Webdiary - Independent, Ethical, Accountable and Transparent
header_02 home about login header_06
header_07
search_bar_left
date_box_left
date_box_right.jpg
search_bar_right
sidebar-top content-top

Depopulate or perish

Depopulate or Perish
by John Pratt

Most of us would agree that there is a limit to the number of people this planet can sustain. It may be 10 billion or 100 billion but there is a limit. The only debate is about the size of the limit and how we prevent the human population from reaching the limit and destroying the planet.

We are currently witnessing planetary degradation such as diminishing water supplies and agricultural land. We also have increasing species extinction, and declining resources – in fact, peak everything.

This is an extract from Richard Heinberg’s book Peak Everything.

The great transition of the 21st century will entail enormous adjustments on the part of every individual, family and community, and if those adjustments are to be made successfully, rational planning will be needed. Implications and strategies will have to be explored in nearly every area of human interest - agriculture, transportation, global war and peace, public health, resource management, and on and on. Books, research studies, television documentaries, and every other imaginable form of information transferral means will be required to convey needed information in each of these areas. Moreover, there is the need for more than explanatory materials; we will need citizen organizations that can turn policy into action, and artists to create cultural expressions that can help fire the collective imagination. Within this whirlwind of analysis, adjustment, creativity, and transformation, perhaps there is need and space for a book that simply tries to capture the overall spirit of the time into which we are headed, that ties the multifarious upwellings of cultural change to the science of global warming and peak oil in some hopefully surprising and entertaining ways, and that begins to address the psychological dimension of our global transition from industrial growth to contraction and sustainability.

The sooner we accept that there are limits the sooner we can work towards creating this brave new world.

With the global economy in crisis, people everywhere are searching for answers to the dilemmas we find ourselves facing. We need to find ways to make the global economy sustainable. To do this we need to take a serious look at global population growth. We need to understand how we can limit population growth, using humane methods such as education and female equality. Organisations that encourage population growth should be asked at what point they think the planet will need to stabilize so that all humans have a reasonable chance to a sustainable lifestyle. Failure to act means we will condemn millions to poverty and starvation.

Cardinal Pell, the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, recently said:

There is a crisis in the Western world. No Western country is producing enough babies to keep the population stable, no Western country.

What does the Cardinal mean by keeping a population stable?

At best this is a racist remark: the world population is estimated to be over 9 billion by 2050:

The United Nations on Wednesday said that the world population would hit seven billion in another three years and nine billion by 2050.

According to a revised estimate by the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Nigeria is among nine countries whose populations would account for half of the global count between the period.

Other countries are India, Pakistan, Ethiopia, United States, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Tanzania, China and Bangladesh.

Does Cardinal Pell suggest that the “Western World” should produce babies at the same rate as the developing world?

It about time we had a good look at population and demanded that our government stop the baby bonus and limit government welfare to those who have more than two children.

The planet will have to depopulate or we will perish.

left
right
spacer

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Agnostics still believe the fairy tales

Kathy your right, Green does describe himself as agnostic, that's the method yahweh cultists use when they can't make up their mind which faction they want to be involved with. Agnostics still believe the fairy tales and support the cult. Green has many articles and papers in which he supports faith based actions to combat aids.

It doesn't negate the fact before the yahweh cults violently invaded indigenous cultures, aids and just about every other disease didn't exist in their communities. Since gods people invaded, destroyed their cultures and land, their lives have been nothing but complete misery. When you combine the actions of the various factions of yahweh worldwide, you see why the people are suffering so and breeding like flies. Wherever the people of god invade, the end result is always cultural destruction, disease, poverty, war, environmental destruction and genocide in all it's insidious forms.

Below are some of the writings of Green, as usual he's expecting those who created and promoted these problems, to fix them. You will find the worst health and life outcomes in faith based indigenous communities worldwide, the more religious they are, the more problems they have. Faith is the ongoing problem creating then destroying lives worldwide. Living in empty faith and hope, is not living in reality, as the outcomes prove throughout history.

