Earth population to hit 7 billion today!
October 31, 2011 - 12:37pm
---------------->
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: Become a Podcaster | Find a Show
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2012 the authors
Syndicate
A crowded world's population hits 7 billion
excerpt:
With the world's population more than doubling over the last half century, basics like food and water are under more strain than ever, say experts, and providing for an additional 2-3 billion people in the next 50 years is a serious worry.
Water usage is set to increase by 50 percent between 2007 and 2025 in developing nations, while food security remains a challenge with 925 million people going hungry.
To feed the two billion more mouths predicted by 2050, food production will have to increase by 70 percent, the U.N.'s Food and Agricultural Organisation says. But climate change may be the greatest impediment to meeting this target, say experts.
Growing numbers of people on earth is also resulting in rapid urbanisation, placing serious strains on towns and cities as migrants move from poor rural areas to richer urban centres.
excerpt:
"The largest drain continues to be in the West which have traditionally consumed, and continue to, massive volumes of resources because of a life-style and purchasing power that far exceeds that of so-called high population poorer countries."
Nothing Mother Nature can't handle; give her time.
We are not exempt. (serously)
Almost every sentence in that stupid article contains falsehoods, including the quotations.
The fact is that there would be strains on water and food supplies in many parts of the world even if you could somehow wave a magic wand and freeze population at present levels - or wave it again and cut world population levels in half. It's caused by the economic inequalities and environmental depredation that are built into capitalism's DNA, and a growing population simply means there are more victims of capitalism than there would be otherwise. To suggest that the inequalities and the environmental problems themselves are caused by too many people is like blaming a forest fire on there being too many trees.
And the fact that the countries of the "West" consume far more of the earth's resources despite our declining fertility rates is proof enough that overpopulation is not the culprit. It's just a convenient way of diverting attention away from the real culprits.
Read Too Many People? Population, Immigration, and the Environmental Crisis. It's the best $15.85 you'll spend all year.
Yes, the efficiency of the market place is a guarantee that millions will continue starving to fucking death each and every year like clockwork. It's a free market-induced holocaust every year since Black '47 in Ireland. Capitalism is a conveyor belt of death and misery.
Happy Halloween.
Video:
http://overpopulationisamyth.com/content/episode-5-7-billion-people-will...
In 75 years world population will be 7 billion if growth rate trends continue. Well it's obvious what we have to do now...
Okay EVERYBODY PANIC!!
All the people dying every day of war, famine, disease and other reasons and the population still keeps growing.
That's good - is that original?
And thanks for persistently exploding the overpopulation myth. It's unbelievable how far this 7 billion crap is being peddled.
That's good - is that original?
And thanks for persistently exploding the overpopulation myth. It's unbelievable how far this 7 billion crap is being peddled.
Yeah that's a good one: there are too many trees causing forest fires. It's the proles who need to be thinned out, because as we know, proles only beget more proles. We proles tend to breed like rabbits as everyone knows. And since the one percent is stagnant at a handful few billionaires and multimillionaires spread out so sparsely, they must be feeling just a little outnumbered. They've suddenly decided that actual democracy does not bode well for la creme de la creme if they desire that them and their's remain floating effortlessly on top of the cappuccino in the way they were born to.
That's good - is that original?
Alas, no. I got it from Simon Butler, co-author of Too Many People. See reason #1.
That's good - is that original?
And thanks for persistently exploding the overpopulation myth. It's unbelievable how far this 7 billion crap is being peddled.
Though with the exception of this thread the people who have been working the hardest at peddling the story are the ones who are insisting it is a myth.
Seems to me we already have a thread open on this, as a matter of fact.
Yes, the real enemy, then, is not an unworkable economic system designed to destroy the earth and humanity. The real enemy is humanity itself. So now we know,
That was easy. Gavel smack! Next order of business? ...
To his great credit Ban Ki-Moon, commenting on the 7 billionth human, did not talk about "overpopulation" or call for reduction in fertility as a solution to the problems of the world. He talked about the perilous state of the world into which No. 7 Billion is being born, and emphasized the need to solve the social and economic problems that have put the world in such a state.
What kind of world has baby 7 billion been born into? What kind of world do we want for our children in the future?
I am one of 7 billion. You are also one of 7 billion. Together, we can be 7 billion strong by working in solidarity for a better world for all....
Even with seven billion - the gap between rich and poor is increasing, and in the poorest countries extreme poverty, food insecurity, inequality, high death rate and high birth rates are linked in a vicious cycle. So we have to address all these issues in a comprehensive manner...
Our world is one of terrible contradictions. Plenty of food but one billion people go hungry. Lavish lifestyles for a few, but poverty for too many others. Huge advances in medicine while mothers die everyday in childbirth, and children die every day from drinking dirty water. Billions spent on weapons to kill people instead of keeping them safe.
