I keep getting emails from Bioneers about their 2010 conference. But I am not attending this year. I wish I had the guts to go and stand up during the question-and-answer phase of each talk, and ask the speakers why they don't talk about overpopulation as a core issue?

It looks as if the taboo on speaking out about population is exercising some effect on me still. How much harder can it be for those who don't make the inner connection between overpopulation and...let's see...almost every other burning issue which bedevils humanity today?

Global Population Speak Out for 2010 coming up fast

Global Population Speak Out, a yearly event started in 2009 by John Feeney and continued this year by the Population Institute, is getting set to kick off next month.


The purpose of this yearly event is to bring discussion of population issues out into the open, and by deliberately increasing exposure of the public to the notion that this can be discussed, dissolving those inhibitions to discussion that stall most actions to stabilize population at a sustainable level.


Click on the title of this blog entry to go to the website for this year's event, read more about it, and make a pledge yourself to some action in February 2010 to bring the issue of population into the forefront of the public's mind.


I have pledged again, and will be monitoring online news sources for stories in which environmental breakdown, species extinction, and global warming are discussed - without the primary cause being addressed (population pressure). I will leave comments on these stories.


I'm also going to continue to monitor comments of any online news stories specifically about population, as an ongoing effort to analyze and understand the psychological reaction the public has to such stories - which is wide-ranging, but always quite extreme. Understanding the various public objections to discussion about population is KEY to overcoming those objections.

Slight upswell on the horizon of the collective unconscious?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=is-birth-control-the-answer-to-envi-2009-09-23

Bioneers

This last week I attended the 2009 Bioneers conference. Bioneers is an organization concerned with all matters of sustainability and healing the earth...except, apparantly, questions of population. Now, granted, I couldn't be everywhere at once; I attended all the plenary talks except for those held on Saturday...it could be that they brought up overpopulation and questions of the sustainability of human population on that day...however, if any of the talks in that roster had sounded remotely like they might do that, I would have attended with a great fire in my heart.


I attended workshops in the afternoons, and heard many marvelous ideas about sustainability education, living buildings, and empowerment of towns to say 'No' to industry and protect their local resources. But at no time in any of the many, many hours that I attended the conference, did anyone mention overpopulation, even hint that it might be an issue, that it might be one of the reasons why our natural systems are crashing.


Sigh.

Contraception is the cheapest solution to global warming...

...so says a report commissioned by the Optimum Population Trust, carried out by the London School of Economics. Link to the news release here:

http://www.optimumpopulation.org/releases/opt.release09Sep09.htm

Here's a link to another article mentioned on the OPT site about carbon legacy of individuals:

http://blog.oregonlive.com/environment_impact/2009/07/carbon%20legacy.pdf

Found within the Wiki for Overpopulation, this quote:

David Pimentel, Professor Emeritus at Cornell Cornell University, has stated that "With the imbalance growing between population numbers and vital life sustaining resources, humans must actively conserve cropland, freshwater, energy, and biological resources. There is a need to develop renewable energy resources. Humans everywhere must understand that rapid population growth damages the Earth’s resources and diminishes human well-being."^[1][2]

1. Will Limits Of The Earth'S Resources Control Human Numbers?
2. Worldwatch Briefing: Sixteen Dimensions of the Population Problem | Worldwatch Institute

From Science Daily: Overpopulation is the worst environmental problem

http://http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090418075752.htm

I would go so far as to say that overpopulation is the root of all environmental problems.
Without overcrowding and unsustainable, prolonged use of resources, our planet would be able to rebound from our impact. But when there is so much impact, the effect can't be healed.

Excerpt from the article:
"“Overpopulation is the only problem,” said Dr. Charles A. Hall, a systems ecologist. “If we had 100 million people on Earth — or better, 10 million — no others would be a problem.” (Current estimates put the planet’s population at more than six billion.)"

It's been almost two months since I've posted here. Triage has overwhelmed me; I have had work to do within the more immediate range of my family, and this takes precedence over population studies. I've managed to keep my toe in the door by continuing to collect online articles relating to population issues for analysis. Here is a recent one from the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/opinion/05kristof.html?_r=1

This blog is my way to gather and organize and refine my observations of the population problem, which is a unwieldy mass of interrelated issues.

I look forward to proceeding with my exploration and analysis of this mass.

David Attenborough weighs in on population

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6121737.ece

An excerpt:

“...there are three times as many people in the world as when I started making television programmes 56 years ago. It is frightening. We can’t go on as we have been. We are seeing the consequences in terms of eco-logy, atmospheric pollution and in terms of space and food production”.

He is the first to admit the problem is a thorny one. “Indeed; indeed it is,” he says, “but we can make sure women have the choice as to whether they have children. If you spread literacy, education, a decent standard of living, the population increase drops. That’s why the notion, the ability, to restrict population growth should be around.

I don’t believe women want to have 12 children where eight of them die, as they did in this country 150 years ago. Now they have a choice, and that is the reason we have an almost static population here – if you discount immigration.”

