Rio+20: Scientists call for action on population (the real face of “sustainable development”)

EurActiv ^ | 18 June 2012 | Jonathan Watts for The Guardian, part of the Guardian Environment Network

[Olog-hai]

The Rio+20 Earth summit must take decisive action on population and consumption regardless of political taboos or it will struggle to tackle the alarming decline of the global environment, the world's leading scientific academies have warned.

Rich countries need to reduce or radically transform unsustainable lifestyles, while greater efforts should be made to provide contraception to those who want it in the developing world, the coalition of 105 institutions, including the Royal Society in Britain, urged in a joint report released on 14 June.

It's a wake-up call for negotiators meeting in Rio for the UN conference on sustainable development.

The authors point out that while the Rio summit aims to reduce poverty and reverse the degradation of the environment, it barely mentions the two solutions that could ease pressure on increasingly scarce resources.

Many in the scientific community believe it is time to confront these elephants in the room. "For too long population and consumption have been left off the table due to political and ethical sensitivities. These are issues that affect developed and developing nations alike, and we must take responsibility for them together," said Charles Godfray, a fellow of the Royal Society and chair of the working group of IAP, the global network of science academies.

In a joint statement, the scientists said they wanted to remind policymakers at Rio+20 that population and consumption determine the rates at which natural resources are exploited and Earth's ability to meet the demand for food, water, energy and other needs now and in the future. The current patterns of consumption in some parts of the world were unsustainable. A sharp rise in human numbers can have negative social and economic implications, and a combination of the two causes extensive loss of biodiversity. …

[bill1952]

Good post.

It is the left that is highly developed in the areas that are suffering the greatest population loss. To the tune of several EVs a year.

Mmmm. there are exceptions. California comes to mind; a place where the progressive aim of shifting out whites and other wage earners and replacing them with poor migrants who are not friendly to the American system seems to have achieved that goal.
Now, I may be totally paranoid about the race component of this, but it is the effected result, whether intended or not.

Obviously, the next step in this is collapse of the original fiscal system, just like in the various urban cesspools throughout the country.

[impimp]

Ah! We have a Malthusian leftist among us. You my FRiend need to be educated.

It is massive population growth that makes a nation strong. It is both a source of a strong nation and a symptom of it.

When the Roman TFR dropped below replacement level (it was about 5 then, it is 2.1 now) the population of Rome dropped from 1 million to about 50k near the end of the empire. The barbarians attacking Rome was a result of a self-inflicted injury - decadence and high taxes weakened the moral character of the empire such that they stopped having children.

The Western world is facing the same problem. And it is only by American women dramatically increasing their rate of childbearing that America will be a superpower for generations to come.

When your “common sense” goes against the natural law that God has given us then you need to rethink your world view.

[LibLieSlayer]

Yes indeed and that was the point of my post!

LLS

[JCBreckenridge]

You have to remember that a state loses EVs if it grows less fast than other areas of the country. If conservative areas are growing more quickly than this demonstrates that conservative policies procure population growth.

As for California, yes it grew, but it grew at a rate of 10 percent, the slowest California has grown in any 10 year period ever. The trend since 1850-60:

310, 47, 54, 40, 22, 60, 44, 65, 21, 53, 48, 27, 18, 25, 13, 10.

[impimp]

Nations that have population drops tend to become overtaken, often by force, by other nations. Think it through.

[samtheman]

They are merchants of OPD (Other Peoples Deaths).

[Iron Munro]

1 - Stop promoting, supporting and enabling the Islamic diaspora.

2 - Stop enabling the over-population of Africa and allow the population to come into balance with its ability to produce food. Flying in grains and consuming the last wild animal herds is not a sustainable long term plan.

[impimp]

Are you opposed to 1. high birth rates, 2. immigration, 3. both?

If you answered 2. then you are less wrong (but still wrong) than if you answered 1. or 3.

[nathanbedford]

Well, unfortunately your ‘inflexible opposition’ doesn’t seem all that inflexible. Arguing we need to keep the population down is exactly the same argument that they are making. Do you not see this?

Arguing that we need to stimulate population growth is exactly the same argument that we should force women to submit to insemination in order to increase the population of the state.

Outrageous? Of course it is. But it is exactly the kind of argument you are using against me. There are many ways of stimulating population growth without forcing women to become pregnant and they include opening the gates to immigration, subsidizing parents with tax deductions for having children, or putting unwed mothers in the baby business with welfare.

You ask:

"Then what do you propose to keep the population in check [I suppose you mean other than abortion] in order to enforce your beliefs that the US should stop growing."

I think you have three reasonable answers before you and not one of them includes abortion.

It is a logical non sequitur to insist that one cannot be in opposition to abortion and at the same time stand in opposition to population growth. The only oxymoron is in your persistence in connecting the two.

When will you say that the population of America is high enough? If you say there is no limit you are advocating an absurdity. If you admit that there is a limit, for example, that you are comfortable with the limit we have now reached, might I conclude from your logic that you have suddenly become at ease with abortion? So long as you mindlessly persist in connecting the two you are in a trap.

