Why would anyone want to enter into a ‘debate’ when they’ve dismissed the other side’s point of view ‘years ago’? If you were expecting to come in here and recruit us to your side, you’re doing it the wrong way. Folks around here care about data. Show us the science. Convince us. If you can’t do that, crawl back under your apocalyptic rock.
tom]]]]]]]In other words, you are not interested in an actual discussion. You have refused to actually look at any of the information presented, here. You simply came here to cry doom.
Good bye.]
No, what I’m saying is that the “information” you cite is really just a careless disregard for the inevitable. Look at it this way Tom, one person on an acre is ok, two people is ok,100 people strain it, 1000 people is more than the acre can provide.
“All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon
Brille
dhanson]]]]]]Why would anyone want to enter into a ‘debate’ when they’ve dismissed the other side’s point of view ‘years ago’? If you were expecting to come in here and recruit us to your side, you’re doing it the wrong way. Folks around here care about data. Show us the science. Convince us. If you can’t do that, crawl back under your apocalyptic rock.]]]]]
I guess I thought people were more aware of the distinct perils of overpopualtion and the future scarcity of clear water. Have you read anything from the Sierra Club, for instance?
“All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon
Brille
Tom (of tomndebb) writes:
Right off, I will freely concede that the ability to do a thing is not the same as the will to do it. If we suppose that I can strike a rock and have an endless supply of potable water flow from it, I must still be induced to do so.
Now, the form that any discussion will take is going to be dependent on whether we suppose the ability or the will to be lacking. In the first vein, it will be principally technical (“How do we do X?”); in the second, it will be principally political (“How do we convince others to do X?”). I had thought that I had sufficiently covered the technical end, but perhaps it is not so?
As for “pollution”…well, that is a rather generic term 
. Perhaps if we focused on one type of pollution (e.g., pathogenic bacteria from improperly-fertilized fields), we could either dismiss it as a bogey, or go on to say, “Yes, this a serious problem (or, at least, a potentially serious problem)”, and decide what the options are.
“Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away.”
dhanson]]]Folks around here care about data. ]]
OK.
A Vote for Survival
By Carl Pope, Sierra Club Executive Director
If you were anywhere near a newspaper, radio or television the weekend after Earth Day, you know the Sierra Club’s membership, by a large margin, rejected a controversial ballot measure to have our organization advocate curbing immigration into the United States.
The debate over immigration, which raged inside the Sierra Club for seven months, may have looked like a family feud, but it has ramifications far beyond our 600,000 members.
We were wrestling with a critical question not just for the Sierra Club, but for the nation and the world. Where do we draw the frontline in the fight to reduce overpopulation – one of the most serious threats to our environment?
Some Sierra Club members argued that restricting immigration into the United States will ease America’s environmental problems. But the majority recognized that moving people around, or keeping them from moving, will do nothing to decrease the total number of people on the planet, rein in the overall birthrate, slow the spread of pollution or curb our consumption of the Earth’s resources. In sum, the Sierra Club concluded that birth control, not more border patrols, is the answer to overpopulation.
But even though the Sierra Club members have chosen this approach, our dispute was a harbinger of a larger, inevitable national debate.
As the world’s population grows, as basic resources – clean water, clean air, forests and fish – become scarcer, we will have to figure out how to protect what’s left. And there are no shortcuts. Simply put, we have to stop gobbling up the Earth and we have to put the brakes on population growth.
Americans make up just four percent of the world’s population, yet consume 25 percent of its resources. At present consumption rates, even the 270 millions Americans we have today are, as one commentator recently wrote, “eating the world’s lunch.”
If Americans continue to consume in this way, the rest of the world will copy us – regardless of how many of them copy us by joining us, or simply copy us back home in Bombay or Moscow.
The other hard fact we must face is that political myopia has kept us from doing the real work it will take to stabilize global population and protect our environment.
While the Sierra Club has been debating its policy on immigration, Congress has moved to end U.S. support for family-planning programs that serve hundreds of millions of families all around the world. The all too familiar excuse – the issue of abortion – even though US law already prohibits funding for abortion services in other countries. Down the drain, if the far-right gets its way, will be vital, necessary programs, and it’s precisely here that environmentalists – and not just population activists – should be focusing their energy. Along with empowerment and education for women, these programs constitute a genuinely global approach to the population crisis – the only approach, in the view of most Sierra Club members, that can effectively and compassionately solve a global problem.
