Good points all. Consumption is indeed a major problem, though my focus on population and economic issues here sometimes makes it seem as though I’m underemphasizing it. It’s late, so I’m going to come back to this tomorrow to respond a little more. In fact, I want to first read your two new posts on technology (at sustainability theory dharma) as that clearly ties in here as well.

Population is a definite problem and avoid it is simply irresponsible.

However, I think we do need to get back to the basics of overconsumption, that if only developed nations can lower their consumption (a talk order as Magne mentioned here).

Also, we tend to forget American population growth is not simply due to birth. The 4 percent per annum immigration equates to an extra 12 million people per year. The number of whom who come from developing nations is unclear but at any rate these people are consuming at the same per capita rate as the rest of the country.

This means it is not only a population problem but an attitude problem. I have said this many times before but moving towards developed status is not such a great thing. It is possible to live with lower consumption levels and be happy.

Whether free market capitalism and its supporters will let us have our free choice is another matter.

Either way, population growth and movement (linked by disparity between the rich and poor, and the migration of people from poor to rich “zones”) needs to be stabilized, and the consumption of developed nations must be lowered dramatically.

This does not mean people in poorer nations should not raise their standard of living. But raising it does not imply a greater rise in consumption. Again, that is only what the free market capitalists want you to believe. In other words, to consume (indiscriminately) is to be better off. I say “no”. Because it is possible to consumption wisely.

But everybody here understands this so well I don’t need to go on.

For the feminist angle, I must leave that for my comment in Part 2.

John: “Because I’m a believer in dealing with root causes, and because I appreciate the importance of those social and economic factors in their own right …”

- —

You people are just great!

But: “Money talks, and hey we’re listening.” Check it out.

http://www.constitution.org/jjr/ineq.htm

… in which the greatest utopist of all time (Jean-Jacques Rouseau) reached the conclusion that the root cause of inequality amongst humans is to be found in the institution of property … uh humm: this is the exact place where my mind power starts to fail me, and the ambitions of my soul goes to rest …

Because this is the last and final taboo. This is where all the human vices find their cause. I am ready to accept, in a factual manner, the notion that “the property sin” comes as an integral part of what we might call “human nature”. We just cannot do anything about this.

However: just like one of “the environment site” forum users stated yesterday: “”We have to dare to think differently and cooperatively in a way that profiteering and personal fortune is taken out of the equation.” – I’m of exactly the same opinion.

Problem is: I do not believe it is possible to achieve this. Dreams like these simply do not come true. So even though every sane person can instinctively understand that human beings ought to co-operate here, unfortunately, we all basically know that human beings (the social creatures) are natural competitors and not co-operators, like we should have been.

I know this comment is a wee bit off topic. But I also know that this wretched problem is bound to be discussed more often than ever before. It is way too important, and – in the long run – absolutely impossible for anyone to ignore.

Since there are a great many social and economic problems needing attention, and not all of them strongly impact fertility rates, we must be careful to address all those which do. Otherwise we risk helping with some array of human problems while watching the human population continue to grow in a finite world. (Of course we must also address other social and economic problems which may not be so directly tied to fertility rates because of their importance in their own right.)

Similarly, in some instances, such as the scenario you describe, we might make progress in solving some environmental problem, but without influencing fertility rates, again risking seeing population continue to grow toward or beyond the earth’s limits. (Focusing only on non-fertility-linked issues may be okay in particular instances, such as the one you mention, as long as we maintain a simultaneous focus on stabilizing world population.)

Hartmann calls, essentially, for a complete dismissal of the idea that population growth is a problem in itself. She tries to weave an argument that population growth simply isn’t a cause of environmental degradation. That is, I think she would say world population could just keep on growing without creating problems as long as we address certain social and economic concerns she sees as the causes of environmental degradation. I wonder if she fully believes that. My guess is that she simply takes her argument to an extreme in order to drive home her point about population distracting us from important human problems. For no matter how well we do in dealing with all the economic and social problems which contribute to environmental degradation, if our actions do not also stabilize world population we’ll inevitably run into the consequences of overshooting the limits to growth. So on this matter, I do disagree with her, though I wonder if she really believes the whole of her own argument.

But in at least one key area I really agree with her. Because I’m a believer in dealing with root causes, and because I appreciate the importance of those social and economic factors in their own right, I agree with Hartmann that it’s best to focus on dealing with those factors for their own sake. In the process, by working to solve those problems, we also happen to take the best possible steps for bringing down fertility rates. But we do need to make sure that included in the factors we address are all those which influence fertility rates.

Well, I’ll make this a little clearer in Part 2. :-/

The issue of deforestation being linked to population growth is one of proximate causes. Trees are being cut down in some areas because subsistance farmers need arable land or simply space on which to live. One could say, then, it is growth in the number of subsistance farmers that is the cause of deforestation, thus a population growth problem which might be mitigated by population control measures (e.g. family planning services, tax penalties, withdrawl of priviledges from large families).

On the other hand, the same situation can be seen as one of lack of economic development and economic/political fairness. If farmers had the means to farm more sustainably and more profitably or had other educational and occupational choices, that solves the problem without reference to population growth. In this view the (less proximate) cause of deforestation is economic or more generally a human rights issue: equal access to education and fair distribution of national resources for the well-being of the nation (and the world). This might generate a different set of corrective measures.

I doubt this sort of thing escaped your thinking and look forward to the second part of your post.