Too many fishers, too many fish-eaters.

Here's a very depressing news story about depletion of fisheries. It's a lot worse than I thought it was...this article summarizes the results of a 10-year study of world fisheries.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/05/14/coolsc.disappearingfish/

Rebuttals to a few common objections to population limits

“The birth rate is dropping in Europe and Japan! Our social support systems depend on each generation being as large or larger than the last! The system will collapse!”

First off, it’s true that when birth rates fall, there will be a dearth of support from younger people as the present bulge of population ages. I haven’t been able to identify any remedy for this that won’t make other problems worse.

However, that is no justification for allowing the population graph to continue to curve ever upward. The World Wildlife fund’s Living Planet Report 2008 notes that if we continue to grow at our present rate, …"by the early 2030s we will need two planets to keep up with humanity’s demand for goods and services.” ¹

Increasing our population at the present rate will set us up for a crash of infinitely larger proportions, meaning that suffering will be on a huger scale than that experienced by the under-supported ‘bulge’ of boomer geriatrics. Of whom I myself will be one. No, I’m not looking forward to it. But we got ourselves into it…it’s up to us to be brave, and not drag the entire future of humanity down with us…just so we can have a nice old age.

The fact is, we’re way, way over the carrying capacity for the earth to support us RIGHT NOW. Population levels need to drop enormously to become sustainable. Sustainable carrying capacity means human population numbers low enough that our resource use (of water, of soil, of air, of fish, for example) impacts the environment only to the extent that the environment can retain its integrity and ability to renew itself. Estimates² place this population number at between 1.5 and 2 billion people….for the entire planet.

So yes, there’s going to be a collapse of social security, very likely. The main choice that I see facing everyone, whether we like it or not, has to do with relative levels of human suffering. Do we wish to minimize human suffering and trauma? Or are we willing to tolerate conditions temporarily more comfortable, more convenient, and in so doing, inflict a much larger level of suffering in the (not that distant) future?

“Government interference in our personal choices about the number of our children is tantamount to socialism, communism, totalitarianism.”

Most of the laws and policies that regulate how we act in our society are developed and put in place to protect lawful citizens from being harmed by those who are out to take more than their share. Laws are in place to keep rapists, grifters and murderers from being free to ply their trades. Do these laws represent totalitarianism to you, or are they a welcome sign of a civilised society?

Secondly, do you accept that a sufficient supply of water, for drinking but also for agriculture, is necessary for sustaining life on this planet? Do you also accept that clean, breathable air is necessary for sustaining life? How about food? I think we can all agree that these are necessary to sustain human life on this planet.

There is a finite amount of farmable land on the planet at this point. There is a finite, and quickly shrinking, supply of fresh water³. These two factors determine how much food can be produced per year on the earth’s surface. These numbers have shrunk steadily for the past 50 years, and they will continue to shrink for the forseeable future – until the demand upon them is dropped down to a sustainable level.

Having more than one, or at most two, children in a family amounts to reckless endangerment of not only your own future grandchildren, but everyone’s. How would you feel once you understood that you have to starve your own future grandchild so you could have one more baby now? At what point do we realize that we are robbing our own children – doing them a grave disservice by cramming and crowding our families, our planet?

Right now, in terms of reproduction, we are in a state of anarchy. I suggest that we go from anarchy to state of lawfulness, to pull us back from the brink of destruction.

Conditions now are radically different than they were when we were children – and even more radically different than when our parents were children. What our parents taught us, what our schools taught us, about our planet and reproduction is no longer true. Our planet and its resources are not limitless. It can be damaged, it has been damaged, and we need to put a tourniquet on what very soon will be mortal damage – inflicted on natural systems by overuse.

What we’ve always thought was our right – to reproduce at will, to the extent we wish – this right, if exercised, now has the potential to damage our environment to the extent that it cannot recover. If that happens, we will all suffer and eventually perish.

It’s been demonstrated time and time again that a majority of individuals will not willingly limit their personal behavior for the good of the group. Though a minority of conscientious individuals may limit their reproduction voluntarily, the majority of irresponsible and short-sighted individuals will not do so. That is why there needs to be some legal structure in place that creates the incentive – both with the carrot, and the stick if necessary – for ALL individuals to limit their reproduction.

I don’t believe that is totalitarianism. People are used to thinking that unlimited reproduction is, quite literally, their ‘birthright’. However, this concept dates from another era. It was true for our parents, and their parents; but it can’t be true for us. Actions that cause environmental disaster must be made illegal, as illegal as thievery, assault, or murder.

Notes:

1. Published in October 2008 by WWF–World Wide Fund For Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund), Gland, Switzerland.
2. 
   Ferguson, AR. Intractable limits to a sustainable human population. Medicine, Conflict and Survival Apr-Jun 2005; 21(2):142-51.
3. 
   Brown, LR. Plan B 2.0: Rescuing a Planet under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble. New York: W. W. Norton & Company; 2006.

