Part 2: The great unheard of debate in America and around the world—over population

By Frosty Wooldridge

Part 2: Sustainability and resources

The United States expects to add 100 million people by 2035—a scant 24 years from now.  Such numbers will create horrific strain on our water, energy and resources. 

Yet, human overpopulation remains the last American taboo. It remains untouched and avoided at all costs by the American Main  Stream Media.   David Gregory of Meet the Press won’t touch it.  Bob Schieffer of FAce the Nation avoids it.  Christ Mathews of Hardball evades it. Wolf Blitzer of CNN ignores it.  Kathleen Parker of the Washington Post runs from it.  Finally, Thomas Friedman wrote a piece about it this year in the New York Times:  “The Earth is full”.  But it died as fast as he wrote it.

Nonetheless, the United States adds 8,100 people daily, 3.1 million annually net gain and races headlong toward another 100 million by 2035.  But Americans stand around like cows in a pasture swishing their tails as another indolent day passes.

This series will give readers an idea of the calamities we face as a civilization by continuing on this breakneck course of adding millions of humans to our already overwhelmed North American continent.  Not only educate you, but give you sources to take action to change course for a sustainable future.

Therefore, I am presenting my long time friend, Dr. Albert Bartlett, Department of Physics, University of Colorado, www.albartlett.org , and his famous “REFLECTIONS ON SUSTAINABILITY, POPULATION GROWTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT.”

SUSTAINABILITY

“The terms “sustainable” and “sustainability” burst into the global lexicon in the 1980s as the electronic news media made people increasingly aware of the growing global problems of overpopulation, drought, famine, and environmental degradation that had been the subject of Limits to Growth in the early 1970s, (Meadows, et.al., 1972),” said Bartlett.  “A great burst of increased awareness came with the publication of the report of the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, the Bruntland Report, which is available in bookstores under the title Our Common Future. (Bruntland, 1987) 

“In graphic and heart-wrenching detail, this Report places before the reader the enormous problems and suffering that are being experienced with growing intensity every day throughout the underdeveloped world. In the foreword, before there was any definition of “sustainable,” there was the ringing call,

“What is needed now is a new era of economic growth – growth that is forceful and at the same time socially and environmentally sustainable. (p.xii) 

“One should be struck by the fact that here is a call for “economic growth” that is “sustainable”. What is “economic growth?” Is it an increase in economic activity per capita, or is it an increase in total economic activity? Whatever the definition, one has to ask if it is possible to have an increase in ecomomic activity without having increases in the rates of consumption of non-renewable resources? If so, under what conditions can this happen? Are we moving toward those conditions today? As we have seen, these two concepts of “growth” and “sustainability” tend to conflict with one another, yet here we see the call for both. The use of the word “forceful” would seem to imply “rapid,” but if this is the intended meaning, it would just heighten the conflict. A few pages later in the Report we read, thus sustainable development can only be pursued if population size and growth are in harmony with the changing productive potential of the ecosystem.(p.9)

“One begins to feel uneasy. What does the Commission mean by the phrase “in harmony with…?” It can mean anything. By page 11 the Commission acknowledges that population growth is a serious problem, but then the issue is not just numbers of people, but how those numbers relate to available resources. Urgent steps are needed to limit extreme rates of population growth. 

“The suggestion that “The issue is not just numbers of people” is alarming. Neither “limit” nor “extreme” are defined, and so the sentence gives the impression that most population growth is acceptable and that only the “extreme rates of population growth” (“extreme” is not defined) need to be dealt with by some undefined process of limiting. By page 15 we read that 

“A safe, environmentally sound, and economically viable energy pathway that will sustain human progress into the distant future is clearly imperative. Here we see the recognition that energy is a major long-term problem and we see the important acknowledgment that “sustainable” means “into the distant future.” 

“As the authors of the Report searched for solutions, they called for large efforts to support “sustainable development.” The most commonly quoted definition of “sustainable development” appears in the first sentence of Chapter 2,(p.43) 

“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromisingthe ability of future generations to meet their own needs. This definition, coupled with the earlier statement of the need to “sustain human progress into the distant future,” should form the basis for our understanding of the use of the term, “sustainable development.”