By committing the Sierra Club to tackling the root causes of environmental degradation and overpopulation on this year’s ballot, the Sierra Club’s members have firmly rejected the view that if the global environment hits an iceberg, we can escape on our lifeboat. They have chosen instead to embrace Buckminster Fuller’s notion of “Spaceship Earth,” the view that we all sink or swim together.
The metaphor may be mixed. But the message could hardly be clearer. America has some hard choices ahead.
Carl Pope worked in family planning as a Peace Corps volunteer in Bihar, India, from 1967 to 1969, then served as political director of Zero Population Growth from 1970 to 1973. He is now the executive director of the Sierra Club.
Top | Population Stabilization Campaign
I should just walk away, but I found this irritating as I drifted off to sleep.
John John:
You read articles “years ago” and have now succeeded in refusing to read current information provided by divemaster, dhanson, and Akatsukami.
When repeatedly pressed for information, you have pasted in an editorial by the leader of the Sierra Club that brings no facts to the table.
I am quite willing to discuss specific actions that will limit specific pollutants or specific governmental actions that will, (for example), encourage the free exchange of goods to reduce famine.
You are not here for that. The only proposal you have actually brought to this discussion is the taxation of families with “too many” children in the U.S. (where the birth rate is already in decline).
John, in two years I have never seen you actually read the information provided by people with whom you argue. Dismissing Akatsukami’s or dhanson’s information as simply optimistic when you have provided NO factual rebuttals to the information that they have gleaned from the U.N. and other sources is neither debate nor discussion. It is preaching. You have brought as much information and reasoned discourse to this thread as Hovind generally does to a discussion of Evolution or Ian Paisley does to a discussion of religion in Ireland. “My mind is made up; don’t confuse me with facts.”
Gentlemen, (I don’t recall seeing any recent posts by ladies), you may continue posting to this thread, but you are going to find it a very frustrating experience. If you continue, you are going to find that John does not seem to be able to actually process information. He may, occasionally, discover a chart or a paragraph to quote, but I have never seen him actually develop a complete thought including objections and corollaries. His conclusion is generally his premise.
Sorry. I’m gone.
Tom~
Gawshalmighty John John, you have taken selective perception to its logical conclusion. You only hear want you want to hear and see what you want to see, and then have the nerve to tell others they are blind.
I’ve not posted in a while on this topic because I don’t have the tolerance for such obstinance as some others do. More power to them for putting up with your mindless bleating. But even they are getting fed up.
I don’t know where you get your information. It sounds to me that you have been hanging around too many Greenpeace and Earth First! rallies. If that’s your thing, fine. But I advise you to analyze the actual science behind what you believe. You may find confirmation of some of your opinions (not everything they say is bogus), but you may not.
Remember, political organizations (even environmentally-oriented ones) require doomsday scenarios to garner support, money, and political power. Scientific organizations do not, or at least not nearly to the extent. They can be more impartial and focus on trying to find the correct answers rather than the answers that get them more money, notoriety, or power.
Believe me, I know how this game is played. Your mistake is trying to play it on this board with intelligent people. Not like your little ‘save the world’ rallies is it?
Well, JJ, it appears to be a fact that Carl Pope is something between an ignorant fool and a power-hungry thug. Unfortuately, the press release that you posted contains no other facts.
It claims that:
But the facts that we not only have birth control, but that it is working. Or are we to suppose that by “birth control”, Pope really means “population control”, and that he wants the population to be reduced right this minute? Since he also may be under the delusion that the only qualification for being a demographer is knowing how to punch buttons on a calculator, he may be innocent of actually realizing the carnage that he is advocating.
I strongly suggest that, since the PC has become a common possession since Paul Ehrlich and the Club of Rome had their nightmares, that you create a spreadsheet that allows the emulation of reproduction, and that you discover for yourself just how many people have to be killed to achieve your dream of reducing the population in the next half century.
Now, here is a good example of Pope’s savage, childish attitude. Does he (and do you) suppose that clean water is something that is simply found, rather than being made so by human efforts? Does he recognize that, since pre-industrial agriculture was largely abandoned in the U.S. at the turn of the century, the forested acreage in the U.S. has dramatically increased? Does he note, as dhanson has, that the decrease in wild fish stocks is due to attempts to impose a Paleolithic HFG regime on the oceans, and that the tonnage of farmed fish doubled between 1983 and 1993?
If that were true, would not the resources of the world be consumed in just four years? Of course, it is at best a gross misunderstanding: America consumes 25% of the resource flow.
