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

Fwd: Global Population Speak Out

Expand Messages
  • Eco eau
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 1, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      ------------Forwarded message------------
      From: jackalpert@...
      Date: Jul 18, 2012 03:13:18 PM
      Subject: friends
      To: alpert@...

      Dear Friends,

      Global Population Speak Out is requesting contributions. I sent them the note below. 

      Jack

      ---------

      Dear Global population Speak Out team: William Ryerson, Joe Bish, John Feeney and Robert Walker. 

      With copies to: William Rees, William Catton, Mathis Wackernagel, Richard Heinberg, Chris Clugston, Dennis Meadows, Charlie Hall, and Martin Rees.

      Gentleman, each of us has a view of the "too many people problem?" 

      The Global Population Speak Out view focuses on stopping growth. That is: this century, if all women had full access to: education, birth control, and rights over their bodies, they would make child bearing decisions that would preventa 100 million deaths from starvation and conflict; a 100 marginal countries from collapsing, and 1000's of species from going extinct. 

      However, the work of the copied recipients suggest that the "too many people problem" is much larger. This century's events could include, 3 to 4 billion people dying in starvation and conflict, global civilization collapse, and irreparable damage to environment. Their work suggests "our children" not those "poor children over there" could suffer the ultimate injury, and global collapse, after resource wars, could trap the survivors in a technologically impoverished world. 

      For them the "too many people problem" is defined by overshoot -- existing overshoot and rapidly increasing overshoot caused by declining deliveries of supporting resources. Only enormous population decline has the power to eliminate overshoot. Only rapid population decline could avoid the worst of the expected tragedy.

      In this year's Global Population Speak Out, our efforts might strive to present the larger injuries caused by overshoot and propose "rapid population decline" as overshoot's resolution. The potential injuries demand our honesty, integrity, and courage. 

      Jack Alpert

      -----------------------------
      Here is the introduction to my GPSO effort for 2013

      Change the focus of the overpopulation solution -- 
      from number of children per woman 
      to earth's sustainable number.

      In the past, the question we have tried to answer has been, 
      "How many children should a woman choose to ensure peace and sustainability?"
      ___ more than two kids
      ___ two kids
      ___ one kid
      ___ no kids
      ___ all of the above 

      My answer, to this question, has changed during my forty years of working on the "too many people problem," I have changed my beliefs, as my view of overshoot evolved. 

      1) With Meadows et all, I was sure there where limits to growth and we had to avoid overshooting them or suffer. Just attaining 2 children per woman was a goal.

      2) However, after understanding 
      a) existing stratification of use of resources, and 
      b) Catton's overshoot,
      I realized that we were already in social and physical overshoot and we needed a smaller population. For a while I suggested universal one child per family behaviors because I thought they would reduce our population, stratification of resource use, and eventually reduce overshoot.

      3) Now, I estimate the sustainable peaceful global population to be less than 1/100 of the present 7 billion. This low number is not based on food calories per person per day and land conserving farming, but instead on: 
      a) this century's expected decreases in the earth's supporting resources , and 
      B) the rapidly expanding power of the upper half of the population to disenfranchise the lower half from its daily bread

      The sooner we face these actual liabilities. The sooner we attain a global population of less than 70 million, 
      the smaller the percentage of existing population will die form starvation and conflict and 
      the higher the wellbeing of the resulting sustainable population. 

      The Video's and papers (found through pointers in the box below) 
      a) defends this very small global population number
      b) presents a proposal for attaining it. (half a million births annually for 80 years.) And
      c) concludes that after this small sustainable global population is achieved, 
      "___ all of the above" will be the correct answer for a woman's choice for the number of children. 


      I am preparing a new series of video's to be added to this block (found at www.skil.org).

      "How much degrowth is enough?
      Calculating the sustainable peaceful global population."


      Sincerely, 

      Jack

      Jack Alpert PhD
      Director:  Stanford Knowledge Integration Laboratory
      (C) 913 708 2554 http://www.skil.org 13617 W. 48th Street
      (O) 913 248 0016 skype: SKILdog Shawnee, KS 66216


      The problem: ………...Your child's future…....The Solution
      Whom are you 
      pushing off the 
      plate?

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.