On DU threads about overpopulation, everyone ignores the elephant in the living room.

[raccoon]

Everyone goes on about the poor people in the Third World countries, or the fundies in the US, having big families.

When I point out that the First Worlders are the ones with the huge carbon footprint—that includes DU’ers, and that includes ME), everyone ignores it.

People in whatever country, whatever socioeconomic status, having large families are a part of the problem, but the largest part of the problem is the First World citizen using maybe 25-50 times as much resources as the Third World citizen.

[T Wolf]

1. It is the combination of the two factors. Overpopulation will kill us all, eventually.

But the First Worlders must lead the way in environmental progress. We cannot simply tell the developing nations that they must limit their growth, etc. Especially after we have "gotten ours first."

We HAVE TO cut back and be more responsible in our own actions.

AND what the developed nations should do is take some of the wealth we grabbed earlier and devote that to responsible development in the developing nations. Words by themselves will not do it. We must walk the walk as well.

If it costs us a little off our "profit margin," so be it.

[Lorien]

8. Indeed. We do need to consume less, consume more responsibly (no more "disposable"

cameras, plates, clothing that survives only a few washes, shoes, etc) and developing clean renewable fuels is a must. For the Third world; we must find ways of empowering women and combating disease. Lower infant mortality rates also lead to lower birth rates. Women who have educations and/ or micro loans to start a small business tend to have much smaller families. As a man I met from Bangladesh said; only smaller families with more education will break the cycle of poverty. Overpopulation AND over consumption cause suffering and environmental collapse.

[MindPilot]

2. So are you suggesting that we all lower our standad of living to 3rd world levels?

[closeupready]

4. Yes, that is obviously what the suggestion is.

:eyes:

[MindPilot]

11. Gosh thanks for the enlightened discussion...

[closeupready]

17. An enlightened discussion happens between honest participants.

Suggesting that ANYONE ON DU would EVER suggest we live like those in the 3rd World - periodic famine, widespread poverty, tin shack homes - indicates that you are not here to honestly discuss, but rather, as many here on DU wish to do, lecture and mock.

If not, please restate your question.

[MindPilot]

23. Ok fair enough. What can I do as an individual that makes a fucking bit of difference?

The OP may not have been suggesting that the first world become the third world, but I also don't think you can lay third world problems at the feet of first world people simply because we manage to have more. Could governments and corporations do more to help the situation? Absolutely. But it seems like you are blaming people and if we all just parked our cars and wore old clothes, the world would be fine.

I drive a hybrid (public transportation is sorely lacking where I live), CFLs in almost every light fixture, I compost instead of using the disposer or the landfill, I recycle everything I can, I conserve energy at every opportunity.

But all that is negated with one oil spill, one murdered whale, one cruise missile with a depleted uranium warhead. Sure I could give up the few luxuries I afford myself like my flat panel TV and DVD collection, or perhaps I don't really need all those power tools to sustain my woodworking hobby. I could forgo that beef I have a couple times a week and have my dogs put down. But none of that will make a damn bit of difference other than to make me feel like "I'm doing something."

When I go down to Mexico and see the shacks and dilapidated apartments where the garbage dump is the hill on the back side of the building and the river is the sewer system; it is hard for me to believe that I'm the one who needs to clean up my act.

[closeupready]

26. If you are doing all that, then you are doing your part, I don't think anyone here

would criticize someone doing their best to conserve and recycle, etc.

As to whether or not it makes a difference, I mean, I'm not sure how you'd measure the impact, but do your efforts have to have a measurable impact on resource depletion and environmental degradation in order to be morally or ethically correct?

FWIW, I won't buy products made in China, if I can help it, in consideration of their abysmal human rights record. I try to check tags, but sometimes I miss them prior to purchase, other times, such products aren't made anywhere BUT China (for example, MP3 players). And regardless, China has ascended economically even without help from closeupready. And I will continue boycotting their products.

To take your question and apply it to another analogous situation, do you slam doors on women because as one person, your polite behavior 'won't make a damn bit of difference'?

[havocmom]

7. 'Live simply that others may simply live' is not the same as starve

There is a whole lotta middle ground.

[closeupready]

18. self delete

self delete

[closeupready]

3. Don't you dare make people here with cars they use every day feel bad.

:sarcasm:

[hlthe2b]

5. Yes... agree.

But, when groups push ridiculous publications suggesting that dogs and other pets are the most important "problem," (like that we saw posted a week or so ago), we stand little chance of getting people to focus on tangible steps they can take. (Let alone the climate change deniers).

Al Gore has tried to promote sensible actions, but has been excoriated by the "liberal press," intimidated by RW attacks--with little push back... Many in Hollywood and academia have likewise tried to set public examples... But when a supposedly "responsible" company like Whole FOods lets their CEO demolish every positive inroad we've made with his climate change denials, how do we fight this?

[arcadian]

13. I wouldn't say it's the most important problem

But it is a problem. The pet industry is gigantic. Why do we spend so many resources on such things? Domesticated pets such as cats and dogs have done fantastically in the course of evolution. The perfect symbiosis relationship. From scavengers to loving confidants, it's a true rags to riches story, evolutionarily speaking.

[hlthe2b]

19. pets are hardly the most signficant impact on carbon emission

which is what that article proclaimed. Just more RW nonsense to avoid the fact that reliance on cars, spewing factories, oil, and the gamut of "inconvenient" man-made activities has to change. Focusing on beloved pets as the object of derision, allows cover for dealing with the obvious priorities.

[arcadian]

20. Ehh, I don't know, the state of the environment is so frigging sad.

I'm so cynical now, I've taken up the Carlin, "the Earth will shake us off like a bad case of fleas" stance now.