And so what? Will the use of potable water increase tenfold in Rwanda if we blow up the Owens Valley aqueduct? Will everyone in India consume 7 Mcal/day if we go on diets? Is the failure of North Korea to electrify all its villages due to our hogging all of the good uranium for our own nuclear power plants? Or, is the fact that Americans take 25% of the resource flow due to the fact that America has 25% of the productive economic base?
The proper way – and an eminently sustainable one – to alter the balance of the resource flow is to see that those nations rise to American standards of living, not to force Americans to become as impoverished as they.
Damn straight. And there is no reason why they shouldn’t.
“Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away.”
My problem with the “solution” to the overpopulation question is twofold:
-
Deciding to regulate is a step that should be taken with care. Regulating the size of families is a drastic step that needs very careful consideration. Before, IMHO, being rejected. It has been noted that the birth rate is declining, both in America and worldwide. The U.N. study indicates the rate of increase to be lessening, with eventual change into a decrease. Can you not trust the majority of people to do what is needful voluntarily? If not, why not? And where do you claim the authority to regulate them? If you choose to do so by legislation, you have a major change in the majority viewpoint to accomplish before our esteemed Congress would even consider it. If you choose any other route, you may count me opposed.
-
Even were the population not stabilizing, we have an excellent example of a mixed economy (substantial rural and urban sectors) at a high standard of living supporting a population averaging over 300 persons per square mile. Coldfire lives there. Replicate the Netherlands’ success in the high-density areas that have lower standards of living, and you don’t have a “population problem,” just a lot of people. Now, if your complaint is just that there are two many people (as opposed to too many for available resources), your solutions are two: (a) live with it; (b) take action to reduce it. In the latter case, you may find yourself violently opposed by almost everyone, unless your action is to reduce the number by one: yourself. [/sarcasm]
Thank you, Polycarp…you said most of what I wanted to say.
John, how the hell would you reduce population NOW? Kill off half of America? Institute one-child policies across the globe? Tom is right - as societies become more industrialized, the birth rate naturally falls, as does the mortality rate. The population then begins to have a negative growth rate.
Where efforts need to be concentrated is in the Third World. As people begin to realize that having 15 children is not necessary in order to have 5 survive, the birth rate will NATURALLY fall! By the same token, as people in those countries begin to value having female children as much as having male children, they won’t have 15 children in the hopes of having a lot of boys. What is needed is education.
That’s solely dealing with population growth…I’m not going to say a lot on its link to the environment. I wrote a paper on this for college…and quite honestly, after doing the research from BOTH sides, I couldn’t find a link between population growth and the condition of the environment. I’m not sure there is a direct link. And yes John, I’m a freaking MEMBER of the Sierra Club, and I still think this.
I’ll just add one more thing: The numbers I used came from the U.N. Population project, not exactly a hotbed of reactionary industrialists. The U.N. has been tracking population growth since its inception. When its early numbers appeared alarming, people like Paul Erlich were only too happy to use them, AND expound on how non-biased the U.N. advisory councils are.
Well, we now have two reasonable models left. One predicts the worldwide population to stabilize at around 11 billion by 2150. The other one predicts a decline in world populations to about 3.6 billion by 2050. The real number is probably somewhere in between, since the ‘medium variant’ model (11 billion by 2150) has already been modified downwards twice.
So let’s rephrase the question like this: Can the Earth sustain a fixed population of 11 billion? If not, WHY? Give us some facts. Forget about stacking people like cordwood in the Sahara - it won’t be necessary. 11 billion people just doesn’t create a population density that high.
A more reasonable number might be a stable population of perhaps 9 billion. Certainly we’re going to hit 7.5 billion in the next 20 years or so, regardless of which model you follow. Is that too many? If so, why?
Here’s a start for you - have a look at crop yields per acre in the undeveloped countries, and compare it to crop yields in the U.S. Assume we can bring them up to our level of productivity. How many people can we feed? Have a look at our fledgeling efforts to actually grow and harvest fish, and extrapolate that to worlwide production. How many people can we feed?
How about natural resources? Are we really running out of water? How much would it cost to artificially desalinate what we need, and what percentage of our GNP would we have to spend to do it?
These are the kinds of questions you should be asking. They are amenable to analysis, and you can put hard numbers to them. This isn’t utopianism, it’s science and engineering.
Tom[[[[[[[When repeatedly pressed for information, you have pasted in an editorial by the leader of the Sierra Club that brings no facts to the table.]]]]]]