Whether the population explosion in America in my lifetime has occurred because of organic growth or because of unsustainable immigration, the baleful effects on our liberty are the same. The baleful effects on the economy of immigrants who cannot cope in a 21st-century environment are not positive for the economy, too many studies have confirmed that. Uneducated, poverty-stricken, illiterate, socialist minded, culturally alien, illegal (or legal) intruders cost more than they contribute.

The absolute number of people competing for space on the highways, for public services, for a hearing in our courts, our fish stocks, our beaches, our waterways, our land-use, all compete against one another for these resources. Inevitably, the government must arbitrate among these competing claims. Inevitably, those free beaches will be denied you and you will lose that liberty, just as you have lost your liberty to freely fish, to hunt, to build on your own land, to visit our national parks, to maintain animals on your property, etc. Do you really think your right to drink soda from a 16 ounce cup is in jeopardy in sparsely populated North Dakota as it is in densely populated New York City? Do you really think in a society of 310 million people we can survive without zoning laws limiting your right to use your property? You just lost liberty. It was not so when I was a youngster with 140 million people.

There is a connection between the press of population and our freedom of action. If we are cheek by jowl with our neighbor inevitably the government will arbitrate the friction created by one rubbing against the other. This is a zero sum game. Inevitably, this is the loss of liberty.

You say:

Those who are concerned about liberty need to defend the right to life of the unborn.

I agree. But I also say: Those who are concerned about liberty need to relax their militant insistence on population growth. Liberty now requires our defense of your concern about abortion. We are rapidly approaching the point at which liberty will require us to rethink our assumptions about population growth -but not about abortion.

[exit82]

The scientists should lead by example.

[nathanbedford]

Are you opposed to 1. high birth rates, 2. immigration, 3. both?

1. Yes, I am opposed to high birth rates -in others. Unfortunately, that makes me a rank hypocrite because my years of striving for the improvement of the breed have produced six kids and six grandchildren. I plead in evasion of the hypocrisy that I do not advocate government control. It is simply my preference that others who are not blessed with my genes voluntarily practice self-control.

Actually, I count the Liberty to have high birth rates if one chooses to indulge to be of the highest rank.

2. Yes, I am opposed to immigration excepting only immigrants who are exceptionally wealthy or who possess a desirable skill and these exceptions should be actively encouraged by public policy.

Both?-You decide.

[nathanbedford]

My point is that as a nation, we think about this stuff ass backward. We have this idea that we need to keep growing the population to feed an economy (state and federal revenue) when the reality is that revenue and spending should follow population.

Bingo!

[JCBreckenridge]

“Arguing that we need to stimulate population growth is exactly the same argument that we should force women to submit to insemination in order to increase the population of the state.”

How so?

“There are many ways of stimulating population growth without forcing women to become pregnant and they include opening the gates to immigration, subsidizing parents with tax deductions for having children, or putting unwed mothers in the baby business with welfare.”

And what makes you think I support any of these three? Simply stop the taxpayer funding devoted to population control, and you’ll see things go back. This includes taxpayer funding for abortion. If the state intervened less, and taxes were lower more people could afford to have children and more of them. I am concerned that you are using the same rhetoric in favour of population control, that the abortion supporters use to support abortion.

“I think you have three reasonable answers before you and not one of them includes abortion.”

When we are losing about a million a year though abortion, we are effectively paying to kill children and paying to save them. Simply stop paying to kill them in the first place.

“It is a logical non sequitur to insist that one cannot be in opposition to abortion and at the same time stand in opposition to population growth. The only oxymoron is in your persistence in connecting the two.”

Most prolifers (if not all), see children as a blessing. Most proaborts (if not all), see children as a burden.

You are treating children as a burden and claim to be against abortion. That to me seems implausible. So I am entertaining your assertion here, to clairify how you manage to square the circle with supporting population control AND being prolife.

“When will you say that the population of America is high enough?”

If you sincerely the population of America is X+1 too high, kill yourself.

“If you say there is no limit”

Well, that raises the question. What is the effective population limit? China raises roughly a billion on the same acreage as America.

Do I want that to be the number of people in America? Sure, if that is what it works out to be. I do not believe the state or anyone else has the right to tell them, (or me), (or you), for that matter as to how many children you can or cannot have.

That is what freedom is about. If people want to have 5 kids, or 10 kids, then they should be permitted to do so.

“If you admit that there is a limit, for example, that you are comfortable with the limit”

I don’t believe there ought to be an arbitrary limit enforced by the government. I think people ought to have as many children as they wish to have without the interference of the government. That is what freedom is all about. Most of America is empty, and getting emptier.

“So long as you mindlessly persist in connecting the two you are in a trap.”

So, as I asked earlier, by what means do you wish to control the population without resorting to abortion?

“Uneducated, poverty-stricken, illiterate, socialist minded, culturally alien, illegal (or legal) intruders cost more than they contribute.”

And educated, wealthy, literate, capitalist minded, america loving legal immigrants contribute more than they cost. Your point?

“The absolute number of people competing for space on the highways, for public services, for a hearing in our courts, our fish stocks, our beaches, our waterways, our land-use, all compete against one another for these resources.”