The worlds indigenous had a natural approach to population control, which worked for hundreds of thousands of years. Then the god disease came along and we see the results. If we don't de-populate, we will certainly perish. In universal terms, human life time wouldn't register on the universal clock, we'd be a nano size 10th of a second, yet the mental illness infecting elitists called ideology, intends to reduce that time in existence even further. I don't see that as sensible, mature or rational, just sick.

The relgious demand everyone has the right to be born, but do they have the right to be all borne now and not evenly spaced over a few more thousand years. Wouldn't their lives be better of in a good peaceful future, rather than violently shortened under the agnony of poverty, illness and depraved ideologies.

Green, E.C., How Faith-based Organizations Have Contributed to AIDS Prevention. In Tetsunao Yamamori, David Dageforde, and Tina Bruner (eds.), The Hope Factor: Engaging the Church and the HIV/AIDS Crisis. Monrovia, CA: MARC press, 2004, pp. 65-80.

Green, E.C., "Calling on the Religious Community: Faith-Based Initiatives to Help Combat the HIV/AIDS Pandemic." Global AIDSLINK (publication of the Global Health Council), 58, Jan, 2000, pp. 4-5.

Green, Edward C., Why We're Losing the War Against HIV/AIDS. Christianity Today (Interview by Timothy C. Morgan). 03/07/2005

Green, E.C., “The Impact of Religious Organizations in Promoting HIV/AIDS Prevention.” The CCIH Forum, Issue 11, Oct. 2001, pp. 2-11.

http://www.ccih.org/forum/0110-02.htm

Mosley. H., and E.C. Green “FBOs and HIV Prevention Strategies.” Faith and Global Health Caucus Satellite Series. Global Health Council Annual Meeting May 30, 2006. Washington, DC.

Green, E.C. and Allison Herling, “The ABC Approach To HIV Prevention: Fresh Evidence And Recent Controversies.” Annual Conference of Christian Connections in International Health. “Pathways to Health and Wholeness.” Buckeystown, Maryland, May 28, 2006.

Lacking in credibility and objectivity

"Agnostic: 1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

2: a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something (political agnostics)

Alga: "Green does describe himself as agnostic, that's the method yahweh cultists use when they can't make up their mind which faction they want to be involved with. Agnostics still believe the fairy tales and support the cult."

The dictionary definition does not support your premise, Alga.

"Green has many articles and papers in which he supports faith based actions to combat aids."

Green supports the ABC program in Uganda for instance, but for him it has nothing to do with faith. He supports it because it works.

Taken from the link you provided, Alga, Green says:

"In view of these findings, as well as the modeling studies cited, it would seem that there ought to be greater equity in resource allocation between HIV/AIDS prevention programs promoting primary behavioral change --such as delay of sexual debut and reduction of number of sex partners--and the far more familiar programs that promote and provide condoms. There should also be more involvement on the part of faith-based organizations, (my emphasis) and more AIDS prevention resources allocated to them—not because this is part of any political agenda, but because it works."

An agnostic has NO faith, Alga. Green is a pragmatic scientist.

You are doing your darndest to tar Green with a religious brush, Alga, in order to discredit him.

The fact that you wrote that he was a" practising Catholic" and that he would "bend to his ideology in determining truth" has discredited your own argument. You never bothered to read the Wikipedia link that you yourself posted which said quite simply that he was an agnostic. You instead assumed that Green was religious because it suited your own agenda. Now you are trying to change the goalposts.

Then you go off on a tangent about faith and religion.

Now, let’s get back to the original argument. Green (a scientist with many years experience) supported comments made by the pope in relation to the efficacy of condoms in Africa. He said that the empirical evidence supported the pope's premise.

Let me reiterate.

Green has no faith! Green has no religion!

It would be dishonest to suggest otherwise.

