We Are Breeding Ourselves to Extinction

All measures to thwart the degradation and destruction of our ecosystem will be useless if we do not cut population growth. By 2050, if we continue to reproduce at the current rate, the planet will have between 8 billion and 10 billion people, according to a recent U.N. forecast. This is a 50 percent increase. And yet government-commissioned reviews, such as the Stern report in Britain, do not mention the word population. Books and documentaries that deal with the climate crisis, including Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth,” fail to discuss the danger of population growth. This omission is odd, given that a doubling in population, even if we cut back on the use of fossil fuels, shut down all our coal-burning power plants and build seas of wind turbines, will plunge us into an age of extinction and desolation unseen since the end of the Mesozoic era, 65 million years ago, when the dinosaurs disappeared.

We are experiencing an accelerated obliteration of the planet’s life-forms—an estimated 8,760 species die off per year—because, simply put, there are too many people. Most of these extinctions are the direct result of the expanding need for energy, housing, food and other resources. The Yangtze River dolphin, Atlantic gray whale, West African black rhino, Merriam’s elk, California grizzly bear, silver trout, blue pike and dusky seaside sparrow are all victims of human overpopulation. Population growth, as E.O. Wilson says, is “the monster on the land.” Species are vanishing at a rate of a hundred to a thousand times faster than they did before the arrival of humans. If the current rate of extinction continues, Homo sapiens will be one of the few life-forms left on the planet, its members scrambling violently among themselves for water, food, fossil fuels and perhaps air until they too disappear. Humanity, Wilson says, is leaving the Cenozoic, the age of mammals, and entering the Eremozoic—the era of solitude. As long as the Earth is viewed as the personal property of the human race, a belief embraced by everyone from born-again Christians to Marxists to free-market economists, we are destined to soon inhabit a biological wasteland.

The populations in industrialized nations maintain their lifestyles because they have the military and economic power to consume a disproportionate share of the world’s resources. The United States alone gobbles up about 25 percent of the oil produced in the world each year. These nations view their stable or even zero growth birthrates as sufficient. It has been left to developing countries to cope with the emergent population crisis. India, Egypt, South Africa, Iran, Indonesia, Cuba and China, whose one-child policy has prevented the addition of 400 million people, have all tried to institute population control measures. But on most of the planet, population growth is exploding. The U.N. estimates that 200 million women worldwide do not have access to contraception. The population of the Persian Gulf states, along with the Israeli-occupied territories, will double in two decades, a rise that will ominously coincide with precipitous peak oil declines.

The overpopulated regions of the globe will ravage their local environments, cutting down rainforests and the few remaining wilderness areas, in a desperate bid to grow food. And the depletion and destruction of resources will eventually create an overpopulation problem in industrialized nations as well. The resources that industrialized nations consider their birthright will become harder and more expensive to obtain. Rising water levels on coastlines, which may submerge coastal nations such as Bangladesh, will disrupt agriculture and displace millions, who will attempt to flee to areas on the planet where life is still possible. The rising temperatures and droughts have already begun to destroy crop lands in Africa, Australia, Texas and California. The effects of this devastation will first be felt in places like Bangladesh, but will soon spread within our borders. Footprint data suggests that, based on current lifestyles, the sustainable population of the United Kingdom—the number of people the country could feed, fuel and support from its own biological capacity—is about 18 million. This means that in an age of extreme scarcity, some 43 million people in Great Britain would not be able to survive. Overpopulation will become a serious threat to the viability of many industrialized states the instant the cheap consumption of the world’s resources can no longer be maintained. This moment may be closer than we think.

A world where 8 billion to 10 billion people are competing for diminishing resources will not be peaceful. The industrialized nations will, as we have done in Iraq, turn to their militaries to ensure a steady supply of fossil fuels, minerals and other nonrenewable resources in the vain effort to sustain a lifestyle that will, in the end, be unsustainable. The collapse of industrial farming, which is made possible only with cheap oil, will lead to an increase in famine, disease and starvation. And the reaction of those on the bottom will be the low-tech tactic of terrorism and war. Perhaps the chaos and bloodshed will be so massive that overpopulation will be solved through violence, but this is hardly a comfort.

James Lovelock, an independent British scientist who has spent most of his career locked out of the mainstream, warned several decades ago that disrupting the delicate balance of the Earth, which he refers to as a living body, would be a form of collective suicide. The atmosphere on Earth—21 percent oxygen and 79 percent nitrogen—is not common among planets, he notes. These gases are generated, and maintained at an equable level for life’s processes, by living organisms themselves. Oxygen and nitrogen would disappear if the biosphere was destroyed. The result would be a greenhouse atmosphere similar to that of Venus, a planet that is consequently hundreds of degrees hotter than Earth. Lovelock argues that the atmosphere, oceans, rocks and soil are living entities. They constitute, he says, a self-regulating system. Lovelock, in support of this thesis, looked at the cycle in which algae in the oceans produce volatile sulfur compounds. These compounds act as seeds to form oceanic clouds. Without these dimethyl sulfide “seeds” the cooling oceanic clouds would be lost. This self-regulating system is remarkable because it maintains favorable conditions for human life. Its destruction would not mean the death of the planet. It would not mean the death of life-forms. But it would mean the death of Homo sapiens.

Chris Hedges

the earth isn't going to let

the earth isn't going to let us get to 10 billion. diseases are one way to keep the population in check, especially the cancer brought on by catastrophes like the one in japan. then there are the natural disasters, which seem to be increasing in number in response to our destruction of the environment. i used to think population control was the answer, but i think we just need to sit back and let mother earth's wrath right all of our wrongs. we deserve all of it.

Malthus would be proud.

Every time I hear this overpopulation nonsense I want to have more children to counteract the stupid.

Interestinbg analysis of Chris Hedges "Pessimism Porn"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anis-shivani/pessimism-porn-chris-hedges_b...

I tend to agree with Buckminster Fuller's analysis in "Operating Manual for Spaceshiop Earth" - that it is not so much overpopulation that is the problem but management of resources.

There could be plenty for all if not for the greed of the super rich.

And isn't Lovelock the Pro Nuclear "environmentalist"? So this is just a subtle rant for nukes and "don't worry about the radiation killing people or fetuses because there are too many people already"

I agree with Hedges, though, in the sense that we are in a crisis globally --- but I see education and equitable distribution and wise use of resources as the answer - not a failed liberalism which seems to blame the victims.

The article linked above raises a number of great issues --- and I do not agree with all of the author's positions (nor do I disagree with all og Hedge's stuff) BUT it gives perspective to this gloomy Hedges rant. YES we need to change the world! Yes we are in the midst of global disintegration (Fukushima is the best recent example) due to greed and avarice of corporatism.

But the problem is not people making babies. The problem is hoarding of resources and glaring abuse of our planet and resources by the corporate powers that run the whole show.

I have seen the enemy, and it is us...

We can complain about the Corporate Powers That Be all we want, but didn't we all: Buy unnecessary consumer goods? Eat out when we could have made something simple at home? Watch TV and its attendant advertising? Demand $0.99 menu items?

"The Man" only provides what we ask for...

We could try to live more simply, but a lot of folks want to eat at Dennys and drive Suburban/Escalade class SUVs. It is just human nature broken down into simple parts, and we'll never get away from it. Until resources run low or out.

And, realistically, this is why nuclear power took off, and will be with us for some time. It sounded good at first. Remember: Clean, Safe, Too Cheap to Meter!

Also keep in mind that HALF

Also keep in mind that HALF of the power produced by those reactors in Fukushima was lost in transit on its way through the power lines to Tokyo. A solar panel mounted directed on a roof supplies its energy directly where it is needed with minimal slippage.

"Remember: Clean, Safe, Too

"Remember: Clean, Safe, Too Cheap to Meter!"

Total BS lies. Not clean, Not safe, not too cheap to meter!

Only irony

Just trying to toss in a little levity there.

That line is just a condensed version of the obviously-faulty optimism that surrounded nuclear development back in the begining. The "Too Cheap to Meter" reference comes from a quote from Lewis Strauss, a financier appointed to be the chairman of the AEC in the 50's:

"Our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter... It is not too much to expect that our children will know of great periodic regional famines in the world only as matters of history, will travel effortlessly over the seas and under them and through the air with a minimum of danger and at great speeds, and will experience a lifespan far longer than ours, as disease yields and man comes to understand what causes him to age." Sept 16, 1954

Perhaps we should have appointed a scientist to that job.

But the problem is not

But the problem is not people making babies. The problem is hoarding of resources and glaring abuse of our planet and resources by the corporate powers that run the whole show.

/\ THIS! /\

But the problem is not...(for your post)

Agreed ! You have called it out correctly. My humble opinion is that we have enough food and resources but people are greedy, hoarding, and abusive towards the planet and it's resources, especially the wealthy and the corporations. Water being privatized, ugh ! What next we have to pay to breath air, and walk down the sidewalk ? Some of the posters here sound like they support the "useless eaters" theme of the crowding of the planet. When they themselves might be the useless eaters, and full of incredible greed that they just want more and more and more to themselves.

One person claimed we are all guilty of supporting where we are now. This may be true to some extent but even if do my best to recycle and save energy all of my life it is a mere nano event compared to all the damage by large corporations. But I still try. I ride my bike to and from work, when it rains I catch a ride with a friend. I shop mostly at local farmer's markets for food, I don't watch television but do rent a movie now and then. Or hop over to a local cafe for some folk music it's an okay way to spend an evening. Use a hand held broom to sweep the floors, never been inside a Walmart, don't like the taste of fast food, and well I try my best. I try not to be a supporter of large industry, by spending money where I think it is well spent. So who has the bigger footprint here ? Most likely the large corporations.

Incorrect according to this

Incorrect according to this well-reasoned presentation by the good prof:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

Laugh while you can, Monkey

Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy.....

The ride down the slope of Civilization will be "interesting" to say the least.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d682xV0n1YY

Do some simply arithmetic.

Do some simply arithmetic. For starters, watch this video in all its 8 parts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

Simple arithmetic

Sub-replacement fertility is a total fertility rate (TFR) that is not high enough to replace an area's population. In developed countries sub-replacement fertility is approximately 2.1 children per woman's lifetime, but the threshold can be as high as 3.4 in some developing countries because of higher mortality rates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility

The total fertility rate in the United States estimated for 2009 is 2.01 children per woman, which is below the sub-replacement fertility threshold of 2.1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

We in the US are not "breeding ourselves into extinction". The rise in population is due to immigration and longer life due to improved healthcare.

P.S. you obviously did not

P.S. you obviously did not watch that poster's excellent video.

OK now I did watch the first

OK now I did watch the first one. Guess what? I am not converted.

I'm gonna skip the next 7 and go use my human ingenuity to go make a baby.

Peace doomers.

Just kidding about the make

Just kidding about the make a baby part, no way I want my babies starting out in Cs soup with all the hot particles you can eat.

Correct, but what difference

Correct, but what difference does it make if the third world is breeding like rabbits and subsequently immigrating?

What are we to do? I don't

What are we to do? I don't know if we have the right to tell other countries how many babies to have. We sure wouldn't like that if they did it to us.

Should we bomb the crap out of them with DU?
OH wait...

Uhm, close our doors and

Uhm, close our doors and stop selling them our resources.

"The overpopulated regions

"The overpopulated regions of the globe will ravage their local environments, cutting down rainforests and the few remaining wilderness areas, in a desperate bid to grow food."

http://tinyurl.com/2wo6oad

187 million

187 million people.

http://mazamascience.com/Population/IDB/

Look at the slope of the line.

At least their fertility rate came doen over the last two years:

http://www.indexmundi.com/pakistan/total_fertility_rate.html

India: Same boat...much bigger and leakier.

http://www.indexmundi.com/india/total_fertility_rate.html

http://www.indexmundi.com/india/population.html