Sustainable development and Population Reduction

[Erich]

Erich, you are right that we pay way too little for gasoline; higher prices will limit consumption. However, there comes a price point – hard to determine but inevitable – at which society can no longer function.

My intent was certainly not to give the impression that I think we “pay way too little for gasoline” (though I agree that higher prices will limit consumption).

Make no mistake: the price of the raw gas is about the same as the U.S., but Europe taxes gasoline at a higher rate. At the moment, taxes in France make up about 70 percent of the pump price. For comparison, the U.S. federal gasoline tax is 18.4 cents per gallon, with each state adding between 8 and 32 cents per gallon of tax, according to Wikipedia. That makes the maximum gasoline tax rate 17% in the U.S. Even at that, governments have collected far more revenue from gasoline taxes than the largest U.S. oil companies have collectively earned in domestic profits.

Wasn’t it Will Rogers who said “Be thankful we’re not getting all the government we’re paying for”

 

[Al_Masetti]

Food in the United States has never been in short supply.

As for water, if it is so scarce then why do we still have floods. One would think that if water was so valuable and scarce, that we would have water collection systems out there that would collect every drop of rain and snowmelt runoff.

But instead we let the water just run and run and flood and flood.

I wasn’t advocating that the whole rest of the world move to Texas, I was just answering an earlier post about the need for food and water.

The whole point of the “everyone in the world could fit comfortably in an area the size of Texas” observation is to refute the notion that the world is overpopulated. What we have is not a population problem, but a distribution problem. Of course, if everyone moved to Texas, we still wouldn’t have a population problem, we’d just have a (different) distribution problem.

No matter how you slice it, a population of 6 billion people and an earth land surface area of 57,500,000 sq. mi. only amounts to fewer than 105 people per square mile.

 

[iamrefreshed]

In relation to what – sustainability?

No, in relation to your comments about ‘well fed celibate men’ defining doctrine on artifical birth control.

You were the one to imply men were unfit to define doctrine because they could not feel the pain of the woman forced into sex with an AIDS sufferer or the 13th child of the Guatemalan woman.

You don’t agree with catholic teaching? Don’t follow it.

But please, don’t try and grab my ankle on your trip south.

 

[Bennie_P]

Who came up with this “sustainable” baloney?

Reminds me of those pundits from the 1970’s who were saying we were about to run out of natural resources. Club of Rome. And a bunch of other extremists who have NEVER been confronted with having to explain how wrong they were.

[unreal]

You are right - it is baloney, but very dangerous baloney.
For wasn’t that the reason for the invasion of Poland? needing room in order to be “sustainable”?

Who gets to choose the ones that are retainable? and who is expendable?

 

[drpmjhess]

You make many statements such as former civilizations going out of existence because of environmental damage, can you give historical examples please. Also the water shortages and oil depletion please.

“Latin America’s production of conventional oil reached its peak during the last decade and is now in a process of inexorable decline.” energybulletin.net/11647.html

 

[goofyjim]

This is why God permits some of us to have ssa. We have no desire to raise children and therefore do not contribute to the population problem.

 

[Petergee]

There is no “population problem”, (except inside the heads of people who think that the existence of other people is a problem).

 

[drpmjhess]

This is why God permits some of us to have ssa. We have no desire to raise children and therefore do not contribute to the population problem.

Interesting point, goofyjim. But I believe having children at the replacement rate of two is fine. I don’t buy Bill McKibben’s argument about “maybe one” (in hte eopnymous book). Demographic issues are tricky, and I have grave reservations about China’s one-child family policy for a wide range of reasons. For one thing, children raised without a sibling have socialization issues: one Chinese commentator opined that they were raising a generation of spoiled brats. Also, as no doubt you know, in a culture that disvalues women the temptation to female infanticide is enormous (one province in china has an excess of 600,000 boys over girls, boys who as men will have no chance of marriage and family).

I love kids and am one of four; I wish I lived in a world of only three billion people like my parents inhabited in the 1950s, so that in good conscience I could have had more children. Most of the parents in the Catholic school our kids go to have two children (some have one, some have three). Ironically, a lot of these people drive SUVs, something the priests have noted! It will be interesting to see whether the population continues to grow beyond 9 billion in 2050, or beings to level out as the century progresses.

Petrus

 

[Petergee]

Interesting point, goofyjim. But I believe having children at the replacement rate of two is fine.

Actually the “replacement rate” is a mean fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman per lifetime. Allowing for the people who have no children, or who can’t/won’t have more than 1 or 2, and those who die before reproducing, couples need to have at least three children just to keep up the replacement rate.

I don’t buy Bill McKibben’s argument about “maybe one” (in hte eopnymous book). Demographic issues are tricky, and I have grave reservations about China’s one-child family policy for a wide range of reasons. For one thing, children raised without a sibling have socialization issues: one Chinese commentator opined that they were raising a generation of spoiled brats. Also, as no doubt you know, in a culture that disvalues women the temptation to female infanticide is enormous (one province in china has an excess of 600,000 boys over girls, boys who as men will have no chance of marriage and family).

Sadly true.

I love kids and am one of four; I wish I lived in a world of only three billion people like my parents inhabited in the 1950s, so that in good conscience I could have had more children. Most of the parents in the Catholic school our kids go to have two children (some have one, some have three). Ironically, a lot of these people drive SUVs, something the priests have noted! It will be interesting to see whether the population continues to grow beyond 9 billion in 2050, or beings to level out as the century progresses.

Petrus

Don’t get mesmerised by the figure in isolation. There are 6 and a half billion people now, but far fewer hungry people than there were in the 1950s and we have much more to share. And even the “population control” people (at least the more sane ones) admit that present trends are that the world population will start shrinking once it reaches about 9 billion people.

The rate of increase of the world population has been going down inexorably since the 1960s, and even the number (as well as percentage) increase has been shrinking every year since 1994. The much-predicted “population explosion” never came about and never will, so get over it. If you need an excuse for not having more children, find another one.

 

[drpmjhess]

Yes, the human population – which had been very slowly increasing for thousands of years – suddenly exploded from one billion in 1859 to 6.6 billion now.

 

[h03m]

There is an agenda to depopulate the planet, this is why HIV was created by the Jewish scientists, to pipe out the Africans, and the ‘man is making the planet warm up’ lie is also to keep Africa from having an industrial revolution, keeping their mortality rate high, among other things. As a Catholic, it’s bast to follow our teaching, and let all sex be open to the possibility of creating a pregnancy, to thwart their plan. M.

 

[Erich]

Ironically, a lot of these people drive SUVs

Well, which way is more energy efficient for getting an entire soccer team (or Cub Scout den or Brownie troop or …) from point A to point B… one SUV that will hold everyone plus their gear, or N/2 small subcompact vehicles (where N is equal to the number of kids on the team or in the den or in the troop or whatever, and remembering that no one under a certain age and/or height should sit in the front seat of an airbag-equipped vehicle for safety reasons)?

 

[drpmjhess]

Well, which way is more energy efficient for getting an entire soccer team ?

Erich, you’re quite right – determining efficiency is a tricky question, and depends on the situation. What I’m alarmed by is that the auto industry and the government have balked for years about creating more efficient large cars, and the way some car manufacturers have sold us a bill of goods about SUVs being necessary for every instance, including safe single-passenger commuting. An orthodontist wrote to our local paper last week that he thinks of himself as “green” but that he needs his Ford Expedition to drive his two kids to birthday parties. Well excuse me, but we’ve taken our two children to birthday parties before, and all we have is a Honda Civic.

As we approach the top of the Hubbert’s curve of oil production (2010-2015) and begin the long slide down the other side into an uncertain post-fossil fuel situation, we need all the participants in this conversation we can get, including auto manufacturers and oil executives. Our Catholic school has done a school-wide environmental audit this term, and is encouraging walk-to-school days; we are also putting in bike racks for those for whom it is convenient to bike to school with their parents. Christian stewardship in action!

Prayerfully yours,
Petrus

 

[Al_Masetti]

Interesting and directly relevant article in today’s [Friday 5 October 2007] Wall Street Journal page W11 by Stephen Moore. “Clear-Eyed Optimists”

It may not be possible to provide a link because it’s a paid site.