Fiction into fact

“In a 2008 article in Science called "Reassessing HIV Prevention" 10 AIDS experts concluded that "consistent condom use has not reached a sufficiently high level, even after many years of widespread and often aggressive promotion, to produce a measurable slowing of new infections in the generalized epidemics of Sub-Saharan Africa.“"

Dr Green is a well known practising Catholic anthropologist, so naturally he would bend to his ideology in determining truth. He is right to a degree that condoms can increase the problems, but this is because of bad or lack of education. Which again boils down to the ruling ideologies controlling education and there you will find the problem.

Kathy Farrelly's quote above and the link, doesn't support Green's supposition. The 10 AIDS experts says the use of condoms isn't wide spread enough to have an impact, which is logical, so expected. Yet as John Pratt points out, Green admits their use in other area's have seen significant improvements. Once again we have ideologists conveniently trying to make fact out of fiction.

Greens Harvard research project has been wound up by Harvard University

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_C._Green

Green may agree with the Pope, but no logical person who studies all the facts would.

Credibility?

From the wikipedia entry you so kindly provided Alga.

"He is not a Catholic, though he was a graduate student at a Pontifical University, and describes himself as "agnostic". Green subsequently provided more detailed explanations of his views in an op-ed article for The Washington Post ("The Pope May Be Right") and an extended interview with the BBC."

Oh,  and did you know that one does not have to be Catholic to attend a Catholic University?

A link please Alga.

Alga: " Dr Green is a well known practising Catholic anthropologist "

Could you please provide a link to substantiate your claim Alga.

Every Sperm is Sacred (Eric Idle)

Every Sperm is Sacred by Eric Idle.

DAD:
There are Jews in the world.
There are Buddhists.
There are Hindus and Mormons, and then
There are those that follow Mohammed, but
I've never been one of them.

I'm a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics is:
They'll take you as soon as you're warm.

You don't have to be a six-footer.
You don't have to have a great brain.
You don't have to have any clothes on. You're
A Catholic the moment Dad came,

Because

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

CHILDREN:
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

GIRL:
Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found.

CHILDREN:
Every sperm is wanted.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

MUM:
Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.

MEN:
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
WOMEN:
If a sperm is wasted,...
CHILDREN:
...God get quite irate.

PRIEST:
Every sperm is sacred.
BRIDE and GROOM:
Every sperm is good.
NANNIES:
Every sperm is needed...
CARDINALS:
...In your neighbourhood!

CHILDREN:
Every sperm is useful.
Every sperm is fine.
FUNERAL CORTEGE:
God needs everybody's.
MOURNER #1:
Mine!
MOURNER #2:
And mine!
CORPSE:
And mine!

NUN:
Let the Pagan spill theirs
O'er mountain, hill, and plain.
HOLY STATUES:
God shall strike them down for
Each sperm that's spilt in vain.

EVERYONE:
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

prune deadwood

I am sorry, as regards my catholic friends at this blog, but I must utterly sympathise with John Pratt's distress at that aged pope's latest and most egregious yet error, concerning contraception, condoms and family planning.

If the Catholic Church can't put people into positions of responsibility before they become decrepit, at least  they could get people still on the right side of their faculties to review some the framing of these issues, before yet more harm is done.

A "perfect storm" to unleash public unrest

A "perfect storm" of food shortages, scarce water and insufficient energy resources threaten to unleash public unrest, cross-border conflicts and mass migration as people flee from the worst-affected regions, the UK government's chief scientist will warn tomorrow.

In a major speech to environmental groups and politicians, Professor John Beddington, who took up the position of chief scientific adviser last year, will say that the world is heading for major upheavals which are due to come to a head in 2030.

He will tell the government's Sustainable Development UK conference in Westminster that the growing population and success in alleviating poverty in developing countries will trigger a surge in demand for food, water and energy over the next two decades, at a time when governments must also make major progress in combating climate change.

"We head into a perfect storm in 2030, because all of these things are operating on the same time frame," Beddington told the Guardian.

"If we don't address this, we can expect major destabilisation, an increase in rioting and potentially significant problems with international migration, as people move out to avoid food and water shortages," he added.

