Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on September 23, 2013
There is no population explosion on this planet
Our population problem isn’t too many humans on the planet, but too few owning too much of it
Too many people for too little land,” David Attenborough said last week, makes it “barmy” to send food to Africa, before going on to say that he wants to “start a debate about overpopulation”. Stephen Emmott, author of overpopulation bestseller Ten Billion, says he wants to start a debate too. What insights does each bring to this debate? Attenborough says, “Humans are a plague.” Emmott says, “I think we’re fucked.” It sounds as if they’re inviting someone else with less to lose to step forward and say something disgraceful.
Let’s get one thing straight from the start. There is no population explosion. The rate of population growth has been slowing since the 1960s, and has fallen below replacement levels half the world over. But what about the other half? That’s where population is exploding, right? Well, actually, no. The UN Population Division’s world fertility patterns show that, worldwide, fertility per woman has fallen from 4.7 babies in 1970–75 to 2.6 in 2005-10. As Peoplequake author Fred Pearce puts it: “Today’s women have half as many babies as their mothers … That is not just in the rich world. It is the global average today.”
Attenborough’s overpopulation thesis is, therefore, flawed. But even if the whispering naturalist were right, even if there were a population explosion, it would still be inhuman to say that there are too many humans on the planet. You can say there are too many people in a lift (“eight persons max”) but not on Earth. To wish to reduce the number of living, breathing humans on this planet is an obscenity.
Today’s overpopulation hysteria is not a patch on what it was a hundred years ago, however, when mainstream intellectuals such as HG Wells, WB Yeats, Virginia Woolf and DH Lawrence were proposing not just sterilisation but actual extermination. Back then, there were fewer people in Britain, of course, but many more of them were homeless. It was thought that homelessness came from there being too many people. It was a population problem. Simple as that. But then voters – as opposed to intellectuals – realised that homelessness was caused not by too many people crowding too small a country, but by too few people owning too much land.
In came social housing and down – spectacularly – went urban homelessness. It’s never gone away, but neither has it returned to anything like it was. And the era of notorious doss houses the Spike and the Peg came to an end thanks to extending democracy to cover land ownership and land use.
As with shelter then, so with food now. Today’s population panic goes on as if the Earth’s temperate grasslands are straining under the weight of supporting voracious humans rather than voracious Big Ag. “We’ve run out of farmland,” shriek op-eds and talking heads. “We’re already at the limit. The population is booming, but every last hectare of prime arable land is already taken!”
Taken by what? According to the National Corn Growers Association, 30% of US corn ends up as fuel ethanol, while 5% is grown as corn syrup for junk food sweeteners and fizzy pop. Ain’t it grand that we’d sooner say there are too many human beings in the world than too much Coca-Cola, Honey Nut Cheerios or Special K?
Food security and ecological sustainability are impossible without democratic control of land. Only through land nationalisation can we introduce the connected landscapes, smart cities and wildlife corridors that will let ecosystems bend, not break. As with homelessness a century ago, the problem facing a population of 7 billion is not too many people crowding too small a piece of land, but too few people owning too much world.
19 Comments on "There is no population explosion on this planet"
Thomas on Mon, 23rd Sep 2013 10:44 am
This author seems to be under the common misconception that its growth that’s the problem with population, the problem is that we already have too many people.
ohanian on Mon, 23rd Sep 2013 11:26 am
Attenborough says, “Humans are a plague.”
Didn’t I saw that sentence in a movie somewhere back in 1997?
The Matrix?
rollin on Mon, 23rd Sep 2013 11:31 am
Hate to tell this “author” but most of the land is under agriculture already. Except for some deserts, mountain areas and very ecologically sensitive areas. World agriculture covers the equivalent area of South America and Africa combined. All the good land is gone and a lot of the marginal land too. So it’s cut down the last of the forests to accommodate the burgeoning population? Have fun trying to keep the soil on those steep slopes.
Democratic control of the land will solve our problems, really? What does that even mean and how will it solve the population problem? If you manage to feed 9 billion people, you end up with 11 or 12 billion people.
