babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Earth population to hit 7 billion today!
October 31, 2011 - 12:37pm
---------------->
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.
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.
Alas, no. I got it from Simon Butler, co-author of Too Many People. See reason #1.
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.
- news services
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.
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.
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.
Precisely.
Those who say there's not enough are generally those who have too much.
Ironic, isn't it?
CBC radio (Quirks and Quarks) gives a platform to populationism
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.