Extinction Rebellion

[Joe]

I’m really very puzzled as to why population reduction isn’t a much higher priority for governments, NGOs and the like. Perhaps it’s the short term nature of most government policies or simply that it is too tough a goal to contemplate. Reducing the population with relatively little disruption to the social fabric of most societies would contribute a lot to addressing to some of the challenges we face.

How do we achieve it and where do we start?

Al Gore has some ideas.

[Animavore]

I’m really very puzzled as to why population reduction isn’t a much higher priority for governments, NGOs and the like. Perhaps it’s the short term nature of most government policies or simply that it is too tough a goal to contemplate. Reducing the population with relatively little disruption to the social fabric of most societies would contribute a lot to addressing to some of the challenges we face.

How do we achieve it and where do we start?

Doesn't Attenborough support encouraging people to have only one child? There was some maths involved over how it reduces x amount over so many years.

Can't see enough going for it.

[Brian Peacock]

OK. For the sake of argument, let's say that there is a general consensus that Gore is right and so we need to reduce the global population. How do we achieve it and where do we start?

[Rum]

They did in China of course and it resulted in a generation they called ‘little princes’, I.e spoilt brats - but they did it. It also resulted in a generation of older people with little family support when they needed care.

Assuming those issues are surmountable the easiest way in democracies would be hiking taxes on those with more than one child, reducing welfare payments for those too (already happened here - for different reasons), reducing child benefit and so on. You might have to hike them pretty heftily too as people really really want kids!

As Gore points out (not sure in the above but in other talks) educating women is the key. Do that and birth rates drop dramatically - almost automatically.

[Joe]

OK. For the sake of argument, let's say that there is a general consensus that Gore is right and so we need to reduce the global population. How do we achieve it and where do we start?

Actually, Gore was talking about stabilizing population growth, which to my mind is an important distinction from reducing the global population. I haven't kept up with his recent thinking, but as far back as An Inconvenient Truth he has listed our rapid population growth as an exacerbating factor in the effects of climate change. To me, stabilizing population growth seems to be a more attainable goal given the current trends.

As Rum pointed out, his starting point for what to do is educating girls. He adds to that empowering women to participate in decisions of family and society, making fertility management available everywhere, and reducing child mortality. He believes these four things lead to the transition from the former population equilibrium characterized by high rates of birth and death and large family size to one of low birth and death rates and small family sizes.

These aren't slam dunks, given cultural attitudes about women and fertility management, but do seem like a decent place to start and have the promise to work.

Plus it's better than making people eat Republicans.

[Seabass]

Plus it's better than making people eat Republicans.

[Joe]

Plus it's better than making people eat Republicans.

I hear they taste like Chickenhawk.

[Brian Peacock]

OK. For the sake of argument, let's say that there is a general consensus that Gore is right and so we need to reduce the global population. How do we achieve it and where do we start?

Actually, Gore was talking about stabilizing population growth, which to my mind is an important distinction from reducing the global population. I haven't kept up with his recent thinking, but as far back as An Inconvenient Truth he has listed our rapid population growth as an exacerbating factor in the effects of climate change. To me, stabilizing population growth seems to be a more attainable goal given the current trends.

As Rum pointed out, his starting point for what to do is educating girls. He adds to that empowering women to participate in decisions of family and society, making fertility management available everywhere, and reducing child mortality. He believes these four things lead to the transition from the former population equilibrium characterized by high rates of birth and death and large family size to one of low birth and death rates and small family sizes.

These aren't slam dunks, given cultural attitudes about women and fertility management, but do seem like a decent place to start and have the promise to work.

Plus it's better than making people eat Republicans.

On the last point - fuck yeah! But if we're going to start chucking Republicans on the barbie I want to be roasting mineral water drinking vegan Republicans who get plenty of exercise - and they seem rather thin on the ground. Another slice of Blake Farenthold anyone?

On the main point I'll get back to you with some links.

[pErvinalia]

I’m really very puzzled as to why population reduction isn’t a much higher priority for governments, NGOs and the like. Perhaps it’s the short term nature of most government policies or simply that it is too tough a goal to contemplate. Reducing the population with relatively little disruption to the social fabric of most societies would contribute a lot to addressing to some of the challenges we face.

How do we achieve it and where do we start?

Doesn't Attenborough support encouraging people to have only one child? There was some maths involved over how it reduces x amount over so many years.

Can't see enough going for it.

The problem with this approach is that you then don't have enough tax payers to pay for retirement and health benefits of the elderly. It's a demographic problem.

[pErvinalia]

Plus it's better than making people eat Republicans.

[Brian Peacock]

OK. For the sake of argument, let's say that there is a general consensus that Gore is right and so we need to reduce the global population. How do we achieve it and where do we start?

Actually, Gore was talking about stabilizing population growth, which to my mind is an important distinction from reducing the global population. I haven't kept up with his recent thinking, but as far back as An Inconvenient Truth he has listed our rapid population growth as an exacerbating factor in the effects of climate change. To me, stabilizing population growth seems to be a more attainable goal given the current trends.

As Rum pointed out, his starting point for what to do is educating girls. He adds to that empowering women to participate in decisions of family and society, making fertility management available everywhere, and reducing child mortality. He believes these four things lead to the transition from the former population equilibrium characterized by high rates of birth and death and large family size to one of low birth and death rates and small family sizes.

These aren't slam dunks, given cultural attitudes about women and fertility management, but do seem like a decent place to start and have the promise to work...

Gore was reporting the work of Hans Rosling. If you're not familiar with Rosling's work he's definitely worth looking up. After the obligatory stop at his Wiki page his GapMinder website is well worth a nosey.

If you've not got the time for this hour long presentation just Google "Hans Rosling population".



As well as showing how the human global population will never exceed c.11 billion (we just can't breed fast enough) Rosling also showed how population growth is inextricably tied to a complex of social and political circumstances. As a population becomes healthier, better educated, peaceful and democratic population growth falls. Of course, the environmental and resource pressures from 11 billion people is still massive, but only by degrees compared with what we have at the moment - and even under our present system we produce enough food for 1.5 times the current global population (c.10.5 billion).

So if the population is set to stabilise at around 11 billion if left unchecked, but stabilisation at a lower rate, and eventually population reduction, can be achieved by political, economic and social reform, then in my view addressing population concerns is a feature and a consequence of addressing environmental and resource pressure. Without writing a book about it we in the West are the only ones in the economic position to develop and implement new models in sustainability but it does rather depend on dealing with the systems which generate our wealth at the expense of the developing poor.

The climate emergency offers us a fulcrum on which we can pivot systemic change, and it can embody the idea that necessary change involves recognising the environment as something we (humanity) all share and depend on equally. After that the problem reduces down into how we negotiate and traverse a just transition from the current system to a more sustainable and equitable system.

[pErvinalia]

Population isn't in itself a problem. The real problem is western levels of consumption. Until we address that we will only ever be tinkering.

[Brian Peacock]

Mother Nature will deal with that for us if we don't sort some alternatives out now. At the moment she's already slapping us with her ring hand.

[Alan B]

Population isn't in itself a problem. The real problem is western levels of consumption. Until we address that we will only ever be tinkering.

It isn't 'Western' levels of consumption per se. It's human nature to strive for something that is perceived to be 'better'. Which is why we have refugees/immigrants leaving their 'shithole' countries to invade the 'Western' way of life countries in order to 'better' themselves.

Now, if we were to aid these 'shithole' countries so that their subjects wouldn't want to leave...

[pErvinalia]

It is western levels of consumption. Our lifestyles are simply unsustainable.