±«Óătv

It's not so much overpopulation as underdistribution.

The industrial countries waste a tremendous amount of food, while at the same time compelling the poorer nations to grow cash crops.

If we actually grew and slaughtered only what we needed, and at the same time traded equitably across the globe, you would see that there is plenty for all.

The UK, as the worlds first industrial society, is certainly densely populated, and that needs careful management. But, it is not overpopulated.

Oh thank god. The sheer relief of it. MM has pronounced. Uk is not overpopulated! Stop worrying everybody.

Re-Gangofone-Post 16 on last thread.
Perfectly put IMO.

I have no clue why Hitler is mentioned.
The world is factually overpopulated, far beyond the earth's carrying capacity. Why else would we see environmental destruction and depletion in all corners of this planet. It's irrealistic dreaming that it would just be a matter of distribution. If humanity wants to survive the coming decades of resource and fuel scarcities, and the effects of climate change, we must reduce consumption and start a universal "stop population growth" drive. This does NOT, I repeat, NOT mean killing people. It means reducing birthrates, in all countries. The maximum should be two children. The best would be one child per family.

The quicker some of us can move to Mars the better.

Overpopulation ... you don't say!!

I have every intention of being self-rightous here. I have one child and the family household carbon footprint is considered excellent.

I want a future, and always have, for my child and any grandchild I may have. This means NOT being selfish right from day one. You are being selfish when do decide you want 4 children because that's what you dreamed of as a child. You are being selfish when you use religion as an excuse not to take responsibility for yourself.

Poor programme, but then it's half-term and we the ±«Óătv licence fee get treated to the subs bench ±«Óătv staffers !

How happy would we be if Hitler was a hippy? The distrubing thing is Hitler WAS a hippy - as Jonathan Meades said, the SS referred to themselves as 'armed bohemians'. Aside from being 'greens', they we also seriously into supernatural mumbo jumbo and their irrational hatred of Jews lost them the war (they never got the A-bomb - Einstein's ideas were 'jewish science'). The Chapman's doctored paintings don't shock me at all. They were already bad art before they even got a brush on them. The best retrospective insult was their mediocrity. Likewise, the Chapman's disney models of hell explain nothing about the nature of evil or of the war itself. What is truly shocking is how arbitrary government fuelled radicalism in otherwise 'civilised' people to carry out such criminal acts. The only thing that shocks me now is how the Chapman's PR team actually believe their own press releases.

It is a no discussion subject it seems. Cut population and pay to preserve and extend tropical forests and global warming will be challenged - changing light bulbs is not going to do it.

UK maximum sustainable population was estimated by UK scientists I believe as 30million. Ideal population is 17Million - current population is 60Million and set to grow to 75Million by 2050 - unsustainable?

Frightening is'nt it?

Anyone know the details (title and artist, or better still, the URL to an mp3) of the poignant tune (solo guitar and voice) played towards the end of the report on the North Korean migrants? I'd like to hear it again in full; it's very nice.

This topic deserves far more and frequent coverage on TV. Tonight Jonathon Porritt talked of those in denial re-overpopulation, yet still we see it on this blog. Fact: The UK imported 60% of its food requirement at outbreak of WW2. So, we couldn't feed ourselves even 60 years ago. How and at what cost can we import in the future and from where? Can the deniers tell us? Oh yes! And of course land is also required to support wildlife which is necessary to the eco-system so can those deniers stop thinking one-dimensionally in terms of only what people require.

Went to bed after 5 mins of the discussion on population growth last night. I wonder why when there is a serious issue that might benefit form some expert scientific opinion the ±«Óătv can only find Porritt (admitedly reasonably qualified) a young appearing spokewoman for some obscure policy organisation and an author who wrote a work of fiction on the subject, neither of whom appeared to have any depth of understanding of the real issues. Its the same old story, the producers of this program are obsessed with finding someone from the arts to comment on a matter where a scientist is clearly required. Perhaps if they could look up from their arts obsessed perspective on everything they might actually present us with some peer reviewed information to enable us to make informed decisions.

I sometimes wonder if there is anyone with even a science A level working in the ±«Óătv current affairs dept. I once did some consultancy for the Horizon program and there were clearly no scientists involved in that outfit.

Reference comment #2

Thank you for support, but it isn't just me.

