Population & Compassion

At a conference today I was talking to a speaker. He said the economy is slowly going to get better simply because the population is continuing to grow. He said the foreclosed property is beginning to get sucked up and new construction is emerging again. According to the speaker, we'll see a long span of growth followed by another sharp recession. My only response was, "I hope I retire before that happens."

Really, right now I am just hoping to stay employed until I can grab on the government safety net. At least I'll be able to buy food, and I'll have Medicare! I know the Big Hand that's providing these things is slowly going bankrupt, but maybe I can eat from Uncle Sam's trough just long enough to meet the Grim Reaper.

I do know the current world economic system is totally unsustainable, and sooner or later the entire thing will come crashing down. My hope is that humanity will enjoy a soft landing, but more likely we'll see a lot of starvation and extreme violence. All the while, we'll still get to switch on our TVs and see pastors with bad haircuts, who will be waving Bibles and muttering something about Armageddon.

Population

Back in 1997 I had this crazy idea that I would try to save the world. I did some research and felt that slowing the human population explosion was the best way to help the Earth. So, for years I became a tireless population activist. Last year, for instance, I tabled at a population event and gave three slide shows. On average, I do one population event per quarter.

But you know what? I don't worry about it any more. I know that humans are a fragile species and it won't take much to hinder our reproduction. Fresh water and oil are already a scarcity, and we need both to support the 7 billion of us. Plus, more people means more demand for essential items, which creates higher prices and scarcity. As prices go up, the general cost of living goes up, and kids must stay at home longer. Plus, in a super-expensive world, young couples wait longer to have children, or they don't reproduce at all.

Add to this the past-due acceptance of women as equals. As women are treated with more respect and given more equality around the world, they have more options than motherhood. Many will choose careers, while others will still prefer to be stay-at-home moms, but ultimately, there are less babies.

Compassion

Population sustainability is an emotional and controversial issue. I've come to think of it as a beautiful humanitarian effort. As an activist, all I advocate for is universal access to contraception. This simply means that poor women who WANT to have no children, have FEWER children, or who want to SPACE their children farther apart, can have the power to do so. Contraception gives a woman freedom and the ability to choose her destiny. But this freedom threatens the old world order. Many men prefer that women stay subservient, and they use religion or tradition to keep women "barefoot and pregnant," as they say. Religious groups scream that contraception kills babies, but remain silent on all the trillions of potential babies killed every day by, yep, the masturbators. What the religionists are really doing is practicing "womb control" on women.

For years, I've fought the religionist in the United States and their elected officials in Washington. I've gone to our nation's capital several times to lobby. Republication politicians seem to feel that their constituents are so dumb that they'll confuse "contraception" with "abortion," and, thus, they fight against domestic and international family planning. After years of banging my head against the right wing wall, I got tired and gave up. YOU WIN, GUYS!

Cynicism

So, by around 2003, after 6 years of activism work, I was slowly getting jaded and sinking into cynicism. I wanted to say, "Okay, I told you so, see for yourself what happens." However, in my heart I know that cynicism is just an excuse to give up. It's easy to be a jaded cynic, but what I really need to do is keep ramming my head into the conservative wall until little cracks develop. If anything, I owe it to the millions of women in the world who cannot afford or cannot easily access contraception. I also owe it to the world, which is rapidly being polluted and stripped of resources and tree cover.

One of the biggest myths, hell, I mean LIES, is that contraception is bad. To the contrary, it saves the lives of women who are at near exhaustion from having children in rapid succession. The pills or shots are simply giving the woman a rest and a break. Despite the misinformation coming from Rome or Redstate.com, contraception is not "population control" and it is not "abortion." Rather, it is an act of humanity. It is using technology to give women freedom, power, and more control over their destiny. I think this is only fair, moral, and just.

Photo credit: NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center / Foter.com / CC BY-NC

Immigration

Fact: Immigrants come to the U.S. for a better life. They accept jobs that no yuppie American teen would ever touch. They are paid crap and must often work several jobs just to survive. Fact: Immigrants keep prices down on consumer goods. Fact: There are far too many people in the world and consumerism is out of control. This is a global problem, and we must all work together to solve it.

The Rocky Mountain Chapter of the Sierra Club has a great population discussion list, which I've been a part of for about 11 years. Here is my response to a recent discussion on immigration:

Esteemed Colleagues,

Humans have always been migratory animals. We are on the move not only for better game, but because we are inherently greedy.

In a normal situation, inflows to the U.S. should equal outflows.

But something is wrong on our planet, and there is a mad rush to enter the United States. A long-time member of our population group once told me, "I was in the Navy and traveled the world. Wherever I went people always said they wanted to come here."

The quick solution is to create a Fortress America -- keep the poor, desperate people out so that we can enjoy our comfortable lives. But artificial barriers are always temporary and soon fail (i.e. Berlin Wall).

Fred shared a wonderful population video yesterday where the speaker, Hans Rosling, says that if we eliminate poverty, population growth will naturally decrease. Of course, in the meantime, the inhabitants are caught in a hopeless loop -- their exploding population makes it impossible to crawl out of poverty.

Karen replied that it is not necessary to eliminate poverty to lower birthrates, and gives Bangladesh as an example. She says we should focus on lowering birthrates, which will result in less poverty.

When I traveled to Ecuador, I saw that just handing out contraceptives was ineffective because of trust issues (some city slicker comes to my village and invades a very personal part of my life, no sir). Rather, in Ecuador, we saw that the best solution was to provide BOTH -- the program we studied taught villagers how to improve their lives with better agriculture and small industries -- and family planning and environmental protection were hemmed into the overall message. This comprehensive approach built TRUST and strong relationships with the aid workers, so that when it came time to discuss family planning the residents didn't become defensive. This was BEAUTIFUL!!!

So, how can we get this program to the rest of Latin America, Africa, India, and in other high growth spots? I have a simple solution -- the world spends trillions of dollars on armaments. Let's all agree to downsize our military forces and use the surplus for comprehensive poverty eradication.

And why we are eradicating, let's get religion off the planet. While religion gave us an evolutionary advantage in the early days, it has now outlived its usefulness, and now lingers on as a destructive and parasitic organism that has become the bane of humanity. Enough people have died in the name of some god. But worse yet, religion is obsessed with sexual behavior, and the religious, pro-natal mores pushed on societies create yet another downward loop -- the high birthrates cause local social and environmental deterioration, which makes people more religious as they cry out to their god for help.

I can tell you that the four greatest environmentalists in the world are the Four Horsemen of Atheism - Richard Dawkins, Daniel C. Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. These men have brought the absurdity of religion into the mainstream and they have created a great dialogue -- this is a great step in saving our planet.

In the meantime, back to the millions of people slipping through our porous borders.

First, the federal government is totally inept, as witnessed by Katrina, the mortgage disaster, and the BP oil spill, etc. Our impotent government can't even stop illegal immigration, and you want them to do something about LEGAL immigration? That has me laughing.

Second, there is a huge economic demand for basic labor. Here in Georgia, immigrants are used in the poultry, agriculture, and carpet industries, and we all benefit from this cheap labor. Where I live, the high school graduates get jobs working in malls. Our country has grown soft and I can't imagine any teenager around here working in a meat processing plant or picking onions in a field -- they wouldn't last a day. So, if we are going to kick out the immigrants we need a solution for our bottom-rung labor needs. One solution is to require college students to work summers at a farm or plant, something like the Israeli model.