We have twenty years to get our act together, according to Professor Beddington. We have a perfect opportunity to make the necessary changes in our economy – during a time of crisis people are open to new ideas and are willing to change. Business as usual is no longer an option.

Over-population and food and water shortages are with us. Now they are only going to get worse.

The pope is a threat to public health

Meanwhile, France said public health policies put in place to stem the spread of AIDS were endangered by the Pope's claim that condoms are worsening the epidemic.

"France voices extremely sharp concern over the consequences of Benedict XVI's comments," foreign ministry spokesman Eric Chevallier said.

"While it is not up to us to pass judgment on Church doctrine, we consider that such comments are a threat to public health policies and the duty to protect human life," he said.

Several leading French politicians joined the chorus of anger at the pope's remarks, with ex-prime minister Alain Juppe saying that "this pope is starting to be a real problem" because he lives in "a situation of total autism."

It is time for all good catholics to let their church hierarchy know that this doctrine is wrong. Time to start a protest movement.

The catholic church is losing its followers in the educated world. The only people who believe the garbage coming from the Vatican are the uneducated.

The pope is NOT a threat to public health

"The Pope May Be Right"

So says Dr Edward C Green, Senior Research Scientist, Harvard School of Public Health and Center for Population and Development Studies, Harvard University.

When Pope Benedict XVI commented this month that condom distribution isn't helping, and may be worsening, the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa, he set off a firestorm of protest. Most non-Catholic commentary has been highly critical of the pope. A cartoon in the Philadelphia Inquirer, reprinted in The Post, showed the pope somewhat ghoulishly praising a throng of sick and dying Africans: "Blessed are the sick, for they have not used condoms."

Yet, in truth, current empirical evidence supports him.

We liberals who work in the fields of global HIV/AIDS and family planning take terrible professional risks if we side with the pope on a divisive topic such as this. The condom has become a symbol of freedom and -- along with contraception -- female emancipation, so those who question condom orthodoxy are accused of being against these causes. My comments are only about the question of condoms working to stem the spread of AIDS in Africa's generalized epidemics -- nowhere else.

In 2003, Norman Hearst and Sanny Chen of the University of California conducted a condom effectiveness study for the United Nations' AIDS program and found no evidence of condoms working as a primary HIV-prevention measure in Africa. UNAIDS quietly disowned the study. (The authors eventually managed to publish their findings in the quarterly Studies in Family Planning.) Since then, major articles in other peer-reviewed journals such as the Lancet, Science and BMJ have confirmed that condoms have not worked as a primary intervention in the population-wide epidemics of Africa. In a 2008 article in Science called "Reassessing HIV Prevention" 10 AIDS experts concluded that "consistent condom use has not reached a sufficiently high level, even after many years of widespread and often aggressive promotion, to produce a measurable slowing of new infections in the generalized epidemics of Sub-Saharan Africa."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html

This piece by Dr Green an anthropologist with 30 years of experience in developing countries is a very fair and balanced account.

John: "The catholic church is losing its followers in the educated world. The only people who believe the garbage coming from the Vatican are the uneducated."

One would certainly not refer to Dr Green as "uneducated," John.

Dr Green believes condoms should be for all

Kathy seems to think Dr Green does advocate the use of condoms.

William Crawley: You accept that condoms do work in other parts of the world, like the Western World, for example?

Edward Green: I do. And they should have a back-up role even in the generalised epidemics of Africa. I believe condoms should be made available to everyone. It should be, and as you say, the ABC strategy: Abstain, Be faithful, use a Condom. Condoms may well have contributed to the prevalence decline in Uganda.

I hate to rain on your parade, but this seems a very different position to the one the Pope put forward.

Drawing a long bow

John, I responded to your argument that "the pope is a threat to public health".

According to Dr Green (re the pope's comments about  condoms and the spread of Aids in Africa), "Yet, in truth, current empirical evidence supports him." 

"I hate to rain on your parade, but this seems a very different position to the one the Pope put forward."

