Population Statistics: What Should We Make of Them?
Home › Forums › MAHB Members Forum › Population Statistics: What Should We Make of Them?
Tagged: consumption, environment, population
- This topic has 6 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 11 months ago by Sailesh Rao.
-
AuthorPosts
-
-
November 7, 2013 at 12:01 am #6467Erika GavenusMember
Please use this space to discuss Paul Ehrlich’s MAHB Blog post Population Statistics: What Should We Make of Them?. Click on the link below to read more.
-
November 8, 2013 at 5:58 am #6477michael dittmar michaelMember
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
-
November 10, 2013 at 11:39 am #6483Erika GavenusMember
On behalf of Wendy Kellett:
And now Hans Rosling is going to wield his statistical magic wand on BBC2, this evening at 9pm GMT, to assure we doubters that there-is-nothing-to-worry-about and that we are rapidly achieving the best-in-the-best-of-all-possible-worlds:a Panglossian future.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03h8r1j
I hope that Professor Ehrlich will be offered BBC airtime to present a rebuttal of Rosling’s claims,which can only bolster the Ostrich mindset which still prevails.
-Wendy Kellett
-
November 10, 2013 at 4:47 pm #6491Erika GavenusMember
On behalf of Michael Mielke:
Paul,
I am with you in labeling crazy thinking insanity, as you say. Let us be honest enough to call crazy thinking just that.
Another example of insanity is the Department of Energy projecting and predicting energy demand and consumption over this next 30 years at the level that guarantees, given the plain scientific data, that the human experiment crashes, civilization is doomed.
Thus we have demanded answers from our DoE Secretary Moniz for this drastic inconsistency. If we let this insanity stand then how do we justify our own participation in science and our own work in and around it?
That is not a rhetorical question. See our questions for Moniz here:http://www.saveourselvesnow.net/view/blog/527321a50cf28463bc8dd594/?topic=51cbfc5ef702fc2ba8124d5b
Michael Mielke
SaveOurselvesNow.net -
November 10, 2013 at 4:48 pm #6493Erika GavenusMember
On behalf of Jim Stark:
You end with “Not a word on the possibility of humanely reducing the number of mouths that will need to be fed. Straightforward future blindness – insanity.” Well said. I note, however, that you yourself have not a word about the need for a world parliament or the practicality of a citizen initiated global referendum on that issue. Could this be called “future blindness – insanity”?
-Jim Stark
-
November 11, 2013 at 4:28 am #6495William DowlingMember
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.
-
November 11, 2013 at 8:11 pm #6505Sailesh RaoMember
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.
-
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.