Third, the foreign-born lobby has already become too powerful. Taking a strong stand on limiting immigration is instant death for any politician.

My own personal opinion is that it's ALWAYS a step backwards to build walls. Walls are all about division, which encourage inequities and hatred. Every person on this planet is my brother and sister, and it is morally wrong to create artificial islands of prosperity in a sea of squalor. I do not acknowledge the term "illegal immigrants" because I do not believe in borders. North America should follow the European Union model -- it will be a hard and rocky hill to climb, but it is essential for long-term sustainability and peace.

Don't be naive and think that your government is going to close the borders -- it will never happen. Instead, let's all think of some creative, out-of-the-box solutions to the very real problem of massive population growth.

Respectfully,

Goose

Saving My Planetary Home

In 1997 I decided to get back into environmental activism. With my limited volunteer time, I thought, "What is the one issue that will have the maximum impact on saving the Planet."

The answer was a no-brainer: I would work on the issue that is behind MOST of our social, political, economic, and environmental problems -- human population growth. Little did I know I was taking on the most complex and controversial issue, where logic is thrown out the window and replaced by bizarre ideas and attitudes.

After 13 years, I have concluded the following: Addressing the population explosion is easy and has a simple solution, but there is so much baggage surrounding it that any positive effort will probably fail. But maybe not because the solutions are based on "what is right" and in the end, what is morally just will prevail.

Having studied population for years and having given it much deep thought, here is what I consider the foundations for a solution:

First Tenet

All women must be treated 100% equal to men, with no exceptions. If you are a women, don't let some religion trick you into accepting anything less. If you are a man, get over your insecurity. Since the 1970s mass progress has been made toward equality in the Western world -- I applaud that. But in the less developed world, which is where the massive population growth is occurring, women are rarely treated as equals. Customs, laws, and religions that treat a woman less than equal must ALWAYS be challenged.

Second Tenet

The cult of materialism must die. Whenever population is addressed, consumption must be addressed as well – both impact the Earth. I guess for several million years we humans had nothing, so now that we have access to "things" we are hording. The problem is that we keep wanting MORE "things," and nicer things, and bigger things, and it becomes an addiction. And people tell me that if we don't keep buying more crap it will hurt the economy. Well, perhaps we should all learn to live with less!

Conclusion

And that's it ... problem solved. If women are treated equally that means they will have the CHOICE to pursue a career or a CHOICE to NOT have children. Just the equality mechanism alone would greatly lower population. And if we could get our satisfaction from other means, instead of materialism, then the impact on Earth would be greatly lightened. You don't NEED a McMansion, fancy new car, a boat, and rooms full of new crap. It's all meaningless.

****

Oh, and in case you don't know - world population is nearly 7 billion. When I was born in 1960 population was 3.02 billion. Needless to say, a species that can double its numbers so quickly will have a devastating impact on its habitat. Right now we are seeing exploding human population destroy our planet -- not in any one obvious way, but rather in many little ways. This is what a friend of mine calls, "A death by a thousand cuts."

The Finest Mammal, Next To Rats

I would say that males, at least, think about sex far more than they would ever admit. And when not thinking about lovemaking, they are thinking about beer and their favorite sport of hobby. And thus, millions of men, and women, drag through the work days, come home tired, and live their little lives. While they may feel a passing concern for others who are less fortunate — such as flood victims — most are too tired and/or drained to care much. So, for the most part it's just beer, sex, and football, and there's not enough time or energy left for saving the planet.

Welcome to the modern world, where people do a lot of drugs, drink a lot, or substitute religion for the former. We humans have spent a lot of effort making our lives comfortable, so how come we are not very happy? And with the comfort only comes the laziness and obesity. No offense to anyone, but when I look around I see SO MANY overweight people. I'm sitting in the parking lot, and I'm just watching these fat people lumber into the store like wharf rats.

Sure, some people are religious, but having gone to church all my life, I can confidently say that most people go to church for the social experience, or out of habit, or to make themselves feel good. Like with any group, there are a few fanatics — these are the ding dongs who pass out Bible tracks in parking lots and stick them on gas pumps.

So, what I'm saying is that in general, humans are a sorry lot, and if most don't even take care of themselves, how can they be expected to care for the Earth? A good portion of them smoke, which is barbaric, and they blow their shit in the air, and flick their butts on the ground. I call this the 1-2-3 — smokers harm themselves, pollute the air, and litter the ground, all in a few moments. There is no such thing as a smoker who is not an idiot (sorry to hurt your feelings).

This is the landscape, man. This is the human animal that we have to work with. Ain't much is it? And I'm not saying I'm any better than any other fart out there. But at least I'm aware (sentient), and at least I've spent the last 12 years trying to make a positive difference. What I've accomplished, I don't know, but maybe I've created a few sparks that will one day grow into a fire.

From a friend:

Governments and the media absolutely avoid the topics of overpopulation and species extinction. Do they not see the signs of ecological devastation? Colony Collapse Disorder is wiping out honey bee hives and at the current rate of loss honey bees will be extinct in the US by 2030. Sadly, natural pollinator populations have been beaten down due to pollution and habitat loss so now farmers rely on the transport of honey bees to their fields in order to pollinate the crops. Unless we wish to subsist on a gruel of corn and wheat people better start caring soon. Now a similar syndrome is destroying bat colonies. This has been termed White Nose Syndrome and hibernating bats by the tens of thousands have died. This plague began in the NorthEast and is spreading South and West. Why care? Bats are Mother nature's most important insectivore in that a bat will consume its body weight in insects during the course of a single night.

— Frank

Foundation for Global Community

I recently presented my population PowerPoint program to
the Foundation for Global Community/Atlanta.
Shown with me is one of the group's leaders, Janet Wells.

I have a small office in my backyard and spend most of my life there, so it's always a treat when I can actually get out and meet people. I call this "going into the atmosphere."

On Tuesday, Sept. 8, I had the honor of giving my population presentation to the Atlanta group of Foundations for Global Community (FGC). This is my fourth population presentation/event this year, and I always love getting out and talking about what I believe is the greatest issue facing humankind.

The group was kind and receptive, and this is one presentation where I gained more new knowledge and insight than the audience. The FGC is an incredible organization that is known for the behind-the-scenes work they did to help end the Cold War.

I thank one of the group's leaders, Janet Wells, for explaining to me what FGC Atlanta is all about, and just listening to her made me excited and hopeful for humanity. One of the things she shared with me is nicely summarized on their website:

It seems to us that the process of dialogue is part of the answer to HOW we are to create a cultural shift in values ... Dialogue involves listening, hearing each other, NOT refuting but HEARING. Everyone has a piece of the truth. If we remain open we might hear it.

When I think about all the rabid arguing and ugly partisanship that I'm currently seeing in the news, especially over the health care issue, it is now more obvious than ever to me that step one for achieving global sustainability is, well, talking. I know this is easier said than done because sometimes the other party is using violence, or else they are so uninformed that it's difficult to have a dialogue. But at least working toward a mutual understanding appears to be the first step in shifting our culture in a positive direction.

