Posted on 10/27/2014 5:33:34 PM PDT by traumer
Restricting population growth will not solve global issues of sustainability in the short term, new research says.
A worldwide one-child policy would mean the number of people in 2100 remained around current levels, according to a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Even a catastrophic event that killed billions of people would have little effect on the overall impact, it said.
There may be 12 billion humans on Earth by 2100, latest projections suggest.
Concerns about the impact of people on the planet's resources have been growing, especially if the population continues to increase.
'Can't stop it' The authors of this new study said roughly 14% of all the people who ever existed were alive today.
These growing numbers mean a greater impact on the environment than ever, with worries about the conversion of forests for agriculture, the rise of urbanisation, the pressure on species, pollution, and climate change.
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.com ...
‘According to the study, attempts to curb our population as a short-term fix will not work’
Nature will find a way...
The BBC seems worried we are all headed for the China ‘one child’ law. Hey BBC, you are propagandizing for Communist policies all the time! Knock it off!
That’ll be past my time and my kids time.
However, Earth is five billion years old. I can't believe that our scientists, no matter how smart they are, can predict ANYTHING about our planet, let alone the effects of larger and larger populations on it.
But, what do I know?
Liberals know all. That’s why they continually tell us how to live our lives.
Executing commie traitors should suffice in place of population controls.
Ridiculous. Anyone that has ever studied the Demographic Transition Model knows that we are headed for a demographic winter in the next 3 generations. Education of women is key. Once they are educated they simply have fewer children. This plays out again and again across the globe.
I’m not going to bother to fisk the article, but the population projections are about as trustworthy as the global warming models, in other words not trustworthy.
Can I have “Plagues” for $1000, earthquakes in China for $800, and Shiite/Sunni internecine for $1M?
So in the end the world population will mostly be Africans.
Anybody who wants to prevent that from happening is a racist.
Therefore all those who support zero or low population growth, no matter how liberal they claim to be, are in reality deep-seated racists.
The earth will never have more people than it can support.
By Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.
NEW YORK, June 27, 2014 | (C-FAM) | A partnership among abortion backers is showing cracks as feminists in the Global South are pushing back against environmentalists promoting population control measures.
During the inaugural meeting of a new U.N. endeavor on the environment, one group took to social media to refute the “dubious linking” between population and climate change, arguing that “population control strategies inevitably lead to abuses, coercion, and the violation of women’s fundamental rights.”
The Malaysia-based group ARROW advocates for feminist policies at the U.N., including access to abortion. They are skeptical of wealthy Northern countries’ efforts to reduce the fertility of women in poor countries in the name of stopping climate change.
ARROW tweeted an infograph showing countries with the highest rates of population growth are also those with the lowest rates of energy consumption. Strategies to address climate change “should not displace responsibility for carbon emissions upon those least responsible for them.”
Zero Population Growth’s Lawrence Lader persuaded Betty Friedan that the newly formed National Organization for Women should endorse legal abortion, which NOW did in 1967. While legal abortion now “virtually defines the women’s movement”, in her 1963 classic work The Feminine Mystique Friedan does not even mention abortion. Friedan’s decision committing NOW to abortion advocacy provoked considerable conflict within NOW and did not necessarily represent a majority position. ”There was no networking [about the decision]. There were phone calls for those that could afford them, but no regular communication”. When NOW endorsed legal abortion, many delegates resigned. Even later, some chapters tried to remove abortion from NOW’s “Bill of Rights for Women” because it made their work on other issues in their own communities more difficult. In 1972 two former members of NOW, one expelled because she objected to including legal abortion in NOW’s bill of rights, founded Feminists for Life of America (FFL). James R. Kelly, Seeking a Sociologically Correct Name For Abortion Opponents
Although feminists and population control groups are the leading international proponents of abortion, their divergent motives have historically set them at odds with each other. The two camps forged an uneasy partnership at the 1994 U.N. Cairo conference, which upheld the right of women to determine the number and spacing of their children.
Now, as the global community works to set new objectives for development and environmental policy, the cracks in the “reproductive health” lobby are beginning to show again.
At last year’s Women Deliver conference in Kuala Lumpur, controversial ethics professor Peter Singer posited that women’s desire to have children could be forcibly overridden to address environmental problems.
Singer received a strong reaction from Dr. Babatunde Osotimehin, head of the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), who objected to “limiting the rights of people in this way.” He pointed out rapid decreases in population is leaving countries with “more 65 year-olds than 5 year-olds.”
Osotimehin said consumption of resources, not just population growth, impacts environmental sustainability: “A homeless person in Denmark actually consumes more than a family of six in Tanzania.”
ARROW’s social media campaign wade into this debate as the new United Nations Environmental Assembly is meeting this week in Kenya to address the “sustainability” component of the forthcoming Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These will replace the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which expire in 2015.
Economist Jeffrey Sachs, the architect of the MDGs and a key contributor to the SDG process, recently touted Malthus’ theory that excessive population growth frustrates economic development. He proposed the U.N. aim for “rapid voluntary reduction of fertility” to achieve sustainable development.
In contrast, ARROW says linking population and climate change means “developed countries may be content with funding family planning in developing countries as climate change strategy,” sacrificing poor women’s fertility to protect their own high levels of consumption.
While feminists are uneasy with the goal of population reduction, they continue to be outspoken in favor of legalizing abortion. But some environmentalist groups favoring a smaller human population are backing away from the controversy surrounding abortion.
“The issue of abortion colors the family planning debate more than it should,” said Andrew Foster, director of the Population Studies and Training Center at Brown University. “[It] gets in the way of a more proper discussion about family planning.”
I will concur that governments trying to control their people will not be able to sustain population growth because they cannot see not being in control. Freeing up resources for man’s use instead of holding them for political expediancy, will doom them to a fate worse than louis xiv and friends.
The liberals don’t care about the earth. They don’t care about starvation. What they care about is themselves.
“Please sign this contract where you agree to stay off my beaches and highways and out of my forests. You’ll notice that this contract gives me and the government the right to terminate your life if we find you on my beaches or highways or in my forests. Have a nice day!”
These morons that think things would be so much better with a fraction of the present population don’t realize that the technology they assume will be there won’t be. At a fraction of the population there won’t be enough to maintain the things they need. It wouldn’t be a utopia but a stone age.
I agree except for the education of women part. Urbanization is the key. We are urbanizing at an unprecedented rate, and living in crowded cities does not make one want to have a large family. China recently relaxed its one child policy, after two decades of urbanization. They thought the birth rate would rise, it didn't budge. They are in a demographic winter now.
So globalist financial elites don’t want the sheeple to be too shocked by the elites’ manufactured catastrophes and wars that kill a billion or so.
You know, it’s just a drop in the bucket.
Nothing to see here, sheeple, move along.
Malthus is dead and God is not!
Can’t they at least come up with a different lie?
POTUS Obola all by himself is working to reduce the US population.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.