The problem of Climate Change is how do we fit nine billion or more people on the planet without adverse effects on the climate.
The problem of mass extinctions is how do we fit nine billion or more people on the planet without adverse effects on wild life. The problem of pollution, resource depletion etc. etc. is how do we fit nine billion or more people on the planet without excess consumption and emissions. And so on..
The solution to all of these problems, as conceived by the media and politicians, is to have an infinite number of conferences on how to fit the population into ever smaller boxes with a minimum of food and pollution. There is a revolutionary solution: we could all have smaller families. This solution is obvious, the solution was even contained in the question.
This leaves us wondering why population growth is the priority, why the entire world with all of its biology and economics must be adapted to population growth.
There is little doubt that population growth will subside in the twenty first century.
The bad news is that without any attempt at population control we still have about 30% growth to go until the maximum is reached.
Most population growth is happening in Africa and India and these will experience such severe climate change by 2100 that they will stop growing and population will decline:
The issue would seem to be whether we encourage, as Pope Benedict XVI has stated, "The extermination of millions of unborn children, in the name of the fight against poverty...", or let the people die or allow a mass relocation of people. The Pope did seem to put the case against birth control very strongly, and other religious leaders have backed him up, so the choice has become let them die or relocate them. The obvious answer to the problem: "how do we stop the Earth being destroyed by overpopulation?" seems to be to do anything but stop overpopulation. Birth control is not mass murder, it stops the destruction of the world. It is a much better solution than "let them die or relocate them".
The favoured solution among the governing classes is to allow a mass relocation of people (cheap labour, high rental and property prices and the eradication of local worker cohesion, what's not to like?). Despite being the preference of the Corporate Elite mass migration is not well received. As an example the EU opened its southern border to African migration for a brief period in the noughties and the reaction was so strong that the EU now has some of the most draconian anti-migration legislation and action to be found anywhere (not covered by the BBC of course).
Where do we go from here to get to a sustainable and delightful world? As the apocryphal Irishman said when giving directions: "Well Sir, if I were you I wouldn't start from here". Sadly fifty years ago the world missed the chance to fix the problem. Even if they put us all in eco-hutches, living cheek by jowl, and pedalling to work the natural world will be severely damaged by 11 billion people.
If we look at the history of the global climate there is probably no long term solution to housing 11 billion people on this planet. See Is global warming entirely due to overpopulation?. The population will have to be decreased in the long term.
24/09/2019
The solution to all of these problems, as conceived by the media and politicians, is to have an infinite number of conferences on how to fit the population into ever smaller boxes with a minimum of food and pollution. There is a revolutionary solution: we could all have smaller families. This solution is obvious, the solution was even contained in the question.
This leaves us wondering why population growth is the priority, why the entire world with all of its biology and economics must be adapted to population growth.
There is little doubt that population growth will subside in the twenty first century.
Most population growth is happening in Africa and India and these will experience such severe climate change by 2100 that they will stop growing and population will decline:
The issue would seem to be whether we encourage, as Pope Benedict XVI has stated, "The extermination of millions of unborn children, in the name of the fight against poverty...", or let the people die or allow a mass relocation of people. The Pope did seem to put the case against birth control very strongly, and other religious leaders have backed him up, so the choice has become let them die or relocate them. The obvious answer to the problem: "how do we stop the Earth being destroyed by overpopulation?" seems to be to do anything but stop overpopulation. Birth control is not mass murder, it stops the destruction of the world. It is a much better solution than "let them die or relocate them".
The favoured solution among the governing classes is to allow a mass relocation of people (cheap labour, high rental and property prices and the eradication of local worker cohesion, what's not to like?). Despite being the preference of the Corporate Elite mass migration is not well received. As an example the EU opened its southern border to African migration for a brief period in the noughties and the reaction was so strong that the EU now has some of the most draconian anti-migration legislation and action to be found anywhere (not covered by the BBC of course).
Where do we go from here to get to a sustainable and delightful world? As the apocryphal Irishman said when giving directions: "Well Sir, if I were you I wouldn't start from here". Sadly fifty years ago the world missed the chance to fix the problem. Even if they put us all in eco-hutches, living cheek by jowl, and pedalling to work the natural world will be severely damaged by 11 billion people.
If we look at the history of the global climate there is probably no long term solution to housing 11 billion people on this planet. See Is global warming entirely due to overpopulation?. The population will have to be decreased in the long term.
24/09/2019
Comments