The mission statement on their website is so powerful and so beautifully worded, that I'm printing it below in its entirety:

The Foundation for Global Community/Atlanta grew out of the California group, formerly known as Beyond War. The name change, to FGC, reflected a shift in emphasis, from building consensus that WAR IS OBSOLETE (because of nuclear warheads) and that WE ARE ONE, to educating on the more general threat to our species and life system represented by environmental degradation and overpopulation. This crisis results from our behavior, which grows out of our values and beliefs. To change behavior we must create a shift in cultural values.

The power of culture over our lives is pervasive. It influences practically everything we do — from the trivialities of what we eat and how we dress, to the profundities of how we try to achieve meaning and purpose in our lives.

In our culture, the prevailing attitudes, values, and beliefs that guide our collective behavior — from unbridled materialism to rampant individualism — are devastating the life systems and human communities of the planet. The American Dream has become a global nightmare.

But with this crisis comes profound opportunity.

A whole new population — more idealistic and globally oriented — has emerged in the United States in the last decade. These people share a number of attitudes and beliefs: An interest in self actualization and spirituality; a desire to live a simpler lifestyle; a need for society to rebuild communities; a sense of nature and the feminine as sacred; and a concern for the global environment. Attitudes and beliefs like these form the basis of what is called integral culture. A leading study suggests that there are about 44 million North Americans who think this way, presenting a real possibility of positive cultural change. Our mission is to make this possibility a reality.

All culture is ultimately rooted in our understanding of who we are, where we have come from, and where we are going. We believe the root of our cultural crises is that our current answers to these age-old questions are obsolete. What information — from science, the wisdom traditions, and contemporary thought — can help us discover more adequate answers?

Wow, this is an incredible statement, and it has really given me a lot to ponder. I thank this group for the work they are doing, and for planting some new seeds in my consciousness.

Sincerely,

The Goose

Human Growth Annihilates Species

I'm thrilled to learn that the Center for Biological Diversity is launching a new population campaign. Here is the opening paragraph from their announcement:

The human population is 6.8 billion and growing every second. The sheer force of our numbers is dominating the planet to such a degree that geologists are contemplating renaming our era the "Anthropocene": the epoch where the human species is the dominant factor affecting land, air, water, soil, and species. We now absorb 42 percent of the planet's entire terrestrial net primary productivity. We use 50 percent of all fresh water. We've transformed 50 percent of all land. We've changed the chemical composition of the whole biosphere and all the world's seas, bringing on global warming and ocean acidification.

And here is the intro to their new website:

The human population doubled from 1 to 2 billion between the years 1800 and 1930 — an unparalleled event in the planet’s history. No large mammal had ever grown to such numbers or commandeered so many resources. The impact on North America’s native species was devastating:

• Driven extinct by hunters, the last eastern woodland bison was seen in West Virginia in 1825.
• Undulata delissea, a Hawaiian plant, was driven extinct in 1865 by domestic cattle.
• The beautiful Falls-of-the-Ohio scurfpea, which existed on a single island, was drowned by U.S. Dam No. 41 in Kentucky in 1881.
• The Whiteline topminnow was last seen Alabama in 1899, its spring habitat repeatedly pumped dry by the growing human population.
• The Culebra parrot was hunted and collected to extinction in Puerto Rico by 1899.
• The Rocky Mountain grasshopper was purposefully driven extinct — a bounty was even placed on its head — by 1903.
• Merriam’s elk was hunted to extinction in Arizona in 1906.
• The Tennessee riffleshell disappeared in 1930 due to pollution and dams.

The human population doubled again by 1975, this time taking just 45 years. The rate of extinction also increased. Today’s population stands at 6.8 billion and, if it continues on course, will reach 8 billion in 2020 before leveling off at about 9 billion in 2050. If it doesn’t level off, the worldwide population could theoretically reach 15 billion by 2050, but that is unlikely due to the insurmountable economic, political, and ecological crises that would likely ensue.

I am clapping my hands and going "bravo, bravo." This could not have been better said.

The point is that it's NOT FAIR for humans to drive tens of thousands of other species into extinction. This is criminal. If a desperate young woman aborts her fetus, the conservative Christian types scream "MURDER," but they don't bat an eyelash when 30,000 species are slaughtered due to human activity. The Christian conservatives FREAK OUT when two guys hold hands in a park, but they don't think twice about the millions of animals obliterated in North America. Where is the justice? Here is the fairness?

Please visit their site: Center for Biological Diversity Overpopulation Campaign

The Goose

Taking the Population Message On the Road

I've been back on the road again this year giving population presentations. It's always a thrill and honor to get in front of an audience and talk about the most important issue facing humankind.

In late April I was involved in a Green-Pink Party. The main emphasis was to raise funds for fistula, but I also had the opportunity to talk about population, and the need for complete gender equality and women's rights and empowerment. [Shown with me are girls from two Emory University groups that put the event together. The guy at right is a Planned Parenthood field organizer.]

On July 9 we held a Green Sex Party in Atlanta. The purpose of this event was to provide an opportunity for networking and mutual cooperation with women's groups and environmental groups. We had a jar of green condoms, a special green cocktail, and lots of literature to give away. I had the honor of giving the Sierra Club's PowerPoint presentation on population growth. [Shown are fellow members of our Sierra Club team, which organized the event. A very special thanks to Sam for her outstanding organizing.]

On July 18 I spoke at the Atlanta Freethought Fellowship. I really appreciated the curious and inquisitive audience, who asked a lot of questions and provided some great input into the program. It was a great Sunday afternoon! [Shown are two leaders from the Atlanta Freethought group.]

Sex & War

Comments from the Goose: Before sharing this book review, I'd like to make a few humble comments. First of all, we ARE ANIMALS. I believe that recognizing this fact is a first step to digging us out of our current mess. Secondly, like our cousins the chimpanzees, we humans have a predisposition for violence. Now, one of the main points of my blog is that we must evolve past our violence to survive. The authors of this book look at our affinity for violence as an "evolutionary hangover." Violence may have been great in the caveman days, but it has now outlived its usefulness. What provides hope in this book is a study of the Bonobo, the smaller relatives of the Common Chimpanzee. These guys are PEACEFUL, for some really interesting reasons, which you will have to read about below. Anyway, the book also makes links to violence and rapid population growth. Unfortunately, not even world leaders are apparently able to make this connection. Here is a quote to think about: "...political instability and violence often follow hard on the heels of high birthrates."

Benbella Books. 2009. Pp 457. US$ 24.95. ISBN 1933771577

Book Review: Sex and War
How Biology Explains Warefare and Terrorism, and Offers a Path to a Safer World

By Maha Syed, Grassroots Fellow
Population Connection

In Sex and War, Malcolm Potts and Thomas Hayden attempt to explain war and terrorism through human and primate biology. For the most part, they deliver. Sex and War deconstructs evolutionary biology in a discursive manner aimed at the non-scientist. The human male predisposition to behave violently is compared with similar warlike behaviors of male chimpanzees. With recurrent references to Jane Goodall’s research and endless historical examples, Potts and Hayden seek to demonstrate that man’s affinity for war is an “evolutionary hangover,” which helped our ancestors survive in prehistoric times but is now a development
obstacle.

Their Hobbesian argument is that war is the natural state of humans. The authors insist that the question should not be “Why does war break out?,” but rather, “Why does peace break out?” Referring to the testosterone molecule as the “ultimate weapon of mass destruction,” they contend that the propensity of male humans for war is testosterone driven. Women, they say, are more likely to possess characteristics of empathy and compromise. Peace, therefore, is more easily attained when women are active members of society and are free to participate in political life. The chapter dedicated to this theory was co-written by Potts’ wife,
Martha Campbell.

