Submitted by Alex Birch on Tue, 07/22/2008 - 22:56.
Over-population's key role in causing climate change [ark] is again emerging as a central component of the debate on global warming solutions [search]. Too many people, many of which consume to dreadful excess while others live on $1 a day, are the root cause of virtually every global ecological crisis [search] including food and energy. I agree with Paul Ehrlich and James Lovelock that "we have grown in number to the point where our presence is perceptibly disabling the planet like a disease."
Seven billion people now, when a bit over a century ago there was one billion -- and each needing to be fed, housed, and clothed -- and virtually the whole world embracing democratic conspicuous consumption as the way of life. How could this not possibly be the root cause of ecosystem loss [search], ocean dead zones [search], scarce water [search] and an increasingly inoperable atmosphere? And of course, one American is equal to the environmental destruction of many in the not-yet-over-developed world, as it is not just raw numbers, but aggregate consumption (population x per capita consumption) that matters in terms of resource over-use and resultant ecosystem loss.
Thankfully common sense is finally breaking through social taboo, and discussion regarding how to stop and reverse population growth is once again central to efforts to achieve ecological sustainability. The fact that dire famine and death predicted from Malthus [search] to the Population Bomb [search] have not yet happened globally (but are well along regionally in Haiti, Darfur and elsewhere), because of technologies that have delayed the inevitable while ensuring the collapse will be all the more severe, does not mean people and inequitable consumption can grow forever. Indeed, in a world of ecological overshoot, if any of us and life itself is to survive, there is no such thing as the right to have a baby [ark].
It's great to finally see some consensus on this issue among the environmentalists. Corrupt is dedicated to contribute to the environmentalist discussion and help raise overpopulation awareness among the "green intellectuals."
Read more:
Data reference: Overpopulation myths
Interview: Environmentalist Writer And Activist John Feeney
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
I especially enjoyed this comment from the source.
"The population of any species is directly related and proportional to the energy use and availability for that species. In natural balance, the energy used by a species comes from the current, or immediate past growing season (i.e. it is recent sunglight striking the earth and being converted into plants and animals). In a naturally balanced system the numbers of a species will not, and cannot reproduce beyond the energy available.
Now humans have found a way to use ancient sunglight to use more energy than is available natually. This fossil fuel age puts atn"out of balance" energy equation onto the ecosystem of the planet, and is of course, not supportable.
It is noble to ask people to voluntarily have less kids, etc....but in the end, it will be the energy balance of the earth that will determine what must and will happen. When the oil age comes crashing to a close, human numbers must and will decrease.
If somehow humans should find a way to usefully harness fusion, then an unlimited amount of energy becomes possible, and human numbers could expand to fill the cosmos.
As no species seems to have filled the cosmos, we can assume that fusion power will not come to pass, and that some sort of energy cliff is in the very near future for humans, and populations will collapse back to levels that can be sustained through the use of immediately available sunlight."