Tom, there is much that you need to find out about the global situation and where we’re headed.
POPULATION AND OVERFISHING
Background
In 1996, the global fish harvest – captured and farmed fish combined – set a new record high of 116 million tons. Yet this seeming abundance masks a serious decline in the productivity of many important fish and shellfish species.
Why is a decline in the productivity of global fisheries a problem?
Food Source: An estimated 950 million people, mostly in low income countries depend on fish as their primary source of protein. On the average, fish supply 16% of the animal protein that humans consume.
Employment: The fishing industry, composed of subsistence fishers, large scale mechanized fishing vessels and everything in-between, directly or indirectly employs some 200 million people worldwide.
The world’s fish production comes from three sources: the marine catch (harvests from coastal waters and the high seas), inland catch (lakes and rivers), and aquaculture. We have witnessed growth in all three sources, yet this growth in fish harvests reflects not only the steady growth in the number of fishing vessels and the sophistication of their gear but also the increasing demand of a growing world population.
The Population Connection
The underlying threat to global fisheries is an ever-growing human population. Worldwide, rising coastline populations are intensifying pressures on coastal fisheries and wetlands. Currently 3.8 billion people, more than 60 % of the world, live within 100 km. of the coastline. In the next 30 years, more than 6.3 billion people are expected to make their home in densely populated coastal corridors worldwide. Unfortunately, coastal population growth and the lack of employment opportunities often result in a continual increase in the number of peoples fishing in a given area despite declines in nearshore catch.
How Do We Know There Is a Problem?
11 of the world’s 15 major fishing areas and 69% of the world’s major fish species are in decline according to the United Nation’s* Food and Agriculture Organization.
Decline in the size of individual captured fish. The average size of typical swordfish decreased from 120 kg. to 30 kg. during the past 20 years. This has resulted in a 50% decrease in the rate of swordfish reaching maturity.
Changes in the composition of global catch to species of lower economic value. Species such as sardines and anchovies, which are lower on the food chain, have accounted for nearly all of the growth in marine harvests since the 1970’s. In addition, these types of fish are often processed into fish oil and fish meal which are used primarily for nonhuman purposes such as aquaculture.
The prices of most fish species continue to rise as harvests shrink – making fish a less affordable meal among low income populations.
Sources of the Problem
Overfishing
Open Access - Fish stocks have generally been considered common property open to exploitation by anyone with a boat and gear. As long as enough fish are caught to cover operating costs, there is little economic incentive to stop fishing once a vessel is built. As more fishers enter the system, greater effort is required to catch a dwindling supply and revenues will fall. By this time fish stocks will probably be severely depleted.
Overcapacity - Over the past two decades, the size of the industrial fleet has expanded twice as fast as the rise in catches. The UNFAO estimates that the world’s fishing fleet has at least 30% more capacity than it needs. Overcapacity combined with powerful new technologies, such as fish finding electronics, results in rampant exploitation.
Subsidies - Large economic losses have plagued the global fisheries sector for more than a decade. The UNFAO concludes that total expenses for the world fleet typically exceed total revenue by $50 billion. However, national governments have traditionally heavily subsidized the industrial fishing sector because it is an important source of employment, food, and export earnings. Unfortunately, these subsidies have historically been used with little consideration of the long-term damage to the resource they encourage. Subsidies, approximately $13 billion globally each year, encourage fishers to remain in a depleted fishery even when it is not profitable, further extending themselves and the marine resources.
Coastal Degradation
Coastal areas are collecting pools for wastes and runoff. Coastal ecosystems can be damaged by conversions of wetlands, filling and development, as well as pollution of critical areas such as estuaries and bays. For example, due to agricultural runoff in the Mississippi River Delta, the Gulf of Mexico has a biological dead zone the size of New Jersey.
The Bottom Line
Marine fishery conservation measures are necessary not only to allow a larger global fish catch but also to keep fish diversity high, to reduce impacts on marine ecosystems, and ultimately to maximize sustainable employment in the fisheries sector.
Sustainable fisheries management requires conservative limits on fishing to be set well below the biological level of maximum sustainable yield, decisions based on local conditions and needs, and some form of property rights. The future of global fisheries may rest with consumers who buy fish products that have been produced sustainably and demand that policy makers support the recommendations of scientists to close fisheries and reduce harvests. Researchers estimate that rebuilding healthy marine stocks could add another 20 million metric tons of high value fish to the annual harvest.
