My only quibble was that she sort of framed it only as ‘half the climate change problem,’ when in fact it’s much more than that. (not that that’s not a lot itself) There was only fleeting mention of how it’s an environmental problem beyond climate change. On the other hand, it may make strategic sense to link it strongly to climate change rirht now, as that’s something people are paying some attention to.

I wanted to post a comment on it, but I didn’t see a way to do it. I think comments on it may be closed. Given the title, “No one is willing to address the accelerating growth in the world’s population,” I wanted to say, “We’re willing. We’re talking about it every day!”

Very interesting stuff. I’m going to try that Guardian article later tonight as this connection is just too slow right now. (Out of town on a dial-up connection.) But thanks, that could be a significant development.

The Norwegian newspaper article was totally not interesting. It simply made the case: “Hey, we should also be thinking about the topic of overpopulation, really.”

But there’s better news as well. The Observer (from the UK) has put a knowledgeable person on the job. She’s got the intelligence to lay down the facts of the matter, and also the courage to look at the cause for the silence on the matter.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2036598,00.html

Quote: “The biggest obstacle to debate is the matter of possible solutions. Propositions such as ignoring disease or limiting life-saving medical treatment can be ruled out as unacceptable, and birth control is objectionable to many on moral, religious and libertarian grounds. It is not surprising that green groups and politicians, worried about offending supporters, stay silent.”

Quote: “It is understandable then that people are worried about discussing population, but fear of misrepresentation, offence or failure are not good enough reasons to ignore one half of the world’s biggest problem: the population effect on climate change.”

Interesting stuff. I certainly agree with a lot of it. Are you familiar with the “slow food” movement and the “work less” party?

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010820/stille

http://www.slowfood.com/

http://www.worklessparty.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=40&Itemid=97

The fast-paced, consumerist lifestyle of Industrial Society is causing exponential rise in psychological problems besides destroying the environment. All issues are interlinked. Our Minds cannot be peaceful when attention-spans are down to nanoseconds, microseconds and milliseconds. Our Minds cannot be peaceful if we destroy Nature.

Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment.

Subject : In a fast society slow emotions become extinct.
Subject : A thinking mind cannot feel.
Subject : Scientific/ Industrial/ Financial thinking destroys the planet.
Subject : Environment can never be saved as long as cities exist.

Emotion is what we experience during gaps in our thinking.

If there are no gaps there is no emotion.

Today people are thinking all the time and are mistaking thought (words/ language) for emotion.

When society switches-over from physical work (agriculture) to mental work (scientific/ industrial/ financial/ fast visuals/ fast words ) the speed of thinking keeps on accelerating and the gaps between thinking go on decreasing.

There comes a time when there are almost no gaps.

People become incapable of experiencing/ tolerating gaps.

Emotion ends.

Man becomes machine.

A society that speeds up mentally experiences every mental slowing-down as Depression / Anxiety.

A ( travelling )society that speeds up physically experiences every physical slowing-down as Depression / Anxiety.

A society that entertains itself daily experiences every non-entertaining moment as Depression / Anxiety.

FAST VISUALS /WORDS MAKE SLOW EMOTIONS EXTINCT.

SCIENTIFIC /INDUSTRIAL /FINANCIAL THINKING DESTROYS EMOTIONAL CIRCUITS.

A FAST (LARGE) SOCIETY CANNOT FEEL PAIN / REMORSE / EMPATHY.

A FAST (LARGE) SOCIETY WILL ALWAYS BE CRUEL TO ANIMALS/ TREES/ AIR/ WATER/ LAND AND TO ITSELF.

To read the complete article please follow either of these links :

PlanetSave

EarthNewsWire

sushil_yadav

- —

Interesting!

Now: if people in general are actually starting to come to terms with the idea that the human population’s overconsumption of fossil fuels is the real problem we are facing today; ie. when it comes to global warming / manmade climate change, and are able to grasp the fact that the fossil fuels in question, are, predominantly, coal, oil, and natural gas …

The answer to the question that all of us will be quite able to give, is: “We should quit making use of all that oil, coal and gas, okay?”

But that’s much easier said than done, now isn’t it?

You may, unfortunately, be right. I figure, though, that *any* bit of progress or nudging toward that attitude change now (e.g., getting more people talking…) may lead to actual change sooner, even if “sooner” is in 50 years rather than 70. That difference may turn out to really matter for upcoming generations, I think.

“I also agree with your assessment of optimistic belief in technology that will save us. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. To use this much energy simply means we need to produce the same amount. No magic here.”

Yeah, I think that’s right. I recall Al Bartlett referring to Eric Sevareid’s Law: “The cheif cause of problems is solutions.” Sorta funny, but true too.

But it is necessary to do both in order to reduce per capita consumption. I am all for it. I doubt I will see this attitude change in my lifetime. May be in my 1.26 children.

I also agree with your assessment of optimistic belief in technology that will save us. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. To use this much energy simply means we need to produce the same amount. No magic here.

I’m not positive I’m understanding your question. Are you talking about individuals or industries and such. i.e., are you asking, what if some vital industries are among the biggest consumers?

I think you may be getting at the idea that good things may come at a cost. And while that’s true, we need of course to look at when that cost is starting to outweigh the benefits. Internal combustion cars were great when there were only a few of them (small population…), but today their contributions to climate change and other problems is making their benefits something less than great, I’d say. So whether through technological solutions (about which I think many may be a bit overly optimistic) or societal changes, we need to reduce those costs.

Just wondering.