Why is global population growth/overpopulation systematically ignored as a cause of climate change? What measures could be effective?

The effects of population growth have been taken seriously since the Club of Rome in the years 1960 and so ignoring that systematically is certainly not the case.

The most effective means of combating this problem seems to be prosperity .Almost all developed countries now have such a low birth rate that employers are worried about. You get a shortage of young energetic people who wear the economy and a surplus of old socks like me. Japan was in the ‘ 70/80 family of the, the great emerging power where Americans woke up from layers. And then the scratch came into it and since then it is Kwak. China is working the same side and in the past there have been quite gross measures taken. It has worked: China is now an economic world power. In The years 1960 it was still a third world country with famines. But it is now going to get the price: a population buildup that is becoming more and more heavy and a growing ouwesokkenproblem. So artificial intervention by a government can be, but there is a high cost.Many Chinese are now only children and should take care of their parents on their own. There is also a surplus of men because these parents often aborted female fruits. I have my reservations about Mr Xi but I do not envied him for the problems he struggles with. Population growth in China is now lower than ever, even if it is a child policy.

The prosperity effect has a great deal to do with the position of women in society.In many developing countries, including many Muslim countries, the woman is a zoontjes factory to use a term of Ajan Hirshi Ali. Belief systems, whether Christianity is, such as Mr. Pastor of the past or Islam in the third World or the animist belief which in Africa still has great followers can exert a nice brake on the changing attitude of married couples, but do not really stop . Even in the Catholic Netherlands, after WWII the large families have become very scarce.

From a point of view of climate change, the promotion of development is therefore a good point of engagement, but then you have to avoid going hand-in-hand with greater carbon dioxide emissions.It seems to me that renewable energy sources such as solar energy, which works well in the tropics, are a great outcome. There are often still no electricity grids and power plants and solar panels can bring a lot of development even in the most remote villages; This also means better education and therefore a greater monthfulness of women and better understanding of the climate problems.

I agree on the main lines with Peter Huppertz, but I would like to add an observation (and nuance) that I consider relevant.

When we zoom in on the (historical) demographic developments by country, we can quite simply conclude that the development of a society’s so-called fertility rate is roughly proportional to the level of development of the country.In other words: How wealthy, healthier, better educated (and secular) we are, the smaller our families. This goes so far as the fertility rate in many developed countries has long been lower than what is necessary to preserve the population in a natural way (and therefore immigration is necessary). This is one of the causes of ageing in Western European and other developed countries, and in a country like Japan it has even led to a significant population decline.

From this perspective, I believe, therefore, that overcrowding has not been systematically ignored over the last fifty years.Many wealthy countries have invested hundreds of billions -both private and public, in the form of development cooperation -to help raise the level of development of less developed countries. This is largely successful: fertility rates have fallen significantly almost everywhere, and things like famine and illiteracy are an increasingly minor problem. Moreover, this is the only humane way to deal with this issue. I cannot conceive any humane direct interventions that would result in the growth of the world’s population decreasing even faster.

I think that the number of people on this planet contributes to climate change is a fact.

Any practical answer to the question “How could population growth be countered?” is doomed to die in lack of acceptance.

What I think is also difficult to accept is that if we do not solve the problem within our own abilities, nature will solve it for us, only in such a way that we will be the victim of it ourselves.

That is incredibly black gallig, and I also suspect inevitably.

I think it’s about the ability (intellectual, financial) to change its environment, which determines the health of the ECO system.Climate also changes without us. That is not the theme.

We make stuff on what is no longer “growing up”

I have ever heard an oil minister from Kuwait or Saudi Arabia say: “You should ask 1000 for a barrel of oil.When it’s up, it’s really on! Wouldn’t you even want to jump more economically with a finite stock? And there was, of course, the same. Everything to eat up is fun, but what leave you behind for your grandchildren?

Population shrinkage is surprisingly easy to achieve, it turns out.Look at the number of children in developed countries. The number of children per family falls below 1.5 on average.

Development causes shrinkage.Look at Western Europe, and Japan. New Zealand and Australia. A decline in population. And remains about Africa. Education and development. Create a middle class of people with a ‘ normal ‘ income. That’s all, the rest comes naturally. The children are stimulated to grow above the parents, go to the Uni, and so on. Two to three generations, that’s all you need.

Do you have to do something about fundamentalist belief, but that too is a matter of time.So packumbite six generations. Late next century.

School and middle class.Worldwide. It can be that easy!

For every person on the world there are a few hundred cages and pigs.

Even if “we” the “angry under-people of the Third World” with atomic bombs to soap help We are still too many.

Measures?Even no children have to start me. Or eat less meat (but that proves too difficult, because “bacon”).

Or maybe we can find inspiration in this beautiful movie: Twelve Monkeys (1995)

Scientific research shows that prosperous countries with a good education system produce fewer children.A better question is, why are countries still being kept off?

Leave a Reply