In September of 1996, the Senate reauthorized the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Under this act all U.S. fish species must be assessed and recovery plans developed within a year for those species identified as overfished. Yet there is still much more to be done…
Take Action !
Urge the U.S. government to encourage other top fishing nations to sign the U.N.Fish Stocks Agreement which sets international standards for the conservation of marine fishes. (Including the U.S., only 4 of the top 20 fishing nations have signed and ratified.)
Global demand for fish is expected to continue its steady growth as the world’s population expands. In order to diffuse population pressures on the fishing industry encourage your senators and representatives to support funding for international population programs and sustainable development, including programs for primary health care, family planning and the education and empowerment of women.
“All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon
Brille
_____________________________________________Drivemaster]]]]]Gawshalmighty John John, you have taken selective perception to its logical conclusion. You only hear want you want to hear and see what you want to see, and then have the nerve to tell others they are blind.
I really could have applied that paragraph to you guys,actually. It’s how I feel about how yo all see things. Drive, you need to understand that if we keep up our current irresponsible practices we, our offsprings, will wind up in a global Calcuta.
Y6B: The Real Millenium
Think the population explosion is over? Think again
On or about October 12, 1999, human population is expected to reach 6 billion. While it took until about 1800 to reach the first billion, the trip from 5 billion to 6 will have required a mere 12 years. Those born in 1930 will have seen humankind triple within their lifetime.
That makes all the more surprising the strange take of the national media, which over the past few years have been full of stories like “The Population Explosion Is Over” (The New York Times Magazine) or “Now the Crisis Is Global Underpopulation” (Orange County Register). These contrarian stories are based on two recent demographic trends: fertility in nearly all developed nations has fallen below the population-stabilizing “replacement” rate (2.1 children per woman, where mortality is low), and fertility is declining in most of the developing world. These trends led the United Nations to revise its population projections, reflecting a slower rate of growth than previously forecast.
“Slower,” however, does not mean slow. At the current global growth rate, 1.5 million people-roughly a new metropolitan Milwaukee-are added every week. Despite fertility declines, birthrates in much of the world remain high. For example, Guatemala’s fertility is 5.1 children per woman, Laos and Pakistan’s 5.6, and Iraq’s 5.7. And those are not even the high end of the spectrum: Afghanistan’s fertility rate is 6.1. The 43 nations of East, West, and Central Africa average 6.0, 6.2, and 6.3 children per woman, respectively. Countries that have reduced their birthrate to three or four children per woman are also growing very rapidly. This is partly because of “population momentum,” in which earlier high fertility yields a large proportion of young people. Even fertility rates fractionally above replacement can perpetuate rapid growth.
What if every nation’s fertility stayed at its present level? Human population would exceed 50 billion by the year 2100-if the earth could support that many. The UN “medium” projections (perhaps the most realistic) now assume that fertility in developing nations will fall to about 2.2 children per woman over roughly the next 30 years. Even so, world population would reach 8.9 billion by 2050. The 2.9 billion gain would itself equal the world’s entire human population in 1957.
Most future growth will occur in the most distressed regions of the earth, many of which are already experiencing severe deforestation, water shortages, and massive soil erosion. In the medium projections, sub-Saharan Africa’s present population of 630 million will more than double to 1.5 billion by 2050. By that time, Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq, and Pakistan will also more than double, as will Bolivia, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Paraguay. Bangladesh will grow by two-thirds, and India will increase by more than half a billion persons to 1.5 billion.
These projections presume that many more people will soon have effective access to family-planning services. That may not happen. One reason is the abysmal failure of most rich nations to provide family-planning aid at levels like those envisioned at the population conference at Cairo in 1994. In the United States, such aid to developing nations has become hostage to the debate over abortion, even though access to contraceptives reduces abortion rates. Family-planning aid from the United States has been slashed by at least 30 percent since 1995, and is now a fraction of what it needs to be.
There is still time to attain world population stability through means that respect human freedom and dignity-and that therefore are conducive to women’s equity and empowerment. “I have the audacity to believe,” said Martin Luther King Jr. in accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964, “that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality, and freedom for their spirit.” It will take many steps to reach that dream. A gentle but early end to the population explosion is one of them.—William G. Hollingsworth
Bill Hollingsworth wrote Ending the Explosion: Population Policies and Ethics for a Humane Future (Seven Locks Press, 1996). He teaches at the University of Tulsa College of Law.