Categories of objection to the idea of population control: taken from comments on articles published on the web

I've been following with a great deal of interest a couple of articles published earlier this month in the London Times Online. One is by Jonathan Porrit, Chair of the UK's Sustainable Development Commission. LINK The other, published on the same date, is by Dr. Pippa Hayes, a general practitioner in the UK. LINK

The articles themselves are great; people speaking plainly about the risks and responsibilities of reproduction and over-reproduction. However, what's been even more interesting to me is to follow the online commentary for these articles. I've been watching online articles about population control for about a year now, and have also read many articles published online in past years.

What I'm noticing is that there is a greater percentage of people who agree with the author responding than I've seen before. In the past articles, and even articles as recent as half a year ago, by far most of the commentary was negative. I thought I saw more positive responses to these two articles, and to check on that, printed all the commentary out and tallied it up.

The Porrit article had 438 comments on the day I collected my data; out of those 438, 113 were in agreement with the author. That is more than 25%. One out of every four responders agreed that overpopulation was a problem that should be directly addressed.

This is encouraging, I think. I take it as a sign that the Hardinian Taboo may be easing!

As I scanned through the responses to the Porrit article, I began to notice that the nature of the opposing commentary was predictable. Almost all of it fell into the following categories, which I've coded for myself.

I plan to go back through the commentary and find out which category is the most prevalent - and maybe develop a letter to the editor that directly addresses that particular objection. Here are the categories (which, by the way, correlate somewhat with King's Demon List, and my list of Objections.)

1. Spectre of Totalitarianism/Communism: “1984” =TOT
   
   
2. Distrust of ‘experts’, be they scientists, politicians, or anyone but themselves…=EXP
   
   
3. Overpop/global warming is fake and a conspiracy = FAKE
   
   
4. Cornucopian argument (there’s plenty of room) =CORN
   
   
5. Overconsumption, not overpopulation, is the problem =CONS
   
   
6. Limiting children not necessary in X nation, which is at/below replacement =LOW
   
   
7. Immigration is the problem = IMM
   
   
8. Ever-growing population necessary for social systems = PONZ
   
   
9. Children are a gift from God, not to be interfered with = GOD
   
   
10. Having children is human nature and shouldn’t be controlled = NAT
    
    
11. My large family is not the problem, we recycle! = NOT-US
    
    
12. Overpopulation is only a problem in 3rd World countries =3WOR
    
    
13. "Idiocracy factor"; if only the yahoos reproduce, we'll only have yahoos =IDIO
    
    
14. Referring to the work of Malthus as a failed theory, and grouping all overpopulation discussion to those theories =MALT
    
    
15. Belief that technology will save us =TECH
    
    
16. And last but not least, Unclassifiable responses - flippant, referring to space aliens, and so on. =UNCL
    

I'll add information here about which category of objection seems to be foremost, once I get the analysis done.

Possible Motivators for Encouraging Smaller Families

INCENTIVES

• Payments for not having children. Tax incentives to single-child families. Greater SS accrual to parents with only a single child. (help alleviate some anxiety about old-age support)
• Tax incentives to families in which both parents are 25 or older at time of child’s birth. (delaying fertility)
• Paid, government-subsidized college education/vocational training available only to offspring of single-child families, similar to the GI Bill.
• Government from local to national level should be geared to support one child per family, in the areas of enrichment (music, art, sports), health care, and higher education. Each adult in the community would understand that if they have one child, that child would be fully and richly supported (call this 100% support level). If they have a second biological child, the government support for each of the two children will drop to not ½, but 1/3. A third child, and support disappears for all three children. This is brutal, because it’s depriving children, when it is not the children’s fault. How to penalize the parents without penalizing the children?

* Priorities in jobs, housing
* Government underwriting of community improvements as reward for achieving stable population

DISINCENTIVES

* Higher taxes for each additional child
* SS payment percentage to parents decreases with each additional child
* Higher maternity and educational costs for each additional child ("user fees")

Credit!! This outline is largely taken from a table on the website, "www.dieoff.org", from an excellent paper written by Dr. John Weeks. There has been some adding by myself, expanding on some of his ideas.

Diachronic Competition (stealing resources from future generations)

People talk more about the right to have babies than they do about the babies' rights! It is the right of each of those babies to be raised in a world free of famine, free of water wars and resource struggles. Those babies have a right to oceans which are teeming with non-human life. They have a right to breathe clean air, drink clean water. What about the rights of each of those babies? Who is really looking out for their rights, and THEIR children's
rights?

The true advocates for babies - which is to say, people - and their quality of living, or simply their survival - where are they? They are not the people who would sacrifice the future of every human already 'on the ground' for one yet unborn, and the right to breed unlimited numbers more. Those people give lip service to the sanctity of life, but they sacrifice their own children and grandchildren's future by their actions.

This doesn't even begin to go into the rights that other species have, to habitat, to survival, to space, to resources.