- news services
Yes, the real enemy, then, is not an unworkable economic system designed to destroy the earth and humanity. The real enemy is humanity itself. So now we know,
That was easy. Gavel smack! Next order of business? ...
Hold on a sec....
All I said was that this issue has been brought up almost exclusively by those making the "overpopulation is a myth" argument, and that there is already a thread open on this.
I didn't say a damn word about what the enemy is and what it is not.
M. Spector's post points to the fact that many people recognize this as the very complex series of issues that it is - not just "overpopulation" and not just global capitalism, and certainly not the either-or choice that is being set up.
All I said was that this issue has been brought up almost exclusively by those making the "overpopulation is a myth" argument, and that there is already a thread open on this.
Ummm, have you been looking at the MSM for the past couple weeks? Have you possibly noticed the nonstop massive blanket coverage about the 7 billionth baby being born? Have you heard them provide a platform to one single dissident voice saying, "population growth is not the problem"?
Gotta go with Fidel's instincts on this one.
All I said was that this issue has been brought up almost exclusively by those making the "overpopulation is a myth" argument, and that there is already a thread open on this.
Yes, we have managed more or less to hold the line on babble on this issue of "overpopulation". But if you had any familiarity at all with today's environmental movement you would know that 98.6% of them are rabid "populationists" - people who will readily agree with each other that the problems of the world could be solved if only we didn't have so damn many people. And whose only proposed solution to the perceived root cause of environmental destruction and climate change is to hand out birth control pamphlets in the third world.
The fact is that populationism is a cancer infecting the environmental movement and if not combatted vigorously it will render the movement completely ineffectual.
I can't recall where I saw a recent article offering commentary on the 7 billion. It stated with the support of a map, that if everyone in the world were to gather at one point to attend an outdoor concert for example, it would require a field roughly about half the size of PEI, rendering the rest of the world's landmass uninhabited for the duration of the concert. There is enough land and resources to sustain everyone, its just that we find everything concentrated in too few hands. The myth in this instance that there is not enough to go around is the same myth peddled by the corporate media every day without missing a beat.
The myth in this instance that there is not enough to go around is the same myth peddled by the corporate media every day without missing a beat.
Precisely.
Those who say there's not enough are generally those who have too much.
Ironic, isn't it?
Ummm, have you been looking at the MSM for the past couple weeks? Have you possibly noticed the nonstop massive blanket coverage about the 7 billionth baby being born? Have you heard them provide a platform to one single dissident voice saying, "population growth is not the problem"?
CBC radio (Quirks and Quarks) gives a platform to populationism
Shades of arguments by the Libidinal Chapter of the Society for the Immaculate Conception.
The myth in this instance that there is not enough to go around is the same myth peddled by the corporate media every day without missing a beat.
Precisely.
Those who say there's not enough are generally those who have too much.
Ironic, isn't it?
If that were actually true I'd probably just ignore this.
Problem is those who actually do have the power are pushing for funding cuts to planned parenthood, access to abortion and reproductive education.
Perhaps you are fimiliar with Harper's Maternal Health Plan? Cuts to planned parenthood by the U.S. Congress? Does the name Brad Trost ring a bell?
I think those guys are all more interested in bringing as many souls to save into the world as they can, and leave the rest in their god's hands.
Now if you want to fight the scourge of capitalism more power to you, but please don't use some dumb shell game to pretend that it is the single and only dynamic in play when it comes to standards of living, the environment, resources, and limits to growth.
This 98.6 % (Where did you put the thermometer to conduct that scientific poll?) rabid populationists.... are they actually some counter-revolutionary bloc that is mobilizing against us, or is this just an attempt to poach recruits by telling them to ignore anything that isn't furthering the revolution - in short, leave the details in Papa Marx's hands.
I heard that quirks and quarks piece too, and it didn't seem so dogmatic to me.
To paraphrase one of the people on the panel, if you asked women honestly how many of them do you really think would want to have 7 to 10 children?
Fair question. And I would add, how is this standing in the way of political reform?
You're encountering one of the many ideological contradictions that continue to plague right wing neo-conservatism, and the societies they influence as a result. You can't hope to make sense of it, or to convince them otherwise, and so it's probably best not to get drawn into it by investing too much thought. One has to bear in mind that for many of them, every sperm is sacred until the material need arises to spread the byproducts of depleted uranium all over heaven's creation, or to protect people, adults and newborns, or fetuses for that matter, with bombing one and all from the air like the righteous cowards they are.
You're encountering one of the many ideological contradictions that continue to plague right wing neo-conservatism, and the societies they influence as a result. You can't hope to make sense of it, or to convince them otherwise, and so it's probably best not to get drawn into it by investing too much thought.
