion, the population is too high. That’s a fair argument based on sound premises. However it solves itself. Because if population growth is making the planet uninhabitable then the population will decrease accordingly and will bottom out at a level which becomes sustainable. Thereby making the population the focus seems pointless because if you believe the planets over populated then it will regulate and we will see a decrease. I really hope I don’t see such a population drop in my life time so support any measures which would make that population more sustainable. If we don’t make the planet sustainable for that population then it will decrease, thereby solving the problem. We have the population we do now, and instead of wishing it smaller we should hope it maintains at the current level, otherwise people will be seeing there children dying and the world going into an economic free fall which would be horrible. The thing to say then, isn’t that the population is too high, but that we should learn to maintain it. If we fail it will drop anyway, logically. Thereby the constructive thing, which i agree with the author is to encourage contraception, family planning and a knowledge of science. The population growth rate is heading down and has been for a long time. Over this century it is only Africa that is projected to have large amounts of growth. When areas become richer they produce less children. As we don’t have the resources to make everyone richer we have to make the sharing of resources fairer. So to conclude, the aim should therefore be implementing sustainability measures and working out systems which share wealth. This will partly come form teaching our kids we don’t need stuff to be happy and changing the rags to riches story to that of rags to average. I for one don’t want to see people dying so will not say that the world is overpopulated. For me it is nonsensical argument.
I agree with the sentiment and the facts completely, BUT framing it as an either-or is short-sighted. It isn’t a zero sum game. We can care about the planet AND health AND pollution AND toxics AND climate change. (for example, if we simply targeted extraction industries (fossil fuels) we’d get at most of it right there – plastics, petrochemicals, coal, etc).
Pro-tip: To get people to take action, it is helpful to engage them wherever they show an interest, whether it is climate change or organic food or animal welfare. It all gets to the same place. For example: Biggest contribution to climate change? Conventional agriculture. Why? The fossil fuel based chemical inputs like fertilizers. So, purchase free-range organic meats, dairy, and produce and you can tackle climate change AND make pigs and cows and chickens happier and healthier AND prevent farmworker (i.e. migrant workers and immigrant laborers) from being poisoned by toxic pesticides.
Good writing should inspire people to take effective action, and that begins with getting them to listen, and that usually requires listening to them and caring about what they care about.
That’s one way to take care of the problem… either way, the humans crammed uncomfortably into this small space (and in Alaska it includes being in a very cold and inhospitable environment!) would all perish in a very short time due to lack of water and food. At least they would not take the natural world with them. I oppose this solution because I am against killing people. If we want all humans to live long and comfortable lives, we need lower population.
Fascinating diatribe. At every juncture of this commentary is invoked a requirement to undertake some form of population control. By whom?
The reality is that the majority of the so called northern developed nations (mainly white humans in origin) no longer have birth rates that will sustain the population of those nations. Total population numbers on the planet are increasing so rampantly across the third world amongst non-white peoples — the impetus for that has been a constantly increasing quality of life supported by reliable harvests, technology advances and access to energy.
It is entirely conceivable and achievable that the march of human intellect will continue to develop methods of resource re-use and allocation that will deliver a sustainable quality of life well into the future.
This author claims to have traveled widely across the planet — I make the same claim and can assert that while excess consumption is resulting in widespread pollution that we cannot sustain, we are as a species a long way from the time when mother earth will no longer support human life, its growth and especially the explosion in knowledge and innovation that having so many of us interconnected in ways our ancestors never knew.
Thank you. May the world hear you.
Actually, population has nothing to do with climate change either!!!! Consumerism and opulence are daily activities of a small percentage of the world population which is directly connected to human economic activity….directly connected to climate change and pollution.
In fact, if you can read this, or are one of those who own a device allowing them to access this article, you are in fact part of a small portion of the global population which drives the biggest pollution, exploitation and impact on the environment.
If you can not see or understand this you are simply in denial because you are scared of the way you will have to live if you do not have all your creature comforts. Fact is that the biggest part of the global population lives simple, self sustainable lives, do not have FB or IG and are perfectly fine with it.
Whilst I do believe that population growth needs to be considered I am not a believer that a large population needs to be devastating to the planet.