Those that have children, should have greatest care

"Yet it were great reason that those that have children, should have greatest care of future times; unto which they know they must transmit their dearest pledges." - Francis Bacon

A news story struck my mind like a blow yesterday. NPR reported that octuplets had been born in the Los Angeles area. The delivering physician reported, in a haze of euphoria, the careful and effective planning that it took to get eight pre-term babies processed simultaneously in his hospital. There was a crew of 46 marshalled for the deliveries, which were 9 weeks premature.

My husband and I, enroute to work, were aghast. Eight children at one fell swoop - three of which are not yet breathing without assistance, and all eight of which weighed two pounds or less at birth. Think of what it's going to cost to get those eight babies home. How much does it cost to keep a premie for a couple of weeks (minimum) at the hospital? Multiply that by eight.

Although it was mentioned that fertility drugs were involved in the pregnancy, no explanation was given as to why there wasn't the (typical) selective reduction of embryos. Why were eight implanted? Lots of details missing here, but the overall joy and exuberant enthusiasm expressed by the delivery doctor was, in my opinion, misplaced. Everyone loves babies. No denial there! They are miraculous. BUT...if you really love the CHILDREN...not just the babies, but the CHILDREN that they become...they are better off in a situation where they have enough resources, enough attention, and maybe a chance at going to full term in the uterus.

Then, today more information came out: the mother lives with her parents in a 3-bedroom house in Whittier, and ALREADY HAS SIX CHILDREN. Here's a link to the news story: LINK

This whole situation is horrifying. One person made a comment which I thought was incisive - asking that the news media follow up on this story in a couple of year's time, and see just how these 14 kids are doing in that three-bedroom house.

The babies are faultless. It's the parent's actions that are reprehensible.

GREAT article...great clarity. "Treading on a Taboo" by Jack Hart

I read an article that populationpress.org has on its website. It is a GEM! Written by a former managing editor of the Oregonian newspaper, Jack Hart, it is a wonderful logical overview of the taboo and the root problem. Here's the link:
http://www.populationpress.org/publication/2008-3-hart.html

Knuckle Down

Here am I - someone who is convinced of the importance of reduced, stabilized, sustainable population for our survival - yet it is very, very difficult to get myself to keep a sustained, ongoing focus on the subject.

I need to learn and read all I can about it, in order to see as deeply into all aspects of the problem that I can...but I find myself, like the majority of other humans, going about my daily life, becoming entranced by cultural memes, paying attention to the needs of the moment and allowing myself to read fiction rather than the non-fiction material that I need to study this issue.

If a person who is convinced of the importance has this much trouble looking at it...how much more of a challenge will it be to get the people who have never thought about it, or would rather not think about it, or who are vaguely, emotionally opposed to negative population growth...to take a good long look at it and allow themselves to think it through?

I have a stack of 15 books, at least...waiting to be read...I'm not spending enough time on this. My hair is on fire, and I'm just humming and going about my business as if it isn't burning. Come on, woman, snap out of it!

The euphoria of the election, which injected the 2008 holidays with extra joy for me, has been very satisfactorily concluded with a corking inauguration. Now, like President Obama, I need to knuckle down. Knuckle down!

Dr. Martin Luther King

On May 5, 1966, The Planned Parenthood Federation of America presented the Margaret Sanger Award to Dr. Martin Luther King. This award is given annually to individuals of distinction in recognition of excellence and leadership in furthering reproductive health and reproductive rights.

Here are excerpts from his acceptance speech, which can be found in its entirety on the PPFA website at the following link: (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/the-reverend-martin-luther-king-jr.htm). Emphasis in red has been added by me.

Family Planning — A Special and Urgent Concern

by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

Recently, the press has been filled with reports of sightings of flying saucers. While we need not give credence to these stories, they allow our imagination to speculate on how visitors from outer space would judge us. I am afraid they would be stupefied at our conduct. They would observe that for death planning we spend billions to create engines and strategies for war. They would also observe that we spend millions to prevent death by disease and other causes. Finally they would observe that we spend paltry sums for population planning, even though its spontaneous growth is an urgent threat to life on our planet. Our visitors from outer space could be forgiven if they reported home that our planet is inhabited by a race of insane men whose future is bleak and uncertain.

There is no human circumstance more tragic than the persisting existence of a harmful condition for which a remedy is readily available. Family planning, to relate population to world resources, is possible, practical and necessary. Unlike plagues of the dark ages or contemporary diseases we do not yet understand, the modern plague of overpopulation is soluble by means we have discovered and with resources we possess.

What is lacking is not sufficient knowledge of the solution but universal consciousness of the gravity of the problem and education of the billions who are its victims.

...For the Negro, (...) intelligent guides of family planning are a profoundly important ingredient in his quest for security and a decent life. There are mountainous obstacles still separating Negroes from a normal existence. Yet one element in stabilizing his life would be an understanding of and easy access to the means to develop a family related in size to his community environment and to the income potential he can command.

...This is not to suggest that the Negro will solve all his problems through Planned Parenthood. His problems are far more complex, encompassing economic security, education, freedom from discrimination, decent housing and access to culture. Yet if family planning is sensible it can facilitate or at least not be an obstacle to the solution of the many profound problems that plague him.

