2011: The year we’ll hit 7 billion

[marmar]

from Grist:



2011: The year we’ll hit 7 billion
by Lisa Hymas

31 Dec 2010 5:56 PM


Sometime in the latter half of this year, the world population will hit a new milestone: 7 billion people. Already? Didn't we just hit 6 billion? Yep, a mere dozen years ago -- and that's probably the last time you heard much about population. It takes a big, round number with lots of zeroes to get MSM attention.

So in 2011, expect to hear the P word a lot more than you did in 2010, and a lot more than you will in 2012. National Geographic is kicking off the action with a cover story and photo essay.

It's projected to take us slightly longer to get to the next big, round number with lots of zeroes -- 14 years instead of 12. While the total number of people on the planet is still growing fast, the nature and speed of that growth has been changing dramatically. This Economist video gives you great visual overview of the trends. (Is it just me or does that graphic look like a packet of birth-control pills?)

Watch: http://www.grist.org/article/2011-01-01-year-we-hit-7-billion-population


Even as we're adding people, we're also dramatically changing the demographic composition of entire societies, and creating different kinds of problems along the way -- like the challenge of aging populations in many developed countries. Bryan Walsh of Time suggests that immigration could be one solution:

Here's the planet we could have in 2050: an overpopulated, overstressed developing world and an aging, economically stagnant developed world, with inequality even larger than it is today. Is there any way to escape that fate? While development and education will be incredibly important (especially for women -- literacy is one of the best ways to reduce fertility), the answer may end up being immigration. Think about it -- in the future the developed world will lack young workers, and the developing world will have an excess of that resource. Immigration could be a way to balance demographics and economics -- alleviating population pressure in the poorer parts of the world while jump starting aging developed nations. The U.S. already does this -- immigration will provide most of American population growth. It would be a radical solution, given the political resistance to increased immigration in much of the rich world. (If you think it's a hot topic in the U.S., try Japan, which steadfastly resists assimilating foreigners, despite the dire threat posed by an aging population.) But it might be the only way to save our overpopulated planet.

So much juicy stuff to talk about this year.

But for now, I'll leave you with this loooong graphic that puts some population numbers in perspective:





http://www.grist.org/article/2011-01-01-year-we-hit-7-billion-population

[MineralMan]

1. Here's What DUers Can Do about This:

Don't have children! If you want to deal with the population problem, stop having children. It's a growing problem, and it's not getting better.

In 1965, I decided never to add to the world's population, and have married women who agreed with that principle.

It's not enough to decry population increases. That does absolutely nothing to change anything. There is only one way:

STOP HAVING CHILDREN!

[valerief]

2. +1000

[MineralMan]

3. Thanks. I expect a different response from most people.

Every child born in the United States of America will use an inordinate amount of the world's resources. Every child not born in this country provides some of those resources to the rest of the planet.

My decision was possibly the most important act of activism I could possibly have made as an individual.

Now, I expect many to rationalize their own decision to procreate.

[valerief]

9. People are conditioned to want a "mini me". It bolsters consumer spending. nt

[MineralMan]

15. It's true. What amuses me is the habit people who have

procreated have of telling me I'm selfish for not having children. Somewhere, a logical process has not formed.

[valerief]

24. Most certainly. They'd never say the same thing to a nun or priest. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

26. I've never once seen anyone here call someone without kids "selfish"

I have, however, seen a lot of asinine pronouncements from self-righteous "childfree" folks about how everyone else should "STOP HAVING CHILDREN!" (of course, those caps indicate a "suggestion", not an "order"...:eyes:)

Invariably ignoring the FACT that the so-called "population problem" is localized to certain regions and countries, and the US is not one of them. Right, and of course even mentioning that, say, Niger or Guinea-Bissou has a birthrate of approx. 7 or 8 vs. the 2.1 or whatever of the US is "racist".

The "answer" is contained in the image you posted, but of course the self-righteous people who enjoy screeching at "yuppie breeders" always seem to gloss that part over: INCREASED FUNDING FOR CONTRACEPTION.

Rather than telling people who are already controlling their reproductive rates just fine on their own (thank you very much) to "STOP HAVING CHILDREN", we should make sure that everyone on the planet who DOESN'T want kids has access to safe, effective birth control. Also, the first world conditions that cause so much hand-wringing are, conversely, also the conditions which lead to lower birth rates... raise more people out of poverty and give them more control over their lives, and the population problem in those countries will mitigate.

I realize that's not nearly as satisfying as telling everyone how much better than them you are b/c you never had kids, but that's a far more realistic approach to the problem.