I hope you don't mean that we shouldn't be concerned about attempts to turn back the clock on women's reproductive choice and education.
It is a very real threat, here and elsewhere in the world, and among the most important reform movements there is. I think I'll continue to pay attention to it, if you don't mind.
To paraphrase one of the people on the panel, if you asked women honestly how many of them do you really think would want to have 7 to 10 children?
Fair question. And I would add, how is this standing in the way of political reform?
That to me is the wrong question whether or not you think it is "fair" (whatever that means in this context). The right of a woman to their own reproductive choices is an absolute. I don't care how many women want to have large families. IMO asking women whether they want 7 to 10 kids comes at the discussion of rights for women from the wrong angle. The question implies to me a very paternalistic perspective of helping the "ladies in distress." Women need allies not benevolent protectors.
The "new Millenium" CBC often has biased panels on its shows. I thought Quirks and Quarks was above that ideological bias. Too bad they chose to only present one side of the debate. It sure makes them look bad.
Perhaps it sounded different to you than me, NS.
I don't think it was phrased in a way that presumed one single answer.
Though if it's the CBC I guess it's a foregone conclusion that they are up to no good.
*grin*
You're projecting again, in lieu of a valid counterpoint as usual.
Perhaps it sounded different to you than me, NS.
I don't think it was phrased in a way that presumed one single answer.
It was the WRONG question. That was my point. Who cares how many children women want? Why is that a question? It is not a question related to how to achieve reproductive rights and thus it is a distraction from the real issue. Which is the rights issue that I know you support.
You're projecting again, in lieu of a valid counterpoint as usual.
SJ, I'm just questioning the argument that the entire wealthy north is trying to push population reduction on nations in the developing world.
There are strong forces both in government (the U.S. and Canada) and in religious aid groups on the ground which are trying to do exactly the opposite. As a matter of fact, it forms the policy of the Canadian government.
I'm not even accusing you; I am simply asking you to clarify your statement, because it reads like you are telling me I should not pay attention to that. And frankly that seems odd to me.
to me the problem in terms of population lies in the the fact that many countries, especially the ones with the largest populations, are adopting western models of resource exploitation for profit. As these populations become richer, their appetite for resources grows. The problem is the trajectory we're on.
i.e. if right now the world's natural systems are in collapse because of the wests insatiable appetite for resources, we're surely doomed if millions or billions more people start living our lifestyle or anything even remotely resembling it.
so what i'm concerned about is as the number of people who right now don't consume much continues to grow, unless rich countries radically reduce the amount we consume (the opposite is happening) we're on a dangerous trajectory and we can see where it leads.
hell, even the population growth in our own countries is probably enough to push it over the edge in the next 100 years. In 1900, the US population was around 75 million, today it's close to 275 million.
@ milo204
Canada is in the odd and enviable position that we need a lot more people to sustain ourselves. And the only way that is going to happen is through immigration.
Unfortunately, I don't think the policies of our government - giving the minister free rein to cherry pick who gets in the door, while at the same time bringing in policies to limit bringing family into the country - are necessarily the way to serve the community.
SJ, I'm just questioning the argument that the entire wealthy north is trying to push population reduction on nations in the developing world.
I haven't seen SJ or anyone else here make that argument.
The people trying to push population reduction on the third world are misguided "progressives" and self-styled "leftists" who think that capitalism would work just fine if only we could thin out the poorer populations of the earth. The environmental movement is, unfortunately, full of such people.
Citing Stephen Harper and the U.S. Congress as counter-examples completely misses the point. The defunding of Planned Parenthood and abortion-related services has nothing whatsoever to do with population issues, but rather has everything to do with with the struggle between women's rights to reproductive freedom and the forces of religious obscurantism.
Not only that, the ruling classes are quite happy to see the environmental movement dominated by people who prefer to label the human race as vermin bent on destroying the planet, rather than developing a real analysis and strategy based on understanding the fundamentally destructive nature of the world political-economic system. The very last thing they want to see the environmental movement get behind is a class analysis of the problem.
The idea that Planned Parenthood is actually the solution to the environmental and food crises is exactly the kind of misunderstanding and mythology that must be combatted if we are to have any chance of turning this juggernaut around. But that's not to say that Planned Parenthood should not be funded - for reasons having nothing to do with overpopulation and everything to do with reproductive choice.
If it is occurring...population reductions that is, its usually termed as collateral to the actual intent...whatever that may be in any given situation, isn't it?
Population deniers join the climate warming deniers in the use of various specious arguments.
There are many reasons (often targeting each other) for adversarials: capitalists, anti-capitalists, the US state department, the RC church, and the non-religious, to hold in common the Hardinian Taboo, (the taboo against confronting the reality of planet destroying overpopulation and, on smaller scale, demographic entrapment).