...The Negro constitutes half the poor of the nation. Like all poor, Negro and white, they have many unwanted children. This is a cruel evil they urgently need to control. There is scarcely anything more tragic in human life than a child who is not wanted. That which should be a blessing becomes a curse for parent and child. There is nothing inherent in the Negro mentality which creates this condition. Their poverty causes it. When Negroes have been able to ascend economically, statistics reveal they plan their families with even greater care than whites. Negroes of higher economic and educational status actually have fewer children than white families in the same circumstances.

...For these constructive movements we are prepared to give our energies and consistent support; because in the need for family planning, Negro and white have a common bond; and together we can and should unite our strength for the wise preservation, not of races in general, but of the one race we all constitute — the human race.

Cherchez L'Argent

...which means, in French, look for the money.

Since getting into Maurice King's list of impediments to the open discussion of overpopulation as a problem (see my post of 12/8/08), I have been taking a side-jaunt into economics and how it's affecting these issues.

I've ben reading a really excellent, clear book by Peter Barnes called Capitalism 3.0 - a guide to reclaiming the commons. It concisely explains how the structure of Capitalism as it is now practiced, is the opposite of sustainable and in fact, cannot be made sustainable. The book is remarkable in that it actually outlines specific suggestions of how Capitalism can and must be re-tooled to be sustainable. Barne's ideas are marvelous - I wish I had half the brain he does - and I recommend his book highly. Here's a link to the book on Amazon.com. LINK

In other news:
I decided to write to Sheri Tepper and personally ask her if she'd participate in the Global Population Speak Out. I finished the letter today and have just sealed the envelope. I don't know if she'll listen to my request, but the more people who pledge to GPSO, the better - especially people who can express themselves as well as she can. Check out the site and consider pledging:
Global Population Speak Out

Out on the road for the holidays...but here's a quickie.

The Catholic church could do an enormous amount toward the goal of sustainable population if it would retract its ban on contraception. I'm talking contraception, NOT abortion! The church officially condemns the use of contraceptives - a stance that I think is increasingly irresponsible and the opposite of compassionate.

Email the pope and let him know what you think about that:

The email address of Pope Benedict XVI is benedictxvi@vatican.va.

The holidays are taking their toll on research - typical. Still, I have been able to find a very interesting article, in which the..."UNESCO's chief of sustainable water resources development, Professor Shahbaz Khan, said overpopulation's impacts were potentially more economically, socially and environmentally destructive than those of climate change." LINK. This article was published in the Canberra Times.

UNESCO....not exactly a bunch of crackpots. I wonder if Dr. Khan has signed up for the February 2009 Global Population Speak Out action? LINK to GPSO website

Earlier, I was reading an editorial in the British Medical Journal. A couple of physician/scientists were proposing that family doctors encourage their patients to stop at one or two children. How revolutionary! Then I read the responses. These e-responses are often disappointing. People always trot out the argument against population limits: "population is declining in Europe!" European populations may be declining...if so, it's probably due to the fact that people are far more environmentally aware in Europe than they are in the US. Or it could be that they're responsible parents and they want to concentrate their resources to give their 1.7 children the best upbringing they can. Either way, Europeans already have a far more sustainable infrastructure than the US. That's why we Americans really have to focus on this work at home.

Also: just because we're only acknowledging the problem now, doesn't mean that it hasn't been a problem for a long time.

That's why, despite the fact that birthrates are declining in some industrialized countries, it's still important to encourage one child families and reduce total population numbers. Our current population level is NOT sustainable; that is evident from the damage we see in the environment, from the water tables sinking faster than they can be replenished by rain.

Births need to be planned. Contraceptives need to be available free of charge, no questions asked. Our total population needs to come down, not stabilize at the current numbers!

In my last couple of posts, I've been discussing Maurice King and his concept of demographic entrapment. I have been looking over his list of 'demons' guarding the Hardinian Taboo (listed on his website here.) I thought I'd make a condensed list, based on his. His thinking has remarkable scope, to the point that it is very difficult to follow organizationally.

Anyway, here's my list. It's a work in progress, as I refine and eliminate redundancies.

Impediments to open discussion about overpopulation
grouped into related issues:

• Resistance of rich countries to reducing their levels of resource consumption
• Capitalist economy’s investment in status quo; resistance to change
• Flawed economic view which does not account for cost of replacing base resources/ repairing environmental damage while manufacturing goods

• Perceived and actual negative effects of one-child families

• Human rights movement’s relationship to reproduction
• Feminist’s relationship to reproduction
• Religious objection to contraception
• Religious objection to abortion
• Revered status of children in Western culture

• Cultural/Regional attitudes favoring high fertility/children as a proof of virility
  

• Apathy and disconnectedness of majority of citizens
• Fear of facing the issue and its implications
• Political correctness/Fear of heated argument (‘benign uproar’)
• Fear of being considered ethnocentric/racist/classist/mysogynist/mysopedist/fascist
• Fear of implementing coercive measures

• Unrealistic expectations that new technology will provide solutions

I'm not even sure that covers it all. But at least I'm looking out over a wider view of the problem than I was before - thanks, Dr. King.