World population has almost tripled during my lifetime, no population explosion there.
Arthur on Mon, 23rd Sep 2013 12:14 pm
“You can say there are too many people in a lift (“eight persons max”) but not on Earth. To wish to reduce the number of living, breathing humans on this planet is an obscenity.”
The fools from the Guardian try to suggest that there is anybody seriously wishing for active extermination of ‘useless eaters’. The problem is that sheer numbers and more important, declining resources, will guarantee to make lives of people in the third world more miserable than it is today. But the Guardian apparently never heard of resource depletion, at least it is not mentioned in the article.
“the problem facing a population of 7 billion is not too many people crowding too small a piece of land, but too few people owning too much world.”
Basically the Marxists from the Guardian seem to prepare their British readership for the next round of invasions from the third world to their already sad overcrowded rainy island. London already has 70% allochtones and counting, completely relying on a virtual ‘financial services industry’ that will evaporate after the coming implosion of the western financial system, turning Britain into a society with high ‘Young Ones’ quality. My suggestion to Scotland (2% allochtones): run while you still can. Wales same story. Let England commit suicide all by it’s own.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cmdry4UJp4Y
Reading tip: wiki Jean Raspail
ronpatterson on Mon, 23rd Sep 2013 12:36 pm
The world is already in deep overshoot. That’s why the ocean fisheries are disappearing. That’s why deserts are expanding, rivers and lakes are drying up. That’s why the old growth forests are being cut down. That’s why species are going extinct at the fastest rate in 65 million years. That’s why topsoil is being washed and blown away.
To suggest that we are not already overpopulated is so stupid that words cannot express it.
actioncjackson on Mon, 23rd Sep 2013 12:45 pm
“…the problem facing a population of 7 billion is not too many people crowding too small a piece of land, but too few people owning too much world.”
Actually both of those things are the problem.
J-Gav on Mon, 23rd Sep 2013 12:50 pm
There has been an explosion over much of the industrial era so, if there isn’t one right now, at least not everywhere, it doesn’t really matter. Without a significant DECLINE in consumption (and that means ‘net per capita energy’ consumption too, which in turn translates, at least in part, into a corresponding decline in population), we’re irreversibly cooked within a couple of decades. Unless, as I’ve stated before, on the off-chance Steinmark’s group of researchers in Denmark end up more right than wrong when they say solar activity and cosmic rays play a more important role than CO2… but the vast majority of climate scientists aren’t buying that theory.
Re-organizing control of the land and reconnecting landscapes is a good idea but likely won’t happen fast enough if it happens at all. Which means I can understand why Emmott said what he said …
jeyeykei on Mon, 23rd Sep 2013 2:17 pm
habitable vs inhabitable places.
habitable are overcrowded whereas inhabitable are turned into habitable to accommodate overcrowding.
the author is an idiot.
GregT on Mon, 23rd Sep 2013 3:07 pm
“Food security and ecological sustainability are impossible without democratic control of land. Only through land nationalisation can we introduce the connected landscapes, smart cities and wildlife corridors that will let ecosystems bend, not break.”
The Author truly is an idiot.
Food security and ecological sustainability are both directly related to human overpopulation. Too many people equates to ecological destruction, which affects human food production. Exactly what we see now, with desertification, soil erosion, ocean acidification, species extinction, deforestation, resource depletion, and the final straw, climate change. Land is not controlled by people, it is merely borrowed from our children. We are the supposed stewards of the Earth, not the Earth’s owners. The Earth in fact owns us, right down to each and every individual atom, that IS us. It is our responsibility to take care of the Earth, to pass on to future generations. If we don’t, it is us that are killing off our own offspring. If we don’t, we may as well murder our own children now, and save them from the suffering that we are leaving for them.
Cities are not smart, they are inanimate manmade complexes. Wildlife does not thrive in human corridors, it is part of the natural environment, and exists without our management. The only control that we have over wildlife, is how much of it we let live, or how much of it we kill.