“The Commission’s recognizes that there is a conflict between population growth and development:(p.44)

“An expansion in numbers [of people] can increase the pressure on resources and slow the rise in living standards in areas where deprivation is widespread. Though the issue is not merely one of population size, but of the distribution of resources, sustainable development can only be pursued if demographic developments are in harmony with the changing productive potential of the ecosystem.

“Can the Commission mean that population growth slows the rise of living standards only “in areas where deprivation is widespread?” This statement again plays down the role of population size in exacerbating resource and environmental problems. The Commission repeats the denial that the problems relate to population size and it shifts the blame to the distribution of resources. The Commission then speaks of “demographic developments,” whatever that may mean, which must be “in harmony with…”, whatever that means. If one accepts reports that the “global productive potential of ecosystems” is declining, due to deforestation, the loss of topsoil, pollution, etc., then the “in harmony with…” could mean that population also will have to decline. But the Commission is very careful not to say this.

“It seems that the Bruntland Commission Report’s definition of “sustainability” was, with reason, both optimistic and vague. The Commission probably felt that the definition had to be optimistic, but given the facts, it was necessary to be vague in order not to appear to be pessimistic. Straight talk about the meaning of “sustainability” is similarly avoided in a more recent report that came out of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janerio, which was…the largest gathering of world leaders in history [which] endorsed the principle of sustainable development. (Committee for a National Institute for the Environment, 1993)

“The report carries the impressive title, Agenda 21, The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet (Sitarz, 1993) The text discusses the relation between population growth and the health of the planet. 

“The spiraling growth of world population fuels the growth of global production and consumption. Rapidly increasing demands for natural resources, employment, education and social services make any attempts to protect natural resources and improve living standards very difficult. There is an immediate need to develop strategies aimed at controlling world population growth.(p.44) 

“The first sentence is quite reasonable, but in the third sentence, what is meant by “controlling?” The dictionary suggests meanings such as, “To check or regulate; to keep within limits; to exercise directing, guiding or restraining power over..” “Controlling world population growth” could mean, “hold the annual population growth rate at its present value of approximately 1.7%,” which surely was not their intent. Why do they use the phrase “controlling world population growth” when one suspects that they know full well that the critical challenge is to “stop world population growth?” Having thus made a politically correct statement of the problem, the Report then lists, under the heading, “Programs and Activities”, the things that need to be done. Here we would expect that the authors would concentrate on the hard realities. Instead, it is all whipped cream. Perhaps their strongest recommendation is  the results of all research into the impact of population growth on the Earth must be disseminated as widely as possible. Public awareness of this issue must be increased through distribution of population-related information in the media.(p.45) 

“How are we going to increase public awareness of the problem of population growth if the crucial report that purports to give guidelines for the future won’t talk frankly and honestly about the problem? How are we going to educate the public about the problem of population growth if we fail ourselves to give concrete details of “the impact of population growth on the Earth?” 

“Then, under the next heading of “National Population Policies” we read that 

“The long term consequences of human population growth must be fully grasped by all nations. They must rapidly formulate and implement appropriate programs to cope with the inevitable increase in population numbers. (p.45)

“The authors indicate here that they know that there are serious “long term consequences of human population growth.” These consequences could have been explored in simple, concrete, and illuminating detail, and yet the authors fail to do the exploring. The authors could have educated us about the “long-term consequences of continued population growth” and then could have identified for us the appropriate remedial courses of action which are necessary to achieve zero growth of population as rapidly as possible. By referring to the “inevitable increase in population numbers” the authors seem to say that there is nothing that can be done. 

“The failure of writers to address the population problem was underscored recently by Robert M. May (May, 1993). May, who is Royal Society Research Professor at the University of Oxford and Imperial College, London, was reviewing a new book on biological diversity. He observes that the book says relatively little about the continuing growth of human populations. But this is the engine that drives everything. Patterns of accelerating resource use, and their variation among regions, are important but secondary: problems of wasteful consumption can be solved if population growth is halted, but such solutions are essentially irrelevant if populations continue to proliferate.

