Hi,
I think the answer is very obvious:
1) our overshoot today and 20 years ago was already a factor of 10 and more too
large, resulting in the draw down of the natural capital.
2) according to the IPAT equation one finds that the unsustainable resource consumption in the richer, so called civilized countries, is roughly is roughly 3 times larger than the world per capita 
average and thus 1 person in the rich OECD countries counts like 10 or more people 
in Nigeria (or probably much more). Ignoring this fact is wrong! 
3) energy resources are already close to the start of the decline and so will population 
follow any time soon. Lets face reality.. those large consumers (including us!) 
are the trouble makers and should learn to give up what we consider as being 
civilized. Thus accept that our culture (called by whatever name) is not sustainable 
and will end either by collapse or by a rational decision to terminate our
civilization (by degrowth..) .. still far better option than collapse.
 
but, as it looks we are not capable of facing reality and thus will go through collapse 
in the western world and take the rest with us. 
 
good night and good luck!
 
michael
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

I’ve just joined this Forum, but may I be so bold as to make a constructive suggestion? This is a frustrated and heartfelt plea for MAHB to become a signatory to this document : http://europeanpopulationalliance.org/documents/position_statement.pdf I feel I must stress that everything in Section 1 contains only irrefutable facts. The conclusion is inescapable, and the recommendations are perfectly logical and reasonable in the light of the foregoing. The only thing causing all our environmental woes on this planet is too many of us humans, and of those far too many are consuming far too much. More of us can only make matters  worse. If only every organisation behind running environmental forums,  every environmentally concerned think tank,  every environmentally concerned NGO and every “green” political party in the world, and maybe even some “green” inclined businesses  were to sign up in support  of a  Joint Position Statement on Population and the Environment,  such as this  – Perhaps it would then be seen, by the powers that be that run this world and by many more members of the public,  that we are “all singing from the same hymn sheet” – and loudly, in unison, and  in a powerful, clear, concise and unequivocal fashion? Then – we might actually really start to get  things done about the state of our planet; instead of just chiefly talking amogst ourselves and banging on our own particular drums about what needs to be done! If MAHB cannot  sign up to this,  please tell me why not ? What is wrong with it? And, If MAHB  can come up with a better “Joint Position Statement on the Environment”,  an “Accord” that every purportedly environmentally concerned or “green” body can be persuaded sign up to – please can it do so ASAP? In my view, an International Accord such as this is sorely needed. I do hope I can persuade MAHB to agree.

The thrust of our global industrial capitalist system has been to exacerbate inequities so that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, year after year. This is because the system is based on continuous competition, selecting winners and losers ad infinitum. Winners tend to skew the system to ensure their continued winning, which is why the governments of the world, who are supposed to be reducing inequities, are now doing the exact opposite, viz., taxing the poor while enriching the rich. When the poor get poorer, they counter-intuitively have more kids leading to the population statistics that Paul is lamenting about!
In fact, while population increased by a factor of 6 from 1800 to 2000, from 1 billion to 6 billion, consumption increased by a factor of 64 in constant dollars. According to the UN Human Development Report of 1998, the top one-third of humanity are responsible for 91% of world consumption, while the bottom one-third are responsible for less than 2.5%. Therefore, if the current system is to be preserved, unless draconian population reductions are going to occur within the top one-third of humanity, i.e., among us, the human predicament is not going to get much better.
I assume that we are not suicidal and therefore, conclude that the human socio-economic system has got to change into a more equitable version that doesn’t value scarcity but rewards abundance. Instead of a currency system that is pegged to nothing in particular except blind faith and the nation’s ability to print, we need a currency system that is pegged to the totality of Life. The more Life there is in your nation, the stronger your currency. Only then will the human socio-economic system be in harmony with the biophysical systems of the planet. And only then will humans will have an economic incentive to improve the bio-diversity of the planet.