Sex and War postulates that men have a unique ability to dehumanize other people by creating in-groups and outgroups. In-group mentality, they say, is especially dangerous within youth bulges, a phenomenon caused by rapid population growth. Young men, aged fifteen to twenty nine, are the demographic most susceptible to violent behavior. Irrational decision-making, sexual frustration, inadequate employment and lack of material resources are among the factors behind youth bulge violence. “With the exception of Bosnia in 1994-1995, every time the U.S. military has intervened on the ground since 1990, it has been where the average woman has four or more children—in other words, political instability and violence often follow hard on the heels of high birthrates.” A future with less conflict may hinge on slowing population growth in the most conflictprone parts of the world.

Potts and Hayden do not advocate controlling population from the outside. Stabilization can and should be achieved through women’s empowerment. When society overcomes “the evolved male drive to control female reproduction” for the purpose of spreading their genes, women and couples generally choose to have smaller families.

The authors dispel the myth that poor women must either be left to perpetuate the cycle of high fertility or be coerced to have smaller families in order to climb out of the poverty trap. Potts and Hayden cite numerous country examples where family size has declined due to simple contraceptive access.

Sex and War touches on the intriguing example provided by the Bonobo, the smaller genus-mate of the Common Chimpanzee. Unlike chimpanzees, bonobos do not partake in team aggression, although other sources have recently reported that they can and do hunt their prey. When a new female enters a bonobo troop, she establishes a sexual relationship with another female (male bonobos also partake in homosexual activities). Perhaps because of these sexual bonds, females stand up for each other against larger imposing males, giving them equal status. Research suggests that this recreational sexual activity may diffuse agitation in tense situations, an intuitively logical finding.

Gender equality and non-procreative sex may be keys to bonobos’ peaceful existence. The book does not detail the evolution of bonobos from our common ancestors. This could have been interesting given their pacific lifestyle. We humans, perched on a nearby branch of the family tree, engage in countless wars and conflicts. Perhaps one day, we humans will evolve to be as peace-loving as the Bonobo. There’s no escaping the fact that we’ve produced the abhorrent likes of Genghis Khan and Joseph Stalin. But we also count Mozart, Shakespeare, and Gandhi among our numbers. Perhaps there is hope for us yet.

Reprinted from Population Reporter.

What Needs To Be Done

I just received this document, and it is stunning. In fact, I was thinking of writing something like this myself. It is an open memo to President Obama from Paul and Anne Ehrlich, the famous authors of The Population Bomb. I have always been a huge fan of the Ehrlich's.

WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE

By Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich
Department of Biology, Stanford University

The monumental task before us is to solve the human predicament – the combined crises of overpopulation, wasteful consumption, deteriorating life-support systems, growing inequity, increasing hunger, toxification of the planet, declining resources, increasing resource wars (especially over oil and gas reserves and water), and a worsening epidemiological environment that increases the probability of unprecedented pandemics. The basic views of the scientific community on the predicament can be found at www.dominantanimal.org (click on “Further Information”). Here we just outline some of what needs to be done as a series of interrelated steps in which we hope you will exercise leadership:

One: put births on a par with deaths

The United States has been way behind in the population area. First, as the most overpopulated nation on Earth (because of its combination of a giant population and high per-capita consumption), it still lacks a population policy. Furthermore, its population is projected to increase from 304 million to 439 million people by 2050. And, despite earlier pledges, the US in recent years has failed to help curb population growth in poor countries. Worse yet, the Reagan administration’s "Mexico City policy" for killing women worldwide by suppressing access to legal abortion had only a hiatus during the Clinton years and was reestablished by Bush II. That policy should be dropped immediately, along with ideological restrictions imposed on government websites dealing with reproductive health.

Human beings have always fought against early death from accident, hunger, and sickness, and in the past century or so have employed improved sanitation and the use of pesticides and antibiotics to raise life expectancy. But given the frightening potential consequences of the explosion in human numbers that has followed reductions of the death rate, it is essential to pay equivalent attention to reducing high birthrates as well. Programs to educate and open job opportunities for women, and to make effective contraception universally available, must be an integral part of development policies in poor countries. Placing women in important cabinet posts in a new U.S. administration should have high priority and would send a strong signal in support of women’s empowerment (even in developed nations, prejudice against women is widespread).

Public support of prudent population policies needs to be encouraged everywhere. The United States must play a crucial role in supporting such policies, providing both moral and financial support. The goal must be to halt population increase as soon as humanely possible, and then reduce human numbers until births and deaths balance at a population size that can be maintained with desired lifestyles without irreparable damage to our natural life-support systems. And, of course, a global discussion over the next several decades will be required to reach a consensus on those lifestyles and thus on the appropriate maximum population size – which we already know must be smaller than the present 6.7 billion. Fortunately, the target can be tentative, since (if we're lucky) it may well be a half century or more before a worldwide decline can begin, so there will be decades to consider and evaluate the best level at which to stabilize our numbers. This leads us to point two.

Two: emphasize conserving more than consuming

At any given level of technology, there is a trade-off between the numbers of people in a society and the level of per capita physical affluence that can be sustainably supported. The more people there are, the smaller each one’s share of the pie must be. One way of dealing with this unavoidable trade-off would be a cultural shift away from creating ever more gadgets to creating more appreciation and better stewardship of Earth’s aesthetic assets. That step, if it were combined with a decline in population size, careful husbandry of manufactured and natural capital (our ecological assets), and a crash program to abandon the use of fossil fuels and transition to sustainable energy technologies, would eventually permit most people to live satisfactory lives. Of course, it would require abandoning the irrational idea that constant growth in consumption is automatically good and can continue forever. That malignant notion is still alive and well, as demonstrated by the 2008 rush to bail out the sleazy de-regulated financial industry in the United States, and even to further subsidize our nation's staggering, incompetent automobile industry, in order to perpetuate economic growth among the rich.

It is clear that most politicians and most citizens do not recognize that returning to “more of the same” is a recipe for promoting the first collapse of a global civilization. The required changes in energy technology, which would benefit not only the environment but also national security, public health, and the economy, would demand a World War II type mobilization -- and even that might not prevent a global climate disaster. Without transitioning away from use of fossil fuels, humanity will move further into an era of resource wars (remember, Africom has been added to the Pentagon’s structure -- and China has noticed), clearly with intent to protect US “interests” in petroleum reserves. The consequences of more resource wars, many likely triggered over water supplies stressed by climate disruption, are likely to include increased unrest in poor nations, a proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, widening inequity within and between nations, and in the worst (and not unlikely) case, a nuclear war ending civilization.

Three: judge technologies not just on what they do for people but also to people and their life-support systems

A novel synthetic chemical added to the plastic in a sports bottle may increase its durability, but if it leaches into a baby bottle’s contents or into the environment and functions in tiny doses as an endocrine-disrupting agent, is the risk worth the benefit? In general, benefit-cost analyses are not done frequently or carefully enough before the introduction of new technologies. Freons (chlorofluorocarbons) looked extremely beneficial as refrigerants until it was discovered they could destroy the ozone layer and with it all life on land. Risk cannot be avoided completely. But a cultural change toward more careful analyses and deployment only of technologies that carry very clear benefits will help humanity keep the odds in its favor. It should not always rate consumption as trumping safety – especially when the evidence indicates that the toxics problem, especially the hormone mimics with non-linear dose-response curves, might be even more disastrous and less reversible than climate disruption.

