Skip to comments.Rio+20: Scientists call for action on population (the real face of “sustainable development”)
Posted on 06/18/2012 3:04:20 AM PDT by Olog-hai
The Rio+20 Earth summit must take decisive action on population and consumption regardless of political taboos or it will struggle to tackle the alarming decline of the global environment, the world's leading scientific academies have warned.
Rich countries need to reduce or radically transform unsustainable lifestyles, while greater efforts should be made to provide contraception to those who want it in the developing world, the coalition of 105 institutions, including the Royal Society in Britain, urged in a joint report released on 14 June.
It's a wake-up call for negotiators meeting in Rio for the UN conference on sustainable development.
The authors point out that while the Rio summit aims to reduce poverty and reverse the degradation of the environment, it barely mentions the two solutions that could ease pressure on increasingly scarce resources.
Many in the scientific community believe it is time to confront these elephants in the room. "For too long population and consumption have been left off the table due to political and ethical sensitivities. These are issues that affect developed and developing nations alike, and we must take responsibility for them together," said Charles Godfray, a fellow of the Royal Society and chair of the working group of IAP, the global network of science academies.
In a joint statement, the scientists said they wanted to remind policymakers at Rio+20 that population and consumption determine the rates at which natural resources are exploited and Earth's ability to meet the demand for food, water, energy and other needs now and in the future. The current patterns of consumption in some parts of the world were unsustainable. A sharp rise in human numbers can have negative social and economic implications, and a combination of the two causes extensive loss of biodiversity.
(Excerpt) Read more at euractiv.com ...
The European Union has sustainable development written into its constitution (in the form of the Treaty of Lisbon currently: people should read that document who have not yet done so). Do not call for this empire run by fanatics to develop its own defense.
Yep, let’s summarize what Europe has done to bring on it’s own decline: Value wealth in $$$$$ over wealth in actually having offspring, thereby both aborting and/or simply infertilizing themselves into a downward spiral that will only keep increasing in the rate of decrease as you have fewer women capable of childbearing each successive generation. Then there’s the far out driving motive of sexual pleasure above actually performing it for all it’s purposes, including the potential for reproduction, hence why you tend to see loads of portrayals of sexuality, but a fertility rate below replacement levels, and then there’s the whole issue of deficit, yes, most of the EU runs on some deluded deficit that is driving the inflation, and is likely to eventually bring down the Euro as an official currency in most of the EU, as the truth starts becoming beyond denial, the list of nations which are being considered for being dropped from the EU keeps declining.
Now getting to the environmental part, recycling is good, throwing away one’s trash in the proper receptacle is good, organizing standards for emitted substance that do compromise individual health if directly inhaled or swallowed from water is important, and there has been a great deal of progress killing most of the important dangerous pollutants in air and water (lead, Ozone, VOCs, SO2, NO, NO2, PM (2.5, 5, &10), and CO, but the issue of national sovereignty does not need to be thrown out, nor does the right of an individual human to perform at least a little combustion need to be thrown out either, or have kids, as the system in the developed world still goes in the direction of break even population growth and ultimately decline, despite the existence of families with over two kids and families like the duggars with who knows how many, the overall trend even in the Americas is decline regardless, and this is without some one or two child only laws to force it.
I’m with you on this one.
Free the people from economic slavery and control our borders. Our population will find its own natural level and stabilize naturally.
Most of the developed nations are experiencing declines in birth rates to below replacement levels. The United States is the exception due to it allowing high rates of legal and illegal immigration. One might conclude the developed nations are not the population threat.
The underdeveloped nations are the problem. We have provided them with medical care and sanitation practices that permit dramatic increases in lifespan but, unlike developed nations, their populations are sustaining high birth rates. If overpopulation is a legitimate concern, the left should consider pulling all foreign aid (food and medical) from underdeveloped countries. The result will be an increase in death rates from disease and starvation, resulting in the lower population levels desired by the left. Without the external infusion of resources from developed countries nature will ensure the population drops to the level the resources of the nation can support.
