RE the population issue, as rightly noted above, populations around the world have been stabilizing, some even declining. Real environmentalists are not much into the population issue; what motivates the vast majority of them is the desire to save the earth for future generations. They would find it contradictory to kill children in order to save the earth for the children.
The supposed “environmentalists” who talk about the population problem are mainly fake environmentalists who do not want to take personal responsibility for doing their part, but want to blame environmental problems on other people and their children. The idea of “population control” is also a red herring that anti-environmentalists bring up because they, too, don’t want to take personal responsibility for doing their part to help save the environment (and people’s lives)–they just want to deny there are any serious environmental problems.
Malthus’s “population bomb” theory was long ago replaced by the “demographic transition theory,” which notes that populations stabilize once a society develops and the death rate goes down. Here is a video that will help in understanding this:
youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E
I taught Environmental Studies before my retirement and used THE textbook most highly recommended by experts in the field – “Humans in the Landscape” by K. N. Lee, W. R. Freudenburg, & R. B. Howarth.
It’s middle chapters address the “grand environmental challenges” (things we most need to address and solve problems for) and population is NOT one of them. They do say population is a challenge (re ensuring enough food and resources for everyone on into the future), but it is not a grand challenge.
They bring in the demographic transition theory and give evidence for it occurring. IOW, population is stabilizing and will level off within this century. People themselves are opting for smaller families as they are pulling out of dire poverty and their children are surviving into adulthood.
As for the grand challenges which we must address if we want all the world’s population to survive and thrive on into the future are (note that the PASS conference is about #3, not population control):
[1]Climate change
[2]Urbanization (which is accelerating) – providing habitable, healthy, productive cities with a sustainable 2nd nature (human constructed nature, infrastructure, market economy) & low environmental impact on 1st nature hinterlands (natural world)
[3]Conserving biodiversity – for our own survival; and it is an ethical duty – most religions (including Catholicism) recognize that.
[4]Sustainable development – creating governing institutions for a sustainable planet both locally & globally, so that people around the world and long into the future can survive and thrive.
The point is there is no need for drastic population control measures (as China has). We are better off putting our efforts into helping poor countries develop and help their children survive into adulthood; people will then of their own accord begin to have smaller (and healthier) families. Anyone who says we need drastic population control measures is NOT an expert in the area of population & demography.
I’m thinking if Paul Ehrlich is at the conference it is probably in his capacity as a conservation biologist, and not as a demographer (which he is not). Same with E. O Wilson. Those two are not actually social scientists or demographers, but biologists.
I think a prudent course for us is to do our part in doing what we can in our daily lives to help the environment, so as to help ensure healthy lives for all well into the future. And not be swayed either by fake environmentalists spewing population bomb nonsense OR anti-environmentalists telling us there are no environmental problems to address.