Four: transform the consumption of education

Education is what economists call a “non-rival good” – something that can be consumed without reducing the amount available to others – and as such it is an ideal consumption good for a sustainable society. It is widely recognized that literacy and civic education are keys to “development;” they could also be keys to sustainable development. Reform of education to help us solve the human predicament is thus crucial, with much emphasis on values such as satisficing for the many as opposed to optimizing for the few. In the future, both the need for sustainability and the multi-dimensional environmental, social, political, and economic requirements to achieve it must be central elements of education around the world. Many more people, especially politicians, should be familiar with the I=PAT equation, should know how agricultural systems work, and grasp the relationship between population size and epidemic disease. Unless a much larger fraction of the human population becomes aware of the predicament we all face and the science of that predicament's basic elements and possible solutions, sustainability is unlikely to be reached.

Five: rapidly expand our empathy

We’re a small-group animal, trying to live in large groups. Although we no longer can associate exclusively with a clan of, say, 125 relatives, most of us have a group of “pseudokin” – friends and close associates of about the same number. In both cases, people tend to develop a sort of “we versus them” culture, with the “themness” increasing with physical and cultural distance. Thanks in part to global communications, people are gradually gaining more empathy toward others distant from us in skin color, gender, religion, class, culture or physical space, but our ability to inflict harm on them has also increased. Cultural evolution is not reducing this discounting by distance (caring less about situations the further away they are) fast enough. The same can be said about discounting by time – not caring enough about the world we will leave to our descendants in the more distant future. Can affluent people in the West learn to empathize enough with a child in Darfur so as to take real action to save her? Can they learn to care about the world her grandchildren will live in, and act to move that society towards peaceful sustainability? If the global community takes step five, the answers to both questions will be “yes,” and we’ll be on the kind of road that could lead to a level of global cooperation that might allow a billion or two, perhaps three billion, small-group animals to live together sustainably in relative peace, in the next century.

Six: decide what kind of world we all want

What are the ultimate goals of our lives? Most development literature simply assumes that “modernization” in the style of today’s rich countries should be the goal of all nations – and perhaps that is what people want. Still, are Americans really happier traveling to work an hour or more each day wrapped in a ton or two of steel and breathing smog that threatens their lives? While the U.S. GDP has multiplied almost five times since 1958, satisfaction, as shown by surveys, has not increased at all. The situation in other rich countries is similar. Must all nations then strive to emulate the American superconsuming, petroleum-based life style? The situation looked bleak enough in 1972 when political scientist Dennis Pirages and Paul first asked (in an NYT op-ed) what the world would be like if the then half a billion Chinese got automobiles? Now 1.3 billion Chinese apparently have that goal.

Or should such goals be discouraged and all of humanity strive together to seek a more equitable global society, which could replace today’s bipolar super-rich – desperately poor population in which the split widens as growth continues? We could initiate a Millennium Assessment of Human Behavior (MAHB) to begin a discussion of what economic, social, and political systems will best fulfill human desires as we struggle to live in gigantic, culturally diverse groups. How, for example, do we take advantage of the enormous benefits that market mechanisms provide to societies while constraining their propensity to do enormous damage when unregulated? Starting and maintaining a global cultural-ethical discussion is a step that would help determine the kinds of lifestyles and relationships people really want. As we’ve already indicated, armed with that knowledge, we could try to establish as accurately as possible the conditions of population size, consumption patterns, economic arrangements, and technologies required to make such lifestyles and relationships sustainable. All of this, of course, would go against the often-recognized “stickiness” (inertia) of culture. But as many cases show, that stickiness can be overcome. It may be that even the Weberian work-to-grow-forever culture that long has had development experts in its death grip can be altered in ways that could lead to a sustainable global culture. The United States, for example, could adopt some ideas from other cultures – like more vacation time from European cultures or a tradition of siestas from Mexico, or a more contemplative view of life from various aspects of Buddhism. The USA could meet developing cultures halfway by focusing less on “standard of living” and more on “quality of life,” and it could bring the experts along with it.

Seven: determine the institutions and arrangements best suited to govern a planetary society with a maximum of freedom within the constraints of sustainability

This is closely related to step six. In the ~200,000 year history of modern Homo sapiens, nation-states are a recent invention, existing for only a tiny fraction of our existence. In their modern form, they are little more than 200 years old. We need to look closely at possible alternatives that could combine greater awareness of the problems of living at a global scale while retaining small-group psychological comfort. More cooperation at a global level is clearly necessary for civilization’s long-term survival. Problems such as climate disruption, global toxification, resource wars, decimation of the planet’s biodiversity and thus of the crucial services that flow from humanity’s natural capital, and escalating chances of global epidemics cannot be solved one nation state at a time.

Pollyannaish conclusion

We hope you are willing to attempt to dramatically change how the U.S. and the world work. We hope you will not employ conventional economists who will try to restore the same old growth machine that is destroying the world. Equally important, we urge you not to allow a (reasonable) fear of being accused of being “soft” on terrorism or on China, Iran, or North Korea to prevent you from starting the difficult task of cutting back our overgrown military structure and commitments. Similarly, we hope you will take steps to transform our energy economy so the otherwise nearly inevitable eventual war with China over fossil fuels can be avoided. Then there is the awesome issue of curbing rich-world consumption. The U.S. with 4.5% of the global population cannot continue to consume roughly a quarter of Earth’s resources; similar statements apply to the other rich nations. McCain in his concession speech showed some sign of his old self – and you could certainly use the help of a maverick who has shown the ability to move away from some aspects of Neocon nonsense. Maybe the Senate could get back to a situation, like that when Tim Wirth (D) and Jack Heinz (R) were working together to try to solve environmental problems.

These are no tiny tasks, salted with unanswerable questions (e.g., is there any hope that a temporary increase in U.S. troops in Afghanistan can accomplish anything? Is it likely that if we move toward sustainability, China and India will follow?). You surely cannot do it all – we'll all need to help you as much as possible. If you can’t get a good start toward real solutions, then global collapse in the not-so-distant future seems nearly inevitable.

Paul R. Ehrlich
Bing Professor of Population Studies
President, Center for Conservation Biology
Department of Biology
Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-5020
Ph 650-723-3171
Fx 650-723-5920
http://www.stanford.edu/group/CCB/Staff/Ehrlich.html

Anne H. Ehrlich
Senior Research Scientist
Policy Coordinator, Center for Conservation Biology
Department of Biology
Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-5020
Ph 650-723-3171
Fx 650-723-5920
http://www.stanford.edu/group/CCB/Staff/Ehrlich.html

Fertility and Poverty

The New York Times report below really freaked me out. The POINT BEING is that we cannot eradicate poverty from the planet until we address fertility. This is not easy because making babies is deeply embedded in the human psyche, and there's all kinds of social and cultural memes that must be overcome.