[valerief]

29. I believe he was talking about people he knew, not people here. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

33. I'm still not buying it. Beyond that, if I had $10 for every thread where this tired shit was

trotted out, I'd have a big pile of cash.

Here's the so-called "logic" (in italics), with the reality:

There is a population problem on planet Earth ...

actually, the so-called "population problem" is localized to certain countries and regions. Places with poverty and little access to contraception.

Merely mentioning that is racist, and means you just want fewer "brown people". Americans use more resources, so we need fewer Americans. Americans need to stop breeding.

Okay, let's pick that apart. First off, you're saying that there is a population problem, a reproduction rate problem, but mentioning where the population is actually growing- as opposed to staying stable or even shrinking- and who has the highest reproduction rate is not allowed? What the fuck?

Secondly, if the problem is resource usage, then it's a resource usage problem, not a population problem. Less American babies would not mean that America would suddenly develop resource usage patterns more akin to, say, North Africa. If we stopped making new Americans would America go away? How would that work, exactly?

And if it's not population, but Americans that are the problem, how come there isn't the same vociferous opposition to immigration as there is to Americans having kids? Funny, that the people who shriek at Americans to "STOP HAVING CHILDREN" aren't out there with the crazy fucking minutemen in AZ, trying to close the border. An evil, resource-hogging American is an evil, resource-hogging American, whether born or immigrated. ....right?

You're trying to confuse the issue. The fact of the matter is, there is a population problem, because a yuppie breeder in an SUV cut me off in traffic and last time I went out for dinner someone wouldn't shut up their brat.

As long as we've identified what the problem is. An honest approach to the population problem such as it is would recognize that countries (like the US, or W. Europe, or Japan) where the populations have a high standard of living, a high degree of personal autonomy, and access to birth control and reproductive services, limit their population on their own, even before they can be screeched at to "STOP HAVING CHILDREN!!!!" Of course, this means that the dreaded first world lifestyle that is decried in these threads is actually part of the solution, not part of the problem. As is access to contraception. As is PERSONAL CHOICE.

[MineralMan]

38. Oh, dear. I said I had heard that. You may not have.

I called nobody a "breeder," now did I? I did not tell people I was "better" than they were. I said what my decision was and stated that as a way of not adding to the population problem. I believe you are expanding what I said for some reason.

As I correctly stated, every child born in the USA will use hugely more resources than a child born in most parts of the world. That is simply a true statement. People make their own decisions. I made mine.

[Warren DeMontague]

46. And that's a resource usage problem, not a population problem. Every immigrant to the USA will also

use the resources, on average, of a USA resident.

If you don't want children, absolutely you should not have them. But if you think that gives you some kind of objectively morally superior position to those of us who do, you're simply mistaken.

If you care enough to read what I've written elsewhere in the thread- I'm not going to repeat it, here- you'll see that the "USA residents use more resources so people in the USA shouldn't have kids" argument is ridiculous on a lot of levels. It's the first world conditions, in part, that have led to the first world self-limiting birthrates. Also, arguing that we need fewer Americans is also arguing that we need to keep other parts of the world in poverty, unless different standards apply to the people in other countries you haven't arbitrarily decided need to "STOP HAVING CHILDREN!!!!"

[Hello_Kitty]

47. I've been called selfish right to my face on numerous occasions

We childfree women get an extra dose of derision because we are viewed as denying our feminine essences. Honestly, Warren, has anyone ever questioned your decision to have kids outside of a few places on the internet? Have you ever been treated as if you were abnormal because of your decision to be a parent?

Rather than telling people who are already controlling their reproductive rates just fine on their own (thank you very much) to "STOP HAVING CHILDREN", we should make sure that everyone on the planet who DOESN'T want kids has access to safe, effective birth control.

It needs to become okay not to want children. In most places in the world it is not. Again, many women are under incredible social and economic pressure to bear children. The concept of opting out of parenthood literally does not exist for most of these women. This was driven home to me years ago when I was volunteering to teach ESL to immigrants. Being in AZ nearly everyone I tutored was from Mexico. I was working with a pair of sisters in their early 20s, both of whom already had more than one child each. They asked me if I had kids and I told them I didn't. They immediately assumed I was unable and expressed sympathy. I laughed and explained that I had chosen not to have children. They were stunned by this. "I didn't know you can do that!" said one.

I would love to see a massive global PR campaign that says "it's okay not to have kids". Not you shouldn't have them, but that it's okay not to. Of course, it'll never happen.

[Warren DeMontague]

50. I'd be fully behind that kind of PR campaign, although I think $ for contraception

would be even more effective.