Governments will never address the growing population base – they need population earning and spending to achieve their lifeblood – taxes
It is not a question of number but a question on how they think and I put the blame at my own feet being a member of our Western Culture. It is the social norms and ethical values that have evolved within this culture that is leading us down this perilous path.
Growing up – we had 1 family car. Today anyone over the age of 18 works towards having their own car
Growing up – we had 1 family holiday a year normally within Australia keeping our money within our economy. Today families or members of the family take numerous trips a year many long haul flights with spending lost to our economies
Growing up – we had a family of 6 living in a 3 bedroom, lounge / dining area 1 kitchen 1 bathroom 1 laundry and that was the norm. Today the norm for a family of six needs to be 6 bedrooms, lounge area, dining area, kitchen with breakfast bar, media or entertainment room, kitchen with walk in pantry, laundry, 2 (maybe 3) bathrooms, Study / office,
Growing up – we had 1 family TV which was replaced when broken. Today the TV is replaced when the technology changes to have the latest technology
and how do we fund this………
In day to day living we a meagre with our spending to save for our dreams
Food is simply based on price with little to no regard for source and the values of the primary producer
Household Items & Investments are cheap with little to no regard for quality or source to minimise the expense before obtaining the benefit sought.
We were often taught that you needed to spend money to make money – What it really was
You need to do development to make money and the development you do will have a cost on the environment.
Not all cultures are the same – Our own Australian Indigenous culture has its roots in respect for the Natural World caring for the land and what it can provide for. It was our predecessors who insisted on their development to western ideals with non conformity detrimental to not only their way of Life but in some cases Life itself.
I am encouraged by the small signs I am seeing that is reflecting a shift in these values back to the environment highlighted by a growing number of farmers in our community. To reflect on the words of one such farmer who thought he was in the business of raising Beef cattle on his farm that has shifted his focus to one of caring for the Land which then suggests how many head of Beef cattle is best for the land.
As we develop practices of looking after the land – it will suggest to us how big a population it can sustain.
What an interesting point of view that misses one fundamental point. Is capitalism the problem? Capitalism is not mentioned once in this article. Would the resources of the earth be able to support our population if resources were shared out relatively equally and not for profit. Eat less red meat especially and give the food that is inefficently given to animals to humans instead.
The plastic in our oceans is there because it is being dumped rather than being recycled. A deliberate capitalist decision by those dumping instead of paying more to have it recycled.
One last point how many animals are supported on the planet, a lot more than humans!!!
With respect Ken, that would not require a new religion… indigenous people all over the world have always held to a belief in caring for the earth and for the environment that sustains us all.
Agreed…. or as Swami Beyondananda put it, “yes, there will be peace on earth… I’m not sure humans will be here to see it but there will be peace on earth.”
I think I have found a group of people who are on “the same page as me” those that agree with the basics of the extremely well written article that is. Firstly many thanks to the author. Next on my list is a “dot point list” to explore how I can help after registering to stay in touch with people who share similar thoughts to “save the beauty of nature” for all species.
Kevin the growth paradigm is over it is slowly working its way through the system. Can you make money irrelevant?? So we can share everything. It is as if we were put here to destroy this planet, (if there is a planet) where there is life there is Death, it WILL work itself out and it is not going to happen by choice something very cruel is coming. Some say plastic take up to 40,000 years to breakdown, from the billions of years in the past and the billions of years into the future this is not a long time. Humanity you included just cannot grasp the concept of not being around you know extinct nothing wrong with that is it all kicks on in a different form without humanity, what’s wrong with that??? Cheers bro I did like your piece. Rgds Millzy
This is one of the BEST articles I have ever read about the situation we have found ourselves in. Kevin, this needs to go viral and I will do my part in spreading it far and wide. Thank you for putting it so succinctly, with absolute clarity and in terms that even people who do not speak English as a first language will understand this outstanding piece you have written. We ALL need to make a difference, starting in our own homes, our consumer activities and lifestyle choices TODAY. Kudos to you for speaking out and calling everyone to accountability.