Other people have also asked just what is "overpopulation"?

If it's just population density, then Bermuda and Monaco would be crisis zones, while Nigeria and Ethiopia should be paradise.

Things like population growth rate also give contradictory figures.

There are places where people lack resources and go hungry, but eliminating neighbours doesn't solve poverty.

If you are worried about those who go hungry, then understand that they are suffering from poverty, not from overpopulation.

You think that poverty is directly related to population size or to rapid population growth.

But, a wide variety of economic studies on this issue have shattered the myth that population growth is bad for a nation's economy.

Check out Dr. Julian Simon, University of Maryland, in Jay Lehr's book Rational Readings on Environmental Concerns, Van Nostrand Reinhold Publishing, if you're actually interested.

The real scientific debate now is if population growth has a neutral or positive effect. There clearly is no significant negative effect.

There's a ton of evidence and research out there.

I suggest you read it before commenting.

Reference comment #12

Dead right. Have a look at badscience dot net for reams on the topic of inept science reporting.

The R word is being used by all sorts of people, including Jonathon Porritt. In his blog earlier this month, he sounded the alarm bells: “‘So, food security is back on the political agenda. Climate change is omni-present. Peak Oil is rising. The credit crunch is the new player on the block. Resource wars are looming. Rainforest destruction just won’t go away. Species loss is as bad as ever, but no one cares – for now. Water shortages are chronic. But much, much more worrying are the linkages between all these notionally ‘separate’ phenomena. The synergies, feedback loops, interdependencies.

“At long last, people are starting to make the connections – and are even beginning to link all those separate symptoms back to their root cause: today’s literally insane notion of getting richer by trashing the planet and screwing the poor.” Porritt summed it up pretty well. And then he went on: ‘Don’t hold your breath, but pretty soon you might even hear one or two of them start talking about population. And then you’ll know revolution is on the way.” And then on Newsnight, someone did. It was him.

As an advisor at the heart of the Brown government, Porritt is well-placed to know that collectively they just don’t get it about any of the truly catastrophic interdependent threats and crises that worry the hell out of the rest of us. And when they do, when for example a few hundred truckers try to drive slowly into town (stopped by the police), the only market-dependent, profit-enhancing “solutions” they can come up with are bound to make everything worse. Like tax breaks on oil – not for hard-pressed hauliers and farmers, but to encourage increased production in the North Sea. Climate change? Somebody else’s problem.

Porritt’s dangerous and reactionary talk about population numbers was in response to the global food crisis. But the Organisation For Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations Food And Agriculture Organisation (FAO) tell a different story in their joint Agricultural Outlook 2008-2017. World population growth is declining and food production is increasing. But US attempts to keep corporate profits rolling in are driving the world over the edge into mass starvation.

A broad range of different ideas and proposals to bring this most dangerous period of capitalist production to an end came from the large number of concerned people who attended last Saturday’s Beyond the Market Economy conference (the discussion is now continuing online . Many saw the need to end corporate power and establish 21st century models of social ownership. The real challenge is to create the leadership and organisation needed to bring such policies to fruition. The urgency of achieving this cannot be overstated.

If we had a decent simulus (like WW2) the UK could rapildy increase its food production and COULD feed itself. We'd need to plough up the parks and large gardens and plant potatoes, erect greenhouses and polytunnels on every bit of unused land, start fish farming in every major sea loch, use the navy to make damn sure only British trawlers were in british waters and expand sheep farming so that every hill top was covered in white dots.

We'd probably need some rationing, our diet would be dull, but with 12-24 months to ramp up production we wouldn't starve.

Re-MM.
What a tedious nerk you are. Unsupported assertions stated as fact. Telling people what they can and can't say. And then pulling a few sources together to try to sound authoritative and researched, and just that little bit superior, but in a modest sort of way.
Looking at the posts here, most people keep themselves as well informed as time allows, and then offer their opinions as opinions. How long have you suffered from this fascistic need to be declamatory and prescriptive on political and economic issues? Have you considered getting professional help?

Amazing level of intellectual heft and experience brought to bear on this important subject. Well, from Mr. Porritt at least. So one of four non-blondes wasn't bad.

As I pour chocolate sauce over a profiterole, I am struck by the finite area of the globe as the brown stuff covers it.

