Many moons ago, when I was in high school, our history teacher asked us to name what we thought were world problems. I suggested overpopulation. His reply was something akin to, "The population isn't growing as fast, so that's not a problem".

The world population at the time was about 4 billion. It is now over 7 billion.

In other words, there are over 3 billion more people today than 40 years ago.

It amazes me that this issue receives such little attention. Population has an impact on everything that concerns us. Whether it is energy, health, food, housing, jobs or any other issue you can name, population plays a role. And yet we ignore it.

Is it because it isn't seen as a problem? Or is it because we don't know what to do about it? Either way, this is a problem that isn't going to go away, unless there happens to be some catastrophic event.

We may not be prepared to take drastic actions, but by doing nothing now we may force such actions on future generations.

I'll end with a link to an article about the great naturalist Sir David Attenborough;

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/sir-david-attenborough-sounds-population-warning-things-are-going-to-get-worse-if-humans-have-large-families-8805538.html

I agree that population is a problem. How do we fix that? How do we convince people that it's a problem.....especially the anti-abortionists who want to save all fetuses and/or deny birth control, and the medical community who now have the means to save babies born at 23 weeks (or earlier) and cure once fatal fetal problems in-utero or immediately after birth?

How do you convince a woman that her fetus/baby isn't going to get life-saving treatment because of over population? There's no turning back the clock on that aspect, imo. The same goes for prolonging life in the elderly. I do rest easy knowing that the anti-abortionists are tilting at windmills and that unwanted pregnancies will be terminated no matter what the law is or how many protests they organize.

The only way now to prevent over-population is education. But, do consider that there is a new trend in developed/western countries to either have no children or have only one. That may spread and take care of part of the problem. I think the biggest challenge will be in under developed countries where birth control is unavailable, where it's a cultural thing to have many babies and ignorance is rampant.

The studies are clear cut.
The most significant single factor in reducing the birth rate is the educational level of women. That's even more important than economic development.

Although I wouldn't deny that overpopulation is a problem, over consumption is a far more significant one.

Could you explain a little more Cattleman? Are you talking food, services and/or goods?

As a companion to this discussion, I found this today. If you have never seen "Survivorman", it's amazing, as is he. We've watched many episodes. Anyway.....here is a portion of the article that applies to this thread:

Les Stroud bounces back to wildman mode for fresh season of Survivorman

.....Stroud claims that all of his endeavours are fuelled by the same sobering and universal truth, which applies to all cultures across the globe, but particularly those who still live off the land.

“We can’t survive without a life that lives in a reciprocal manner with the natural world,” he says. “If we don’t look after it, it won’t look after us. If we destroy it, it will destroy us. That universal truth was part of a lot of these cultures that I went into the jungles and deserts and forests with. It has always been a strong underlying subject of Survivorman. It’s been about connecting with the youth, connecting with the planet.

“Sorry, David Suzuki is right, we have to do these things, we have to go that route. I think sooner or later, the younger generation is going to revolt. I think the next war is going to be an environmental war. That is what is going to bring them up and get them angry because of what it is we are doing.”

http://www.calgaryherald.com/entertainm ... story.html

Could you explain a little more Cattleman? Are you talking food, services and/or goods?

All of the above, although there are a lot of "depends" involved. I seem to recall that the average American uses something like 40 times the resources of the average Bangladeshi.

And its not just our use of resources its our incredibly wasteful use of them.

We know how to do things more effectively, but getting us to do it is a different matter.

On a side issue: Suzuki is ultimately right, but he's too much of a "wilderness" guy for me, and that focus itself is a problem. I'm far more inclined to be a "garden" type of environmentalist. While I'm all in favour of preserving wilderness areas, the simple fact of the matter is that we can't survive in wilderness (unless you are willing to kill off at least 6.5 billion of us). We have to create an environment we can live in and that requires a far more intelligent approach to our lifestyle.

Thanks Cattleman. I agree with our wastefulness.

I think you have David Suzuki confused with Les Stroud, the Survivorman. Suzuki is more into science-based research, sustainability and wise use of our resources.

From his foundation (which fits in with your above post):

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/about/

About us

We collaborate with Canadians from all walks of life, including government and business, to conserve our environment and find solutions that will create a sustainable Canada through science-based research, education and policy work.
Our mission and vision

Our mission is to protect the diversity of nature and our quality of life, now and for the future.

Our vision is that within a generation, Canadians act on the understanding that we are all interconnected and interdependent with nature.
Our top goals

Protecting our climate — research and provide clean energy solutions and information on energy conservation to ensure Canada does its part to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avoid dangerous climate change.

Create livable communities — assist urban centres in Canada to protect green and blue spaces and promote transit-oriented development and pedestrian- and cycle-friendly transportation options.

Establish environmental rights and justice — work with citizens, constitutional experts and lawmakers to ensure that Canadians enjoy the right to live in a healthy environment.

Transform the economy — help secure Canadians' high quality of life within the finite limits of nature through efficient resource use.

Connect with nature — assist Canadians, especially youth, to learn about their dependence on a healthy environment and the benefits of time in nature through outdoor education and opportunities.

Build community — engage Canadians to live healthy, fulfilled and just lives with tips on building Earth-friendly infrastructure, making smart energy choices, using efficient transportation and being mindful of the products, food and water we use.

I was thinking about the over consumption aspect of this discussion and I have a question:

If every man, woman and child only used what they really needed with no waste and weren't so materialistic, what would happen to the jobs supported by that over consumption?

One can't be reduced without affecting the other. I think the area of food crops and meat production could take a greater reduction, since there are some shortages now and more to come.

Our cleaner at the property was telling me that in Columbia most people have one or two suits of clothing. They wear them and wash them, then wear them again. He was actually talking in Spanish to his wife, who has only been here several months, but translated for me since she had remarked on how much clothing we have (and it's nothing compared to many). They were helping us move and had just lugged over our hang-up clothing on a broomstick, lol. Anyway, she said: "People here have so many clothes, and sometimes never wear them." It fascinated her.
That is a prime example of our over consumption of goods.

This is an interesting thread and really makes me think. Thanks, John!

If every man, woman and child only used what they really needed with no waste and weren't so materialistic, what would happen to the jobs supported by that over consumption?

Everybody would work less but everybody would also need/want less.

Do you think everybody would work less, or would fewer people have jobs? I tend to envision the latter.

Dunno, but governments can butt in if they have the courage to do so.

I don't have David Suzuki mixed up with anyone Roseanne. I know exactly who he is. And in my opinion, no matter how reasonable his aims might seem to be, he is part of the problem, not the solution. He was one of the "new consciousness" guys who (probably inadvertently) pushed the pragmatists out of the mainstream environmental movement, and they are the guys we NEED.

As to the "jobs" issue, doing things sustainably is often labor intensive.

But, ultimately the simple fact is that unfettered capitalism is incompatible with any attempt to deal with our multiple environmental problems.

Cattleman raises an important point when he mentions "over consumption", but I don't agree that it's a more significant problem than overpopulation.

Any gains made by reducing consumption would be wiped out by further increases in the population. (But that doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.)

And visa versa John. Except that the growth of consumption far outstrips the growth of population.
Rapid population is a problem for poor countries, and they consume very little per person. It takes 40 extra Bangladeshis to make up for one extra American.

roseanne, re: "If every man, woman and child only used what they really needed with no waste and weren't so materialistic, what would happen to the jobs supported by that over consumption?"

I guess a lot of those techies, banksters and executives will probably have to learn how to plow fields or make buggy whips.