Too many people. We try going back to basics. I recycle, reuse and grow my own herbs and veg. I only had one child. He only had one child. We will work on climate control in every way we can. But. The bees are gone, the frogs are gone, the huge migrations of birds are gone. Where are they all? What have we done? The doctors bless them keep curing everything. Mother Nature comes up with another dreadful disease to keep population under control. Now they cure Ebola as well. I hope it all works out and enough of the good people make it through to run
a decent world.
It’s a good article, but it basically adresses what capitalism looks like. Without mentioning the capitalistic system by name. And that makes it a somewhat ill-informed article (dont get me wrong, the observations are on point). And since that is the current ruling system in the world (controlled by large corporations, who control money, governments and mass media) it won’t change unless a) shareholders will en masse part from demanding profit every single fucking year or b) the planet crumbles under our weight (hint: it’s b). The article also fails to recognise that people who are taking part of climate demonstrations are most likely also those who are already actively changing their lifestyles. These demonstrations also take place, for the larger part, in western countries, where overpopulation is not an issue like it is in other parts of the world. We need to take a look at the capitalistic system, defined by René Descartes and Francis Drake. They both stated that mankind should completely rule over nature. Capitalism has invented modern slavery (still exists), the need for cheap lives and labour (still exists), cheap money (controlled), cheap fuel (state funded) but also sexism (the division between man and women) and racsim (defined by Linnaeus). The article mentioned here should have adressed the capitalistic system by name. A system that can only exist by perpetual economic growth, sustained by perpetual growth of people. We are living in a giant pyramid scheme actually and we all know that those never, ever, end well.
I am guessing no one is looking at agricultural reports? We don’t need to worry about how to reduce human population, it’s a subject that will soon be taken care of.
It’s just that we won’t go down peacefully, we’ll take down with us much of what’s left.
We’re at a point where things don’t need to get worse, they just need to repeat a few years in a row. But of course, they will get worse.
Carbon, over population are red herrings. The real culprit is greed and the power of the few over the many through a system that is designed to promote the accumulation of wealth at the expense of the many, including the planet. This planet has all the resources for the needs of everybody, including the flora and fauna, but not the greed of an elite few. Ponder this- eight families has half the total wealth of the world. The solution? We need to wake up to our true self of compassion and love for each other and the planet. If we care for the highest good and welfare for each other and of the planet we will stop exploiting and destroying each other and the planet. We need to work on ourselves to connect to our true selves to awaken to the urgency of a radical change of consciousness.
I think the point of this article that you are missing is that the points at which we COULD have done the things we are now urging ourselves to do and when they would have made a difference in the outcome, is LONG past….by about 50 years. It’s TOO LATE. Mother will heal herself, but we are not going to survive. Ice floes, anyone?
One other thing we should have limited, it is our moving speed. If we step back and make a list of its advantages and disadvantages, moving speed hasn’t improve our life. However when promoting the subject, I never get any support. The limit I would have set is around 30 km/h.
We need less psychopaths running the world !! As long as these are our leaders, neither you nor I will have a world without destruction !! Lock everyone in a madhouse and you will see that there are many human beings able to find cooperative solutions !! We’re tied and we do everything they say !! Education is the only solution to get rid of the matrix! No premeditated ideologies !
Very well articulated. Most people who read this will be in agreement, especially seniour citizens who have travelled a lot. Its hard to get thrun to the average working man who is battling to bring up a family, I think government policy need to take the lead regardless.
It saddens me to see the sixth mass extinction is in its early stages right now.
While I enjoyed the article and agree with the premise there are two major issues with the arguments that I need to address. First. Most governments, charities and other organisations have focused on Climate Change as it has the potential to destroy our way of life in a much more immediate way. As stated in the article “in 20 years plastic could outweigh fish in the ocean” this is horrific and needs to be fixed. But it a much longer time scale than the potential of climate change. If the temperate for the ocean raises a few degrees everything could change over night. Secondly. The over population issue is misleading. The problem is how that many people live. The entire worlds population could fit in New Zealand. It’s the way we live that is the problem, not how many. The number isn’t great, I do think it would be better if there were less of us. But our disposable way of living, out air miles, imported products, chemicals and waste are the biggest issues. If we lived sustainable the earth could cope with us.
A realistic article, unfortunately read & responded to by only a vast minority of the human population.
Will most humans ever truly take note of how their ‘being’ impacts on their environment.
The inevitable tipping point for most humans has already been reached, where recognition of the fragility of nature is no longer possible as it no longer exists, in their immediate vicinity!
How can one see, when there is nothing left to see. How can one understand when there is very little that is understandable.
But, there is some hope, if every day those of us who do read articles like this & recognise the reality of our human dilemma, actually do something to help clean up our human debris with the intention of allowing what is left of our natural environment to survive and grow, while we slow down human production and waste proliferation.
Re: the “female empowerment” angle in this, what does that even mean? Does anyone seriously think females are being oppressed INTO reproduction? That if given more leeway and “empowerment” they would choose to live a whole life not reproducing? Ask a thousand men between 20 and 40 then ask a thousand women the same age if they could go without ever reproducing and compare the results. Sorry to pee in the punch bowl but I see the female empowerment angle here as a straw “man”. I truly believe that no matter what, 95+ % of female kind will not choose a child free life. How do we address that?
Nope, I’m afraid that the article misses something crucial: we are able to have lifestyles that are beneficial to nature, as well as lifestyles that are detrimental. Not all humans impact equally. Certainly consumption is mentioned, but not as one of the central problems. Yes, our population is a problem, but that’s on course to level off at 11bn. Global birth rates have already dropped to 2.4 children per woman. The population is already on course for stabilising – what’s urgently needed is to reduce the impact of each person.
Population will peak, stabilize and come down. Growth is another devil altogether, he needs to be continuously fed ever more. Quantity is important, but also Quality. The late 20th Century, early 21st Century’s quality of life FOR ALL is unsustainable. The Growth paradigm didn’t last very long they’ll say. I foresee pockets of privilege persisting among a sea of poverty (just like actually MOST of Human History!) The Peak will pass.
Not one mention of the economic and political system? Any serious examination of ecological collapse/degradation should include an analysis of Capitalism. As mentioned in other comments, economic growth, while correlated with population, is not directly related. Imagine a political and economic system geared towards social need rather than private profit. Could it have an impact on the psychology that drives conspicuous consumption? Or the business of externalizing pollution?
Really, quite a glaring oversight.
Michael unfortunately some people will choose to miss the point of the article as Nick has done. This is quite obvious at the start of his ‘blinkered’ reply “Trying to understand the point of this article?”
Ask why it is that everyone i know says much the same as most people here yet our industrious leaders and religions are in TOTAL DENIAL that there is even a problem.Why do we bother to even elect them. Party politics is DEAD and we need people to work together for the good of all. TIME TO STOP THE BLAME GAME MR POLITICIAN and take off the blinkers. Bad planning is irreversible now seen all over the globe. Vision is what is needed so sadly lacking. Here in OZ we dump millions of liters of water in the ocean, then build a de sal plant to pump it back to us. HELLO!!. Many cities do this when we could green up our lands by re using back to nature, grow trees, food, restore nature, fill our lakes etc. What do our leaders do. NOTHING. Pitiful and criminal.
For population, over population, population growth, and past and future trends on these subjects please take note of the wonderful and informative ‘shows’ by the late Hans Rosling (Swedish medical doctor and statistician). They are all freely available on Youtube. Then revisit all the ills of this world, and the most currently urgent will be shown to be our climate system and the deterioration of it due to increasing levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. So Mr. Casey is correct in that our population is unsustainable, but Rosling explains why that will reach a peak, and will show the optimism about how that will come about. And Mr. Casey appears to misunderstand the perils of global warming. Please take note of the latter…
Climate change is far from irrelevant, it’s the ‘benefits’ of growth economics that are a myth, and it’s ‘sustainable development’ that is an oxymoron unfortunately enshrined and popularised by the Rio Summit many years ago.
The fundamental goal here, today, is neither climate change nor population reduction nor sustainability. It is the survival of the human race. It is in this context that climate action, population reduction, and sustainability are all essential ACTIONS for securing the future of a living planet. There is no point to population control or climate action if we remain in the grips of greed and rampant consumerism – this not sustainable – and we are doomed to repeat history… again! Something has to change that appeals to our ‘better selves’ and replaces our material insecurities. We cannot expect to carry on the way we have for the past 10,000 years – accumulating things and wealth that really have no cosmic value. Our richness rests in the planet we are so busy destroying. But which generation, if not this one, will step up to the plate and hit us home?
It’s a good article but for someone who’s so adamant about everyone else not having the solutions they present a pretty poor one themselves. Family planning will only tackle population growth in 30-40 years time, the fact of the matter is that average fertility is 2.4 children per women globally, so of course that needs to get to under 2 but that’s not going to happen quickly. In the next 10-30 years we’ll see climate breakdown become worse and if we carry on as we are global temperatures will rise by 5 degrees making the world only habitable for 1 billion people. I’m sorry to say that we need to tackle all these issues at the same time. Population is such a hot potato as it is tied to historic grievances. If we put this the first thing to tackle (when average fertility is still falling (was 7.5 in 1970s)), then we are very likely to fail as it is so politically divisive. I’ve seen this argument time and time again from baby boomers and I think it’s a way to deny action on issues we can do something about. It is a well written article though!
The statistics prove that as society comes out of poverty the population decreases. Population is HEAVIEST in undeveloped countries. Population growth is NOT a result of industrialization and poverty reduction. Consumer demand IS driven by wealth, however, wealth and population growth are inverse to each other.
Climate action is a falsehood. We are actually in a NATURAL cooling period and climate change was proven to have a fairly stable cycle. This was based on core ice sampling.
Someone commented that Climate change is affecting our oceans due to acidification. This is not a result of climate change but of mans interference.
Climate change is inevitable, regardless of mans interference. The ice age didn’t happen as a result of mans interference. There have been several times in earth’s history where is has been hotter than it is now.
thank you Kevin. Best analysis I have read in years. The taboo that prevents from talking of population control is so strong everywhere and I am not optimistic about its removal – most of the governments are suggesting to make more children, instead of less
Thanks for this timely and well argued article, Kevin. It makes perfect sense to me to see the current situation in these terms, what we have been doing for years to strangle the planet to breaking point with our myths and stories about growth. Terrifying spectacle to see the global leaders meeting in the Uk this week going on about things that have no bearing on what should really concern them. I will share this as widely as I can.
Brilliant. Puts things in perspective.
I think the economic points are obvious but I don’t agree with the over population argument. The reason plastic is everywhere is because givernmenrs allowed the production of plastic. An obviously strange, harmful to the environment substance. The problem for me is not too many people, it’s excessive greed, an unhealthy focus on war and weapons and an unwillingness to make expensive changes to the way humanity operates globally. Lumping the blame on people who are breeding to much is lazy and obnoxious. The mega wealthy are too blame for hoardi g wealth and consuming 1000 times as much as the most poverty stricken people. We who have access to Facebook in our modern technological economies are very much a part of this. I find the overpopulation excuse to be an easy way out. The major issue is ridiculous production and consumption levels. Also the lack of diversification of food sources and the obsession with convenience and satisfaction. Just look at the stats for food wastage in developed countries. It’s obscene. The pollution levels as well. Underdeveloped and highly populated countries frequently take the blame but the reality is even a small country like NZ produces utterly ridiculous amounts of waste, rubbish and pollution. All things that could be lessened through more intelligent recycling and waste management. Overpopulation is an easy blame in my opinion, and doesn’t really look at the real issue at all.
Religion is the root of all evil. You words are wonderful thou. .a new Religion of the Eviroment.and Education….and Common Sence minus Greed…
Climate change number one priority
I couldn’t agree more Kevin and many other comments here. Don,t see any Global politicians comments here so its true that not all the baboons live at the zoo.Or that most of them should all go to spec savers for an immediate check up as they obviously haven,t a clue what is happening all over the globe.I suggest we are all really going around in a circle called progress that will ultimately lead back to Armageddon. ALL HERE CHECK, GOING BY THE BOOK BY JOHNNY CASH ON YOU TUBE. THIS was done around 1990 and so true. It will answer most things said here at what stupid humans are destroying as they are incapable of logical thinking. Then ask yourselves WHY. Please leave a reply after doing so.