King Springboard?

Maurice King's website, Demographic Entrapment, has got a wealth of ideas on it. So many, in fact, that it is entirely daunting. How to extract the good content from this site and distill it into a form that is streamlined and made plain?

I'm thinking, start with his list of "Demons". He has entitled the obstacles which guard and protect the Hardinian taboo "Demons", and offers a list of over 30.

That list, boiled down to its essence, would be a useful tool in identifying what actions need to be taken to break down the Hardinian taboo.

I'll make a stab at that, and publish the results here.

The Hardinian Taboo

I was mining the links at the bottom of the population control Wiki, when I clicked on this one:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/315/7120/1441#The_Hardinian_taboo

This is a very interesting paper written in 1997 by Drs Maurice King and Charles Elliot, of Leeds and Cambridge Universities, respectively. It concerns the blanket of silence that surrounds the issue of population control.
Another article, also published in the BMJ, but in 1999:
Population Policy Lockstep

Here is a link to a short article about Dr. King and his background. It's interesting to know more about him - his website, Demographic Entrapment, is kind of 'all over the place' and though not incoherent, difficult to wade through due to organizational deficits.

I was finishing a novel by Sheri Tepper last night. She's one of my favorite writers for a lot of reasons; among other things, she writes about gender issues and overpopulation, and explores these in the context of many, many different settings. Here's the quote that made me sit up and shout 'yes!' last night...this, from her 1993 novel, A Plague of Angels, p. 555:

"Hunagor asked me why man did not learn from the recurrent famines she had sent upon the earth.
"What did you say?"
"I told Hunagor what others had told me: that children are proofs of virility, and solutions that leave virility in doubt were not acceptable; that children are a way of controlling women, and losing control over women was not acceptable; that children grew up to make money or armies, and that not having money or armies was not acceptable. I said that men will not solve a problem unless they can find an 'acceptable' solution, and there are not acceptable solutions for some problems."

And later, on page 556:
"...then Werra asked why man had not been warned by the wars he had created...why men did not change when Seoca first sent (immuno-deficiency diseases) among them;..."
"I gave the same three answers. Man believes what he wants to believe, and he chose to believe war was merely local or temporary or justifiable. Man could have made the hard choices that would have stopped the immune deficiency diseases...but those afflicted demanded other choices, their friends demanded other choices, their kinfolk demanded other choices, no government would take a stand that might lose it support, every faction found some part of the solution unacceptable. And finally, man would not stop destroying the earth until he was forced to do so, for he was reared in the belief he was more important than the earth itself..."

I could go on for pages and pages with quotes equally relevant to the subject of this blog. Ms. Tepper has written at least 25 books and is often described as an 'eco-feminist' writer. I would rather say that she makes plain the root causes and effects of many of the ills we are now reaping.

And here's something sobering!
Check out the ratio of deaths to births, and then tell me we DON'T have a problem.
http://www.worldometers.info/

Effective, safe, available contraception

From the Earth Policy website, an extract from Chapter 7 of Lester R. Brown's Plan B 2.0:Rescuing a Planet Under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble, 2006. (The follow-up to this, Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, is available for sale as of today!)

"The United Nations estimated that meeting the needs of the 201 million women who do not have access to effective contraception could each year prevent 52 million unwanted pregnancies, 22 million induced abortions, and 1.4 million infant deaths. Some 142,000 pregnancy-related deaths could also be prevented. The costs to society of not filling the family planning gap are unacceptably high. 28
Reinforcing these U.N. calculations are data from the grassroots showing how access to family planning services helps couples achieve their desired family size. Surveys in Honduras, for example, show poor women (often lacking family planning services) having twice as many children as they want, while women in high socioeconomic groups are quite successful at having the number of children they desire.29"

28. UNFPA, op. cit. note 22, p. 39.

29. Honduran Ministry of Health, Encuesta Nacional de Epidemiología y Salud Familiar
Guzman, “Population, Poverty, and Vulnerability: Mitigating the Effects of Natural Disasters,” in Environmental Change and Security Project Report (Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars, 2002), pp. 45–68. (National Survey of Epidemiology and Family Health) (Tegucigalpa: 1996), cited in George Martine and Jose Miguel

Train of thought (or was that trainwreck?)

We Americans have been sleeping, and dreaming a pleasant dream. In our dream, there is always more and more and more. More money, more cars. More houses, more hamburgers. More TV shows, more jobs, more speed boats. More opportunities. More gadgets. More bright ideas. More steak dinners with chocolate cake for dessert. More shoes. More toys. More space to put our garbage – hey, infinite space! More people, and more babies. More and more and more.

In this dream, no one ever asks anyone else not to buy one more car, one more steak dinner, or not to have one more baby. In this dream, it’s as if no other way of life has ever existed but that of more, more, more. Anyone who suggests otherwise is asking for crucifixion. The dreamers don’t want to be awakened. They don’t want the dream to end. They don’t even want the dream to change! They don’t even want to think about the dream changing! And they don’t want anyone else to think or talk about it either.

