It doesn't really matter if there are 5B, 9B or 12B people on earth. What we fear is that WE have to change the way we live. That's our problem.
These are my questions as well. We have a debate in Germany about the demographic change. People getting older, number of people is decreasing because of less and less reproduction and our social systems are, as the politicians state it, on the verge of collaps. German politicians say we have to start making children again to solve all our problems.
But assuming that we CAN somehow get the technology right to produce all of the renewable energy needed to take the place of fossil fuels, we will simply be fueling the juggernaut that ultimately destroys our habitat and us with it. We need change on a level far more fundamental than substituting photovoltaics and turbines for petroleum.
This song of overpopulation has been sung many times over and the earth still continues.
A lot of the proponents of these theories were (now dead) and are (living) eugenicists. Unfortunately many believe the idea of eugenics died along with the fall of the Nazi's. It didn't. It went underground and continues through today.
It continues through many different movements, including some dear to my heart; environmentalism, better health/medicine for the poor, etc... Many have the facade of altruism, philanthropy, and/or some form of saving or protecting someone or something. Who doesn’t want to give to or help with that? But once you dig below the surface of the well manicured front, you find the insidious nature of what really lies behind it.
I’m not saying the earth should continue to be pillaged, but the notion that people need to die, or be limited to one child, etc…, is absolutely taking us in the wrong direction.
Jami McBride wrote:
Admin - Irollaround: If you would add "in my opinion" your post would be fine.
H Ludi Tyler wrote:
In my opinion, population reduction need not entail the bad things mentioned above; it can be entirely voluntary and benign.
H Ludi Tyler wrote:
I'm not sure how voluntarily limiting the number of children I choose to have is wrong or immoral. From what Bill Mollison has said in "Permaculture,a designers manual," limiting population is an ethic of permaculture.
The population of cattle or the population of humans limited by whom?
IMO -You would be right that it need not entail it.
However I believe when it is presented in the way that it currently is, it's both wrong and immoral. There are other solutions and options, not just a need for reduction in the number of people. And from what I've seen the other solutions or options are not presented or are given very little attention or resources. Permaculture and all that falls within it's concepts being one of them.
They also have had great success in their goals. If one looks at rate of change, world population is leveling off and will start to decline in the not so distant future.
I think that thousands of individual and small efforts will see results, eventually, but the big change may not come until the 'peaks' in oil, the economy, water - maybe all - have 'crashed' the current juggernaut. Then, I think the majority of folks will 'see' another way of living.
And Bucky said
Where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking and all the tiny ads are above average:
global solutions you can do at home or in your backyardhttps://www.kickstarter.com/projects/paulwheaton/better-world-boo