Most of them.
Humanity has yet to demonstrate that its collective intelligence exceeds that of a yeast colony in a petri dish.
I remember in the 60s, that overpopulation was the catchphrase that climate change now is.
The more guilty nations actually started doing something about it,
Men in India could get a free vasectomy at stations while waiting for a train, The Chinese rulers made it illegal to have more then one child ( with many girl children being killed to make way for a boy )
And at the same time Arafat had said that the womb of the Palestinian woman was a “biological weapon,” which he could use to create Palestine state by crowding people into the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
So at times during my life, some government intervention – in one way or another – has been applied to population control, and the Chinese population is declining for instance, but the rural areas have lost their youth who have flocked to the cities to enjoy the new prosperity.
Hordes of desperate families are risking raft and boat trips to escape the mess that Africa has become.
If your family has a comfortable life in your little 3 bedroom hose, and then you triple the size of the residents trying to share the same bathroom, bedrooms vegetable patch etc. it is no good just blaming climate change.
Thank you! I think the same thing!
Really interesting article & in line with my thoughts completely. I may have missed it, but as science is advancing people are also living longer in addition to birth rates, the size of population is like a ticking bomb. I have travelled & seen Asian countries buying land & diverting water (someone told me 20 years ago the next world war would be over water & I’m kinda believing it 🤔). I don’t have children & have been focused on raising awareness of (plastic) pollution for the last 10 years. I’ll be honest, trying to work with local authorities & politicians re changing minds is exhausting; I’ve now focused on working with other larger more powerful groups to put forward a stronger argument. Nothing is simple though – for example, I eat a plant based diet for various reasons, but I live in the middle of ‘ the plastic sea in Almeria’ & I see the strain on agriculture & problems it’s causing. Much of the focus of my efforts is on agricultural pollution, which I sea first hand. Spain produces most of the vegetables for Europe & now for Middle East & Russia. I believe it’s unsustainable in its current form; the greenhouses are so numerous can be seen from space. The need for cheap farming practices plus the volume of food is driven directly by population. In the meantime I do what I can as one person; I live a fairly minamalist life (I only buy when something is worn out & can’t be fixed); I work with as many groups as I can to raise awareness as much as I can & I try to influence those who make decisions. I know when I’m gone, I have no descendants & the line stops with me. I hope to change some minds before I go 💚
This planet experiments with things living on , we’re a failed experiment , we gonna get binned .
Thank you for that very well written piece. I have known all that to be true since I took the class Population my last semester in college, 1969. Those who have no children should be praised, not looked down upon and urged to have kids. Those who are too busy with their careers to actually raise their own kids should not have them. Those who are not sure if they want kids but want to please parents, friends, whoever, should not have them. Those who really want and can afford kids should have no more than two and have them as late in their lives as possible. Sex ed, birth control, abortion, and sterilization should be available for free to anyone who wants it, anywhere in the world. And along with this, the message of this article must be made known to all, so that they will have the knowledge to make intelligent, human species saving, choices in their reproductive lives.
Like most people, I tend to praise as excellent writing that is congruent with my own thinking, but rarely have I come across any that fits that bill better than this piece by Kevin Casey on population. I found most of the comments to be intelligent and well-reasoned except for the few that seemed to want to put Mr. Casey in the “climate denier” category and those wishing to divert attention to their own cause of interest. This was my introduction to your website and I think it is providing a service.
We are limited to a sample size of 1 when it comes to planets with life, so the following is intended as a speculative question rather than anything like an hypothesis: I wonder if it is possible for life to evolve our kind of intelligence without it necessarily containing the seeds of its own destruction and that of its supporting biosphere. About a year ago I ran across a book by Adam Frank, “Light of the Stars” in which the author proposed that any civilization evolving to our level of technology would necessarily have to confront the problem of climate change. He argued that because of that, the main value of the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) program may be to shed light on the question I posed above.
Thought provoking….have shared on FB
This article basically says exactly what us activists have been saying all along, but it makes sure that the words “climate change” and “activists” continue to be evilized.