Ecosystems, are far too complex for us to even fully understand. What we do know for sure is, that they reach tipping points before they collapse, rapidly. Maybe if we stopped destroying them so quickly, we might come to a greater understanding of them, before they have been completely decimated by our overpopulation.
GregT on Mon, 23rd Sep 2013 3:26 pm
“The problem is that sheer numbers and more important, declining resources, will guarantee to make lives of people in the third world more miserable than it is today.”
It really is sad that people need to externalize their problems, to make themselves feel better about their own uncertain futures.
The people that are going to be the most affected, are the people that rely the most heavily on “declining resources”, not those that are already living with far less. It is our lives, Arthur, that are going to become, “miserable”.
DC on Mon, 23rd Sep 2013 5:49 pm
The Guardian has done a lot of good work covering environmental issues.
This definitely is not one of them. This shoddy piece of ‘journalism’ is about on par with Kenz’s work.(sorry Ken) Hopefully the author gets put back on something more his speed, like cat-trapped-in-tree stories. Or doing worst-dressed lists.
The worlds population has not quite doubled in my short lifetime, but its getting there fast. My own province-over doubled. Country, + ~ 10 million and counting. We’ve added the ~ of the province of Ontario in about 25 years.
Fly over the prairies lately? Its checkerboard big-ag as far as they eye can see. Locally, the population has doubled where I live, guess what hasn’t doubled? Trees, coal-NG, quality livable space, parkland. All of those things are declining. The three things not in decline are car traffic, 3rd world migrants, and appetites.
There is no ‘democratic’ control of land in my country. Its all owned by US corporations. ALberta is virtual US state, the others are better only in degrees. They all happily ship our non-renewable resources south to feed the corrupt and criminal US empire. They are working on 400 million+ down there soon, and that takes non-renewable resources dontcha knows….
And the govt still imports 250k turd world economic migrants each and every year.
Arthur on Mon, 23rd Sep 2013 6:11 pm
I don’t mind if life in the west will get a ‘Greek quality’, Greg. And it will. You have a big heart but, in my view, you are a little naiv when it comes to human nature and the horrors humans can inflict upon each other. My society is stable since 1648 and I want to keep it that way. Besides my country is the second most densely populated country in the world, so I see no moral obligation to take in more people.
Kenz300 on Mon, 23rd Sep 2013 7:22 pm
Seems like the poorest people are having the most children.
If you can not provide for yourself you can not provide for a child.
Do not have children unless you are ready to support them and yourself.
Rushing into having children before you are financially and emotionally ready can be a mistake.
Access to family planning services needs to be available to all that want it.
Worst Environmental Problem? Overpopulation, Experts Say
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090418075752.htm
———————————————-
GregT on Mon, 23rd Sep 2013 7:29 pm
Arthur,
I have a very good understanding of human nature, and this is precisely why I advocate moving away from densely populated areas now, before everything goes south, which it will.
I am not for one second advocating to “let more people in” anywhere. There are far too many of us already, for a sustainable future on this planet.
All that I am trying to get across here, is that as resources continue to decline, those that rely on those resources the most, will suffer the most. Those that are living with the least already, have the least to lose.
“Greek quality”, is only the beginning, and yes it will be coming to all of us, soon enough. If you think that current greek quality of life is as bad as it will get, think again, it is going to get much, much worse, and it is going to continue to happen faster, and faster.
Arthur on Mon, 23rd Sep 2013 8:31 pm
Greg,
So why are you regularly reproaching my alleged ‘racism’? (In reality I am not very xenophobic, but feel more comfortable with my own people, like most people on this planet).
I am definitely not as pessimistic as you are and have almost unlimited faith in the ability of our people to cope with the emerging situation. This is not blind faith, but rooted in the knowledge that we have a resource available that gives us annually more energy than is accumulated in the earth’s soil. I was raised Christian, but abandoned that faith when I was 16, like most baby boomers. But if I had to choose a God at gun point, I probably would chose the Sun, like the Egyptians of former fame. 😉
harm on Mon, 23rd Sep 2013 8:54 pm
“…That’s where population is exploding, right? Well, actually, no. The UN Population Division’s world fertility patterns show that, worldwide, fertility per woman has fallen from 4.7 babies in 1970–75 to 2.6 in 2005-10.”
The author seems to be completely unaware of the difference between the RATE of population increase (slowing down but still above replacement level) and population increase itself (still going up fast). He is also clueless about the exponential function (see Albert Bartlett), and how even apparently “small” increases in the population each year can lead to a completely unsustainable doubling of the world’s population in a very short time.
The current population growth rate of ~1.3% per year has a doubling time of 54 years. In other words, assuming the growth rate remains relatively constant, there will be over 14 billion people on the planet by 2067. Sustainable and conducive to establishing worldwide literacy, prosperity and democracy? I think not.
J-Gav on Mon, 23rd Sep 2013 9:03 pm
“Collapse now and beat the rush,” as the Archdruid said. Winding down our lifestyles, as opposed to foolishly continuing to believe they will forever remain on an upward trendline, is certainly the best place to start, whatever the population is and wherever people believe that sort of foolishness. And yes, that includes India and China, who will also have to come to grips with the fact that they will NEVER have generalized middle-class lifestyles such as some countries in the West had for a generation after WWII.
This is not a ‘lesson’ I’m trying to give anybody, it’s a simple biophysical fact.
The sun. Yeah Arthur, if you have to go for one, that’s not a bad choice …
Greg – I don’t know why your point seems so hard to get for so many people – referring to the obvious idea that those who HAVE the most are those who stand to lose the most, at least in the initial phases of the Big Shift. And not only in terms of material well-being but they (we) will also take a big hit psychologically speaking. But of course that doesn’t mean that ’emerging’ economies won’t suffer too. The dreams of many there will be dashed as well and they may be more frequently on the frontline of climate change disruption, massive air and water pollution,lack of drinking water,dwindling arable land, etc.
GregT on Mon, 23rd Sep 2013 9:24 pm
Arthur,
People have the nasty propensity to create discrimination at all levels, not just race. It is a completely unnecessary psychological disorder. It is how people make themselves feel better by putting other people down. I personally have no use for it.
If you believe that your society will be a utopia, without discrimination, as resources, energy and food all decline, think again. The discrimination will not be about language, religious beliefs or the color of your skin, it will be about social status, political affiliation or some other equally ridiculous profiling. If you are fortunate enough to be in the ‘in crowd’ kudos to you, if you aren’t, only then will you truly understand how evil discrimination is.
I am neither a pessimist nor an optimist, I am a realist. I have come to terms with my own death, and I am not afraid of it. The most important first step to accepting reality, in my opinion.
I agree one hundred percent, the Sun gives us all of the energy that we need. Photosynthesis is a naturally occurring process that provides us with food, oxygen, and maintains an equilibrium on the entire planetary biosphere.
To add more energy, or take it away, upsets that natural equilibrium. Creating more energy than the Sun adds to the natural biosphere, is exactly why we are in overshoot. All of our current predicaments are associated with our generation of excess energy, including overpopulation.
What we have done, and are doing, is not sustainable. We are relying on finite resources to provide us with excess energy. Finite resources will run out, just like they are starting to do. When they do run out, our populations will be decimated. The longer we continue on with this lunacy, the bigger the ‘cull’ will be.
But wait, we have even taken it to the next level now. Not only are we hitting resource limits, we are threatening the oceans, the trees, all other species of life, and even the atmosphere that we need to breath. We are now threatening our own very survival.
There is plenty of scientific literature, in journals, reports and peer reviewed papers to support this view. There is also growing physical evidence of the same. As J-Gav has already pointed out, there are some that believe that what is occurring on the planet is being caused by Solar variability, but they are by far in the minority. If they are correct, we are probably done no matter what we do. If the other 97% of the scientific community is correct, we might still have a chance, if we stop now, but at the rate that we are going, most likely not.
penury on Mon, 23rd Sep 2013 9:46 pm
It is articles such as this which cause me to doubt the sanity or intelligence of the general population, but then I reflect on having wasted five minutes on the article and responses, and being aware of my own intelligence settle upon insanity.