However, the author refers to : "… A group of scientists calling themselves the Club of Rome issued a report called ‘Limits to Growth’. It explained that lifeboat Earth had become so weighed down with humans that we were running out of food, minerals, forests, water, energy and just about everything else tht we need for survival. Paul Ehrlich’s best-selling book ‘The Population Bomb’ (1968) gave England a 50-50 chance of surviving into the 21st century. In 1980, Jimmy Carter released the ‘Global 2000 Report,’ which declared that life on Earth was getting worse in every measurable way.

"So imagine how shocked I [author] was to learn, officially, that we’re not doomed after all.

"… This is probably the first time you’ve heard any of this because - while the grim ‘Global 2000’ and ‘Limits to Growth’ reports were deemed worthy of headlines across the country - the media mostly ignored the good news and the upbeat predictions of ‘State of the Future’.

"But here they are: World-wide illiteracy rates have fallen by half since 1970 and now stand at an all-time low of 18%. More people live in free countries today than ever before. The average human being born today will live 50% longer in 2025 than one born in 1955.

“To what do we owe this improvement? Capitalism, according to the U.N. Free trade is rightly recognized as the engine of global prosperity …”

“… Mr. [Paul] Ehrlich, whose every prediction turned out wrong, won a MacArthur Foundation “genius award”; [Julian] Simon, who got the story right never won so much as a McDonald’s hamburger.”

So, my friends, if anyone is really interested in this issue, do some research of the always-in-error-but-never-in-doubt Paul Ehrlich and also the absolutely totally accurate unsung hero, Julian Simon.

As Moore finishes up, “… I’m happy to report that the world’s six billion people ae living longer, healthier and more comfortably than ever before. If only it were easy to fit that on a button.”

 

[Ender]

As Moore finishes up, “… I’m happy to report that the world’s six billion people ae living longer, healthier and more comfortably than ever before. If only it were easy to fit that on a button.”

But to properly understand the issue you must recognize that what you describe as good news is actually the worst possible news … at least from the perspective of those who believe man is the ultimate pollutant. It is not so much that Club of Rome types fear global famine as they hate population. And in Europe they may get get a glimpse of their future.

Ender

 

[Petergee]

Yes, the human population – which had been very slowly increasing for thousands of years – suddenly exploded from one billion in 1859 to 6.6 billion now.

Not really. It was a gradual rise. The “population control” advocates tried to freak people out by quoting the raw stats that the population reached 1 billion about 1820, then in 100 years doubled to 2 billion by about 1920 and in 50 years doubled again to 4 billion by 1970. They thought it was an exponential “explosion” and were certain it would double again in 25 years to 8 billion by 1995, 16 billion by 2007, 32 billion by 2013, 64 billion by 2016 etc. They could not have been more wrong. On current trends it will never even reach 10 billion.

 

[drpmjhess]

No – it was an astonishing rise, coinciding with the food made available by fossil fuel agriculture. A net global gain of 70 million more people per year.

 

[Ender]

No – it was an astonishing rise, coinciding with the food made available by fossil fuel agriculture. A net global gain of 70 million more people per year.

Quite the contrary - the gains in food production were made possible by the introduction of plants tailored to resist common pests and diseases and increase yields. New strains of wheat developed by Norman Borlaug were so successful that they created entirely unexpected problems: shortages of workers, carts, trains, bags, and storage facilities to handle the harvest. Some areas had to temporarily close schools to use them for grain storage.

Are you implying that this was a bad thing?

Ender

 

[rpp]

It is false analysis to look at population growth in terms of number. The measure should be in terms of statistics like percentage of growth, births per capita, etc. Just using numbers is deceptive as it cannot show a change in the rate of growth.

The anti-human, pro-abortion and pro-contraception, anti-farming people who are screaming that there are too many people like to use this false analysis because it has greater shock value.

Using this argument give those people the same degree of credibility and overall trustworthiness as those who claim that dihydrogen oxide is a toxic chemical because hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people die every year as a result its effects.

Dihydrogen oxide is water.

 

[drpmjhess]

Quite the contrary - the gains in food production were made possible by the introduction of plants tailored to resist common pests and diseases and increase yields.

And what do you suppose fertilizes these plants with great yields? What fuels their planting, harvesting, processing, packaging, and global distribution? Fossil fuels!