Unfortunately for those who are middle age and older living in developing countries the real agenda of the left is to reduce populations in developed countries through denial of medical care and compulsory euthanasia for the “unproductive” older citizens of developed countries. An added benefit for the progressives of such a policy is ability to redistribute the wealth left behind by the deceased to the deserving masses in underdeveloped nations.
The drumbeat to soften up our children to accept death panels and euthanasia for the aged is beginning. Obamacare puts in place the mechanisms to accomplish the result once society is conditioned to accept the behavior in the same way it has been conditioned to accept the loosening of marriage vows, homosexuality, on demand abortion, politically correct speech and thought, large populations of low skill undocumented residents, government intrusion in every facet of life, the absence of personal accountably, and lower standards of performance in academics and the workplace. Within 10-15 years, it will be accepted that beyond a certain age, say 70 or 75 all but the elites have the obligation to submit to euthanasia in order to free up resources for the next generation. Of course the ruling class elites will not be expected to submit to this requirement because of their special contributions to society.
A person who understood free market economics would know that there is NO SUCH THING as a shortage of resources over time. There is ONLY a price that is too high for the planned use. High prices prompt adaption, innovation, and substitution. The views expressed in this article are ZERO-SUM NONSENSE.
I would note that Europe official REJECTS the free market. The Treaty of Lisbon specifies that Europe has a “social market economy” instead, which is a form of socialism/fascism.
“If I am suspicious about their motives, I am absolutely paranoid about their methods. “
I am paranoid too (/sarc off)
To be serious, I don’t consider you all that paranoid. Especially since I graduated from environmental studies and came to a pretty much similar conclusion.
As far as the American population has come, however, I do have some disagreements. First of all, I do acknowledge that America is not Europe. However, a great deal of America’s growth is now due to immigration, and our national fertility rate is barely above replacement, and likely to cross that line of 2.1 into population decline within the next 20-50 years. Additionally, it’s not just the United States, but immigration will also drop off as a means of following suit with the declining fertility and declining populations in Latin America. With Latin America declining, this destroys the motives of plenty of individuals to really bother illegally immigrating into America. So in essence, we’re already balancing on a fine line between actual population growth and population decline already, without the need for any draconian population controls. When people cry population control, they do so redundantly.
I agree for the most part with property, in fact, the motive to profit is perhaps the most beneficial motive a person can actually possess. Both for self, as well as for society as a whole.
“If you think you can maintain conservative values in the teeth of runaway population growth you are naïve. It is not by accident that the left is flooding our country with poor people who make demands on politicians who are only too eager to satisfy them out of your pocketbook, your lifestyle, and your property.”
Sounds to me like a slower version of the Reichstag Fire, (i.e. perpetuate a disaster to blame on a scapegoated group and glorify yourself as a hero).
Well, sir, as one Confederate to another:
“Every American conservative who believes that the right to possess and dispose of property is inseparable from liberty should think twice before voicing visceral negative reaction to attempts at reduction of population.”
Absolutely, because without a right to life, what hope do you have to retain the population that you possess? The state denies that you have an absolute right to possess property through the use of property taxes. You’ve got liberty backwards.
America was notable in the 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th century for it’s population growth, expanding from a small outpost with several thousand people to the 300 million that she has now. This population growth has coincided with the expansion of her industries.
America in the 50s’ with a healthy population structure was far healthier than she is now. People, are not a mouth to feed, but a source of creativity, inspiration and industry. That is the values of the founding fathers, to uphold this concept in the essential liberty of the individual. By allowing the individual to prosper, by limiting the burden on the individual, America itself prospered.
Why do you think America has such a great burden now? The generation smaller than the one previous, is having to bear the same debts and responsibilies of the one before it, and so on and so on. Where is the money going to come from? If a business cannot operate without customers, a business will have to raise it’s prices to cover the overhead.
Population decline will bankrupt America.
“It is the left that is flooding America with population increase”
It is the left that is highly developed in the areas that are suffering the greatest population loss. To the tune of several EVs a year. Why? Because leftists are population controllers. They want population to go down because they do not believe in the liberty of the individual.