Believe me, I've spent a lot of time in assorted left-leaning circles, and yes, I have some more authoritarian-minded friends who think they're acting from a position of moral authority b/c they don't have kids. But we're on DU, and these threads crop up with regularity, just like the anti-meat eating ones. I've seen a lot of shit dished out towards "breeders" but never anyone given grief for not having kids. Ever. I don't give a shit if you don't want kids, don't have kids, in fact anyone who doesn't want kids ABSOLUTELY should not have them. But I am not going to say that one choice is "better" for everyone- or anyone- than another. I'm pro-choice; that means, choice. Make up your own mind, live your own life.

I agree completely with what you've written, but the narrative that gets promulgated in these threads isn't one of choice, it's one of finger-wagging at the bad yuppie resource-hogging Americans to not have kids. Whereas it's the personal autonomy, the choice that First World nations at least have aspired to, that has allowed us to bring our birth rates down organically and through self-determination. And with self-determination I would include religious skepticism and freedom. It's telling that the one example you give involves non-English speakers from Mexico.


And I don't think one can discount the institutions that are out there, particularly in countries like Mexico, actively telling people NOT to use birth control. Cough. Pope. Cough.

[cali]

4. did you read the OP? U.S. population growth is from immigration

people at DU having or not having children would make no difference.

[Statistical]

5. Of course it matter.

Just because the "organic" population growth in the US is low doesn't mean it can't be lower.

Every individual birth pushes the population of the planet up.

[Auggie]

8. Totally agree

[MineralMan]

14. Yes, I read the OP. I read Malthus. I read Huxley.

What's your point? Every child born in the United States will use a hugely inordinate amount of the world's resources. Every child not born will not use a hugely inordinate amount of resources. Do you not understand the equation?

The problem is not solely one of population. It is complicated by an unbalanced demand on resources. Nowhere is that demand higher than here in this country. Per capita, each person in the United States uses vastly more resources than in almost any other place on this planet.

I have not contributed to that excess. It was a conscious decision on my part at the age of 20.

As I said, people will attempt to rationalize their own procreation in whatever way they can find. I don't need to do that.

Have a nice life, while others starve.

[cali]

31. oh bully for you and your sanctimony

rationalize my ass. I had one child. I wouldn't trade that for anything in the world. but how the fuck would YOU know? You wouldn't. obviously.

[MineralMan]

37. No, I wouldn't. As I said, I chose not to procreate.

It was a very conscious decision. You chose to do otherwise. That's your decision.

[Foo Fighter]

51. Too bad your parent's didn't make that same choice. n/t

[MineralMan]

52. Oh, nice....

Clever, too.

[Drale]

6. America is not the problem

our birth to death rate is nearly even, its the developing nations that is the problem. Couples can have 2 children safely and that is sustainable because you are just replacing yourselves and some couples will have 1 or no children or will choose to adopt, but in the developing nations because of the lack of birth control, and the high infant mortality rate, woman have many more children.

[valerief]

10. American mouthpieces dominate the planet and rail against birth control and abortion.

America is the problem.

[Drale]

11. No stupid Americans are the problem

I'm talking pure statistics

[valerief]

12. I'm talking American power and politics. nt

[Auggie]

13. Most of the world does not have the resources or desire

to listen to American mouthpieces

[valerief]

21. They just affect policy in other countries. Like birth control distribution.

No needs to listen to the people who affect their lives. The lives just get affected anyway.

[MineralMan]

17. That's nonsense. Every person born in the United States uses

the resources of many, many people. You are missing the point of the graphics. Each child born here will use vastly more resources than a child born almost anywhere else on the planet. How is it that you fail to see that? How is it that almost all Americans fail to see that?

I guess you think that that solution is to get the brown people of the world to reproduce less, eh? Why should they decide do that, while the developed world is using an inordinate amount of resources? It's an ugly attitude, IMO.

[Gregorian]

19. Here's a visual that works well.

By the way, you just made my year. Thanks for being responsible. For caring about the future. For sacrificing your life so that others can live. For being vigilant. You rock.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-0vnRmej0Q

[MineralMan]

42. Thanks for the video.

[KillCapitalism]

22. The developing world is where the focus should be for birth control.

It seems that some countries are full of people who are trying to outdo the Duggars.

[proud2BlibKansan]

16. I am pro choice

If someone wants to have a child, it's not okay for me to tell them they should not do so.

[MineralMan]

18. OK. You're free to do or not do whatever you want.

Except to tell me what I may or may not do. Each child born in the USA will use vastly more resources than a child born almost anywhere else. It's a total equation, you see.

Are we somehow special? Do we somehow deserve more than, say, people born in Somalia or Thailand? Why? Is it OK for our children to be obese while children elsewhere starve?