But, like most human uses of rationality, it is here also in the service of the irrational--not the least of which is the ultimate irrational of the hardwired impulse of organisms to propagate--translated into an unquestionable limitless human right, spurred by the unique human propensity for self-deception.
====
Since this is an old controversy on Babble, I'll add this old postt:
The first is that truth that as societies move from "developing" status to "developed", it usually entails decreasing family size.
The second is that consumption and eco-footprint of individuals in "developed" countries are many times that of "developing" societies.
The coupling of global capitalism, [not just a Western phenomenon] with its appetite for cheap, plentiful, disposable labour [and growing makets]) with the universal human desire for self-advancement and "getting things"-- both needed and ultimately unneeded, will continue the current mass extinction event and result in the desertification of the planet.
@ M. Spector
Well now you are pointing to alleged claims that I never made. I think reproductive education and services are a good idea first and foremost because they will help people live their lives the way they want to. The environment is a related but separate issue, as are food, water, fuel and other issues of sustenance. And also, the relative overuse of resources by those of us who are far more wealthy is a related, but separate issue.
As for the rest of it, do you really want me to start pulling quotes and pointing to allusions? I'd rather people just stood by their words. I am not the one, after all, who is trying to push the idea that these equally important reform movements are in opposition.
Again, I'm not challenging the point that global capitalism is a scourge that should be fought. But trying to demonize issues of physical limits to our resources and population growth in order to forward the revolutionary cause is really shabby, in my opinion.
It wasn't so long ago that many people in the industrialized west engaged in unprotected screwing on an almost epidemic level. Ten kid families and counting were fairly standard at one time. It's been only since the sixties really that families grew vastly smaller in number, to where most couples now have one or two if any. And so now we find ourselves a position, nothing new in that, to tell other people and regions that they're having far too many kids. The environmentalists are better off sticking to trees, rivers, recycling and such.
What's really shabby, in my opinion, is people who in one sentence pay lip service to the fight against global capitalism and then in the next sentence make snide remarks about other people being motivated by a desire to advance that very same fight.
@Sj
All those externalities. :)
What's really shabby, in my opinion, is people who in one sentence pay lip service to the fight against global capitalism and then in the next sentence make snide remarks about other people being motivated by a desire to advance that very same fight.
No, seriously. I don't want to slow down the revolution in any way.
But why the need to slag a reform movement that is actually complementary, and tell people to ignore real limits to our resources?
There is this talk about 98.6% rabid scientists, and China's one-child policy (and infanticide), and the fact that we in the north use resources far more wastefully than in developing countries, but what are we really talking about in terms of policies and actions that are in opposition to the struggle against capitalism? Sorry, but it all seems like a big straw man argument to me, with the exception that it is one that can actually do some needless damage to reform efforts that we should properly be supporting.
6079_Smith_W's style of debate:
Don't you think you're overdoing the red-baiting a bit? Don't you think this is how, say, Harperite cabinet ministers like to put down any NDP intervention in question period that they can't deal with? I bowed out of this discussion because you're having trouble making substantive points, or even understanding where Spector and SJ are coming from. I really am not sure how to tell you to cool down a bit, stop hurling the "revolution" sarcasm around, and try to discuss this important topic without (say) accusing others here of being opposed to women's reproductive rights. No one was rude to you.
I have to agree, Winston. Stop the red-baiting, please.
Unionist.
I am not red baiting at all; I just have a problem with trying to promote one progressive cause at the expense of another, using dodgy arguments.
And I made no claims of personal attack.
(edit)
Didn't see your comment catchfire.
If that's your assessment of the situation, then fine. There's not much more I can say, and I am done.
(edit)
... not to mention the fact that we have outstripped resources in the past, long before the age of stock markets.
Well yes it is a problem with globalizing capitalism. Remember the cold war? They worked diligently to stop communism in Africa and Latin America. Patrice Lumumba and Che Guevara didn't commit suicide - they were murdered by the Gladio Gang. And they've forced VietNam and Russia and China and now North Korea and former Yugoslavia down the road of capital.
In other words, there is no more Soviet Union, "evil empire" or any other economic system to blame for what were 70 year's worth of bald faced lies regarding middle class capitalism based on consumption and consumerism. There is one dominant economic ideology today and insisting that the whole world pay their dues to capitalists and their hirelings in government who feign political impotence. If they are having some difficulty realizing those cold war era lies on a global scale today, then who should we blame for the currently deteriorating economic and environmental situations, Karl Marx?
How the heck did anybody force the Chinese down the road of capital?
