This is correlated by the 2006 World Wildlife Fund’s "Living Planet" report stating that if the entire world were to live with a high degree of luxury (say like Western Europe,) we’d be spending three times more resources than what the planet can supply. Other reports mention that we already consume five times more than that the planet can supply. Finally, Steve Jones, head of the biology department at University College London, has said, that "humans are 10,000 times more common than they should be, according to the rules of the animal kingdom; without farming, the world population would probably have reached only half a million today… So based on these statements, and although there’s no real consensus, it’s fair to say that we’re currently three times too many on the planet. Next time, we’ll explore what could be done about that…
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Tackling overpopulation
This topic follows yesterday’s discussion about the search for a new economic model. Overpopulation is closely entwined with any economic or social models that has to work for society and at this point, too many folks consider it a given and are accepting that from 6.6 billion today we’re likely to break the 10 billion mark before 2050. So, one way to approach that topic is to try to understand how overpopulated the earth really is. According to both David Pimentel, from Cornell University, and Mario Giampietro senior researcher at the National Research Institute on Food and Nutrition (INRAN), the world population would have to be reduced by two-thirds, that is get down to 2.2 billion. 
This is correlated by the 2006 World Wildlife Fund’s "Living Planet" report stating that if the entire world were to live with a high degree of luxury (say like Western Europe,) we’d be spending three times more resources than what the planet can supply. Other reports mention that we already consume five times more than that the planet can supply. Finally, Steve Jones, head of the biology department at University College London, has said, that "humans are 10,000 times more common than they should be, according to the rules of the animal kingdom; without farming, the world population would probably have reached only half a million today… So based on these statements, and although there’s no real consensus, it’s fair to say that we’re currently three times too many on the planet. Next time, we’ll explore what could be done about that…
This is correlated by the 2006 World Wildlife Fund’s "Living Planet" report stating that if the entire world were to live with a high degree of luxury (say like Western Europe,) we’d be spending three times more resources than what the planet can supply. Other reports mention that we already consume five times more than that the planet can supply. Finally, Steve Jones, head of the biology department at University College London, has said, that "humans are 10,000 times more common than they should be, according to the rules of the animal kingdom; without farming, the world population would probably have reached only half a million today… So based on these statements, and although there’s no real consensus, it’s fair to say that we’re currently three times too many on the planet. Next time, we’ll explore what could be done about that…
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
Rampant population growth threatens our economy and quality of life. I'm not talking just about the obvious problems that we see in the news - growing dependence on foreign oil, carbon emissions, soaring commodity prices, environmental degradation, etc. I'm talking about the effect upon rising unemployment and poverty in America.
I should introduce myself. I am the author of a book titled "Five Short Blasts: A New Economic Theory Exposes The Fatal Flaw in Globalization and Its Consequences for America." To make a long story short, my theory is that, as population density rises beyond some optimum level, per capita consumption of products begins to decline out of the need to conserve space. People who live in crowded conditions simply don’t have enough space to use and store many products. This declining per capita consumption, in the face of rising productivity (per capita output, which always rises), inevitably yields rising unemployment and poverty.
This theory has huge implications for U.S. policy toward population management, especially immigration policy. Our policies of encouraging high rates of immigration are rooted in the belief of economists that population growth is a good thing, fueling economic growth. Through most of human history, the interests of the common good and business (corporations) were both well-served by continuing population growth. For the common good, we needed more workers to man our factories, producing the goods needed for a high standard of living. This population growth translated into sales volume growth for corporations. Both were happy.
But, once an optimum population density is breached, their interests diverge. It is in the best interest of the common good to stabilize the population, avoiding an erosion of our quality of life through high unemployment and poverty. However, it is still in the interest of corporations to fuel population growth because, even though per capita consumption goes into decline, total consumption still increases. We now find ourselves in the position of having corporations and economists influencing public policy in a direction that is not in the best interest of the common good.
The U.N. ranks the U.S. with eight other countries - India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of Congo, Bangladesh, Uganda, Ethiopia and China - as accounting for fully half of the world’s population growth by 2050. The U.S. is the only developed country still experiencing third world-like population growth, most of which is due to immigration. It's absolutely imperative that our population be stabilized, and that's impossible without dramatically reining in immigration, both legal and illegal.
If you’re interested in learning more about this important new economic theory, I invite you to visit my web site at OpenWindowPublishingCo.com where you can read the preface for free, join in my blog discussion and, of course, purchase the book if you like. (It's also available at Amazon.com.)
Please forgive the somewhat spammish nature of the previous paragraph. I just don't know how else to inject this new perspective into the immigration debate without drawing attention to the book that explains the theory.
Pete Murphy
Author, "Five Short Blasts"
Post a Comment