It's not merely numbers of humans, you see. It is the resources consumed by each of those humans. Here in this country, we consume far more resources than in most of the world. Is that OK? Really?

I offered a suggestion. I did not give an order. Not having children is something each of can choose to do at some point in our lives. I made that choice in 1965. I wish more had made that choice, but it wasn't to be, even though the problem was clear, even then.

The answer is not for the brown people to breed less. The answer is for everyone to breed less. That includes us.

[proud2BlibKansan]

20. WTF. Who said anything about brown people?

I feel like parenthood is a personal and private choice. I'm not going to criticize you for not having children. I really don't care what you do. I am also very proud of my own kids and don't want anyone telling me I should feel guilty for having them or that anyone else should refuse to have kids. It's none of my business.

[seaglass]

30. are you special? do you deserve to live more than my child? i think not. n/t

[cali]

32. no shit. the self-righteous crap from people who think that the choices they made

are the only right choices is gag worthy. Particularly when it comes from a long time former freeper.

[seaglass]

36. yep, and i am 100% certain my kids will never be freepers, so i vote for them. lol. n/t

[Foo Fighter]

44. I fully support MineralMan in his decision.

In fact, it's rather comforting to know that he hasn't reproduced.

[MineralMan]

40. I did not choose to be born. When I began to learn of the

population explosion and the impact that would inevitably have on life on this limited planet, I made the decision not to add to the population. You made a different decision. We all make decisions. For those who have not made the decision, I offer something to think about. I can't suggest anything for those who have already decided, you see.

[Warren DeMontague]

48. You are alive, livng in America and using resources by doing things like using the internet.

I'm sure you could come up with some radical ways to drastically cut your own resource usage. Just, you know, to consider it.

[Meeker Morgan]

25. Something about natural selection?

Relax. :evilgrin:

[walldude]

28. Yeah.. thats what you can do.

Or you can adopt if you aren't so self righteous and happy with your childless "activism".

You know it's not the fact that you believe in not having children, I mean to each his own. But to come into a thread with an attitude that people having children is BAD. WRONG. HURTING PEOPLE. Is a crock.

I never tell people I adopted. There is no need. But I'll make an exception for this. Your contribution of not having children pales in comparison to my adopting a child with Muscular Dystrophy.

Doing nothing is not activism. It's doing nothing.

[Brickbat]

35. Very powerful post.

And I totally agree with "doing nothing is not activism." Well said.

[Pool Hall Ace]

39. Childfreedom is not the same as "doing nothing." --eom

[Maat]

41. +1 (n/t)

[MineralMan]

43. I can't change what has happened. I can only encourage those

who haven't reproduced to consider not doing so. I made that decision after careful thought and after reading what was going on with global population. It's something to think about. As for you adopting a child, that's a very, very good thing. Congratulations on your choice.

I spent many years working to make reproductive choice a matter of law, and more years standing in front of Planned Parenthood clinics, escorting women into those facilities past those who would deny them that choice. We all do different things.

[Brickbat]

34. OH SHIT!!!!!! I ALREADY DID!!!!!!

TOO LATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

[sabrina 1]

53. SHAME on you!!

:sarcasm:

:rofl:

[Hello_Kitty]

45. Right there with ya, MM.

[Odin2005]

7. That graph really puts things into prespective.

[InvisibleTouch]

23. I remember when it hit 5 billion.

I thought it was horrible then, and it's worse now. There are too many humans in the world, to the detriment of every other living thing.

[hayu_lol]

27. The earth can probably sustain a population of...

one billion almost indefinitely. Who here is willing and ready to go the euthanasia route? Anybody?

When resources are reduced to the 'almost nothing left' level, quantum jumps in population deaths will bring the total number of our species down very quickly. That, is the future.

[RandomThoughts]

49. And if austerity programs exist, that should be the argument used.

Not hiding that that is the argument. However all those things could be achieved with better distribution and economic models, including democracy and education with transparency.


And also not with a 0 sum gain, but with improving many places, not destroying them.

And not for the luxury of a few.


I also know that it could be said I have no argument for beer and travel money, because others need things more.

Hence why it makes sense to get that from people with more, not farm those with less.

And help solve the problems of the lack of consolidations. While also sharing what I have with people with a little less.

At the same time the problems of pollution and resources should be with education and innovation to better systems, not just removing money from people in western world so they drive less. Nor a profit motive pushing anything that sells best.

It is so simple, if you explain why some choices are better, you move money away from corporations, a more modest spending and living situation with more local production and transportation of goods and services.


I saw Matt Daemon talking about the water issue on Letterman, great cause to help people with clean water.