“All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon
Brille
---------------------------------------------Falcon[[[[[[[[John, how the hell would you reduce population NOW? Kill off half of America? Institute one-child policies across the globe? Tom is right - as societies become more industrialized, the birth rate naturally falls, as does the mortality rate. The population then begins to have a negative growth rate.
Not reduce it NOW but take measures to CURB the exponential, irresponsible growth towards CRITICAL overpopulation, which leads to global degredation and depletion of natural resources.
“All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon
Brille
---------------------------------------------Polycarp]]]]]]My problem with the “solution” to the overpopulation question is twofold:
- Deciding to regulate is a step that should be taken with care. Regulating the size of families is a drastic step that needs very careful consideration.
yes, of course, it really is a big step and one that should be given careful consideration, but a step MUST be taken.
Do you feel a step is needed and that we should be made aware of the problem ?
“All rising to a great place is by a winding stair.” F.Bacon
Brille
At last some interesting messages.
First, overfishing is certainly a problem in many areas, and for the reasons the article states. Among the most important reason is subsidies. Atlantic Canada has seen declining fish populations, but the number of fishermen remains relatively constant because the government subsidizes them heavily, and allows them to collect unemployment in the off-season. I’m dead-set against subsidies of any industry for these reasons - subsidies screw with natural market mechanisms which tend to regulate resource allocation.
But then you go on to say,
<BLOCKQUOTE>
Not reduce it NOW but take measures to CURB the exponential, irresponsible growth towards CRITICAL overpopulation, which leads to global degredation and depletion of natural resources.</BLOCKQUOTE>
This is an example of the kind of statement that marginalizes your position. After quoting a bunch of figures from the U.N. showing reasonable population estimates, you go on to make this alarmist statement, which is factually wrong. The world’s population is not growing exponentially - the growth curve is slowing, and the population may even decrease. You say that the Earth’s population is growing TOWARDS CRITICAL OVERPOPULATION, which is never defined by you, and again which may be factually wrong since one of the U.N’s estimates has the population decreasing.
Here’s an example of the shoddy tactics used in these messages:
<BLOCKQUOTE>On or about October 12, 1999, human population is expected to reach 6 billion. While it took until about 1800 to reach the first billion, the trip from 5 billion to 6 will have required a mere 12 years. Those born in 1930 will have seen humankind triple within their lifetime. </BLOCKQUOTE>
This is a standard scare tactic. The information is meaningless, but included to scare the reader, and leave the impression that the Earth’s population is careening out of control when the facts indicate otherwise.
<BLOCKQUOTE>
What if every nation’s fertility stayed at its present level? Human population would exceed 50 billion by the year 2100-if the earth could support that many. </BLOCKQUOTE>
But it isn’t, and no one thinks it is, even in their wildest nightmares. So why include this in the article? For the same reason above. To stick that magic number of 50 BILLION people into the casual reader’s head and leave an alarming impression that isn’t warranted by the facts.
<BLOCKQUOTE>The 2.9 billion gain would itself equal the world’s entire human population in 1957.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
More of the same. These types of numbers are all included to give the casual reader the impression that the Earth’s population is growing like mad, and will continue to do so. Why doesn’t the article go on to say that the very projection they used to come up with this number has the Earth’s population increasing by only 2.1 billion for the next 100 years after that, and then not increasing at all? Better to leave that unsaid, so that the average reader will think there’s a trend that actually doesn’t exist.
By the way, that 8.9 billion by 2050 number has already been revised downwards to about 8.2 billion, and the latest data indicates it may be revised downwards again to about 7.5 billion. Just as when the ‘medium variant’ model came out in 1992 it predicted a global population of 12 billion by 2100, and has been revised downwards twice since. And the current prediction of 11 billion by 2100 also predicted 6.5 billion by the year 2000, which is going to be high by about 400 million. So expect the 11 billion number to be revised downwards again soon.
You will please note that the UN, an organization you like to quote, predicts an additional 4 billion by 2050, which will strain our ecosystems. That is really all I’m saying: LOOK WHERE THIS IS LEADING US.
Population and Biodiversity
“The one process ongoing in the 1990s that will take millions of years to correct is the loss of genetic and species diversity by the destruction of natural habitats. This is the folly that our descendants are least likely to forgive us.”
