Transition Towns Forum

Transition Towns Forum » Discuss

1. benbrangwyn
   

   The subject of population levels comes up quite a lot, and it can be pretty incendiary at times.

   It seems to me that typically the question comes over, often lobbed like a grenade, as "It's all very well promoting sustainable and resilient ways of living, but what are you going to do about population?"

   That's a very difficult question to answer because, well, it's not really a question that can be answered.

   Here's my thinking behind it, having been faced with that question many times - and I'm hoping that others may get some benefit from this, or perhaps add other perspectives or avenues that will move my thinking along a bit.

   Behind the question, in most cases I've encountered, is the underlying question "Some people are saying that population is a problem and I think it may be, but I don't really understand the issues around it or how I can affect it".

   Behind that is often a cultural story that may be along the lines of:

   • "There are lots of people in China and they're to blame because they want to have lifestyles like us because our lifestyles are wonderful"
   • "African countries are the problem because they have the highest birth rates"
   • "There are too many people and there will never be enough for everyone"
   • "The government will try to control this via totalitarian mechanisms"

    
   We can only speculate what might be lying behind those stories.

   It seems that the original question is best responded to with another question, along the lines of:

   "When you talk about 'population', are you talking about your local population, your national population, the global population, the population of another country, or the movement of population under the pressures of climate change? Additionally, when you talk about 'population', are you talking about actual numbers or the ecological footprint of certain populations based on their lifestyles?"

    
   At that point, the grenade lobber may be able to articulate a particular area of concern - often there's a palpable sense of relief as they feel like they're being lead through a process to bring more shape to their issue.

   Once they've done that, the next thing to find out is if they want to talk about "solutions" (not that predicaments have solutions) at the global, national, local community or personal levels.

   Only then, having pinpointed a precise area, is it time to talk about "actions". And at that point, the other person may be ready to answer the question themselves, so a "Well, what do you think you could do about that particular area?" may find you just sitting back and hearing quite a sensible rendition of options.

   Mostly it turns out that people end up talking about consumption levels and ecological footprints and concluding that they need to work on their own personal situation and work with other local people to reduce the overall footprint of the community. That will do two things - inspire others to do the same and encourage politicians to create policies that will encourage others to do the same.

   What kind of experiences in this area have others had?

   Ben.

   Posted 7 months ago #

2. DaveDann
   Member

   Ben

   Here's a sort of 'experience';

   1. government sets target like 'halve the country's carbon emissions in one generation';
   2. resident considers what this target might mean for them. It seems ambitious but, in positive mood, says 'we'll give it a go!'.
   3. resident discovers that the population of the country may double within that generation.
   4. resident now considers that their own positive action is futile and goes down the pub.
    
   Any unknown or uncontrolled variable can make a mess of target-setting and motivation.

   How can a community plan to feed itself if the biggest unknown is what constitutes the community?

   Posted 7 months ago #

3. Cliff
   Member

   As well as local energy descent plans, we need a global population descent plan. Complex, contentious, and possible. Bits of it are already out there, and being acted on.

   Despite the fantasies of right-wingers, killing people through disease, war or famine has little impact: survivors of such events tend to breed faster to compensate.

   Whereas, reducing the rate of reproduction does have an impact. Largely happening as a result of education of women, and spread of affluence.

   If 'affluence' can be shifted from 'high level of material consumption' to 'high level of security and satisfaction', we are in with a chance.

   On a local level, incorporate good thinking about local demographic changes that are expected over next few decades: age-shifts, household size etc, as well as sheer numbers. This information can be a good stimulus for people choosing to get active and informed.

   If we don't prepare well for inevitable changes, they'll most likley hurt more/ cost more.

   Basic message on all sorts of issues, not just peak oil.

   Posted 7 months ago #

4. jon
   Member

   Difficult to promote a method that works ethically and also works from a practical point of view.

   For instance, if you try to promote this on a voluntary basis, then only those that hold the view that it is correct will take the idea up. The percentage of people holding that view would probably decline over time (providing parents teach their attitudes) leading to a lower probability that the view will survive. In other words, the idea of population descent is one that is subject to being naturally deselected.

   Using the taxation system (as in China) seems to work but needs a shift in ethics away from the rights of individuals (because 'innocents' are disadvantaged by any taxation system that punishes the newly born for being born).

   Posted 7 months ago #

5. Cliff
   Member

   Hi Jon

   It may still dominate intellectuals' thinking, but 'rights of individuals' is a philosophic nonsense if they are upheld at the expense of the survival of the masses. A 19th century con-trick on behalf of the rich minority who have the leisure to sit around in universities. A bit like replacing the 'divine right' of kings with kings who (apparently) rule with their subjects' consent. Pull the other one.

   We don't solely adopt ideas that our parents have... that's why society values 'education'!
   Better education of women has lots of benefits for the individuals concerned, AND society as a whole (which includes us men too!) It just so happens that it also leads to lower reproduction rates.

   We can also see that those around us who have chosen not to breed without restraint tend to have more personal resources and be more available to contribute to their communities. I value that.

   Posted 7 months ago #

6. Lou
   Member

   For me this question is very hard to extricate from the global disparities of resource consumption, and also the relations of capital between the north and the south. In the UK where we are consuming as if there are 2.5 globes available, our crowded population is about to rise to 70 million by 2050. I don't think that that is ok. The majority of our basic food is imported from other countries. We often talk about this in terms of food miles, or the problem of peak oil, but is it not about taking responsibility for ourselves as a populous at a national level? In times of scarcity others will need that land to feed their own people. The need for the UK to act on a national level over population can surely be unquestionable now.