Here is an outline of this short news report:

• The focus is on a slum in Haiti, one of the poorest places in the Western Hemisphere.
• Camera turns to a 30-year-old woman named Nahomi, who lives in a small, dim shack. She has nine children, with a 10th on the way.
• How can we EVER make inroads toward solving global poverty when women like Nahomi are having 10 kids?
• She can barely feed the kids she has.
• Nahomi admits herself that 10 children is far too many. If given the choice, she would prefer two.
  
• Again, we CANNOT make progress toward eliminating global poverty unless we do more to reduce fertility.
• Family planning used to be an integral part of international development efforts, but it was pushed aside because of "abortion politics."
• Promoting family planning is much more difficult than it seems. In Haiti, there are plenty of family planning clinics and women say they want less children, yet the births per woman has remained about the same for the past 25 years.
• Nahomi tried to use contraceptives but suffered from side effects. Her husband refused to wear condoms, and they split up over this issue.
• The 10th child she is carrying now is from a man that was with her for 3 years, who left her.
• In an interview, a guy from the local UN Population Fund says that in Haiti, a woman has to give children to her husband.
• Some say education is the best contraceptive. Nahomi seems to be aware of this when she says that she hopes her oldest daughter will get an education and learn a profession.
• President Obama has lifted the band on funding for the UN Population Fund. HURRAY! That gives us an opportunity to lead a global effort to regain lost momentum for family planning.
• Restoring family planning efforts won't be easy, but Nahomi's story shows that there is simply no alternative.

A thanks to Nicholas Kristof for a great report!

Is it an Elephant or Gorilla?

Why you guys ignorin' me?

Is population the gorilla or elephant in the room? You know, that big giant thing that no one wants to talk about, but the same thing that's causing most of the problems ...

A thanks to my colleague Dave Gardner who shared with me a great website today:

http://www.populationelephant.com/

On this site there is an essay titled "The Problems With the Problem" which is brutally honest and reinforces what I've been trying to say for years.

Simply put, an exploding population is impacting global climate change, energy and food consumption, species extinction, etc. Yet, I regularly see articles saying we need to have MORE BABIES to help support retired people, help the economy, etc. I am not sure why so many intelligent humans are bent on self destruction.

So, as the essay points out, there are FIVE FATAL PROBLEMS with addressing population:

1. There is no money in shrinking human population. And as I grow older I've learned one thing: It's all about money, baby.
   
   
2. It's not my problem, man. The real crap won't hit the fan until most of us are dead. Let's forget about the fact that we are condemning our children to a likely hell.
   
   
3. The world's fundamental systems oppose it. Capitalism feeds on growth like a hungry locust. It just consumes EVERYTHING until everything is gone. Religions condone population growth. ALL religions are wacky, and often the only way to grow a certain belief is to "grow the flock." Besides, millions of people believe their deity is going to come and rescue them. Oh, and if you are a fundamentalist Christian you believe the world will be destroyed anyway, so what the hell.
   
   
4. The problem has no voice. Political correctness has caused environmental groups to take a soft approach to population. You just can't say "have less babies" because, oh my GOD, you might hurt someone's feelings.
   
   
5. The obvious solution is not talked about. If we encouraged one child per family we could lower population to a sustainable level. But instead, famous environmentalists like Tom Friedman and Al Gore suggest a technological fix to our problems.

The best two ways to help the environment are to reduce family size and reduce consumption!

It doesn't get any simpler than that. But, anyway, please read the article: "The Problem With the Problem."

A couple of great quotes:

Population growth is the 800 lb gorilla in the room constantly being ignored. It's clear that continual expansion of humanity is the real reason for a perpetually growing economy. Now that energy costs are rising and economic growth is slowing, look at how the economy has reacted. America and other industrialized nations are going to have a real problem with a subsistence-level economy.

— Fred Kaluza, posted on WarSocialism discussion list

There will continue to be ultra-conservatives who detest the idea that women have control over their own bodies; there will always be those narrow-minded traditionalists who hide behind their "love" for the unborn, despite the fact that they oppose all government support for children already born.

— Cynthia Tucker, Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial page editor

A Pope and a Coke

Okay, I had to read it twice. The Pope is touring Africa this week and aboard his Pope Plane he says that condoms are not the answer to the AIDS epidemic in Africa, and can make the problem worse. WHAT???

So, the Pope wants to condemn the entire African continent to this horrible disease called AIDS. My uncle died of AIDS, and I can assure everyone that the last days of an AIDS victim are horrible beyond belief.

This comes from a fellow activist friend of mine:

You know what stuns me about this article is that the Pope said that the Catholic Church is the largest provider of HIV health care. If he would drop the prohibition against condoms and allowed the use of a HIV killing spermicide, HIV cases would drop dramatically. His stance on this makes no sense! I work as a hospice nurse and I can tell you that patients with terminal HIV suffer horribly. He could do a great deal more to enhance the Church’s “compassion.”

And not to mention Africa's exploding population, which is condemning millions to abject poverty. So, what the Pope suggests is a "responsible and moral attitude toward sex" to fight the disease. Yeah that's nice, but what happens to the people who do not comply with the Catholic church's sense of hyper-morality? Oh yeah, they get punished. They had it coming to them, just like those poor alter boys.

Then, later this week ....

After reading about the executives from AIG, I've realized that business executives are so locked in their little worlds that they have no idea how stupid they sound when they talk to the press. Enter Coke Chairman Neville Isdell. In trying to boost their environmental image, he wants to make more clean water available to the world. You mean Coke's going green? Hell no, he's just looking out for his own self interest.

To summarize, Isdell is part of a group that wants President Obama to appoint a water czar and spend $1 billion a year to finance new clean water projects and programs.

Hello? The problem is an exploding world population. That's probably a good thing for Isdell — it means more Coke drinkers. And, yes, Coca-Cola Co. uses a LOT of water in their beverage businesses. So, I doubt they really care about human suffering — they just want a market.

Here are some chilling facts provided by the World Health Organization:

Nearly 885 million people around the Planet do not have access to safe drinking water today, and 2.5 billon don't have access to water for basic sanitation.

And rather than addressing our serious global population problem, corporations have created yet another "think tank" that is trying to tell us that the answer is JUST SPEND MORE MONEY TO MAKE MORE CLEAN WATER for the billions of ever multiplying people.

How about, instead, we work to stabilize world population, so that communities will not outgrow their local water supplies? Naw, the corporations wouldn't like that. They believe that population can grow infinately. And they want to sell those infinite billions COKE PRODUCTS.

Give me a break.

Pope Destroys Earth

OH NO, GOOSE ... YOU CAN'T SAY THAT. The Pope is a sensitive issue. You are not supposed to talk about the Pope. Now, you're going to get people mad at you.

And the Goose replies ...

Nothing personal, man. I think all religion is inherently destructive. The whole idea of forcing highly intelligent monkeys to believe non-provable facts (called faith) is flawed.

But, in regards to the Pope ....

I applaud him for the good things he has said and done, and I think Pope Benedict XVI is an outstanding human with a good heart.

BUT ....

The Vatican's staunch position against artificial birth control has done massive damage to the Planet and has brought incredible suffering to humans around the world. In fact, a case could be made that the Holy Fathers that head the Roman Catholic Church are perhaps the greatest criminals who have ever lived, and who have harmed humanity far worse than Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Pol Pot combined. Of course, it wouldn't be nice to say that, so I won't say it.