“The property is no good to you if you are subject to a bureaucrats forbidding you to use your property because it contains a puddle or a species of lizard.”
And you’d have the same bureaucrats dictating to you about your procreation? Should we all keep cards telling us that we can have a child now? Will they tell us whom to marry too?
“if your neighbor pollutes upstream water with his chicken packing plant or emits noxious and poisonous gases.”
Is your property of any value if there is no one willing to purchase it?
“If you think you can maintain conservative values in the teeth of runaway population growth you are naïve.”
So your response to ‘maintaining conservative values’, is to stab them in the back and take up shop with the population controllers? Do you strengthen your marriage by taking up with the pretty bartender?
“It is not by accident that the left is flooding our country with poor people who make demands on politicians who are only too eager to satisfy them out of your pocketbook, your lifestyle, and your property.”
The same leftists that are pushing population control, abortion and contraception? Are you saying that it is conservatives who run Planned parenthood? Should we do as Scrooge said, and let the poor get on with reducing the surplus population?
“The consequences of packing too many people into too small a space can be seen in China. They can be seen in India. Policymakers cite sheer population pressure as the reason to steal your liberty.”
And you are doing the same here. You are espousing their arguments by saying that America is too small too cramped and we must capitulate to population pressure and steal liberty.
“In other instances, such as in China, they are wrong to do so by forced abortions, in effect a hideous holocaust.”
And here, 50 million children have been butchered. Yet, we must do more to contain the surplus population. America is going to suffer for her decision.
“Conservatives should not argue in a losing battle”
What did Bedford Forrest have to say about that? Sure, it is a difficult battle, but we should not shirk for standing up for conservative principles, for the liberty of the individual, for the life of all the unborn children sacrificed on the altar of sustainability.
“to address the very real problems generated by overpopulation, we should strike at the cause rather than at the symptom.”
And the cause is the people, and the politicians will grant themselves the power to control the population as they have done in China and elsewhere.
World population grows at a rate of about .6 percent a year, due to the increase in population. Is this an unsustainable rate? That’s the equivalent of a 15 percent return over about 25 years.
“On the other hand, I do not accept that the only way to perpetuate the Ponzi scheme called Social Security is by inducing wholesale immigration.”
Indeed, because it will not be long before the waiting lists to America will dry up, because the people are not there.
“Finally, I share the suspicions of everyone on this board concerning motives of the people in Rio. If I am suspicious about their motives, I am absolutely paranoid about their methods.”
Yet, you’ll still side with them at the end of the day. What do we call someone who knows that someone is in the wrong and yet chooses to fight for them anyways?
“The result will be an increase in death rates from disease and starvation, resulting in the lower population levels desired by the left. Without the external infusion of resources from developed countries nature will ensure the population drops to the level the resources of the nation can support.
The United States will only be a matter of time before becoming officially in decline due to the fact that the fertility rates all over the Americas are dropping, (i.e. all areas easy to immigrate into the United States from are dropping, and removing the motivation to immigrate)
As for the left, they are only really interested in having a reliable voting constituency for whatever it is they do, hence why they support illegal immigration.
I do not accept the view that we need to engage in an immigration/population Ponzi scheme in order to maintain a growing economy. That is what we say about Social Security. In effect we divide the cost of maintaining our seniors by an ever shrinking workforce and despair at the arithmetic.
Instead, we should analyze these problems in terms of productivity of our machinery rather than productivity of our workers. Inevitably, we are going to have to substitute robots for people as we have already done in the world of information technology. The downside of the present system is to encourage sending our jobs to India and China. I think we have somehow got to think in terms of production overall instead of production per man-hour. We already have the tools, such as return on capital etc. but we are not employing them in the policy making arena.
Essentially, I am asking why should we try to maintain our population? Why not let it shrink? I sure would like to be able to use the nation's highways without traffic jams, or visit a national park without waiting in a queue.
we petition the obama administration to:
Announce & Implement NESARA...Now!