Capital doesn't require the presence of democracy in order to flourish, and for the major players the only non-negotiable ideology is the pursuit of increased profit through growth. How does one acquire more profit through growth in the North American and European context when wage and general overhead costs insist on keeping pace with inflation and when everyone is out for a fair deal in exchange for labour? You create a racket called globalization..anarco-capitalism without borders essentially...offshoring...sweatshops...lax environmental controls...a regimented and non-unionized labour force, etc, etc. When as many jobs as possible are outsourced, the people left behind will work for just about anything in order to buy groceries and keep a roof...which in many cases isn’t enough to maintain body and soul and results in citizens being dumped wholesale on the door step of government for food stamps and social assistance, causing government to borrow more from the bankers in order to keep the wolf away from itself. China wasn't forced into capital. It recognized through the example of the Soviet Union that if you can't beat them, join them, with the added bonus of retaining the same political structure where capital is free to do its best work. It's a win-win all around for western bankers and the comrades on the committee. Ultimately we’ll see various firms outsourcing its work from China to Africa in search of even greater margins. The groundwork for that is being set down now.
How the heck did anybody force the Chinese down the road of capital?
It was a major sell job since the 1980s. Chicago School monetarists traversed the globe selling a better and more efficient way for Eastern Euriopean and Soviet, Soviet-friendly countries to integrate their economies with the West. Harvard and Princeton economists would go to these countries with stacks and stacks of papers, slide shows and a waving fistfulls of money to convince people like Gorbachev and Moscow intelligentsia, Deng Xiaching, Slobodan Milosevic etc that there could be a better way than the "inefficiencies" of socialism, cold war embargoes and especially dirty wars and covert gladio operations, and economic warfare waged by the West against the East in general. The cold war sometimes resembled the plot lines from the book, 1984.
It stated with the support of a map, that if everyone in the world were to gather at one point to attend an outdoor concert for example, it would require a field roughly about half the size of PEI, rendering the rest of the world's landmass uninhabited for the duration of the concert.
We have enough tourists here on PEI!
Thanks for your posts M. Spector - very well put. Here is another good take down:
Fourth, poor women often bear the the burden of this kind of reckeless rhetoric. They face unwanted streilizations and populatation control tactics. They often face the kinds of population control that programs distort family planning and diminish their control.
As we see, this is no small issue. There are many more reasons to be critical of the overpopulation narrative, and I presume we'll see a lot of articles about this in the next few days. But I thought I'd just welcome the 7 billionth little sweet pea into the world with a little more truth and a little less alarmism.
What I find most interesting is these so-called leftists who are alarmist about over-population aren't really volunteering to remove themselves are they? If humans themselves are the problem, why are they focussing on brown women in the Third World and their babies? They can easiliy off themselves or at the very least get sterilized.
I have to agree, Winston. Stop the red-baiting, please.
This is the most inscrutable verdict of "red baiting" I've seen.
It appears to be based on Smith's not beleiving that overpopulation is a myth
and that their are causes of the world's ills in addition to (not instead of) global capitalism.
I have to agree, Winston. Stop the red-baiting, please.
This is the most inscrutable verdict of "red baiting" I've seen.
It appears to be based on Smith's not beleiving that overpopulation is a myth
and that their are causes of the world's ills in addition to (not instead of) global capitalism.
No, contrarianna, it's based on Smith's saying over and over and over that the opposing viewpoint is simply grounded in a mindless aim to bring about the "revolution" and to follow "Marx". That method of argument is frowned upon in any decent company. It's the method of Ronald Reagan - call your enemies "Marxist" and "revolutionaries" and "communists" and whatever in order to avoid dealing with their substantive views and demands.
With the fall of the Soviet Union and its bloc, the Reaganite terminology has changed. Now, enemies are described as "fundamentalists" and "terrorists" and "militants", etc.
By the way, I don't think Smith really meant to adopt this method. He was getting emotional, as were others, and it just came out. It's not a bad thing to be called back to order on occasion.
What I find most interesting is these so-called leftists who are alarmist about over-population aren't really volunteering to remove themselves are they? If humans themselves are the problem, why are they focussing on brown women in the Third World and their babies? They can easiliy off themselves or at the very least get sterilized.
Guilty secret - I have often had the same thought listening to some self-righteous privileged types. Their moralizing is generally aimed at others.
330 million is the current population of the US I think.
And besides...by not holding the line here, things would escalate and wind up encouraging the anti-trotsky faction.
What I find most interesting is these so-called leftists who are alarmist about over-population aren't really volunteering to remove themselves are they?
Great, anyone who says humanity should come to grips with overpopulation should kill themselves to avoid being hypocrites.
That might apply to those who are advocating the death of others, but so far you are the only one to do so.
Walk the walk! I love it.