It shifts the blame from CC and fossil-fuel dependance to overpopulation.
It denies that climate change is the problem: “Climate change is not a threat to the world, we are” yes: because WE caused the climate change and it’s CC that will cause our extinction! It’s basically the same conservative narrative of “guns are not the problems, people are”!
There are several other logic flaws in the article:
“The rivers and seas are not chucked with plastic because of climate change”: (did anybody say that?) “they are flooded with plastic because we are 7.7bln people crammed on this Earth”. No, that’s not why they are flooded with plastic! They are because people throw plastic in the rivers! Because people don’t recycle, because we produce and use too much single use plastic , because we pay underdeveloped countries to dispose of our unrecyclable plastic and they don’t treat it properly and it overflows in rivers and oceans!
Over-population exists only if we need more resources than there are and if we pollute! if we lived sustainably, we could be up to 12 bln, with no consequences to the environment.
The article continues: “In 20 years we will have more plastic than fish”. Actually: we already do and we have been saying this since a very long time!
The propaganda against the words “climate change” goes on: “Climate change hasn’t cover the world with concrete, or replaced healthy eco-systems with canal estates or shopping malls” dear author, it’s the other way around, again: replacing ecosystems with concrete etc CAUSED CLIMATE CHANGE and climate change will make us extinct!
Then: “Economic growth needs population increase to sustain itself”: yes indeed, because our economy is basically a pyramid scheme! The reason why it is a pyramid scheme is not because we are overpopulated, but it’s because there’s a finite amount of energy (fossil fuel), the price of which must inevitably increase (please look at trends and not at peaks and dips!). If the amount of energy were superior to our needs (solar, eolic, geothermal etc) and if we shifted to a more sustainable life-style there would be no need to hope that half of the population would die.
“The 1970s were the last sustainable decade for mankind. Unfortunately, at the time, no one took notice that a tipping point had been reached and passed.” Actually, scientists had warned us about this in several studies, back then; but, just like we are doing today: we ignored them!
Then, the funny part is when the article says: “So, I would patiently urge all climate-change activists to direct their environmental concerns at those who really deserve it. They can start with the economists, developers and politicians who blissfully believe that the status quo of ‘perpetual growth’ still works. “ these are exactly, word by word, the words you find in Extinction Rebellion and Greta Thunberg’s manifestos! Why use the words “they should” instead of “they are doing it and we thank them”?
The answer is: in the impossibility of finally admitting that man-caused climate change actually exists, conservatives now play with retorics to say: “climate change is not the problem: mankind is”. As if activists were saying that God caused climate change! The author of this article copied the agenda of climate change activists and made sure that the words climate change look bad. Hey: if this means more conservatives will finally reduce their carbon print, because they can do so without feeling they’re doing it to fight climate change, that’s fine with me!
The article closes by blaming climate change activists for their life-style, assuming that they are not making any personal effort to reduce their carbon-print! Yes, instead of attacking Trump for reducing restrictions in emissions, the author focuses on climate change activists’ life style; why? To deflect the focus from fossil fuel dependance and related climate change!
“The problem is our sheer numbers and blatant disregard for the planet’s health – not the climate.” Really? What will make us extinct is the climate change! Yes, we caused CC, so many have been denying this, for all this time and now, some, finally admit it! But they can’t admit it.. so this is maybe the new conservative trend: “yes, there actually is CC, but that’s not the problem”. Look: as long as this means a smaller carbon print. I second it!
Thank you, Andrea, for your thoughtful comments that expose this article’s dangerous misdirections. The focus on overpopulation has allowed maybe 75% of the commenters here to praise the author, Kevin Casey, for saying what they “have always been thinking” — a classic example of confirmation bias — and absolve humans from responsibility other than for having too many offspring.
The reality is that it is our values, as reflected in the basic stories or narratives that determine and support our worldview, that have allowed humans to believe that we are separate from all other life on Earth, and are actually intended to have dominion over the rest of nature, modifying it to satisfy our needs and whims. That worldview took hold 10,000 years ago, at the beginning of civilization when we developed cities and hierarchical societies (almost always controlled by men).
