Population Growth Versus The Greedy Rich

Posted on Tuesday, January 29 at 16:32 by a free mans life
Is this sensitivity or is it cowardice? Perhaps a bit of both. Population growth has always been politically charged, and always the fault of someone else. Seldom has the complaint been heard that "people like us are breeding too fast". For the prosperous clergyman Thomas Malthus, writing in 1798, the problem arose from the fecklessness of the labouring classes. Through the 19th and early 20th centuries, eugenicists warned that white people would be outbred. In rich nations in the 1970s the issue was over-emphasised, as it is the one environmental problem for which poor nations are largely to blame. But the question still needs to be answered. Is population really our number one environmental problem? The Optimum Population Trust (OPT) cites some shocking figures, produced by the UN. They show that if the global population keeps growing at its current rate, it will reach 134 trillion by 2300. But this is plainly absurd: no one expects it to happen. In 2005, the UN estimated that the world's population will more or less stabilise in 2200 at 10 billion. But a paper published in Nature last week suggests that there is an 88% chance that global population growth will end during this century. In other words, if we accept the UN's projection, the global population will grow by roughly 50% and then stop. This means it will become 50% harder to stop runaway climate change, 50% harder to feed the world, 50% harder to prevent the overuse of resources. But compare this rate of increase with the rate of economic growth. Many economists predict that, occasional recessions notwithstanding, the global economy will grow by about 3% a year this century. Governments will do all they can to prove them right. A steady growth rate of 3% means a doubling of economic activity every 23 years. By 2100, in other words, global consumption will increase by about 1,600%. As the equations produced by Professor Roderick Smith of Imperial College have shown, this means that in the 21st century we will have used 16 times as many economic resources as human beings have consumed since we came down from the trees. So economic growth this century could be 32 times as big an environmental issue as population growth. And if governments, banks and businesses have their way, it never stops. By 2115, the cumulative total rises to 3,200%, by 2138 to 6,400%. As resources are finite, this is of course impossible, but it is not hard to see that rising economic activity - not human numbers - is the immediate and overwhelming threat. http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/comment/0,,2248583,00.html

Note: http://politics.guardia...

Contributed By


Topic


Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. by Spanky
    Wed Jan 30, 2008 2:07 am
    If you haven't seen it yet, check out the video presentation on exponential growth and the effect is has on resource consumption by retired physics prof. Albert Bartlett. It's geared for the layman and not at all math intensive. In the presentation Bartlett demonstrates how even apparently small rates of continuous growth in consumption of any resource can lead to tremendous increases in overall consumption of that resource in a much shorter time frame than most people would think likely or even possible.<br />
    <br />
    The video presentation is in Real Player format only, but there are also transcripts and audio only MP3s available as well. The link is here:<br />
    <br />
    <a href="http://globalpublicmedia.com/dr_albert_bartlett_arithmetic_population_and_energy">http://globalpublicmedia.com/dr_albert_bartlett_arithmetic_population_and_energy</a>

  2. by e.p.1
    Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:36 am
    Very interesting summary by Mr. Monbiot. Brevity, <br />
    obviously, was the essence. Else he would have answered <br />
    the question "why?" here:<br />
    <br />
    " The Optimum Population Trust (OPT) cites some shocking <br />
    figures, produced by the UN. They show that if the global <br />
    population keeps growing at its current rate, it will <br />
    reach 134 trillion by 2300. But this is plainly absurd: no <br />
    one expects it to happen. In 2005, the UN estimated that <br />
    the world's population will more or less stabilise in 2200 <br />
    at 10 billion. But a paper published in Nature last week <br />
    suggests that there is an 88% chance that global <br />
    population growth will end during this century."<br />
    <br />
    May I suggest why? Because social order will collapse ?<br />
    <br />
    Why, I ask, is it profitable to debate which of World <br />
    Trade and over-population, is the more urgent problem? It <br />
    seems to me that burgeoning population is the natural fuel <br />
    of World Trade. More consuming mouths, and more empty <br />
    bellies (ergo: ample sweat labour) are both good news <br />
    (IMO) to such as Paul Wolfowitz. I have no reason to think <br />
    (both Bush-appointees) that his World Bank presidential <br />
    successor Robert Zoellick thinks otherwise.<br />
    <br />
    Here is another interesting view on the P-word. I have the <br />
    impression that the writer (Frank Furedi) is insincere <br />
    (deliberately submitting a losing argument). For every <br />
    Malthusian argument which he attacks ... I find quite <br />
    reasonable. Mr. Furedi's essay has made me *more* <br />
    pro-population-control ! Do you notice, or is it just <br />
    wiggy me ?<br />
    <br />
    <a href="http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3503/">http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3503/</a><br />
    <br />
    e.p.1



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.




Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news