I thought someone would have mentioned Zero Population Growth by now. It was a popular concept when I was younger.
excerpt:
Zero population growth is often a goal of demographic planners and environmentalists who believe that reducing population growth is essential for the health of the ecosphere.
What I find most interesting is these so-called leftists who are alarmist about over-population aren't really volunteering to remove themselves are they?
Great, anyone who says humanity should come to grips with overpopulation should kill themselves to avoid being hypocrites.
That might apply to those who are advocating the death of others, but so far you are the only one to do so.
Thank you. The "overpopulation isn't a problem" line was beginning to spin off into space.
And the women of Africa would just love to have the old man tie a knot in it, figuratively speaking, if he could get over himself. Much like the dated arguments from "cultural differences" being used hereabouts.
I thought someone would have mentioned Zero Population Growth by now. It was a popular concept when I was younger.
excerpt:
Zero population growth is often a goal of demographic planners and environmentalists who believe that reducing population growth is essential for the health of the ecosphere.
The Populationj Bomb, Dr. Paul R.Ehrlich, 1968, just two years before the first Earth Day. He was only a bit early in predicting massive dieoff, and the "green revolution" that saved the day is now itself failing. "The key to the whole business, in my opinion, is held by the United States, " he wrote. "We will be treated" to the horrors of mass starvation on the evening news, "just as we now can see Viet Cong corpses being disposed of in living colour, and listen to the groans of our own wounded." There was lots of competition for public attention. Now its folks waiting for the Rapture.
Since hypocrisy has been made a theme here, there is plenty to go around.
Most, if not all, Babblers who live in North America have an eco-footprint many times that of impoverished "developing" populations. So obviously our role in the matrix of this disaster is great.
And regardless of a voiced concern for the exploited, we are the market and most take advantage of the bitter fruits of global capitalism in the form of cheap clothing, cheap food, and other products--along with the presumed inalienable right to reproduce within this North American cocoon of hyper-consumption .
Adding to the hypocrisy is the de facto alignment of some with global capitalism which depends on destructively high human reproduction which makes it a corporate buyers market in "developing" countries for cheap, disposable, labour--desparate for any income. This keeps the price of food clothing and other items low for us, the environmental destruction justified by "necessity" and the bottom feeding transnationals rich.
Unionist.
I am not red baiting at all; I just have a problem with trying to promote one progressive cause at the expense of another, using dodgy arguments.
And I made no claims of personal attack.
(edit)
Didn't see your comment catchfire.
If that's your assessment of the situation, then fine. There's not much more I can say, and I am done.
(edit)
... not to mention the fact that we have outstripped resources in the past, long before the age of stock markets.
This is the burden New Democrats carry on unstable ground here, 6079. One must try to couch responses to humourless "social democratic" baiting in humourous terms, the occasional touche in fast-paced ripostes of the drawing room or cocktail circuit. But always expect to have to repeat the defensive gesture again, and again...
Geez, it's tough slugging being a social democrat these days. Being caught in contradictions at every turn, and always having to defend the indefensible.
The Population Bomb, Dr. Paul R.Ehrlich, 1968, just two years before the first Earth Day. He was only a bit early in predicting massive dieoff, and the "green revolution" that saved the day is now itself failing. "The key to the whole business, in my opinion, is held by the United States, " he wrote. "We will be treated" to the horrors of mass starvation on the evening news, "just as we now can see Viet Cong corpses being disposed of in living colour, and listen to the groans of our own wounded." There was lots of competition for public attention. Now its folks waiting for the Rapture.
The book was actually written by Paul and Anne Ehrlich, but he took all the "credit" initially. Even before the book was published population growth was slowing worldwide. But that didn't stop the Ehrlichs from advocating forced sterilization programs and denial of foreign aid to third world countries.
Today their "intellectual" heirs are advocating barring the door to immigration from the third world into the West, on the spurious pretext that allowing brown people to live a north american lifestyle* will further harm the planet. Better to force them to live far far away, in the squalor and penury that our rapacious economic system has visited upon them and their lands. For the good of the planet, dont'cha know.
* doing farm labour and cleaning toilets? Yeah, right.
And the women of Africa would just love to have the old man tie a knot in it, figuratively speaking, if he could get over himself.
Apparently it's all those selfish, libidinous African men who are causing the earth's problems!
This is the kind of racist shit that characterizes much of the "overpopulation" discourse.
M. Spector.... you say social democrat like it's a dirty word. And why am I being called back from the dead?
What I find most interesting is these so-called leftists who are alarmist about over-population aren't really volunteering to remove themselves are they? If humans themselves are the problem, why are they focussing on brown women in the Third World and their babies? They can easiliy off themselves or at the very least get sterilized.