While the Roman Catholic Church and the many other Christian denominations around the world are feeding the hungry, sheltering orphans, and doing other good deeds, the ban on contraception is encouraging massive and unsustainable population growth throughout the developing world. Mothers suffer from exhaustion, diseases spread, and villages explode in size to the point where resources are stretched thin. While good deeds may help some immediate suffering, the next generation only grows larger and more desperate.

From The Catholic Faith website:

Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children.

But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.

HOGWASH, the Goose says ...

First, there is no law that says humans must procreate until extinction. Part of understanding nature is recognizing its limits. Every habitat has a carrying capacity, and Earth is a giant habitat for people. What the Catholic Church is saying is that we must follow "nature." Try this simple test — allow a handful of rats to multiply in a cage and see what happens. Keep the rat's food and water at the same level, and then see what happens. It's nature, man, so don't be afraid to look after a few months.

Secondly, we are supposed to be really smart monkeys, so we should be able to recognize the inevitable consequences of overbreeding without diseases and predators to maintain balance. What will happen is that humans will breed to the extent of our food supply, and then there will come an unpleasant adjustment. Maybe we can prevent this disaster by using our brains and making contraceptives easily accessible. We can voluntarily avert disaster.

Thirdly, nature ALSO includes millions of other animal species that we share the Planet with. Shouldn't we honor and respect our fellow creatures, or should we push them all to extinction by adding endless billions of people?

Fourth, the Roman Catholic Church is courting a global disaster. Doesn't anyone in the Vatican know that rapid population growth causes environmental damage and social disruption? How about wars over resources? How about malnutrition? How about a woman having the right to just have a rest from child bearing if she wants one? We are adding 80+ million people to the Planet each year. No ecosystem or species can handle such massive and rapid change without major impacts and consequences. What the hell are you thinking, your Holiness?

Fifth, let's not play games or look the other way. Climate change, war, terrorism, water and food shortages, fished out oceans, and destoyed habitats are just SOME of the side effects of rapid population growth. Every person with a moral conscious has an obligation to pressure the Vatican for a change in this policy.

There is an excellent organization that is working to bring positive reform to the irrational and archiac thinking of the Roman Catholic leadership. It's called Catholics for Choice. I used to always display their literature at tabling events, and in fact, I still have a supply of brochures. Whether or not you are Catholic, I encourage you to support this excellent organization.

ACTION ITEM: Ask Pope Benedict XVI to Lift the Ridiculus Ban on Condoms and please support the Condoms4Life campaign!!!


Supporting Source: International Debate Education Association (IDEA) - Catholic Chruch's Contraception Policy

Rep. Chris Smith - The Egg Saving Zealot

I have one of the most difficult jobs in the environmental movement — working on the population issue. Domestically, I work on five issues:

• Comprehensive sex ed instead of abstinence only programs.
• Contraceptive insurance coverage for women.
• Universal access to emergency contraception.
• Title X - Low-income access to family planning services.
• Male Responsibility - An almost forgotten issue these days.
  

Yes, I am pro-choice, but I would much rather see abortions eliminated through better prevention (i.e. the items above). However, the conservative Christian community obviously loves abortions because they do all they can to oppose the items listed above.

Leading these righteous religious folks is Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ). Every year when we push for adequate funding of both domestic and international family planning programs, Rep. Smith vigorously fights against us. He is a man with a mission. If you are a woman, Rep. Smith not only wants to throw you in jail for having an abortion, he wants you arrested for even using birth control!

The United States, as well as most of the world, is exploding in population. We are already seeing the hundreds of detrimental side effects of adding 80+ million people to the Earth every year. Why is the price of gas going up? BECAUSE OF INCREASED DEMAND!

People like Rep. Smith want to pull the plugs and allow our population to explode even faster. He defies the laws of nature, which says that there are limits to growth. That's because he believes that God will take care of everything. Hmm, I seem to be missing that part.

The video below is made by a candidate running against him for U.S. Congress. The clips of Smith talking are quite revealing, and shows everyone what this guy is really about. He is a man with a mission. I guess he'll want to arrest couples for early withdrawal as well, or for using the rhythm system, or does God approve of those methods, compared with condoms or birth control pills? Rep. Smith has really wandered into a complex moral quandary. He's really trying to play God in his own little way, or maybe he is trying to BE GOD. I'm not sure.

Enjoy the video...

Two Goose Friends

Yes, Nero continues to fiddle while Rome burns. But let's take a break from all that. Tonight I'd like to give a "shout out" to two fellow Earth-Savers:

Growth Busters
http://www.growthbusters.com/

And another one:

Growth Is Madness
http://growthmadness.org/

These two sort of go together and are both operated by fellow Earthians from Colorado. Oh, and the GrowthBusters guy is working on a documentary that sounds excellent:










At this point (I'm totally exhausted) I should offer some rambling commentary about why we exist and why we are so determined to pollute and foul the planet just so that we can make money and be comfortable. Well, you know, I can't say anything about it because it's just plain stupid. Yeah, I know, I'm part of the problem. But I work from home and am laying off the meat, so my carbon footprint is pretty low. I really just need to give up electricity, grab some bear skins, and learn to survive in the wilderness. I know that I'll want to make a really comfy hut, and before you know it I'll be hooking up a dishwasher. Yeah, I know, the human race is screwed.

It Is Noble ... Or Is It?

I keep reading and hearing about various aid projects in Africa. From creating new wells to providing safe houses for child soldiers, all these efforts are beautiful and worthwhile. Regretfully, no one has mentioned family planning. Without this essential component any good project is doomed to failure.

I was horrified by a recent editorial in the Atlanta newspaper that went on and on about water projects in Africa. It was written by the president of a local women's college. At least she talked about women's empowerment and education, which are two essential components to slowing birth rates. But she did NOT mention universal access to family planning, which is essential for any aid project to work in the long-term.

When you provide water and food without family planning, it is like throwing kerosene into a fire — the population simply swells. Sure, you've done some immediate good and you can feel good about yourself, but you are only setting up future generations for an even greater humanitarian crises. This is simple common sense, so I'm amazed that so many intelligentsia miss this basic point.

I applaud the good organizations like World Neighbors that do incorporate family planning into their programs. If you want to support a worthwhile aid organization, support them. Organizations like World Vision mean well, and do provide immediate relief, but in the long term they are likely doing more harm than good.

The Christian evangelicals don't like to deal with family planning. On the opposite extreme, I'm told that ultra left women's organizations are opposed to family planning programs because they feel it's a form of control. Thus, it appears that few people are willing to promote family planning and contraceptive use.

Ultimately, there are only two ways an individual can impact the planet — family size and lifestyle. As we continue to pack more billions of people onto Earth, it is essential that we all reduce our family sizes and adopt a more modest lifestyle. Eventually, we need to reduce human population to where it is permanently sustainable. I don't know what that number is, but it should be at a point where other species and the long-term viability of the Planet are not jeopardized.

The Goose

It's All About Population

The bottom line is that most, if not all, of our environmental problems, as well as many social problems, can be traced to our exploding population.

The following is from Tom, a colleague in my Ishmael group:

People of our culture who procreate do so for many reasons, but they rarely consider the environment in their decision-making. I didn't. As decendents of the Great Forgetting, we do not respect the feedback that the Earth gives us and insist that we have the right and the might to "grow" as we see fit.