Nesara passed in secret by Congress in 2000 & again in 2001.
This law will provide the following benefits:
1) Abolishment of the IRS and income taxes;
2) Establishment of the U.S. Treasury Bank System, with new currency backed by precious metals, and absorption of the Federal Reserve System in to the U.S. Treasury Department;
3) Restoration of Constitutional Law;
4) Bank debt forgiveness of credit card debts and debt relief to American citizens of bank mortgage and other debts;
5) Removal of the current government administration and new elections to provide a clean slate on which to base our country’s future;
6) New prosperity options for American citizens;
7) Expansion of these benefits to other countries around the world;
8) and many more direct and indirect benefits.
Obama’s Science Advisor, John Holdren, wrote in 1969 that “all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come.” In 1973 he wrote, “210 million now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many”. Not only was he off in his prediction of when we would reach 280 million (we hit it 30 years faster than he predicted), he was also 30 million people short (we are now at 310 million)... and yet somehow WalMart magically seems to always be well-stocked. Hmm.
Essentially, I am asking why should we try to maintain our population? Why not let it shrink?
Maintaining sounds fine, and it won’t take much real effort to do given the current trend. Same with population decline. The issue is that of assurance that so many people will make their own proper decision to keep the overall fertility rates just right. I agree with the line that decline wouldn’t be inherently bad, however, the details become confusing given that to make the fertility rates at the range you are suggesting, from 1.90 - 2.11 births/woman, you would need to have some families with three or four children to balance out those individuals and families who have one or zero, again, plenty of people don’t like the idea of assigning people like computers, especially when the full ramifications are discussed. Although I might agree with you on the fact that nature and human decision will follow the route of population decline. It’s just a tough balancing act given the details.
It’s the Religion of Doom and it has many adherents, most of whom are self-professed atheists who pretend not to have any religion at all.
I actually agreed with Jenny Granholm on her idea of letting some roads return to dirt. After all, if you don’t have a tax base to maintain a paved road, why do it? If the tax base and traffic increase, then they can be repaved.
I reached that realization as a result of watching them pave all the dirt roads around my hometown more than 20 yeas ago. They weren’t paved because of an increase in traffic, they were paved because oil infrastructure was going in and the heavy trucks were trashing the roads. Once the infrastructure was finished the traffic on those roads returned to the dozen or so cars per day. Yet here we are more than 20 years later, maintaining those paved roads as if they were major highways at a high cost. I live on a dirt street and its not killing me.
My point is that as a nation, we think about this stuff ass backward. We have this idea that we need to keep growing the population to feed an economy (state and federal revenue) when the reality is that revenue and spending should follow population.
Okay. Let’s start by eliminating all members of Islam.
With all respect to your post, you are actually writing about 2 different things:
Population control via family planning, and
Population increase via immigration.
Once, I did believe in population control via “family planning” (that was when America population was about 200 million) but since then I have come to see that the entire concept is a sham.
Of course they want American birth rates down, that certainly does give these endless streams of mass migrates an easier time while disposing of us.
This is the fundamental change that “progressives” want.
Of course the white race has to go to achieve this...
I submit that Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest was not defeated because he lacked courage or fortitude, he was overwhelmed by the weight of numbers. There were just too damn many Yankees and no amount of courage or self-sacrifice which Forrest exhibited in abundance could turn that tide.
Now you want to risk our liberties in and unequal contest in which we will be unable to cope with the sheer weight of leftist numbers. I don't know about your data concerning world population growth, but I tell you the population of the United States has gone from 140 million in 1942 to 310,000,000 in 2012. It has more than doubled!
If you think you can keep your liberty on this escalator, you are very much mistaken. The pity is, you will take the liberty of my children with you.
Nathan Forrest certainly would not tolerate others putting words in his mouth. I remind you that I explicitly stated that:
"In other instances, such as in China, they are wrong to do so by forced abortions, in effect a hideous holocaust."