“Every day the planet sees a net increase (births less deaths) of about one quarter of a million people. Such numbers defy intuitive appreciation. Yet many religious leaders seem to welcome these trends, seemingly motivated by calculations about their market share. And governments, most notably that of the U.S., keep the issue off the international agenda; witness the Earth Summit meeting in Rio de Janerio. Until this changes, I see little hope.”

Dr. Albert Bartlett may be reached at www.albartlett.org

##  

In a five minute astoundingly simple yet brilliant video, “Immigration, Poverty, and Gum balls”, Roy Beck, director of www.numbersusa.ORG, graphically illustrates the impact of overpopulation.  Take five minutes to see for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE&feature=player_embedded

If any of us, no matter what our race, creed or color might be, refuse to engage our U.S. Congress as we have not for 30 years as to the population/immigration equation-our children will find themselves living in a terribly degraded America where the American Dream will be described by the history books as a ‘fleeting fantasy’ from the era of 1950 to 2010.

These are several of the top organizations where you can take collective action to change the course of American history as well as in Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia. Take collective action at:

This is the best website to start:  www.numbersusa.com ; watch Roy Beck’s “Immigration by the Numbers” at 14 minutes. Bi-partisan and very effective. Become a faxer of pre-written letters to your reps to make positive  change.

Also: www.fairus.org ; www.capsweb.org ; www.thesocialcontract.com ; www.populationmedia.org ; www.worldpopulationbalance.org ; www.populationconnection.org ; www.quinacrine.com ; www.familyplanning.org/ , www.skil.org ; www.growthbusters.com; www.populationpress.org ; www.thinkpopulation.org ; www.carryingcapacity.org ; www.balance.org ; www.controlgrowth.org ; in Canada www.immigrationwatchcanada.org ; in Australia www.population.org.au and[email protected]; in Great Britain www.optimumpopulation.org ; and dozens of other sites accessed at www.frostywooldridge.com.

Must see DVD: “Blind Spot” www.snagfilms.com/films/title/blind_spot/ , This movie illustrates America’s future without oil, water and other resources to keep this civilization functioning. It’s a brilliant educational movie! www.blindspotdoc.com

Must see: Rapid Population Decline, seven minute video by Dr. Jack Alpert-

www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTWduFB_RX0

Must see and funny: www.growthbusters.org ; www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXSTrW_dARc
Dave Gardner’s Polar Bear in Bedroom:

growthbusters.org/2010/03/save-the-polar-bear-in-your-bedroom ; Dave Gardner, President, Citizen-Powered Media ; Producing the Documentary, GROWTH BUSTERS; presents Hooked on Growth: Our Misguided Quest for Prosperity, Join the cause at www.growthbusters.org ;760 Wycliffe Drive, Colorado Springs, CO 80906 USA; +1 719-576-5565

Check out this link with Wooldridge on bicycle and Lester Brown and panel discussion:

www.upnorthmedia.org/watchupnorthtv.asp?SDBFid=1631

Tomorrow’s Americaproject on www.youtube.com/contemporarylearning.

Producer: GEORGE A. COLBURNwww.tomorrowsamerica.com

DC: 202-258-4887

Email: [email protected]

Link to www.tomorrowsamerica.com for more discussions on America’s predicament.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

www.starbrightmediacorp.com

www.tomorrowsamerica.com

##

Frosty Wooldridge has bicycled across six continents – from the Arctic to the South Pole – as well as six times across the USA, coast to coast and border to border. In 2005, he bicycled from the Arctic Circle, Norway to Athens, Greece. He presents “The Coming Population Crisis in America: and what you can do about it” to civic clubs, church groups, high schools and colleges. He works to bring about sensible world population balance at www.frostywooldridge.com He is the author of: America on the Brink: The Next Added 100 Million Americans. Copies available: 1 888 280 7715