If you feel the limit is X+1 over the current population, then kill yourself. That is rational, no?

“Inevitably, the government must arbitrate among these competing claims.”

Only if you believe that it is the job of the government to provide for it’s citizens, and the job of the government to redistribute wealth. I reject that presumption. Once the inevitable collapse comes, we will finally see limited government.

“Inevitably, those free beaches will be denied you and you will lose that liberty, just as you have lost your liberty to freely fish, to hunt, to build on your own land, to visit our national parks, to maintain animals on your property, etc.”

What about the 50 million unborn children who have been denied the right to life?

“Do you really think your right to drink soda from a 16 ounce cup is in jeopardy in sparsely populated North Dakota as it is in densely populated New York City?”

Does North Dakota permit the killing of unborn children within it’s borders? Does North Dakota also provide public funding for planned parenthood? Then, yes, my religious freedoms are at state in sparsely populated North Dakota, as they are not here in densely populated Texas.

Our governor just KO’d abortion funding for PP.

“Do you really think in a society of 310 million people we can survive without zoning laws limiting your right to use your property? You just lost liberty. It was not so when I was a youngster with 140 million people.”

And you believe that if we killed 170 million Americans that this would restore the property rights already lost?

You first, sir.

“If we are cheek by jowl with our neighbor inevitably the government will arbitrate the friction created by one rubbing against the other.”

As opposed to the whole sustainability movement which seeks to create people-free zones filled with wilderness, etc.

“I agree. But I also say: Those who are concerned about liberty need to relax their militant insistence on population growth.”

And to that, I say, wake up and smell the coffee. Ehrlich was 100 percent wrong, and so are you.

BTW, how do you propose that we control the population of the United States without abortion? I want to hear this.

[JCBreckenridge]

“1. Yes, I am opposed to high birth rates -in others. Unfortunately, that makes me a rank hypocrite because my years of striving for the improvement of the breed have produced six kids and six grandchildren. I plead in evasion of the hypocrisy that I do not advocate government control. It is simply my preference that others who are not blessed with my genes voluntarily practice self-control.”

Fair enough. Everyone should have six kids just like NBForrest.

I don’t have any. I think people should be free, without government coercion telling them how many children they should have.

Actually, I count the Liberty to have high birth rates if one chooses to indulge to be of the highest rank.

2. Yes, I am opposed to immigration excepting only immigrants who are exceptionally wealthy or who possess a desirable skill and these exceptions should be actively encouraged by public policy.

Both?-You decide.

[JCBreckenridge]

“Yes, I am opposed to immigration excepting only immigrants who are exceptionally wealthy or who possess a desirable skill and these exceptions should be actively encouraged by public policy.”

Well, I agree. Immigration into America should expect that immigrants contribute. I believe the best thing America could do is to ditch the welfare system altogether. Then the only immigrants who will come are the ones who want to work. The problem isn’t the immigration, but the entitlements.

[impimp]

Let me twist around your philosophy about your preference for maximizing the percentage of the world’s genes that belong to you. If there are too few “American genes” and too few “Christian genes” relative to others then your genes may be eliminated by our future enemies. You need those genes you deem to be less desireable to protect your genes.

To expand even further - an inadequate number of genes (i.e. population) in the world could mean we are less able to handle alein attacks, asteroid strikes, etc. Economies of sclae and the technological advances that go with them require massive populations. Try thinking 20,000 years ahead. Saint Paul really wasn’t happy when people were being lazy because they thought Jesus was coming any time. We don’t know when he will come (it could be millions of years from now) so we need progress to face future threats - progress that comes with massive populations.

[nathanbedford]

BTW, how do you propose that we control the population of the United States without abortion? I want to hear this.

I thought I had enumerated three instances in a clear and unambiguous manner. I proposed that the government withdraw its subsidies for procreation.

What makes you think that I have ever proposed that we "control the population United States"?

How do you propose to stimulate population growth apart from the forceful insemination of women?

I will stop asking that question when you stop conflating opposition to government controlling population, that is, controlling its increase with support for abortion. You are resorting to the rankest kind of unfair debating tactics. You are inviting an equivalent response, and you just got one.

For the record, I oppose now and I have always opposed government subsidies for abortion. I am opposed to government controlling population up or controlling population down. I would support the withdrawal of subsidies which encourage procreation. Check your dictionary to understand the difference between "encouragement" and "control."

It is a deplorable debating tactic to resort to the ad hominem. What you did in these two paragraphs is scurrilous:

Most prolifers (if not all), see children as a blessing. Most proaborts (if not all), see children as a burden.

You are treating children as a burden and claim to be against abortion. That to me seems implausible.

In your last post you twice suggested I kill myself. You are a caricature of an abortion fanatic. If I don't pander to you with the requisite politically correct vocabulary I am a "pro-abort" and I should "kill" l myself.

I concede no moral ground to you on this subject whatsoever:

Ruthie "Remidies" is Preganant! A different view of Gonzolas v. Carhart

I will let the reader judge.

[nathanbedford]

I’m sorry that the link did not work; here it is:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1821509/posts

[nathanbedford]

I’m sorry that the link did not work; here it is:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1821509/posts