You have absolutely no grounds whatsoever to imply that I would countenance such a thing in the United States. If you have followed my posts in inflexible opposition to abortion you would be aware of my position on this issue.
Finally, I share the suspicions of everyone on this board concerning motives of the people in Rio. If I am suspicious about their motives, I am absolutely paranoid about their methods.
You have absolutely no warrant to insinuate as you did:
"Yet, youll still side with them at the end of the day. What do we call someone who knows that someone is in the wrong and yet chooses to fight for them anyways?"
That is utterly uncalled for.
Our differences are only tactical. Sooner or later you will have to come to the conclusion that you cannot prop up the economy by pumping up population. Sooner or later that Ponzi scheme must crash. If the population doubled in my lifetime, will you say "enough" when it doubles from 310 million to 620 million? It will not take another 70 years. Understand that the free exercise of your property rights and indeed all your liberties are absolutely threatened by overpopulation. I submit that you want to defend those rights at the ballot box after we have sustained a deluge of population growth. Be advised, at that time we simply cannot win. Then you will have your holocaust which we both dread.
Those who are concerned with liberty should be concerned about population.
“Their big problem is,we wont go quietly.”
Ding ding ding. We have a winner.
Which of course explains why they want international gun control laws.
Just how many boxes of ammo can you buy a month?
“I don’t know about your data concerning world population”
Worldwide TFR according to the CIA factbook is 2.47 children per mother.
Given a period of 25 years, this translate to a natural increase in the population of just .6 percent worldwide. 2/3rds of the world’s population growth is coming from natural aging, and people living longer than previous.
If we are going to be concerned about population, then we need to know what the actual facts and numbers are today, not what they were 70 years ago.
“I tell you the population of the United States has gone from 140 million in 1942 to 310,000,000 in 2012. It has more than doubled!”
Over a period of 70 years. At present, America has no natural growth, but is growing entirely through immigration. That will increase the population slowly, but your children are not going to see the population of the US double in their lifespan.
“If you think you can keep your liberty on this escalator”
Given as Americans have already killed 50 million American children - we are already paying the price for their shorsightedness. Do you think people are going to care about confiscating your property, if they have already killed their children?
“The pity is, you will take the liberty of my children with you.”
Quite the opposite. The population controllves have already done that for 50 million of my peers, since abortion was legalized. How is that liberty?
“You have absolutely no grounds whatsoever to imply that I would countenance such a thing in the United States.”
Then what do you propose to keep the population in check in order to enforce your beliefs that the US should stop growing.
“If you have followed my posts in inflexible opposition to abortion you would be aware of my position on this issue.”
Well, unfortunately your ‘inflexible opposition’ doesn’t seem all that inflexible. Arguing we need to keep the population down is exactly the same argument that they are making. Do you not see this?
“Our differences are only tactical. Sooner or later you will have to come to the conclusion that you cannot prop up the economy by pumping up population.”
On the contrary. An economy based upon supply and demand has grown, only where the population has grown, and contracted where the population has contracted.
“Sooner or later that Ponzi scheme must crash.”
And the death of 50 million young americans will ensure that this occurs sooner rather than later. That is what the population controllers have wrought. People are not just mouths to feed, they are the productive engine of a democracy.
“If the population doubled in my lifetime, will you say “enough” when it doubles from 310 million to 620 million?”
Then shoot yourself in the head. Go ahead. You say we have a surplus in population, then kill yourself.
“It will not take another 70 years.”
Right on that. It will take far longer if it ever happens.
“Understand that the free exercise of your property rights and indeed all your liberties are absolutely threatened by overpopulation.”
How so? My liberties are threatened by the population controllers who have killed 50 million Americans over the last 40 years. 1/3rd of all pregnancies in that period. This is ‘liberty’? Looks far more like tyranny.
“I submit that you want to defend those rights at the ballot box after we have sustained a deluge of population growth. Be advised, at that time we simply cannot win. Then you will have your holocaust which we both dread.”
We are already having the holocaust of 50 million dead Americans. Do you not see this?
Those who are concerned about liberty need to defend the right to life of the unborn.