Comments on: Defusing the Population Bomb

By: Edward J. Dodson

Edward J. Dodson — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 18:54:03 +0000

What the maximum carrying capacity of our planet is we do not know. What we are already experiencing is that given how we are now organized (i.e., our socio-political arrangements and institutions, as well as our economic systems) our footprint on the earth is stressing the delicate balance of life support that evolved over millions of years. If we do not significantly reduce our numbers AND change our behaviors by deliberate actions, nature will return the balance by eliminating us as an invasive species.

By: Ransome Tomety

Ransome Tomety — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 19:20:08 +0000

I have been off this discussion for some time but just tumbled on it again while trying to google out something. Well Fred, I can’t disagree with you when you mention things like bad goverment our end. We are still experimenting on what good goverment is and we still have a long way to go. The reality of the globalised effects of the minute things that each and everyone of us do at our individual corners of the world does not allow us to let off negative phenomena like polygamy and indiscriminate childbirth as it is happening here. J ust one example is the crowd on the human trafic routes from West Africa, through the deserts ,across the seas to Europe and later into the Americas. So you see, we are also fueling anything that is happening in the developed countries.

By: Matt Stori

Matt Stori — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 19:03:09 +0000

As regions on this planet with insufficient resources demonstrate, the population issue is built into human nature, aka as civil strife.
With sufficient stress, even “mature” continents eventually will fall into that scenario, as suggests the resurgence of extreme right parties…

By: ED COX

ED COX — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 09:54:29 +0000

consumption urge decreases as the feeling of well being increases – smoking pot will help – perhaps the obvious should be discussed openly

By: RJWill

RJWill — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 21:40:23 +0000

Even with the population we have now I see serious future energy problems. China’s population is quickly adding cars at a phenomenal rate. They have already surpassed us in total number of cars and are increasing sales some months at 30%. Their use of oil combined with India and our use is increasing the demand at the same time that the supply supposedly has peaked. Even the oil companies say we may have only 20 years left before there are serious world shortages. Small, short range electric cars can not replace the trucks and larger vehicles we are accustomed to. This will be a world event when the next and possible final oil crisis hits and we are not prepared for it in any serious way. It could bring our entire economy down with no way to get out. How do you see this scenario?

By: Ralph

Ralph — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 04:28:19 +0000

Great podcast. Thanks for all that you present. I get behind and don’t have time to comment on the blog, but I thought you should know that it is appreciated.

By: Fred Pearce

Fred Pearce — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 22:06:52 +0000

Thanks for some great comments during the week, some of which made me think hard. A real debate.
Let me end on something about optimism and pessimism.
Pessimists are great at telling us where we are going wrong. Three cheers. They are a problem whenver they suggest we are doomed. Then they invite cynicism and a “head for the hills and damn the world” mentality.
Optimists are great at explaining how we can come up with solutions to our problems. And a real pest when they suggest that we don’t have problems to solve and can carry on as before. So we need both. Pessimists to explain the problems and optimists to devise the solutions. None of this says we are not in deep trouble. All of this says we are not doomed. Our future, as a species, is in our own hands. I hope.

By: Fred Pearce

Fred Pearce — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 15:37:23 +0000

Ransome,
I am sure some of my stuff is a bit hard to stomach in West Africa. You are in one of the diminshing parts of the world where fertility rates are still v high and population growth clearly a massive issue. I would not think of discounting population growth as a culprit in the country’s predicament, though i’d be interested in your views as to whether bad governance isn’t a bigger problem. Togo isn’t “overpopulated” by comparison with many Asian countries. Also, I suggest that the impacts, though very real, are largely local. Togo isn’t trashing the planet the way Americans are! But I’d be very pleased to discuss this further…

By: Steve Bismarck

Steve Bismarck — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 05:57:09 +0000

Are we not talking about our own peoples here? We can do more than attempt to influence population/consumption ethics in those lands which we ourselves inhabit.
On the one hand, you point out that burgeoning population is almost exclusively a poor world phenomenon. On the other hand you point out that the average per capita footprint is much higher in the richer nations. Putting those two things together tells me that minor reductions in Western birth rates are as valuable as are quantum reductions in developing nations. The U.S. is on its third consecutive decade of rising birth rate. It is currently 2.03. If we could bring that closer to the 1.4 of Western Europe, how many endangered sea otters, falcons, and wolves could be spared from displacement by already supernumerous humans?

By: Fred Pearce

Fred Pearce — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 19:16:52 +0000

I want to respond to Steve Bismarck’s comments above. Steve, I appreciate the thoughtfulness of what you say. I don’t think it is a red herring to “relatocate” one family to Africa. I was trying to more accurately reflect the world as it is. Burgeoning population growth is now almost exclusively in the poor world. In that context the amount of “resource privation” a rich-world family would need to offset a single child’s footprint in the poor world is extremely small. My TV left on standby has a bigger carbon footprint than hundreds of millions of Africans.
Of course poor people want to get richer, but they will do it by adopting the dominant mode — the way we in the already rich world got rich. So the onus is on us big consumers to change that mode.