In the first place, I am snipped, and secondly, I think this is a bogus issue. Based on the intent of our governments I am far less worried about forced sterilization than the opposite scenario.
And Unionist. I don't care about people wanting to be marxists, and I recognize that we use far more resources here. My problem is with the tactics, the sophistry, and the tunnel vision regarding clear limits to water, oil. viable climate, and land.
And although I have my own limits WRT what I can say, I should point out that whatever one is selling, the overpopulation debunking bandwagon is kind of crowded, and not all of it is progressive:
For one thing, those people at the Royal Society who make those great animated videos (the Choice one) are actually depopulation fanatics and ecofascists:
http://www.infowars.com/depopulation-fanatics-eugenicists-launch-“...
These guys are so slick... they don't even mention Jesus:
http://overpopulationisamyth.com/ http://pop.org/
http://www.christianpost.com/news/the-myth-of-overpopulation-51113/
http://www.overpopulationmyth.com/
And at the risk of further censure, they're even dumping on Malthus here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2734892/posts
So if we want to make an argument in favour of a specific political philosophy, perhaps we should base the arguments on its own merits, rather than something you can spin any which way. Based on the amount of mileage you might get out of this issue, I am not sure you want to be associated with that group of allies.
Inside the World Bank's Population Policy Michael Hudson
Taken from Super Imperialism(free ebook), 2nd Edition, p213 (1972)
The anti-Malthusian argument, that beyond a point resources tend to increase more rapidly than population, is the universal experience of every developed country. The Malthus doctrine holds true only in conditions where per capita food resources are so low as to leave no surplus of human energy to devote to pursuits above the mere gathering and cultivation of crops. Malthusian advocacy by the World Bank is thus a pronouncement that the Bank intends to leave the economies of impoverished countries in the eventual condition of zero surplus of human energy.
That's a racist piece of shit quote and doesn't belong on babble.
Hudson is criticizing the very racist and imperialist policies of the U.S.-based World Bank, IMF, WTO, as well as the very racist Malthusian doctrine guiding their policies on population control in developing countries in general.
Who decides what is balanced economic development? What actually is that? What country has actually achieved that?
Arrogant First World imperialism, that's what that is.
And "what size population is desirable for them"? Again, who decides this? Some white guy who speaks English I assume. Since he knows best?
I don't see criticism, I see reiteration.
P.S. You wanna reduce population growth? Educate girls and women. There's a strong correlation between those two, Just sayin.
It's mostly superrich white guys dictating how those countries organize their economies today. The Congo is a perfect illustration of how things haven't changed a great deal since white Belgian colonialists ran roughshod over the country for too long and ended up physically eliminating 10 million of them. And with US proxies Rwanda and Uganda marauding into that country since the late 1990s, six million more Congolese have been slaughtered. The west wants access to the Congo's rich mineral deposits and untold of natural wealth in general.
Do we agree that big US agribusinesses should be dumping cheap food on these countries and undermining mostly agrarian economies? What else can they export besides raw materials and energy to rich western countries under the current neocolonialist setup?
WTO and IMF are insisting that these countries pay down their odious debts to a mostly white person dominated western banking cabal first and foremost and not spend irresponsibly on social development, health care, education etc. I can't imagine a more racist and condescendingly white-centric ideology being foisted on desperately poor third world countries today.
Hudson is saying that Africa has enough arable land to feed itself, but because of the policies of the neoliberal western institutions run mostly by rich white guys in the IMF, WTO and World Bank, they are not able to. Neocolonialism in Africa is a very racist ideology and should end for the sake of millions of Africans. It was rich white people in the west who did not want Patrice Lumumba creating a strong and united Africa in the 1960s. And so they murdered him. They've been corrupting the course of democracy and foisting neocolonialist policies on African nations ever since.
I think it's a real economic theory, and it has to do with sustainable economy and growth. And there are all kinds of ways of measuring whether a country is on the road to economic sustainability, or whether they are on the road to failed nation status.
Economists will say that there are no good reasons for African nations, like Somalia or Ethopia to be enduring famines and widespread grinding poverty that tends to keep whole nations of people down and out and striving for little more than the right to exist. And our lapdog western news media will often suggest that the reasons for famines in Africa are droughts and inclement weather in general, "civil" wars etc. And it's all lies.
Our nextdoor neighbors in Washington have, throughout the last century and this one, been seen and heard and widely publicized to donate food aid to various developing countries. It began in post-revolutionary Russia and throughout Asian countries. The U.S. has donated food and even dumped cheap food on developing countries near and afar, and economists have said that this dumping of cheap food has the effect of undermining agrarian economies. The Asian tiger economies, for instance, did not follow the Washington consensus for neoliberalism when pulling themselves up by their bootstraps post-WW II. China and Japan are two good examples of countries devasted by war, and they re-buiilt their economies from the ground up by basically doing everything the neoliberal agenda dictates not to do, like allowing farming families to stay on the land, grow produce and sell it while focusing on raising and educating their children. And every generation after them enjoyed better standards of living than their parents and grandparents. Government spending on basic health care services was key in China and Japan in creating healthy and literate populations. And now capitalists in China want to accept all of the credit for important social achievements in Mao's time.
