Well I've now become much more educated on this Overpopulation thing and still don't see any global action on this subject, so I've written to President Obama (see below) trying to elevate the issue. I'm sure it won't get anywhere, but you never know.
Then I've got to stop writing letters - I've plenty of other things I need to be doing!
8/12/2009
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear President Obama:
I do hope that this letter will get through to you via your “gatekeepers” and may even be copied to those who you feel would consider the subject to be important.
I want to raise the question of Overpopulation on both a US and a Global scale.
Please know that I am not a Scientist or an Academic but merely a reasonable intelligent citizen realist who is becoming increasingly alarmed by the mounting evidence from very many learned sources that the continued growth of global populations (Overpopulation) is the single biggest problem confronting humankind and the world we live in (our planet Earth).
I further strongly believe that this reality is in fact the single cause of arguably ALL the worlds global problems, whether they be food shortages, potable water availability, deforestation, global warming, diminishing natural resources (particularly energy), territorial violence and health issues and pestilence, to name but a few. It’s just too obvious!
I realize that with the tasks you a currently working on and the programs you are (hopefully) going to bring about, that you do not need this issue as well, but I suspect that you may be all too well aware of these realities.
My letter is to urge you – you are probably the best and only person in the world today who might have the ability to set us on a sensible path towards intelligent and compassionate resolution of these problems - to begin a process of helping humankind, on a global scale, to find ways of reducing human populations. I realize that this is potential political poison, but if not you, then who? Somebody needs to do something, for though I may not be around in 2050, my daughter’s generation and their families will, and they will have to live with these consequences.
For time is becoming increasingly precious, and our “window of opportunity” for effective remedial action may be quite short, if it has not already passed.
Quote: Kenneth Smail (see below)
The quotes offered below are important!
If I can be of any help to you in doing this please just let me know.
Sincerely
Peter D. Revers
Quotes and information:
All quotes in this letter are taken from a document dated May 5th, 2008 – an older letter on this subject but rounded and illuminating written by:
Ken Smail (PhD Yale, 1976) is Professor of Anthropology (Emeritus) at Kenyon College, Gambier, Ohio 43022 (smail "at" kenyon.edu). May 5, 2008
http://www.culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=168&Itemid=2
There are increasing volumes of supporting data from many learned sources:
1. The Population Institute www.populationinstitute.org
2. The Population Media Center www.populationmedia.org
3. Culture Change www.culturechange.org/cms/index.php
4. Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation
5. Negative Population Growth www.npg.org
To name but a few
Selected quotes from John Smail’s letter:
“Moderate to conservative demographic projections indicate that global human numbers will almost certainly reach 8 to 9 billion by mid-21st century, only two generations from the present.
Earth's long-term sustainable human carrying capacity, at what might be defined as an “adequate” to “moderately comfortable” developed-world standard of living, may not be much greater than 2 to 3 billion
It has now become necessary for the human species to develop and implement, as quickly as possible, a well conceived, clearly articulated, flexibly designed, broadly equitable, and internationally coordinated program focused on bringing about a very significant reduction in global human numbers over the next two or more centuries.
The greatest evolutionary/ecological “bottleneck” that our species has yet encountered.
It is difficult to say whether this unfortunate reticence is due to ingrained investigatory caution, concerns about professional reputation and advancement (particularly among younger investigators), the increasingly specialized structure of both the scientific and political enterprises, personal qualms about reaching conclusions that have potentially unpalatable social and political ramifications, or other unspecified (and perhaps deeply-rooted) ideological, moral, or religious reservations.
The potential for wide scale political, economic, and social destabilization -- of passing the global “production peak” of oil, gas, and coal.
More specifically, the evidence from recent “peak energy” research and analysis increasingly suggests that by the middle of the present century humanity could well be faced with a global population of some 9 billion, struggling to maintain -- or in several instances still trying to acquire -- some semblance of modern (first- world) civilization on but 1/4 to 1/3 of the oil and gas the world currently produces, exacerbated still further by a notable deficit of “proven” or “environmentally benign” energy substitutes (renewable or otherwise) on anywhere near the scale that would be necessary.
This of course is in addition to dealing with growing constraints and pressures due to other important “limiting factors:” the above-mentioned climatic instability (all too likely enhanced by increasingly heavy reliance on coal); availability of fresh water; adequate food supplies; ongoing topsoil degradation; shortages of various minerals and materials; continuing biodiversity and wilderness losses; enhanced geopolitical competition over essential resources; and the growing power and influence of various “non-state” actors.
Quite simply, both the empirical data and inexorable logic suggest with increasing clarity that what will be required for the foreseeable future -- the “default position” for the next two or three centuries -- is a very significant reduction in global human numbers.
Put bluntly, the synergistic combination of declining “post-peak” energy supplies (and other essential resources), a still growing global population, increasingly apparent finite limits on food production and the availability of fresh water, unpredictable and likely deleterious climatic instability, potentially destabilizing challenges from various (non-state) terrorist organizations, and increasingly massive (and largely uncontrolled) 3rd world to 1st world patterns of human migration, is surely a “toxic brew.”
And it certainly doesn’t help that this deteriorating state of affairs -- with a few notable exceptions -- has been further exacerbated by a generalized lack of political, economic, social, and moral foresight and cooperation on both a national and a global level, not to mention a recalcitrant human nature all too prone to both individual and collective denial.
Surely it is essential that elected public officials, civil servants at all levels of government, academics from a broad range of disciplines, representatives of the news media, religious leaders from all the major faith traditions, and spokespersons for national and international environmental organizations not feel as though they are committing political, professional, or moral suicide by bringing these matters to public attention. For time is becoming increasingly precious, and our “window of opportunity” for effective remedial action may be quite short, if it has not already passed.
Until demonstrated otherwise, I would therefore argue that unchecked or “insufficiently restrained” population growth should perhaps be considered the single most important feature in an admittedly complex (and synergistic) physical, ecological, biocultural and sociopolitical landscape. It should by now be unassailable that the limitation of human population size, and subsequently confronting the numerous problems that will be engendered by its eventual and inevitable contraction, should occupy a central position within the “modern problematique,” and as such should be dealt with much more forthrightly, and much more promptly, than has heretofore been the case.
That there will be a large-scale reduction in global human numbers over the next two or three centuries appears to be inevitable. The primary issue may well be whether this lengthy and difficult process will be comparatively benign or unpredictably chaotic. More specifically, is modern humanity capable of a comprehensive organized effort to compassionately reduce global human numbers, or will brutal self-interest prevail -- either haphazardly or selectively -- resulting in an unprecedented toll of human lives?”
Ken Smail (PhD Yale, 1976) is Professor of Anthropology (Emeritus) at Kenyon College, Gambier, Ohio 43022 (smail "at" kenyon.edu). May 5, 2008
Copies:
Senator Patrick Leahy senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov
Senator Bernie Sanders http://sanders.senate.gov/comments/
Representative Peter Welch http://www.house.gov/formwelch/issue_subscribe.htm
Bill Ryerson – President, The Population Institute ryerson@populationmedia.org
Kenneth Smail smail@kenyon.edu
No comments:
Post a Comment