You are not raining on my parade John. I simply posted an article by a very knowledgable scientist that deals  honestly with the current AIDS epidemic in Africa.

Dr Green, in  fact agrees with the pope's comments:

Edward Green: What the Pope said was the distribution and marketing of condoms would not solve the problem of African Aids and that it might even exacerbate the problem. And I think it was that second comment that really set the critics off, really upset a lot of people. I can understand that, because I have worked in Aids prevention for a long time. In fact, I worked as a condom and contraceptive social marketer at the beginning of the pandemic--I was working in family planning. I am part of a group of researchers that have been looking for the behavioural antecedents to HIV prevalence decline in Africa. We now see HIV going down in about 8 or 9 countries in Africa and in every case we see a decrease in the proportion of men and women who report having more than one sex partner in the past year. So when the Pope said that the answer really lies in monogamy and martial faithfulness, that's exactly what we found empirically.

The pope preaching monogomy in Africa, "a threat to public health"?

You are drawing a long bow mate!

Literacy

Fortunately the Pope and his lads have very little influence on people's breeding habits. Otherwise one might think that Ireland and Italy's fertility rates might be above 2. Let 'em rant.

You got to the point however John when you pointed to "education and female equality." As I elaborated elsewhere, female literacy is by a long way the biggest factor in decreasing fertility rates for the long term.

But frankly there's only a marginal difference it can make here in Australia, or indeed the Western World. If we are serious about saving the world then indeed we must be serious about stemming population growth and from every evidence this means we must be serious about teaching people in developing countries to read, and we must be including women.

It's a good reason why it is essential to defeat the Taliban in Central Asia, an ideological force that insists that women should not be educated. I honestly hope that this is food for thought for some.

The Vatican's stance on condoms is immoral

The Vatican's stance is not simply irresponsible; it is immoral. African countries, as some of the most under-developed in the world, will arguably suffer the worst consequences of the "new" global challenges – climate change and the global economic downturn. The "old" ones also have not gone anywhere – severe poverty, malaria, the brain-drain, poor health, education and infrastructure, bad and corrupt leadership, civil war and genocide.

The last thing Africans need is to be told that religion, the last vessel of hope for many, demands that they ignore one of the very few things they are able to do to help themselves.

People within the church need to tell the Pope his is wrong. More rebel priests like Peter Kennedy are needed now.

Kennedy, who has spent 50 years caring for the oppressed and homeless, is adamant that he will continue to lead his flock, and plans to stay put on February 21.

As a member of St Mary’s congregation, Meg Anderson says she finally felt she had come home “after 20 years in the wilderness struggling to deal with the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church in doctrine and social issues. I am in awe of the social welfare program, Micah, which is run at St Mary’s. I for one would have nowhere to go in the Catholic Church if the spirit of St Mary’s is destroyed.”

“As a community we intend to stay here and we will disobey ecclesiastical authority”, Kennedy wrote in his online blog. “The church is a dysfunctional family but it’s our family. You don’t just walk away because it is dysfunctional … We will stay here as long as we need to for the archbishop to change his mind.”

Pope puts millions at risk

Handing out condoms is not the solution for combating AIDS, Pope Benedict XVI has said while en route to Yaounde, Cameroon, for his first trip as pontiff to Africa.

AIDS "is a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems," the pontiff said.

The solution lies in a "spiritual and human awakening" and "friendship for those who suffer," he said.

Sub-Saharan Africa is more heavily affected by AIDS than any other region of the world.

Southern Africa bears a disproportionate share of the global HIV burden, with 35 per cent of the world's new infections and 38 per cent of AIDS deaths in 2007.

Last year about 60 Catholic groups wrote an open letter to the pontiff urging him to reverse the Vatican's opposition to contraception.

The Pope and his church should stay out of medicine. He condems millions to death in the name of dogmatic faith.

The ban on condoms "exposes millions of people to the risk of contracting the AIDS virus," they said.

