Population control and climate change

crowdSome AGW alarmists suggest that the human population will be “culled” by global warming. Other extremist “environmentalists” suggest a more proactive approach to reducing the human population. Being a tad fond of life personally, and being one of those people that believe people are special (with responsibilities which go with that “specialness”), I inwardly cringe at such suggestions.

However, the reality is that this world cannot support an infinite human population. The number of human beings needs to cap sometime.

So, do we just not think about something so horrible? I mean, its not like its going to happen in our lifetimes?

Or, do we listen to global warming alarmists and resile ourselves to doom, like Dr James Lovelock?

James Lovelock in the interview published in  One Last Chance to Save Mankind says:

Do you think we will survive?

I’m an optimistic pessimist. I think it’s wrong to assume we’ll survive 2 °C of warming: there are already too many people on Earth. At 4 °C we could not survive with even one-tenth of our current population. The reason is we would not find enough food, unless we synthesised it. Because of this, the cull during this century is going to be huge, up to 90 per cent. The number of people remaining at the end of the century will probably be a billion or less. It has happened before: between the ice ages there were bottlenecks when there were only 2000 people left. It’s happening again.

I don’t think humans react fast enough or are clever enough to handle what’s coming up. Kyoto was 11 years ago. Virtually nothing’s been done except endless talk and meetings.

I don’t think we can react fast enough or are clever enough to handle what’s coming up

It’s a depressing outlook.

Not necessarily. I don’t think 9 billion is better than 1 billion. I see humans as rather like the first photosynthesisers, which when they first appeared on the planet caused enormous damage by releasing oxygen – a nasty, poisonous gas. It took a long time, but it turned out in the end to be of enormous benefit. I look on humans in much the same light. For the first time in its 3.5 billion years of existence, the planet has an intelligent, communicating species that can consider the whole system and even do things about it. They are not yet bright enough, they have still to evolve quite a way, but they could become a very positive contributor to planetary welfare.

Real doomsday stuff!

OK, those are two ideas that don’t really appeal to me. Is there a third, or fourth … answer?

Let’s try this one on for size – eliminate world poverty.

Yep, that’s all, that’s not much to aim for.

Isn’t it? And how would that work anyway, you say?

Ever noticed that it is the developing nations which have large families ie higher birth rates? And, if there are no devasting wars, droughts or famines for other reasons, that their populations are growing? Compare that to developed countries who rely on immigration for population growth, even with greater longevity.

Where there are high mortality rates, family sizes are larger so that parents have a greater chance of having enough surviving children to care for the parents when the parents are elderly. In relatively prosperous countries people are not as concerned with survival, and find other things to do than create and raise children. (I can provide references if anyone wants them – I am trying not to be too soap boxish.)

Therefore, eliminate poverty and the feeling of threat for survival, and birth rates drop – dramatically. If people in all countries felt reasonably prosperous, every country would have low birth rates. Natural and painless population cap.

Personally I would rather have my share of the billions of dollars of tax money, which is currently being thrown at global warming ,go towards a united global effort to eliminate poverty. With the amount of money being wasted on the global warming scaremongering, eliminating world poverty would be achievable.

By the way – the Millenium Development Goals are another United Nations project. Ever heard of them?

3 Responses

  1. “Go forth and mulitply” were the words of our Creator. As to the capalibility of the Earth to sustain the Creation it is really in the hands of the Creator and not ours. We must place our trust in that. Once Mankind begins to play God, and we are with attempts at cloning, abortion, contraception etc then all manner of evil will unleash itself. Already we hear calls from the Enlightened Elites calling for a severe cull leaving only 600,000 people on Earth. Naturally I don’t foresee the Elites volunteering and stepping forward to sacrifice their lives on the altar of Climate Change-Save the planet- Environment theology. In our quest to replace God we’ll become the servants of Satan as was Hitler and the likes of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc. Let’s not again be condemned by even contemplating the follies of the past. Rather we should learn from them. A question to tickle the intellect: Who is history’s most prolific mass murderer? Hitler, Stalin or Mao? None of these; it is the abortionist.

  2. My post should be an argument that appeals to anyone who cares about other people – regardless of religion or non-religion.

    As for the Christian view, it should be to act responsibly as stewards of this world as well as to help your fellow man (woman and child). God does not want us to just sit back and say “she’ll be right mate”. We have been given a wonderful place to live in, and it IS our responsibility to look after it, and the other people on it.

    This argument transcends religion or atheism – a decent human being would try to help another human being. Christians should feel an even greater need to act positively and responsibly.

    My argument should even appeal to those who don’t care about anyone else – eliminate world poverty and save the world, and yourself.

  3. God says that He held us and carved our name in the palm of His hand before Creation. It is not our prerogative as to who will be born and who will not be born. There are natural family planning methods eg Billings and being “natural” it is natural to adopt them. Eliminating poverty is another issue altogether but with increased security of jobs and wealth creation for those maligned in the Third World as well as in the First World will naturally bring about a reduction in the size of families. If we respect the natural ie God’s Creation and Laws then there will be no problem.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: