According to this article republished at ConsortiumNews (with disclaimer) "We Should Be Wary about blaming overpopulation for the climate crisis."
Many commenters disagree that overpopulation is not a key issue among others (including capitalism and overconsumption).
The global population has already tripled in my lifetime, with comparable increase in every US town and city.
Meanwhile, we should not merely be concerned about CO2 production, we should be aware of the vast land, water, and other resource footprints of human societies. Even large primitive human societies can have large land and water footprints. We are causing the holocene extinction of other species. This is beyond irresponsible and unethical.
And everywhere that doesn't already have the affluent western lifestyle is trying to get it as quickly as possible, with rare exception. Elites already have it everywhere.
It is that elite lifestyle, which capitalism both enables and requires, which is the most destructive, indeed. But the meaning is not that humans should strive (or would strive) to have 11 billion (or more...the "science" on future population is little more than extrapolation) living like the earth's poorest today...they don't want to live like they do today.
The bottom line is simply common sense, as one commenter points out. We must manage population reduction and resource use reduction everywhere, until at least the holocene is stopped.
Where the population will need to go will indeed depend on what lower levels of per-capita resource abuse we are able to sustain, and what additional-holocene-catastrophe is considered acceptible.
What we must do is all of the above and as much as possible.
Little progress is likely under the capitalist, imperialist, and generally growth-ist policies everywhere.
Capitalism clearly promotes unsustainable growth, but so do many religions, through policies that limit female choices. People may believe or worship as they will, but regardless of belief, religious groups must find some way to manage population reduction within their belief system, and in practice not just theory.
Little progress is likely without a major social revolution. But we must meanwhile seek every kind of reform possible that does not increase climate injustice or inequality.
Indeed, focussing on population growth in poor countries only is unfair, but most population concerned people I know, and including myself, seek universal standards and approaches to population management that rich countries will have to abide by even more.
However, I also believe, in principle, it is not mine to say who should not enjoy a US lifestyle when I still do. The most affluent should be the first to give it up, not the last. Therefore I do not consider population growth considerations relevant to immigration and especially admission of refugees. IMO, we should find room somehow for all legitimate refugees and generally admit as many immigrants who want admission, possibly with restriction on location of resettlement, away from the most overpopulated or threatened areas.
De-growth societies will need to be socialist to be tolerable. But that was true anyway.
Many commenters disagree that overpopulation is not a key issue among others (including capitalism and overconsumption).
The global population has already tripled in my lifetime, with comparable increase in every US town and city.
Meanwhile, we should not merely be concerned about CO2 production, we should be aware of the vast land, water, and other resource footprints of human societies. Even large primitive human societies can have large land and water footprints. We are causing the holocene extinction of other species. This is beyond irresponsible and unethical.
And everywhere that doesn't already have the affluent western lifestyle is trying to get it as quickly as possible, with rare exception. Elites already have it everywhere.
It is that elite lifestyle, which capitalism both enables and requires, which is the most destructive, indeed. But the meaning is not that humans should strive (or would strive) to have 11 billion (or more...the "science" on future population is little more than extrapolation) living like the earth's poorest today...they don't want to live like they do today.
The bottom line is simply common sense, as one commenter points out. We must manage population reduction and resource use reduction everywhere, until at least the holocene is stopped.
Where the population will need to go will indeed depend on what lower levels of per-capita resource abuse we are able to sustain, and what additional-holocene-catastrophe is considered acceptible.
What we must do is all of the above and as much as possible.
Little progress is likely under the capitalist, imperialist, and generally growth-ist policies everywhere.
Capitalism clearly promotes unsustainable growth, but so do many religions, through policies that limit female choices. People may believe or worship as they will, but regardless of belief, religious groups must find some way to manage population reduction within their belief system, and in practice not just theory.
Little progress is likely without a major social revolution. But we must meanwhile seek every kind of reform possible that does not increase climate injustice or inequality.
Indeed, focussing on population growth in poor countries only is unfair, but most population concerned people I know, and including myself, seek universal standards and approaches to population management that rich countries will have to abide by even more.
However, I also believe, in principle, it is not mine to say who should not enjoy a US lifestyle when I still do. The most affluent should be the first to give it up, not the last. Therefore I do not consider population growth considerations relevant to immigration and especially admission of refugees. IMO, we should find room somehow for all legitimate refugees and generally admit as many immigrants who want admission, possibly with restriction on location of resettlement, away from the most overpopulated or threatened areas.
De-growth societies will need to be socialist to be tolerable. But that was true anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment