Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

For the love of God, stop having babies, says U.N.

Expand Messages
  • Augie
    For the love of God, stop having babies, says U.N. by Christopher Mims 4 Feb 2011
    Message 1 of 3 , Feb 9, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      For the love of God, stop having babies, says U.N.
      by Christopher Mims
      4 Feb 2011

      http://www.grist.org/article/2011-02-04-for-the-love-of-god-stop-having-babies-says-u.n

      [Click to read 28 comments:
      http://www.grist.org/article/2011-02-04-for-the-love-of-god-stop-having-babies-says-u.n#comments ]

      Thirty billion people on planet Earth by 2300. That's the head-exploding projection of the United Nations population division if we don't get it together, people, says the BBC.

      As if that weren't terrifying enough, the U.N. population division notes that, owing to the magic of compound interest, the difference between peaking at a "sustainable" population of 9.4 billion in 2070 and getting stuck on the treadmill to endless growth is slight—a matter of two tenths of a baby per woman. Unless you know a way to have 20 percent less baby, we're all going to have to start putting the brakes on.

      One solution: Act more like a Judd Apatow character. Prolonging our adultescence may help reduce fertility to below replacement level (i.e. one birth for each death), as more adult children discover that, by the time they're ready to move out, they've gone through menopause.

      But the real key to stabilizing world population is resolving the triple threat to the developing world of insufficient access to contraception, gender inequality, and high infant mortality, as I wrote in Scientific American last year:

      Solving these problems requires improvements in a host of circumstances, such as the availability of vaccinations, improved women's health, better access to education for women, and the pursuit of overall economic development.

      And, as we all know by now, there's only one way to eliminate poverty without wrecking the climate or running out of fossil fuels: a massive shift to renewable energy.

      Augie
      Live Simply So That
      Others May Simply Live
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Yoga-With-Nancy/
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SignSoFla/
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SoFlaVegans/
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SoFlaSchools/
    • Alan T
      I think these kinds of alarmist projections miss the fact that as developing nations become, well, developed, they follow the same track as countries which are
      Message 2 of 3 , Feb 11, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        I think these kinds of alarmist projections miss the fact that as developing nations become, well, developed, they follow the same track as countries which are already in a stage of advanced development: fertility rates plummet to replacement levels or below.

        Besides, the entire population of Earth today could fit, standing comfortably shoulder to shoulder, within the city limits of Los Angeles. What we really need to oppose is suburban sprawl and build more high rise apartment buildings and fewer subdivisions.

        --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, "Augie" <augie1015@...> wrote:
        >
        > For the love of God, stop having babies, says U.N.
        > by Christopher Mims
        > 4 Feb 2011
        >
        > http://www.grist.org/article/2011-02-04-for-the-love-of-god-stop-having-babies-says-u.n
        >
        > [Click to read 28 comments:
        > http://www.grist.org/article/2011-02-04-for-the-love-of-god-stop-having-babies-says-u.n#comments ]
        >
        > Thirty billion people on planet Earth by 2300. That's the head-exploding projection of the United Nations population division if we don't get it together, people, says the BBC.
        >
        > As if that weren't terrifying enough, the U.N. population division notes that, owing to the magic of compound interest, the difference between peaking at a "sustainable" population of 9.4 billion in 2070 and getting stuck on the treadmill to endless growth is slight—a matter of two tenths of a baby per woman. Unless you know a way to have 20 percent less baby, we're all going to have to start putting the brakes on.
        >
        > One solution: Act more like a Judd Apatow character. Prolonging our adultescence may help reduce fertility to below replacement level (i.e. one birth for each death), as more adult children discover that, by the time they're ready to move out, they've gone through menopause.
        >
        > But the real key to stabilizing world population is resolving the triple threat to the developing world of insufficient access to contraception, gender inequality, and high infant mortality, as I wrote in Scientific American last year:
        >
        > Solving these problems requires improvements in a host of circumstances, such as the availability of vaccinations, improved women's health, better access to education for women, and the pursuit of overall economic development.
        >
        > And, as we all know by now, there's only one way to eliminate poverty without wrecking the climate or running out of fossil fuels: a massive shift to renewable energy.
        >
        > Augie
        > Live Simply So That
        > Others May Simply Live
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Yoga-With-Nancy/
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SignSoFla/
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SoFlaVegans/
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SoFlaSchools/
        >
      • Elizabeth
        The problem with the argument that as nations develop, that is the average standard of living increases, the average level of education increases, the status
        Message 3 of 3 , Feb 12, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          The problem with the argument that as nations develop, that is the average standard of living increases, the average level of education increases, the status of women increases, income levels increase is that while that has been true in the past, it's less likely to be true in the future.