   In a global context the amount of our actual comparative consumption is everything. Many communities around the globe grow enough food to feed themselves and live a far lower impact lifestyle than any drastically greened-up Westerner ever will achieve. As the world's population explodes exponentially, in the forthcoming scrabble for the earth's resources I find it unlikely that the militarily dominant wealthy countries will not use their powers of both capitial, media, and weapons to secure whatever resources their overfed populations need.

   We have seen this in the Congo, with wars fed by a need for mobile phone components, in the pseudo 'wars of terror' with Afghanistan and Iraq, in the growing of soya in the rainforest, in the logging of Tibet. We, as western consumers, who drive the global capitalist companies to dominate the global south, are bringing the earth to its knees. On a global level, as we are the ones overfeeding in every respect from the communal trough, are we not the first ones that should be looking at reducing our populations? Particularly as the debt for our irresponsible overcomsumption is being paid for in other countries, and by other people's children?

   I agree with DaveDan when he says, "How can a community plan to feed itself if the biggest unknown is what constitutes the community? "

   Regarding solutions: perhaps we need to start seeing this as more of an issue of social responsibility rather than of personal choice. We could stop contextualising it as 'such a thorny issue', and talk honesty and openly about its importance. We could use tax incentives to favour having less children not more, (irrespective of the national problems regarding an ageing population that this will mean - 'cos that would mean we never cap ourselves until we build into the sea...).

   If the earth cannot sustain us all at our current populations (remembering that 1/5 people will go to sleep hungry tonight and cannot access clean water) we need to diminish our population numbers, and that starts with the highest-consuming peoples of the world - in Europe and North America.

   Posted 7 months ago #

7. Lou
   Member

   I saw a very beautiful and though-provoking David Attenborough BBC documentary called " How many people can live on Planet Earth?" - would really recommend seeing it if global popluation interests you.
   See webpage below -
   http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pdjmk

   Posted 7 months ago #

8. ShaunChamberlin
   Shaun Chamberlin

   It's also on Youtube, for when that link expires:
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JypyASU8Aik

   Posted 7 months ago #

9. josiah
   Member

   I'm surprised and disappointed that David Attenborough has signed up with the Optimum Population Trust... (I'd only just got over David Bellamy losing it over climate change - and I've recently heard that Johnny Ball has gone the same way; who next, Terry Nutkins?). For that reason I'd distrust any programme he fronted called 'How many people can live on Planet Earth?'.

   That said I like Lou's longer post so might trust the recommendation and give it a go...

   My view is that we've got what we've got population-wise and it's going to carry on growing 'til at least mid-century - though with ever decreasing growth rates. Short of a range of unthinkable strategies (some of which, disturbingly, I've heard mooted in Transition circles), there's probably not much more we can really do other than education, redistribution and empowerment (and those apply globally not just to the majority world). Frankly, and depressingly, we're probably achieving almost all that's possible with those three right now.

   Ultimately it's consumption not existence that is causing all the problems.

   Posted 6 months ago #

10. johnm
    Member

    This is well worth a read on this subject..

    http://www.naturalchoices.co.uk/Climate-Change-and-Overpopulation?id_mot=10

    This is in line with the views of a NEF report which argues that it's not over-population that matters, it's over-consumption and excessive economic growth (http://www.naturalchoices.co.uk/Economic-Growth-isn-t-the-answer?id_mot=1). The NEF report highlights the magnitude of the problem and it's rather depressing given the likelihood that politicians will address it. It suggests it is simply not feasible to continue to grow at the sort of rates we've been used to and still achieve the necessary reduction in carbon emissions.

    What I'd like a better 'vision of' is what this future world would look like if it did embrace these principles? What will we all be doing both at a local level (day-to-day) and at a national/international level? Promoting a vision based on living like our grandparents is not one that is going to go down well with a mainstream audience(even if we are ultimately happier and more content). Are there other scenarios?

    John Michael Greer appears to be a respected 'Peak Oil' author/historian and has a highly thought-provoking blog. He has a book which would appear to offer one potential scenario:
    http://www.newsociety.com/bookid/4051 - can't comment because I've only read the summary, sorry.

    John

    Posted 6 months ago #

11. benbrangwyn
    

    Vandana Shiva on the Reith Lecture in 2000: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/reith_2000/lecture5.stm

    "I think non-sustainable population growth is a symptom and product of non-sustainable development. It's not that population grows by itself as a separate phenomena - you look at the data - Indian population had stability till 1800 - colonisation, dispossession of land started to make our population grow. Highest growth rates of population in England is after the enclosures of the commons. It's the loss of resources of the people that generate livelihood and the replacement of resources by labour to be sold on markets in an uncertain daily wage market that triggers population growth. Population growth is a result of non-sustainable development."

     
    Ben.

    Posted 6 months ago #

12. ShaunChamberlin
    Shaun Chamberlin

    That's fascinating, but I confess I'm starting to worry about Vandana Shiva - she is a fantastic speaker, and says lots of things that I instinctively want to agree with (like this), but a few times now I've checked the stats she's quoted and found them lacking or disputed.

    A quick scan now shows that as India per se didn't exist in 1800, there is no census (or consensus) on population back then, but certainly the estimates I've found (e.g. http://www.populstat.info/Asia/indiac.htm ), while messy, seem to draw her claim into dispute.

    It would be interesting to know where her figures come from, or if anyone else can back up her figures. I've only done 15 mins internet browsing here, but questions over her stats are starting to become a pattern for me.

    Posted 6 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.