While condoms are not foolproof, they are highly effective in preventing HIV infection. According to the CDC, studies examining sexually active people at high risk for contracting HIV have found that “even with repeated sexual contact, 98-100% of those people who used latex condoms correctly and consistently did not become infected. The CDC recently issued prevention guidelines for state health departments that state “correct and consistent use of latex condoms can reduce the risk of sexually transmitted infections. On August 16, 2001, the United Nations Joint Programme on HIV/AIDS and the World Health Organization issued a statement that said that condoms were “the best defense” in preventing sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS.

If this is how they treat their flock who would could follow this nonsense?

There is a good reason to use condoms to prevent sexually transmitted disease. This may also be the only contraceptive people in the third world can afford. To deny condoms is condemning millions to a certain death through HIV/AIDS or through poverty.

deceleration won't stop the crash

Pat Donnelly: “The good news is that the population of the world is decelerating, so it should be stable by 2060 or so. And Pell is right: Russia, Japan and parts of Europe are decreasing in population now! So why the hysteria? Oh yes: "we have to do something! Puppets on a string the lot of you!"

Deceleration is not population control and your analogy is the same as saying one country is doing something about pollution, but the rest are increasing it. Even if a number of western countries stabilised their populations, yet others continued to grow as we are seeing, we could have by 2060 more than 15 billion people, as the most populated countries are increasing their number very fast. Even one more billion humans in the next few years would completely make life on the planet unbearable and probably unliveable. Without ecological balance, there is no ability for sustainable life.

The puppets on strings are those who live in denialist fantasy world of ideological delusion, not those who can see the reality of the world, then approach it with rational, logical appraisal and actions. Hysteria always comes about when reality falls upon people and their ideological hopes fail them, as they always do. That's why we see hysteria in places who are ideologically desperate to increase their cults population.

Illusionists always say, “we have to do something”, realists they just do what has to be done.

The vanishing face of Gaia

"Soon," Lovelock writes, "we will face the appalling question of who we can let aboard the lifeboats? And who must we reject? There will be no ducking this question for before long there will be a great clamour from climate refugees seeking a safe haven in those few parts where the climate is tolerable and food is available." (Lovelock finished writing this book last year, but now, inevitably, this passage brings to mind the recent bush fires in southern Australia.)

James Lovelock's latest book, The Vanishing face of Gaia, paints a terrible picture of the future. May I suggest that the first to be thrown from the lifeboats are those of us that thought global warming was a hoax. Those who refused to take action.

population

The problem about population, for some, is that the wrong people are increasing. They are afraid of them, which makes me afraid! There is then an incremental chance that there will be a war of extermination.

The problem is that the rate of change has been so large. Rev Malthus was part of the Victorian age which saw population in England rise from 10,000,000 in 1840 to 50,000,000 in the 1950's when the Victorian surge had washed out, demographically. (Interesting to note that the population of Ireland was 8,000,000 in 1840. Enlightened English anti papist policies ensured that the population in the 1950's was 4,500,000.......)  He made the erroneous point that population increased goemetrically, but land for agriculture took longer to clear etc.

The good news is that the population of the world is decelerating, so it should be stable by 2060 or so. And Pell is right: Russia, Japan and parts of Europe are decreasing in population now!  So why the hysteria? Oh yes: "we have to do something!"

Puppets on a string the lot of you! Still it keeps you from doing something dangerous....

Social engineering to reduce population

Too many people.  How to systematically and fairly stem population growth? I proposed below a tax bonus for limiting the number of children one has.

I propose now, based on the idea that having children will in the future be a privilege and not a right, that certain types of crimes and a particular number of convictions for those offences, ought to result in sterilization.  Man or woman, doesn't matter. 

Choose your crimes and the number of offences.  Three strikes for DUI, say, at over a certain amount? The third firearm offence conviction? The third offence for particular classes of drug possession and use. 

Oh my oh my.  It would certainly save money on child protection to institute this in relation to alcohol, drug offences and crimes of interpersonal violence.