          For one thing, as income and economic development increase, so does the reliance on energy and the use of environmental resources increases dramatically. People in developed countries use a lot more of the world's resources - energy, food, water, etc than people in undeveloped countries. We have long-since crossed the point that the planet is capable of giving enough resources for everyone to become developed. We may have a lower birthrate in most developed countries than that in undeveloped countries, but the amount of resources used by one person in the developed countries is astounding - we would need a couple more planet earths to provide enough resources to allow all 7 billion people currently alive to become "developed".

          By continuing on the track we are on, it will only be a few more decades, or at most a century or so, before the amount of resources becomes so sparse, both from the increasing population in the developed countries, the development of undeveloped countries that living as a person in a developed country will no longer be possible. We are using up the resources faster than they can be replenished. There are more people using those resources. As such, rather than making the entire world developed, with the current juggernaut of the population, the entire world is likely to reverse, and start undeveloping - such that we are all living in an extremely overpopulated undeveloped world in abject poverty. There will no longer be the possibility for future industrialization/development because we will be spending so much of our resources getting our daily needs that there will not be time or energy available to produce these "developed" or "civilized" things.

          Of course, this ignores the cultural blocks to some people becoming developed, because there is value seen for the traditional ways of life, prohibitions from culture or religion on certain things.

          Nice idea, but we're past the point where it could be done successfully - if, in fact, it ever could.

          Beth

          --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, "Alan T" <alankingsleythomas@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          >
          > I think these kinds of alarmist projections miss the fact that as developing nations become, well, developed, they follow the same track as countries which are already in a stage of advanced development: fertility rates plummet to replacement levels or below.
          >
          > Besides, the entire population of Earth today could fit, standing comfortably shoulder to shoulder, within the city limits of Los Angeles. What we really need to oppose is suburban sprawl and build more high rise apartment buildings and fewer subdivisions.
          >
          > --- In Why_VHEMT@yahoogroups.com, "Augie" <augie1015@> wrote:
          > >
          > > For the love of God, stop having babies, says U.N.
          > > by Christopher Mims
          > > 4 Feb 2011
          > >
          > > http://www.grist.org/article/2011-02-04-for-the-love-of-god-stop-having-babies-says-u.n
          > >
          > > [Click to read 28 comments:
          > > http://www.grist.org/article/2011-02-04-for-the-love-of-god-stop-having-babies-says-u.n#comments ]
          > >
          > > Thirty billion people on planet Earth by 2300. That's the head-exploding projection of the United Nations population division if we don't get it together, people, says the BBC.
          > >
          > > As if that weren't terrifying enough, the U.N. population division notes that, owing to the magic of compound interest, the difference between peaking at a "sustainable" population of 9.4 billion in 2070 and getting stuck on the treadmill to endless growth is slight—a matter of two tenths of a baby per woman. Unless you know a way to have 20 percent less baby, we're all going to have to start putting the brakes on.
          > >
          > > One solution: Act more like a Judd Apatow character. Prolonging our adultescence may help reduce fertility to below replacement level (i.e. one birth for each death), as more adult children discover that, by the time they're ready to move out, they've gone through menopause.
          > >
          > > But the real key to stabilizing world population is resolving the triple threat to the developing world of insufficient access to contraception, gender inequality, and high infant mortality, as I wrote in Scientific American last year:
          > >
          > > Solving these problems requires improvements in a host of circumstances, such as the availability of vaccinations, improved women's health, better access to education for women, and the pursuit of overall economic development.
          > >
          > > And, as we all know by now, there's only one way to eliminate poverty without wrecking the climate or running out of fossil fuels: a massive shift to renewable energy.
          > >
          > > Augie
          > > Live Simply So That
          > > Others May Simply Live
          > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Yoga-With-Nancy/
          > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SignSoFla/
          > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SoFlaVegans/
          > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SoFlaSchools/
          > >
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.