Edward O. Wilson
Extinction is not new to the planet. It is, in fact, an integral part of the history of life on Earth. However, the current rate of species loss is 150 times higher than the natural background rate of extinction. Human population growth interacts with resource consumption patterns in many complicated ways to produce this unprecedented mass extinction. This fact sheet addresses the main causes directly related to population size and growth: habitat alteration, invasive species, and overexploitation.
What is Biodiversity?
Short for “biological diversity,” the term “biodiversity” describes the richness and complexity of life on Earth. Biodiversity is usually measured in numbers of species but is really much greater in scope. Biodiversity refers to both the number of living species and the number of different genes in those species’ gene pools, for example. The loss of our planet’s diversity is a disturbing fact.
Growing and Declining Numbers
On average, 2.37 people are born every second. Today, 6 billion people inhabit the planet. The United Nations projects that over the next 50 years, we may add nearly 4 billion more, totaling 9.4 billion people. ninety-eight percent of the growth is expected to occur in low-income countries where natural resources and ecosystems are already stressed and fragile, and where social services are limited.*
With an expanding human population, many non-human species face decline or total extermination. We destroyed 30 percent of the natural world between 1970 and 1995. At the current rate of extinction, the Earth will have lost 25% of its present number of species by 2050. Roughly 50,000 species vanish every year. Scientists estimate that Earth harbors between 7 and 20 million species, of which only 1.75 million have been catalogued. Sadly, many creatures will forever remain unknown to us, for they are disappearing before we get a chance even to learn about them.
Should We Care?
Yes! The loss of our planet’s diversity touches us all. Biological diversity underpins our existence–only a species-rich environment can provide us with food, fibers, and many other products which we usually take for granted. Plants and microorganisms create our soils; forests cleanse the air and replenish our groundwater supplies; frogs, fish, and birds control pests; insects provide pollination services without which many plants would not reproduce. The list is long and many interactions have not yet been explored.
Keeping Options Alive
The reason for the preservation of Earth’s natural communities can be summed up in one concise phrase: We must keep options alive. Ultimately we depend on the natural world for everything. For example:
We depend on the natural world for our food supply. Genetic diversity of our crops and livestock is vital for our future food security in a rapidly changing world. Genetically impoverished stocks are more susceptible to pests and disease. All agricultural crops must be periodically bred with wild varieties to increase or maintain their productivity levels.
Scientists also note that biodiversity supports our health care system. Twenty-five percent of drugs prescribed in the U.S. contain chemical compounds derived from wild species. The cure for AIDS or cancer may be hidden in the vast tracts of still unexplored rainforests. By destroying forests today, we are limiting our options for treating illness in the future.
Why Mass Extinction?
As more and more people inhabit the planet, less room, or habitat, is available for other species. Our behavior has caused broad-scale modifications of the natural world, affecting animal and plant life in many ways. Three human-induced factors stand out as primary causes for the unprecedented rate of species loss: habitat alteration, the spreading of invasive species, and overexploitation
Habitat alteration
Habitat alteration is by far the most significant cause of global species decline. Humans claim more resources today than any other organism on Earth. In the process of making room for our growing numbers, we plow under and pave over, split up and cut down, drain, pollute, contaminate, and sell away previously intact landscapes, and thereby destroy invaluable habitat for thousands of species. Industrial and agricultural pollutants poison individuals of many species and make their habitats unfit for continued survival.
Today, only 27% of Earth’s habitable land mass remains undisturbed. Large land mammals with a need for large home ranges, and endemic species (species that are highly adapted to a restricted geographic area and do not occur anywhere else on Earth) are most affected by habitat destruction.
As habitats dwindle, so does the possibility for species to move and migrate. This becomes particularly dangerous given the threat of global climate change. Should weather patterns change, plants and animals cannot shift their range as they were able to in the evolutionary past, and are thus more vulnerable to extinction.
Deforestation is quite possibly the greatest threat to biodiversity at present. Forests are biodiversity >hotspots". The alarming rates of deforestation are clearly linked to the actions and aims of commercial logging companies, large landowners, distant consumers, international development agencies, and government officials. Socio-economic and political factors like inequities in wealth and land ownership also play key roles in the loss of habitat.
Invasive Species
Either intentionally or unintentionally, a traveling or migrating human population contributes to the spreading of so-called “invasive” or “alien” species. These are highly adaptable plant or animal species that, once introduced into a new environment, manage to reproduce successfully, and then compete with native species for valuable resources. These “pests” oftentimes outcompete or even prey on more susceptible and vulnerable species. Endemic species are especially threatened by the invasion of non-native species.
In Hawaii, 75% of the original flora and fauna has been replaced by non-native, invasive species. The archipelago’s unique bird populations were among the hardest hit. Approximately 90 Hawaiian bird species were endemic to the islands. Barely one-third have survived the onslaught of alien species introduced by Polynesian and European settlers. About 66% of the remaining native birds are threatened with extinction.
Overexploitation
Humanity has always utilized nature’s services for survival. Exploitation of species for food, clothing, and shelter has seldom led to serious problems in the past. But in today’s densely populated and profit-driven world, many species are hunted, trapped or killed above their rate of replacement. This is overexploitation. Profiteering and fashion fads fuel global demand and drive commercial overexploitation.
What Can We Do?
Species loss is a difficult problem to tackle. It is the ultimate, measurable result of many interacting and mutually reinforcing factors. A successful approach to biodiversity conservation must therefore be integrated.
Protected Areas
National governments have established parks and other designated protected areas to combat the rapid decline in biodiversity. A worldwide total area of 1 billion hectares, equivalent to the size of Canada, is officia
I’d just like to mention, at this juncture, that last weekend I learned that most salmon sold in U.S. grocery stores is farmed freshwater salmon, rather than wild ocean salmon.
We now return to your tirade already in progress.
Here are some more recent numbers (1997) since the U.N’s population predictions in 1994:
<BLOCKQUOTE>
BROADENING AND DEEPENING OF FERTILITY DECLINES IN LESS
DEVELOPED REGIONS
Population Division
Department for Economic and Social Information and Policy Analysis
According to the 1996 Revision of the United Nations population
estimates and projections prepared by the Population Division, the
world’s average fertility level in 1990-1995 was 3.0 births per
woman. The world average conceals the disparity between major areas
and countries of the world. Fertility varies from 1.6 in Europe to
5.7 in Africa, and from 1.2 in Italy to 8.8 in the Gaza Strip.
Taking into account new demographic surveys, the 1996 Revision
shows that the number of developing countries where fertility decline
had newly begun has increased and in several countries previously
documented fertility transition proceeds at a faster pace. Thus,
fertility in Cote d’Ivoire was previously estimated to remain at 7.4
births per woman through 1995, while in fact it begun to decline in
1985-1990 and by 1990-1995 decreased by almost one quarter, to 5.7.
In Kenya, where fertility until the late 1970s had remained at over
8 births per woman, it is now estimated to have declined to 5.4
births per woman in 1990-1995 rather than 6.3 births as it has been
anticipated in the 1994 Revision. New data also indicate that in
Bangladesh, Brazil, India, Pakistan, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab
Republic and Turkey fertility has also decreased faster than
previously estimated. For example, fertility declined in Bangladesh
from 6.2 births per woman in 1980-1985 to 3.4 births in 1990-1995
which is one birth less than it was anticipated for the same period
two years ago. In the Syrian Arab Republic fertility was reduced
from 7.4 births per woman in 1980-1985 to the current 4.7 which is
1.2 lower than the previous estimate for 1990-1995.
Over the last 20 years, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean
and Northern Africa underwent a broad and fast fertility transition:
in less than a the length of just one generation the reproductive
behaviour changed so deeply that the number of children born to an
average woman was reduced from more than 5 in 1970-1975 to less than
3 in 1990-1995 (see figure). Although the trends of fertility
decline were roughly similar in both major areas, in individual
countries fertility transition did not necessarily follow similar
patterns. For instance, even among the large countries (e.g., with
population of more than 20 million in 1995) the overall 20-years drop
in fertility levels varied from less than 1.5 births per woman in the
Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Philippines to 3.0 and
more in Algeria, Bangladesh, China, Mexico, Morocco and Thailand,
while smaller countries were characterized by even more extreme
variations.
The evolution of sub-Saharan Africa was quite different. Only
10-15 years ago sub-Saharan Africa was characterized by
monolithically high fertility levels. The onset of fertility decline
in the region is a new phenomenon and it brought the diversification
in the national fertility levels. However, in spite of the clear
signs of the start of fertility transition in sub-Saharan Africa,
current levels of fertility in most countries of the region remain
high and in 17 countries are equal to or exceed six births per woman,
showing little of no sign of decrease.
Source: Population Division, Department for Economic and Social
Information and Policy Analysis of the United Nations Secretariat,
World Population Prospects: The 1996 Revision (annex tables), United
Nations, New York, 1996.
</blockquote>