The new head of the British Science Museum has an uncompromising view about how global warming should be dealt with: get rid of a few billion people. Chris Rapley, who takes up his post on September 1, is not afraid of offending. ‘I am not advocating genocide,’ said Rapley. ‘What I am saying is that if we invest in ways to reduce the birthrate – by improving contraception, education and healthcare – we will stop the world’s population reaching its current estimated limit of between eight and 10 billion.
‘That in turn will mean less carbon dioxide is being pumped into the atmosphere because there will be fewer people to drive cars and use electricity. The crucial point is that to achieve this goal you would only have to spend a fraction of the money that will be needed to bring about technological fixes, new nuclear power plants or renewable energy plants. However, everyone has decided, quietly, to ignore the issue.’
Nothing like starting the 2nd half of the weekend with a bona fide and well-educated curmudgeon.
That’ll be a long term solution. But as I can recall, haven’t 1st world countries been doing that with Africa? =/
A solution have to be developed but beginning from the individual, not the government.
I just think it is funny that this purposes the idea to limit the number of children we have to save the world, and four post down is an article about how American men have less sex than men in other countries. If this Brit is right, than we are not as big a threat to global warming as everyone thinks 🙂
Pretty much well-educated society where women have equal access to choices and knowledge level off at sustaining birthrates or less. The idiots who rely on immigrants with Stone Age culture (and education to match) face a different problem.
Of course, American politicians revel in their ignorance as much as patriotism and other 19th Century leftovers. The “it was good enough for daddy – and screw mommy” ideology.
Disney-bred panic-mongers who think every process in society is an On-Off switch don’t come close to comprehending that a declining population reaches a new settled point and levels off after a while. Fear rules small minds so readily.
And, Rapley, btw, understands the long term value of renewables and comparable means of building a healthy, sustainable environment. He’s just making his point about short term economics.
It’s funny, but I bet he would be *appalled* if anyone called for the reduction of animal populations to reduce global warming. One elephant produces a lot more CO2 than my kids…
I’m glad to hear people saying so. And, remember to check out the good folks at http://vhemt.org.
Politicians don’t like, generally speaking, the issue of birth control. In a world of greater life expectancy, birth control means social security hell…
Europe is having this problem now. The causes are diverse but the issue is that we have less and less young people in a productive time period to pay for a ever increasing retired population. Also, this globalization issue, where you can displace production to where workforce is cheaper, has brought an additional problem to European economies. In order to have a productive life in a developed country you must spend the most fertile years of your life, not having babies, but studying. Also the costs of this hyper-education paradigm, forces couples to have just one child, or two at most.
This unbalance of socioeconomy is having much more impact on climate change than often accounted for.
China’s economy is growing at an incredible rate, (as once the USA…) turning into an industrial giant. Virtually all the world is designing at home and producing there. This is forcing the development of these countries. In time they will be facing the same issues of developed countries.
My guess is, things will even out in time and the overpopulation target will slip ahead in time… but measures need to taken now on the other strategies to prevent global warming, (and resource depletion), so reducing population is also something to pursue, but will take generations to achieve (without disrupting societies and economies). There are more immediate goals to achieve such as improving efficiency in Energy consumption, reducing carbon emissions, and those can be attained in every society (ie. changing to better illumination technologies than the incandescent bubble lamp, will work in developed and undeveloped countries)
There’s simply so much to do before using such time extense measures…
#5 When was the last time you saw an elephant drive an SUV or use iridescent bulbs to read the evening newspaper?
Personally I see no problem with having 2 kids per couple. I mean, it’s not like we’re growing crops here. More isn’t always better…
Making birth control and soylent green widely available would do the trick.
#8 ditto
#5 Don’t know where you live but you kids will impact Co2 more than an elephant, even before they are old enough to drive.
