----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Tobis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: gmane.science.general.global-change
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 11:33 AM
Subject: [Global Change: 1839] Re: breaking the population bomb taboo
>
> One should not go further in the
> "population v. environment" discussion without first reading the
> consensus
> statement of major social and environmental scientists on the subject:
> "Economic growth, carrying capacity, and the environment" K Arrow, et
> al.
> -dl
>
> Thank you! I'm on it.
>
> I'm a bit confused by the tone of your response, though. Whatever the
> flaws in Rapley's understanding, he above all is arguing for a place
> at the table for demographers. I'd think you'd be in agreement.
>
> mt
We need to be careful to bring fair game into public conversation. Examined
carefully, we find "global overpopulation" is not fair game - it is a
specious concept without scientific measure, so we must resist efforts to
start the conversation by saying "the globe is overpopulated".
Examined carefully, we find many problems of local overcrowding all over the
globe that demand understanding and action, but that is not the same as
"global overpopulation". As evidence of overpopulation, Rapley cites a
World Wildlife Fund figure of "1.25 earths needed to sustain the
population", which is down from 5 earths just a few short years ago. If we
carefully examine what goes into this number, we find that what it means is
there are not enough forests to absorb carbon dioxide at a rate that would
balance the rate of emissions. The overuse of coal relative to uranium is a
very different problem requiring different solutions than the
"overpopulation of the planet", yet careless thinking has led the former to
be twisted around into the latter.
The danger of this carelessness is further confusion and delay in attacking
the serious problems of our day, such as overcrowding, poverty, disease
pandemics, the rate of carbon emissions, and the rate of biodiversity loss.
It is tempting to believe that all these problems would be reduced if only
the global population were reduced, but population reduction as a goal has
historically brought about the most inhumane treatment of humanity. We must
be careful not to confuse problems of population and the environment with
problems of technology and organization if we are to improve sustainability
without sacrificing civility.
The global population is currently stabilizing, carbon emissions are not.
Therefore we must look to other causes of carbon emissions to deal with them
effectively.
-dl
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