Population the paramount issue of the 21st century

It continues to astonish me that world population in 1900 was 1.6 billion and today it’s 6.8 billion. When historians in the future look back, they will likely conclude that the most significant event of the 20th century was the rapid growth of world population.

For the 21st century the paramount issue is the stabilization of world population. The path to stabilization requires informed, sustained and funded policies and programs now. Without stabilization, humanity will find it enormously more difficult to deal with the critical issues facing the planet, including global warming, biodiversity, energy, food and water supplies, migration, development and peace.

If population is the paramount issue of the 21st century why are politicians afraid of the subject?

I know it is difficult.  How do you stop the population from growing?

Policy changes we could make in Australia: first, get rid of polices that encourage population growth such as the baby bonus. We could reduce welfare payments for families that choose to have more than two children. Maybe we could offer cash payments to people to undergo sterilisation. 

We should spend more on aid programs that educate and fight for female equality. We can stabilise global population but first we must recognize that population  is at  the core of most of our problems.

Negative baby bonus

In other words we ought to be paying people an incentive after, say, two children not to have any more until they are beyond the age of fertility when the bonus drops off. 

It could be offered as a tax rebate.

The two children cut in mark could be moved up or down as required but a cut in mark would be necessary in order to avoid offering a tax advantage to people who didn't intend to reproduce at all anyway. 

I can hear Rev Fred groaning already about a tax bonus creating the social conditions for a flourishing population of  non-reproductive gays or lesbians.  Or celibates. Might boost the numbers in Opus Dei.

One billion max

This planet is only capable of supporting 1 billion people, any more and the rest of life on the planet suffers unnecessarily. It also means natural resources are non sustainable beyond a few generations, which entirely defeats the purpose of supporting human life in a comfortable manner. Nature works on balance, not human imbalance.

Approached in the right direction, oil decline is a bonus for humanity, as we already have the appropriate technology for not using oil or coal, except for high tech materials, rather than just burning it.

Unless we reduce the human population by 5/6ths, only disaster lies before us. Ideologically controlled humans has no time for anything but themselves and no matter what anyone says or does, they will continue to follow their agenda of populate or perish as a cult. Under those circumstances and with the encouragement of governments and social leaders, there is only one outcome.

The bizarre circumstance of the catholic church and many other preachers condemning the abortion of twins carried by a very young girl in Brazil and the continuing demands of the religious right to ban aid to anyone who may use that aid in abortion or birth control education, just shows there is little hope. There is not one faction of the Yahweh cult who would support population restraint and control, remember it controls most of the worlds governments and elitists.

Life is Good

Thanks Fiona.

If we face reality and avoid illusions, we can make the best of the future. We have developed much technology that we can carry forward for life after the last power blackout. Penicillin is not difficult to make, IF you know how.

Penicillin

Your analogy is apt, CJ Wirth - given the incredible speed with which Australia's own Howard Florey, along with his colleague Ernst Chain developed a viable process for mass production of that wonder drug.

As I see it, the solution to our current climate change problems has to be multifactorial - humans are so ingenious, and technological advances will (fingers crossed) make a vast difference. However, I also think that we in the developed countries should be doing all we can to live in a more ecologically sustainable way.

Perish it will be

Global crude oil production peaked in 2008.

Credit for accurate Peak Oil predictions (within a few years) goes to the following (projected year for peak given in parentheses):

  • Association for the Study of Peak Oil (2007)
  • Rembrandt Koppelaar, Editor of “Oil Watch Monthly” (2008)
  • Tony Eriksen, Oil stock analyst; Samuel Foucher, oil analyst; and Stuart Staniford, Physicist [Wikipedia Oil Megaprojects] (2008)
  • Matthew Simmons, Energy investment banker, (2007)
  • T. Boone Pickens, Oil and gas investor (2007)
  • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2005)
  • Kenneth S. Deffeyes, Princeton professor and retired shell geologist (2005)
  • Sam Sam Bakhtiari, Retired Iranian National Oil Company geologist (2005)
  • Chris Skrebowski, Editor of “Petroleum Review” (2010)
  • Sadad Al Husseini, former head of production and exploration, Saudi Aramco (2008)
  • Energy Watch Group in Germany (2006)
  • Fredrik Robelius, Oil analyst and author of "Giant Oil Fields" (2008 to 2018)
Oil production will now begin to decline terminally.

Within a year or two, it is likely that oil prices will skyrocket as supply falls below demand. OPEC cuts could exacerbate the gap between supply and demand and drive prices even higher.

Independent studies indicate that global crude oil production will now decline from 74 million barrels per day to 60 million barrels per day by 2015. During the same time, demand will increase. Oil supplies will be even tighter for the U.S. As oil producing nations consume more and more oil domestically they will export less and less. Because demand is high in China, India, the Middle East, and other oil producing nations, once global oil production begins to decline, demand will always be higher than supply. And since the U.S. represents one fourth of global oil demand, whatever oil we conserve will be consumed elsewhere. Thus, conservation in the U.S. will not slow oil depletion rates significantly.

Alternatives will not even begin to fill the gap. There is no plan nor capital for a so-called electric economy. And most alternatives yield electric power, but we need liquid fuels for tractors/combines, 18 wheel trucks, trains, ships, and mining equipment. The independent scientists of the Energy Watch Group conclude in a 2007 report Peak Oil Could Trigger Meltdown of Society:

By 2020, and even more by 2030, global oil supply will be dramatically lower. This will create a supply gap which can hardly be closed by growing contributions from other fossil, nuclear or alternative energy sources in this time frame.

Last week in my forum Surviving Peak Oil: Planning, Preparation, and Relocation I wrote:

With increasing costs for gasoline and diesel, along with declining taxes and declining gasoline tax revenues, states and local governments will eventually have to cut staff and curtail highway maintenance. Eventually, gasoline stations will close, and state and local highway workers won’t be able to get to work. We are facing the collapse of the highways that depend on diesel and gasoline powered trucks for bridge maintenance, culvert cleaning to avoid road washouts, snow plowing, and roadbed and surface repair. When the highways fail, so will the power grid, as highways carry the parts, large transformers, steel for pylons, and high tension cables from great distances. With the highways out, there will be no food coming from far away, and without the power grid virtually nothing modern works, including home heating, pumping of gasoline and diesel, airports, communications, water supply, waste water treatment, and automated building systems.

Fiona: Welcome back to Webdiary, CJ Wirth - wish the circumstances of your reappearance were not so grim.

Infrastructure collapse

Regarding cjwirth's comments above about imminent collapse, I am not convinced.  We will lose ease, reliability, certainty in relation to infrastructure but it is more likely to decline than collapse. India, for example, and Russia, both lack anything like the sort of sophisticated transport infrastructure that central Europe and the US enjoy but they are nevertheless functioning economies. 

I think as well that Cuba is an interesting model for how to handle shortage in everything including efficient infrastrucure.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
© 2005-2011, Webdiary Pty Ltd
Disclaimer: This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors.
Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way,
please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary.
Margo Kingston Photo © Elaine Campaner

Recent Comments

David Roffey: {whimper} in Not with a bang ... 49 weeks 3 days ago
Jenny Hume: So long mate in Not with a bang ... 49 weeks 4 days ago
Fiona Reynolds: Reds (under beds?) in Not with a bang ... 49 weeks 5 days ago
Justin Obodie: Why not, with a bang? in Not with a bang ... 49 weeks 5 days ago
Fiona Reynolds: Dear Albatross in Not with a bang ... 49 weeks 5 days ago
Michael Talbot-Wilson: Good luck in Not with a bang ... 49 weeks 6 days ago
Fiona Reynolds: Goodnight and good luck in Not with a bang ... 50 weeks 8 hours ago
Margo Kingston: bye, babe in Not with a bang ... 50 weeks 4 days ago