And this is what imperialists today want to prevent happening and especially in desperately poor African countries. Imperialists here in the West have worked to maintain division among the "barbarians" in Asia and Africa. Imperialists want no rivals either economic or military. Nationalist governments of any stripe are lumped-in with communists, and all of them together in kind represent a threat to corporate-sponsored imperialism. The dirty tricks and covert interventions have worked in many countries but not all.
The Congo has been devasted by racist western policies as babblers have mentioned many times in other threads. We have observed a proliferation of militant Islam in countries on the edge of Eastern Europe, in Central Asia, and North Africa. And the good Samaritans of food aid (with political and economic strings attached) around the world have complained in recent months that the reason Somalians in Lower Shabelle, for instance, are threatened with famine is that Al Shahab imposed a ban on foreign aid agencies and NGO's in 2009. And Al Shahab is linked with Al-Qaeda, says the U.S. Therefore the U.S. has intervened covertly in order to stop the evil Al-Qaeda-linked jihaidists in order that they might bring famine relief to innocent Somalians suffering under militant Islam, "inclement weather patterns", and an overal lack of democracy in general. This is how barbarians carry on in case we didn't know. But the story is not as simple as our good neighbors and lapdog news media let on.
Lapdog news media and their corporate masters fail to mention that Harakat al-Shabaab al-Mujahideen (Movement of Striving Youth) is funded by Saudi Arabia and covertly supported by Western intelligence agencies. This is part of a pattern for Western countries covertly supporting Al-Qaeda and affiliated jihadist militants in a number of other countries since the 1950s through today including Libya and Syria. And these policies are incredibly racist and imperialist and continuing today. The idea is to create imbalance and chaos as opposed to encouraging economic balance leading to healthy and sustainable economic growth in developing countries. Imperialists are able to stay on top of the heap longer this way. This is what imperialists do.
I'm not in agreement with the prognosis or the 'solution' proposed, but this shocking appraisal is right about us approaching some planetary redlines that will have to be dealt with:
The Psychology of Systemic Collapse - by Peter Goodchild
http://www.countercurrents.org/goodchild060212.htm
"Industrial society is based almost entirely on fossil fuels, and such an enormous population is not possible without these fuels. When the fuel is gone, so is the population. Because the size of the population is so closely related to the fuel supply, between now and the year 2050 about 2.5 million people will die of famine, while lost and averted births will amount to another 2.5 billion. The truly fundamental problem of understanding systemic collapse, however, is that the mind cannot assimilate it emotionally..."
Goodchild's article is dumb.
We already have the technology to live comfortably without fossil fuels. We just don't have a society that is willing to make the transition yet.
And it's not as if everyone on the planet is currently living the high life thanks to fossil fuels. The vast majority of the population of the planet consume very small amounts of fossil fuel; it is the wasteful and consumptive modes of production and living in the imperialist metropolises that are hogging the dwindling supply of fossil fuel. And most of the benefit of that fossil fuel wealth stolen from nature is concentrated in the hands of a small but powerful capitalist class.
Change the society and we can sustain far more people, in better living conditions, than capitalism has been able to.
In honour of 7 billion people day...
An appeal to some supporters of women's rights: Please stop promoting the 7 Billion scare
Do I believe that the planet can sustain unchecked exponential population growth? No. I also don’t think that’s what the earth is faced with, if people have access to affordable, culturally competent, unstigmatized, full-spectrum reproductive health care.
That would mean the kind of health care that has been criminalized and disrupted throughout generations of colonization and industrialization. Tell an Indigenous reproductive justice activist or Black traditional midwife when abortion was decriminalized in the US, and they’ll ask you to take a minute and think about when it was made illegal in the first place.
It is not “traditional” for women to be unable to determine when or if they will have children. It is not “traditional” for people to feel shamed, guilty, or afraid for seeking the knowledge and skills of healers in making those determinations.
In the anti-sex, imperialist, misogynist worldview of folks like Thomas Malthus, the 18th century white English clergyman who gave us the idea of unchecked population growth, people were powerless against the forces of reproduction. In that worldview, the fear certainly makes sense — but that doesn’t make it traditional, or true.
So to folks who are tying access to contraceptives and abortion, or women’s education and economic empowerment campaigns, to the need to slow population growth, I say: PLEASE STOP.