Breeders and non-breeders alike, most people think that growth is our destiny. In our business and personal lives, we are insatiable. Our religions teach us that ("human life is precious.") Business and technology insist on it (conquer disease, see the world, increase market share.) Our economists teach us that (GDP, young workers needed to support the aging baby boomers.) We want more for our kids, more for ourselves, more for our employers, more, more, more.

So, we continue to increase our population (and humanity's collective ecological footprint) and can continue to do so, until our cultural beliefs collide with ecological limits.

Let us redouble our efforts to convince enough people to stop the madness and find a new story to live, one that embraces the concept of "enough." If we don't, then Nature will impose new stories on us that may not be so pleasant.

This is so eloquently said that there is nothing more I can add tonight. The main thing is that there are dozens of environmental issues to work on, at all levels, and it's easy to get distracted. I have to keep my focus on the "mother" of all issues, even though at times it seems remote and unobtainable.Oh, and here is a great signature line from a population campaign:

"The Fate of the World is in Your Hands...And Your Pants!"

Classic!

If Only Humans Could "Stop At Two"

I constantly think about this all the time: If only humans had the sense to "stop at two children," many of the nightmares we are facing or are about to face could be avoided.

As an environmentalist specializing in population, one of my hobbies is to link our various world problems back to population growth. I believe that nearly all of our current environmental and social ills can be traced to our exploding global population. Yet, most people still don't get it -- they want to have a large family for various reasons, with zero regard for how their decision impacts the Planet and our future. This disconnect has become the great puzzlement of my life.

I have read several articles that link overpopulation to terrorism, but in today's newspaper I read a new connection. Yes, it startled me.

"The spread of nuclear technology is expected to accelerate as nations redouble their reliance on atomic power to cope with growing populations, dwindling oil supplies, and fears that the combustion of fossil fuels is warming the planet."

And there's more:

"Development of civilian projects will give more countries the ability to make reactor fuel, or with the same equipment and a little more effort, bomb fuel."

Okay, let's think about this:

• Massive population growth is helping to quickly dry up the world's oil supplies.
  
  
• Nations must now find new ways to provide power for their exploding populations.
  
  
• When nations learn to develop nuclear power for peaceful energy needs, they are only a few steps away from the ability to make nuclear fuel for bombs.
  

I would like to add one point to the newspaper quote:

Increased world population will result in more competition over resources, such as the remaining oil supplies, water, land, etc... With more countries having nukes, or the ability to produce them, the liklihood is increased that sooner or later someone will use one.

Welcome to the second nuclear arms race. By ignoring the horrible problem of human overpopulation, you are, in effect, putting your five children in harm's way. You helped to create this problem. Yes, I know, the Bible says that this is the end of the world and that this is all part of God's plan. Well, I think it's a sucky plan, and we shall see.

Source: Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 10/15/06, Section A: "Many Nations May Have Nuclear Arms Capability."

Exploitation and Violence Against Women

On top of all the other things that trouble me, I am getting more and more concerned about the violence and exploitation against women. It seems that there are just more whacko males willing to murder innocent females. There has been a whole string of crimes like this. First there was the sexual assault and murder of a women on the bike trail near my house. And now the brutal murder of the Amish girls by a deranged man. Why all this violence? Can it all be traced to some sexual issue? Are men just more prone to act out their mental problems through violence?

Then there is the case of all the exploitation of women. I have heard stories of how women are lured into, trapped, and exploited in the pornography industry. The best way to stop this multi-billion dollar business is to boycott. It's just that simple.

And then I hear stories of boys luring girls to have sex with them, and then dumping them. They seize on girls who are naive, maybe lonely, and just want a boyfriend. But what these girls get is just a milder version of a sexual predator.

It's all really sick. Women should be treated with respect. Men need to get over their endless obsession with sex. I think the sex craze comes with all the free time and less harder labor. In the old days, after working 10 hours on the farm, men were too kaput to engage in such folly.

I know these problems I am raising have probably been going on for hundreds of years, but that doesn't make it right. Men need to get a grip and keep it in their pants. The selfishness and immaturity I see with the male gender is pathetic.

I don't say these things just because I have daughters. I am saying them because the mistreatment of women is wrong. And it is also wrong to treat them anything less than 100% equals -- no exceptions. This is a conviction I've had since age 13 (I'm 46 now). It has always bothered me.

If we started showing the respect that the 51% of the world's population deserves, maybe our species would not be so dysfunctional. And, yes, all religions must give women 100% equality as well -- I demand it. This stuff about a woman can't hold a senior leadership in a church is a bunch of crap, yet a lot of churches disrespect women in this way, and other churches, denominations, and religions do far worse.

And a note to you women -- you do not have to take any of this crap. Don't buy into this lie about "it's my role to be submissive." The word "submissive" is simply a euphemism for "exploited." You do not have to take it. Do not take any crap from any man or organization that doesn't offer you 100% respect. Now that doesn't mean you have to be an over-sensitive militant feminist. I try to be thick skinned and you should be too. You know what is innocent and ignorant, and what is intentional. So, you be the judge.

In regards to the tragedy of the Amish girls, it reminds me of a passage I once wrote in one of my short stories:

"I started crying for everything that was wrong in this world, and I cried and cried. Then I started to laugh because I knew it was impossible to cry for all the pain and suffering in this world."

I guess that's why I try to make jokes, and that's why I try to cheer up my fellow activists. I don't know. Right now I just think the world is nuts, more than ever.

Labor, Babies, and More...

Hello, is anyone listening out there? Does anyone really care? Even today as I was driving home I found myself trying to rationalize all the clear-cutting in my area. I say to myself, 'See Goose, there are still some trees over there, and some over there too. It's going to be okay. Those naughty humans surely won't take EVERY tree!"

Like a friend of mine says, there is just something special about those trees and greenspace. They do more than anything to put me in touch with nature, and to put me in touch with God. SO WHY ARE WE SO FUCKING DETERMINED TO CUT DOWN EVERY LAST TREE AS FAST AS WE CAN?

Because we humans are, well, stupid. We are stupid as dirt. We have lost our connection with nature, and we have lost our love for nature. The natural land of the Earth is for the sole use of humans, who feel they have an absolute right to have all the children they want, who, in turn, grow up, buy cars, buy houses, and contribute to the slaughter of more nature.

"BUT THAT'S GROWTH, GOOSEY, AND THAT'S GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY!!!"

It's only good for getting more wealth to a lucky few who are already rich. In the meantime, a giant underclass is growing. The income gap between the rich and the poor is growing in the U.S. Those five kids you just had to have only dulute the cost of labor. The "MACHINE" uses your children as cheap labor, and then spits them out when done. If we had less kids, we would be in control. The corporate structure would have to pay us more and treat us better because they would be competing for a limited labor pool. But right now, we give them all the labor units they want. Reproduction is the one thing humans are good at, and even though our global population is skyrocketing, many, many people continue to have 4-10 kids.

Okay, I know this is a complex issue, and I know a lot of people will scream "immigration reform," but I see this as a world problem. I do not recognize political boundaries -- we are all one people. So, it's really us against the massive institutions that exploit us because of our own stupidity.

Stand up, oh human, and join me in the global Sustainability Movement. The first step in joining is to limit your family size. This is the best thing you can do to help the environment and avoid feeding our incredibly destructive world economy. Starve them of the cheap labor that the corporate stooges so long for. Cheat them of their quick buck. Defy them!

The Troubled Goose