[hlthe2b]

21. I think if I had children and had to continually look them in the eye

with what we are leaving them, I'd lose it. Not that I don't feel responsible to coming generations, regardless. It's just a bit less personal.

[Romulox]

25. Al Gore HAS set a public example--it's just that it's a really poor one. nt

[The2ndWheel]

6. They go hand in hand

You wouldn't have the ability to consume as much without as large a population, because there would be fewer people. At the same time, you wouldn't have as large a population without the ability to consume as much, because there would be fewer people. You cant fix one problem, and expect the other half of the equation to stay the same. That's why developed countries utilize immigration. Nations can't have actual declining populations. Which makes developing nations little more than baby factories for the developed nations socioeconomic systems.

Organizations need more people, or they eventually disappear. People comment on how religion says to go forth and multiply. Well, yeah, religion is an organized effort, and it needs more people to grow and expand. So does the state. So does the corporation. How long will a government function without more tax revenue? How long will a corporation stay in business with fewer customers?

The real elephant in the room would be our ongoing fight against limits, especially death. That fight is why we consume as much as we do. That fight is why we have as many people as we do.

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. You might want to look at that again.

The greatest social and economic advances in European history prior to the industrial revolution came after the bubonic plague wiped out 2/3 the population.

Having a plastic bobble-head Elvis on your dashboard has everything to do with this "grow or die" concept, and everything to do with overconsumption and over exploitation of resources.

75% of what we consume, we don't need. And that is including books and music and film as 'needs', as I believe cultural needs are as important as physical needs.

There is no reason a nation cannot have a population decline. There is no reason for a corporation to not be able to survive if its income only keeps pace with inflation.

There is a word for unchecked growth - cancer.

[The2ndWheel]

15. Let some country be the first to try it today then

It would be interesting to see which country would volunteer. The bubonic plague was not voluntary.

What was the bubonic plague? A limit. What happened after? The greatest social and economic advances in European history at the time. Which resulted in? World conquest and the industrial revolution. Why? Because we didn't like the limit imposed on us. Those social and economic advances after that plague were the definition of unchecked growth. There was nothing that stopped those advances. If anything got in the way, it was eliminated.

Voluntary reductions. Voluntary declines. Fewer actual physical beings. No immigration. No replacement births. That means your nation, your corporation, voluntarily decreases its ability to grow, even if no other nation or corporation does the same. It would be a hell of a show.

[kestrel91316]

9. For some silly reason, most DUers agree with Unka Dickweed that

"The Amurkan Way of Life (TM) is non-negotiable."

[elocs]

12. "Most" DUers. And you've accurately determined that how?

So of the 152,513 registered DUers, most of them agree with Unka Dickweed that the Amurkan way of life is non-negotiable?

Oh, I get it...this is just hyperbole.

[Spike89]

14. You're right, but it is complex

Obviously there are unsubstainable levels of consumption. But, looking just at raw consumption levels really skews things and isn't helpful. Even though common wisdom says "we no longer produce anything in the U.S." the facts are that we are a major exporter and manufacturing center for the world. To simplify why the numbers aren't as damning as they may appear, think of the components for a simple water pump that is needed for a village in a 3rd world country. The U.S. may import the raw materials to produce those parts (goes into our consumption column) and of course we consume energy to run the factory making those pump parts, consume more to deliver/ship those parts. Of course, building the factory to create those parts goes into the consumption column, as does the infrastructure needed to operate the factory (roads, rail, even schools to train the engineers designing the pumps). An even simpler example--in my state, even though bakeries only make up 1 in 300 businesses, they consume nearly 90% of the wheat available!

In short, we do waste a lot that we can't justify wasting any more, BUT throwing out figures like 25-50 times the consumption of raw resources isn't accurate or fair either.

[Romulox]

16. Hypo: a family in country A uses 1/6 the energy of family in country B, but is six times larger

How can we say that the larger family has less of a carbon footprint than the smaller one? It doesn't seem to make sense that one gets a "right" to pollute more because one chooses to reproduce.

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. You got that bass ackwards.

The simple fact is, the larger family DOES have a smaller carbon footprint, because it uses 1/6 the energy of the smaller family in country B.

Carbon footprint is defined by energy use.

If the large family in Country A is 95% self sustaining, growing their own crops for their own use, without pesticides, without dependence upon heavy machinery, making their own furniture, building their own homes, making their own clothes; and the small family in country B depends on heavy manufacturing, uses great amounts of energy by purchasing items made half-way around the world, hopping in the car for a quick 3 hour drive to the city to go shopping, shipping their food in from Chile and New Zealand, OF COURSE the smaller family has a larger carbon footprint.

OTOH, the large family can't do much to reduce their carbon footprint, as they are living at a subsistance level as it is. The small family can make a conscious effort to reduce their amount of waste, buy local food, recycle, reuse, and use up their resources before throwing them away. They don't have to go Amish to reduce their impact, but there is a lot they CAN do if they recognize the problem.

[Romulox]

24. Nope. In my hypo each family produces the SAME amount of carbon.

"OF COURSE the smaller family has a larger carbon footprint."

Perhaps it wasn't clear that I meant "uses 1/6 of the energy" per capita. My mistake.

[RaleighNCDUer]

27. OK, I get what you meant - the 'per cap' makes all the difference.

Yet still, I must refer to my last paragraph. If the large family is living at subsistance level, the only thing they can do to reduce their footprint is to reduce the size of their family - yet there is a paradox in that they need their large numbers to survive, living at the subsistance level. The small, urban or suburban family can easily, with some simple steps, reduce their carbon footprint. So looking for practical solutions you must look to the family with the most intensive use - the smaller family.