The ultimate irony is that the belief systems, or narratives, that characterized societies before civilization — hunter/gatherers for hundreds of thousands of years and even the indigenous peoples that “civilized” europeans overran as they spread civilization around the world — all had an intimate understanding of the complexity of life, of the interdependence of all living beings, and of the sanctity of nature. I don’t romanticize pre-civilized societies — there was also plenty of violence, destruction and cruelty — but there was also a fundamental respect for the natural world in which they understood their place. Many Native American groups, for example, thought of themselves as “younger brothers” to the animals and plants from whom they should learn. (It’s fascinating that this “intuition” emerged in pre-scientific societies.)
If humanity has a future, we will have to collectively arrive at an understanding of our interdependence with all life, and recognize that as long as we continue to act in human-centric ways our demise will be assured. And because of the reality of climate change, and the genuine tipping points that science knows about from the paleo-geological record but can’t predict with any certainty because we are changing things orders of magnitude faster than nature ever did, we have very little time to get things right.
Cool article, but capitalism is the problem, not overpopulation, it’s a myth that 7 billion people are killing the planet, it’s the top 1% that is, greed is killing this planet, not climate change and “overpopulation”.
We have MORE than enough to feed 10 billion, that’s right, 10 BILLION people, but capitalism is terrible at sharing, therefore people lose what they need.
At the time of my reading of this ‘put-it-into perspective’ post, there were 227 comments. If only there were a million, or a billion. Then we might have chance…
Act local, think global. That way we are less discouraged. We must consider carefully how to challenge those who are most responsible and act together.
May be some can think their way to understanding climate issues and not much further… let them recycle etc.
We all need to cut down on purchases… so lets do that. We can all return to plastic free life as much as we are able. We can’t do much better than that. We all need encouragement and can get that by joining others and acting together. We ALL NEED COMMUNITY.
I believe the analysis provided in this article is spot on. However, we need HOPE.
Agree with the author wholeheartedly,but I feel that he is unaware of the role our credit-based monetary system plays in the exploitation ,strip- mining of our natural resources, rampant consumerism and the associated pollution
The major banks worldwide are generally in private hands. Whenever they issue credit,that money is created from NOTHING(not many people know this)
So,when any business,for example a mining company borrows money,it has to pay interest on money that didn’t exist before the loan was issued,
Now,for the mining company to pay off the loan as quickly as possible,it has an incentive to maximize it’s rate of production.
Thus,the 1% (owners of the banks) Some of who are unimaginably wealthy trillionaires,get even richer from trashing the planet via a fundamentally fraudulent immoral scheme.
Have you noticed that in every major western city,the tallest,most opulent & extravagant highrises are banks?
…..interest on ficticious money THIS is the basic mechanism underpinning the mysterious need for “perpetual growth”
“economists” merely act to legitimize and simultsneously obfuscate this appalling state of affairs.
The world’s debt is now >250 trillion(including national debts,most of which have been created in the manner described above.
This is the reason why we have such low (or even negativeinterest rates……if rates were to rise to historically “normal ” levls, whole countries would go bankrupt,like dominoes.
Finally,the major amount of population growth since the 70’s has occurred in poor countries in Africa the Middle east and Asia,while OECD countries have been flat or shrinking.
The poor countries’populations generally haven’t reached the lifestyles of the affluent countries,in fact they have had their resouces stripped by western corporations instead of benefitting the locals to a greater degree.
So,in summary,reducing the population is one part of the equation,but without reducing the perverse,systemic insentives to exploit and pollute,provided by a monetary system trigged to benefit the rich and ultra rich it will be difficult to begin healing the planet.
Yes, you are correct, humans are 100% to blame, but you, like everyone miss the point completely. The very people that can make the difference are the people, not politicians or economists. Stop buying plastic items and they won’t be marketable, turn you aircon off and use a blanket or fan, don’t buy packaged food, borrow a book from the library. The buck really does stop with us and we have to be the change we want. This is what activists should be promoting, not the constant dribble seen on the streets.
I don’t think keeping people the other side of the UK border is a particularly efficient way to address global population control…!! Brexit is really nothing at all to do with this issue and certainly won’t do anything to solve any world crises.