Not that we are likely to get to full coverage, even with technology stacking us up as it sends our waste below (not too sure on where the feeding bits go...oh well).... I do believe the planet (which will persist well after we have gone) already is demonstrating corrective systems of its own.

Reference Comment 17

The unsupported assertion, dogmatically stated, is that overpopulation does exist.

I was hoping that you'd say something about the overpopulation debate.

But, if you just want to abuse people who disagree with you, well, I think I understand you. Sadly.

At risk of seeming ungrateful for most aspects of the wondrous new posting system (my last was up and moderated in minutes), after a good several weeks a few recent attempts have just vanished without acknowledgement or, evidently, successful upload over the last few days 'til now. I hope no bad old ways from the bad old days?

Fingers crossed as my latest worked, excuse me trying here rather than a few days ago, which still won't...

/blogs/newsnight/2008/05/prospects_for_wednesday_28_may_2008.html

Thank you for the links, fellow posters (though I do so miss having them hyper-clickable as they used to be), which can and do often add value.

I am as guilty as the next person (lack of time being but one poor excuse), but looking at the contact boxes it is telling that what seems to be a pretty big issue is suffering from a distinct lack of engagement.

However, and being VERY careful with my words here, looking at the final .pdf quoted, it seems there is a massive amount more that can be brought to bear, by folk paid by us to have the time, on possibly un-PC things SAID, with precious little at all on fairly mammoth changes being imposed as DONE deals without much media interest or public input.

Re-19.
Totally completely wrong again old bean. The only unsupported assertion is all yours.
And there you go again wanting to lay down what people talk about.

This overpopulation issue seems to generate a lot of passionate responses, and people often tend to argue dogmatically for one side of the argument. I think it is important to consider this issue in the context of the greater quest to be responsible with the planet. Therefor I have produced an simple equation which might help.

Stress on planet = individual consumption x number of people x inefficiency

I think everybody agrees that the we need to reduce the stress on the planet, so how do we do that, the sensible option would be to attempt a ambitious yet realistic to improve ALL three factors across the world.

And the good news is that an improvement to each factor is cubed therefore a 25% reduction on each factor results in a 58% drop in stress on the planet. So there might be some hope?

#20 Junkkmale - sorry don't get your last paragraph: are you saying we shouldn't post the links or are you just miffed (to use a mild, 'postable' word) with ±«Óătv/other media outlets for not covering the issue?

I'm writing to the Constitutional Affairs Committee and my MEP about this issue but unfortunately it looks like a complete waste of my (and anybody else's) time..

23. At 1:13 pm on 30 May 2008, Cloe_F

Sorry. My failure. Though perhaps being less than clear by feeling the need to be very careful in what I say or write these days, as often major issues seem easily distracted by those with time and power - using perhaps important, but hardly comparable and often trivial PC-legislation/mock outrage - to do so.

From the document you linked to (and to clarify, from the rooftops, I appreciate all links of value, such as those provided by you in this case, to help improve our levels of information and understanding. It's just a pity that, on this blog, they are no longer hyperlinked by a click), it seemed to me (I have to confess it did take a bit of wading through itself) that a fairly massive piece of draconian, restrictive and near anti-democratic activity was being drowned out by a row over one bloke comparing another bloke's actions to yet another bloke (whose name, like Voldemort, dare not be uttered loud. But thanks to our deep-probing, tenacious, 'big issue of the day' media might be called the Happy Hippy, apparently).

I do hope that makes my point clear(er).

To your final question, yes, you might say I am a bit less than impressed that our media, with the attention span of gnats and only the professional standards that salaries based on ratings or odd agendas can explain, often flit across, seldom delve deeply into and/or almost never return to issues of fundamental importance when it comes to our freedoms and governance.

I wish I had as much faith as you still do to at least try and take it further rather than just venting here. But you never know, a journalist may get interested, and editor may back 'em up, and nothing moves those in power more than bad publicity on national media.

Especially if laid out honestly and skillfully enough to motivate and move the masses.

In the piece on population, I think it was noted that in some economies large families are the norm in significant part to serve needs of the parents in their dotage.

Thing is, this seemed to be referring to poorer 3rd world situations.

Seeing what has been, and is being done closer to home, at least to those not blessed with index-linked pay and pensions, I am now rather regretting only having my two. For all our sakes.