Well, it’s easy to see why they’re threatened by talk of waking from the dream. However, while they were dreaming, the world has changed around them. The walls of their bedroom have crumbled. Their house is on the verge of collapse. Noisome floodwaters are lapping at the foot of their bed. The gas main is heard hissing, hissing in background, along with the sound of their snores. The pilot light is about to go on for the water heater, and they’re just lying there, dreaming, dreaming, dreaming of more.

We’re at the point where the short view needs to give way to the long view. The people who are willing to profit by fouling and spoiling the commons are robbing not only our children and grandchildren, but their own. They must not be allowed to bankrupt all of us. It’s not within their rights to damage the system that we all depend upon. It is within no one’s rights to do that.

We cannot go on as we have done. Too much trust has been put in the individual, to act in a way that will ensure our common system will not be destroyed. However, individuals have not proven worthy of this trust. Overwhelmingly, individuals have acted in a way that will ensure their own short-term advantage, regardless of the effect these actions have on the system we all must share.

This is why laws exist in our system. We have laws against murder. We have laws against theft. We have laws against slander and defamation, even vandalism. If these crimes against society are considered serious enough to warrant protection by law, how much more serious is the crime of destroying the one natural system that all life on earth must share? Willfully destroying resources that will make it impossible for our grandchildren – yes, in our generation – unable to enjoy clean air, fresh water, abundant food…or elbow room.

Laws exist because people don’t tend to act in the common good, especially if doing so calls for any cutbacks, limitations, or inconvenience to themselves. If there were no laws against thievery, thievery would be rampant. If there were no laws against drunk driving, there would be a great deal of endangerment on the road. Laws exist as a practical matter, to keep jackasses, grifters and rogues from running roughshod over decent folk.

At some point it’s going to become obvious that people who insist on having more than two children per family are not acting in the common interest, in fact they are thieving from the system we all share.

It’s easy for individuals to dismiss this act of overpopulating. In their street, even in their house, there seems to be plenty of room. They have an extra bedroom, perhaps. There is room in the car for another child seat. On a local level, from street to street, it seems that way. However, as one steps back to take a wider view, the problem becomes more and more apparent.

On a town level, the aquifers begin to disappear as exponentially increasing gallons per day are pulled for the use of the growing population, pulled at a rate too fast for rainfall to replenish it. The quality as well as quantity of local water is degraded. The local dump is choked with material and another, larger site must be found. The seepage from the dump further degrades the water table. Runoff from countless fertilized front lawns causes algae bloom, then dieoff, then loss of species in the town’s creeks.

Concrete carpets larger and larger amounts of town land as new neighborhoods are laid out to accommodate the next generation of homeowners; the existing housing isn’t sufficient, both because the younger generation is large and the older generation is living longer than ever, so there is a generational overlap in housing need.

Because of the concrete, a microclimate is created within the town limits, and summertime temperatures there begin to be higher than ever recorded before. Thousands of households respond by switching on their air conditioners, all at the same time.

The additional draw on the power grid due to the air conditioners, due to the concrete, due to the critical mass of new housing, due to the third children born in the town, is enough to justify damming another river upstream to provide hydroelectric power. Or if there is no river upstream, a new coal-fired power plant is brought to bear on the problem.

Loss of habitat, endangerment of species, and loss of quality of living to all the river valley inhabitants are the result of the hydroelectric dam; while the coal-fired power plant generates sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, also known as ambient particulate matter, which is implicated in the deaths of 30,000 people per year in the US, and in the upper respiratory and cardiovascular ill-health of many more.

So, in short, the third child just polluted the air and water that we all share in common. Of course, to say the third child did so is completely erroneous. It is the third child’s parents who have decreed that we all breathe ambient particulate matter, including all those citizens who limited their children to one or two. Thus the community at large is forced to absorb the effects of self-serving actions of some of its members.

With the world’s population standing at 6.5 billion and counting, a large adjustment in population must be made. Sustainable population levels are estimated to be 2 billion for the entire earth. Just legislating a single-child family policy wouldn’t be enough to do it, even if this could be implemented without delay. The fact is, we are so far over the sustainable level that if this earth is going to achieve a stable sustainable population, two out of every three people need to disappear. Then the 2 billion that are left need to keep their population at replacement level only, i.e., 2 children per family.

Ah….then the question necessarily becomes…which one person out of every three remains on Earth, while the other two disappear?

Tough day for research

I can't say I have much to show for myself today, in terms of teasing open the Gordian knot of population issues.

One thing that I don't have to dig for, is that unplanned pregnancies should be minimized. Sex education, including information about contraception, should be offered early and often in our schools. Contraception should be available to anyone who wants it, at no cost, and no questions asked. I read recently that 49% - yes, almost HALF - of US pregnancies are unplanned.