Can you even begin to understand that just bathing them with hot water will produce more Co2 and deplete fresh water more than an Elephant will…
There are economic issue to deal with as well here. If the planet began experiencing a precipitous drop in population, whole economies would begin failing. America has been enjoying regular economic expansion since the revolution (with occasional hiccups and fits to be sure), and this has been driven largely by an expanding population. Why have we been essentially fighting inflation since what – post WW2? Baby boom of course. So as the native US population starts leveling off, we import people from other lands to fill in the gaps. This can’t go on forever, unless we can start colonizing space. Meanwhile, educating the larger population groups is the best defence against overpopulation. More affluence should mean more stable populations.
#7 – JaonPT & 11 – tkane,
It may be true that an aging population will have economic issues that we as a society must deal with. However, keep the following bits of information in mind when considering population reduction:
1) We are past peak oil. While I’m happy about this from a climate and pollution standpoint, it is important to remember that this also means the end of the 3,000+ mile salad. Much of our food is transported long distances.
2) We are past peak grain. Our major staples, rice, corn, and wheat, are all being produced at lower rates than in the past. We are unable to get as much from our farmland with global warming, exhaustion of underground aquifers, and widespread desertification.
3) We are past peak fisheries output. Due to misreporting by China for years, this went unnoticed. However, fisheries output has been declining since the 1980s, despite improved fishing technology. Over one billion people rely on ocean fisheries as the primary source of their protein.
So, we are producing less food year over year. We have less oil to transport what we produce. Yet, our population has not yet peaked.
People are made of food.
So, we know that the current situation is not sustainable. The population will be reduced. If we do not take action to reduce our numbers, they will be reduced for us. The latter will be far more painful than any economic issues pertaining to an aging population.
Education=Less offspring
Poor, uneducated=breeding like rabbits
So in the end, followed to a logical conclusion is that the world will be over run with uneducated illiterate people.
Sort of like planet of the apes…
#13 Ever seen Idiocracy?…
well, try to rent it on your local video shop. or netflix… It’s a bit of a hack film, but has some neat jokes, and makes you think a tinsy weensy bit…
#13 []bs], #14 [JoaoPT]
It’s happening.
It’s not the birth rate that is the problem. It’s the survival rate.
the RICh get to have kids, and the poor SUCK at hind teet.
Yes world population MUST decline…By about 3 billion+
And the population projection is only 40 years off, before it WILL happen.
Its abit LATE to start now..
Thank God I probably WONT be here to see it. Lets hope the Meteor HITS and wipes out most of the pacific populations.
the USA population has been declining for years… thats why the USA has been IMPORTING other races into the pot. thats why they DONT want to close the borders, it will mean a CLOSED loop in Business, and taxes and no improvement in society… Importing groups that HAD no say in their OWN gov, made them docile in the first place, then to see that the individual BORN in the USA, is almost the same, just makes it worse.
I think the gentlemen is “probably” wrong. If the world can learn to be carbon neutral and sustainable at 6 Billion, likely to be able to do so at 12 Billion as well.
Our grandkiddies will be happy in other conditions that we would reject today. Each generation does that.
I certainly do hope that “economies” can be developed that aren’t based on Ponzi schemes.
18, that isnt the only problem…
figure the amount of land used in the USA, for Farms…
Now try and DOUBLE that, and I ask WHERE you would put it..
I would also point out the How many animals species Mans expansion has killed off, or decimated…Soon we will only have domesticated animals, and NO wild life… Unless you like Soilent green..
We only have 2 solutions…Population control WHICH should have started 50+ years ago..
GET OFF this planet…Start exploring and DIEING like we used to do.
19—Obvious to me that future food will be hyponically grown in buildings.
I predict all vertibrate animals will go extinct except those that exist off human garbage—and if carbon neutral is as good as it will have to be, maybe even those few species as well. Protein from meat will be viewed as disgusting, and the animals not missed at all.
The third solution is what has always happened–accomodation and evolution to what is presented.
#13 — Nice!
The problem with all these “don’t overpopulate the planet” activists is that the problem isn’t overpopulation, but overpopulation of uneducated people.
Educated people need to have MORE children, not less.
#20 Maybe we should just master the science of space travel and start spreading the disease to other planets…
#21 like I said before: education costs. It used to be enough reading writing and some math skills. America was built with this kind of education in the 19th century. Nowadays you have to send your kids to University and Post graduation. That’s a lot, financially. Couples resort to having less kids, but to give them a better preparation. On the other hand on a poor environment actually pays to have more children. Poor children don’t just get out of the house when they turn 18 and find wifes and so on…
3rd world tends to keep the extended family and having lots of hands around is better. Also mortality is higher and you need more kids to compensate. As a given community or society starts coming out from the Primary sectors and into Secondary and Tertiary productive sectors, people tend to have less kids.
Take India for instance. Rural areas are poor and overpopulated, and generate intense migration to cities. You get the swarming crowds scenario. But even in those cities, the part of the population dealing with services and some hi-tech jobs tend to live a life much like western societies, and tend to have less children.
#21 – HMeyers,
Educated people need to have MORE children, not less.
First, educated people know that the word you were looking for was fewer, not less. Yes, I know, it’s hard to keep it straight when people use the two interchangeably all the time. When counting, it’s fewer; when measuring, it’s less. Signs in supermarkets are wrong when they say “Express Lane: 10 items or less.” It should be “10 items or fewer.”
Second, everyone needs to have fewer children.
The world cannot support the number of people we have now. We survive in such huge numbers by stealing from future generations to feed the current one. So, if you’re educated, and you want your children not to have miserable lives, don’t have children. That just might be the best gift anyone can give to their children in this day and age, the gift of not being born. Who wants to be here when the Great Human Die-Off begins? Who really wants to eat soylent green? Who wants to be the main course? More of us will be main courses than will be eating soylent green.
I know I’ll die in the first wave. I’m dependent upon modern medicine every day. I will not live long past the global civilizational collapse that is surely on its way if we don’t radically change the way we think.
So, before breeding, take the following intelligence test:
http://vhemt.org/biobreed.htm#intelltest
Good luck!!
I’ve been pushing for this for years and years now…. but I still prefer the genocide option.
Kill everyone in china & on the Indian subcontinent… thats 2 billion people right there. it’s a great plan
23,
But Whom would serve you your Coffee in the morning while you sit in bed?? another smart A$$?? Or would you try to find someone of Lower caliber then you?
Make the cities Smaller(less chance of disease/less sewage/contagion)
Spread them out more(so that you can spread/control the pollution)
Make it worth/able Living OFF the land..
Make the cities dependent ON the land in the area, and NOT land 300-1000+ miles away. Which would force the making of more jobs to get the Goods the rich and others want to use.
27, thats part…
A person needs a job, so they can Study/learn to better themselves and enter a Marketable job…
WHICH means a decent home, power, Food,and maybe family…And a small stipend to get him ALONG..
Education freely given, so they can be a threat to those ABOVE.
There are enough persons here, that we dont need to work people 50-60 hours per week..
29,
at least you see the good points..
Want another one..?
Drop all the Borders…I know it wont happen.
But spreading people out, or even importing workers(not slaves), into the larger regions, Like RUSSIA…
To many things/thinks blocking it tho.
Or relearning Terracing, of farms in the USA, Europe and China do it…
[somewhat off topic]
#29, Scott, Still though, I do agree wholeheartedly that we need everyone to get a decent education, both here and abroad.
Go to any place where people congregate — a grocery store, a bar, a church or a museum, and ask these questions:
1) Who is the US Secretary of State?
2) What gases do plants absorb and exude?
3) Which side of the Moon is dark?
4) Which is heavier on Jupiter — a Kg of feathers or a Kg of lead?
When you find someone who can answer all, let me know. I’ve had a lot of laughs with those questions, kind of like Jay Leno’s “Jaywalking.” 🙂
[As an aside, I’ll bet you could find more folks over 45 who could sing the Beverly Hillbillies theme song than recite the preamble to the Constitution of the United States]
Yes, remember that the human race is evil and must be destroyed. Bwahhahahaha……
A few got it above: Idiocracy and The Marching Morons is happening all around us. We’re probably past the tipping point and all gonna die so I’m gonna have another beer and watch the show.