The Catholic church needs to change its mind about contraception. It's trading the life of an egg or a sperm (not even an embryo yet!) for the lives of our grandchildren, and their children. The stakes are higher than it will admit. If the Catholic church could relax its stance on this issue, I think it could alleviate a great deal of human suffering.

I believe that if we aren't able to bring human population down to sustainable levels, that nature will do it for us. The collapse of our supportive natural systems, lack of food, water, severe weather conditions due to ecological imbalance, will cull our numbers, and will do it in a way that guarantees an inconceivable level of suffering. Starvation. Wars over water. Are these really preferable to contraception? I don't think they are. I think if we don't throttle back our own numbers, Nature will do it for us, and it will be very ugly. Contraception, even one-child families, will seem like a walk in the park compared to millions dying of famine.

Sustainable economic systems

The capitalist economy is based on continuous growth of the consumer base, and as such is not sustainable. It is time to look into sustainable economic models - here are some starting points:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026786.000-special-report-how-our-economy-is-killing-the-earth.html

I mentioned this in the last post, but here it is again:
http://www.steadystate.org/

Also check out the work of Herman Daly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Daly

Environmental crises such as global warming, depletion of fisheries, pollution, and water scarcity cannot be addressed without acknowledging the cause: overpopulation/overconsumption. US population has a greater negative impact on the environment because our rate of resource consumption per person outstrips that of any other nation.

Stately retreat

"Once tipping points are passed and critical natural thresholds exceeded, however, few populous societies can manage the stately retreat of human numbers needed to return to balance with finite natural resources." - Robert Engelman, MORE, Island Press, 2008

Stately retreat of human numbers. Why is it hard for populous societies to scale back? Part of the difficulty is getting people to look at the problem of overpopulation, to trace the problems to their source: too many people for sustainability. There is a percentage of people who will not look at the problem, who are in denial about the problem, and not only that - they're pissed off that people are even discussing it!

Another factor is that our economic system, at least in the US, is built on an ever-expanding model. It's like a pyramid scheme, where more and more consumers need to be produced (born) so others can be gainfully employed manufacturing goods and services for them to use. Unfortunately, this is not sustainable and many would argue (myself included) that we have already reached unsustainable levels in population/resource use, and need to find a way to scale back.

Luckily I'm not the only person thinking about this stuff. If you look around, you'll find information about what is called steady state economy. If we are going to scale back, an alternative to classic capitalist economy is going to be crucial in that, because our current business model doesn't allow for scaling back...at ALL. I'm also finding information about ecological economics, also known as Green economics.

In general, once you begin to dip your toe into the information available on all the interrelated issues concerning population and sustainability, you realize you're on the shore of a rather large body of water. I'm overwhelmed. I've bookmarked a ton of sites, printed out a lot of .pdf articles, and ordered a stack of books. As I start to digest this glut of information, I'll continue to write about it here.

First post

I grew up in a tiny town in California. For most of my childhood, it had a population of around 1,000. At that time, there was one developed neighborhood of single-family dwellings; the rest of the houses dated from the town's heyday (1860s), with single houses here and there dating from subsequent eras. Most of the flat land surrounding the town ws either range for cattle, or nut orchards. The town was tucked within rolling hills, dotted here and there with the archetypal California Oaks. These hills were beautifully sculpted and immodestly tall for such rounded objects. This painting by Ray Strong gives you the idea:

Around the time I turned 12 or 13, the land developers began buying up all the unoccupied land around our town. They systematically filled it with poorly-made tract homes. No one in the community seemed to care. No one seemed to have any idea about planning to ensure that our town retained its character, that the road into town would be able to bear the traffic, that the community landfill would be able to absorb the garbage generated by these enormous new neighborhoods.

The tract homes filled not only the flat areas, but began creeping up the enormous, preternaturally soft hillsides. Some of the hills were bulldozed flat on top to accommodate homesites for a few penultimate tract mansions (owned by the developer/developer's sons.) Thus the surrounding area was changed, forever for the worse. There were no more orchards. There were no more flocks of sheep in the pastures, roosters stalking through town, or kids on old horses plodding through on their way to the creek. As of the 2000 census, the town had grown to over 10,000. I don't know what the 2008 numbers are...Here is what it ended up looking like:
This was my first experience of the effect of unchecked population growth on an environment.

Now, thirty-five years later, it's not just a case of views being ruined, roads being congested, and a new landfill needed. I'm alarmed at the fact that US population is still growing, rather than stabilizing at a sustainable level. This, because each US citizen uses such a great amount of energy and other resources, and takes this level of usage for granted (in fact, many take it as a God-given right!)that each added US citizen impacts the environment more seriously than a new person born elsewhere. From Wikipedia: "The US consumes 25% of the world's energy (with a share of global productivity at 22% and a share of the world population at 5%)."

In this blog, I'm going to write about my research and exploration of human population, especially US population, and its influence on the environment. There are many many interrelated issues, and I hope to look into as many corners as possible. I want to educate myself on this issue in hopes of gaining a big-picture view of the situation we're in. Wish me luck.

May this work benefit all sentient beings.