Off-topic political rant removed — Do not respond to poster.

________

Overpopulation curiously omitted from debates
on environment and energy
by Bob Nightingale
Chicago Nonpartisan Examiner
June 29, 2009

An article by James Kanter on the New York Times website "Farming for 9 Billion People" explores how to feed so many people by 2050, while minimizing the impact on the environment. He cites the research at the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison that the planet's caloric needs will double by 2050. The questions his article asked are "can it be done?" and "how?"

The more basic question is "should it?" Why do we need 9 billion people? Or even 1 billion? I have no doubt that human ingenuity can probably figure out some way to keep 100 billion folks alive and kicking. As someone who has been through staff reductions at several companies, it's a given that even "good" people aren't needed, when the needs of the business change. As a species, I'm not sure that our prosperity is dependent on the total number of people alive. 

In fact, as a father of five, my individual comfort is much less than if I had no children. It's a personal question of how far do you procreate until you lapse into poverty, i.e. the Octomom?

In the last few days, I've been commenting on the "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009." Much of that bill includes clever ways to conserve energy and reduce Anthropogenic Global Warming gases through a series of government regulations and incentives. AGW is a fancy way of blaming people for the increased temperature of the earth since the industrial revolution, while ignoring the possible effects of sunspots, volcanoes, forest fires, etc. Climate Change crusaders might be right. And if so, they are just tinkering around the edges of the real issue.  We just might have too many people. Running out of food is far more serious than having the clouds heat up a few degrees.

As more people are born and fewer people die, resources are consumed at a faster rate. The global population is increasing annually by about 1 to 2%. With more people, greater demands will be placed on energy exploration, food production, waste treatment, pollution controls, etc. Wars in the Middle East will brew again with the need to control the oil. Until something better comes along, oil is still our most cost-effective fuel source, regardless of the environmental impact. 

The Act I mention above goes to great lengths to make energy "cleaner," while attempting to address employment and security needs. It assumes that the population will always become larger.

Limiting population may be a factor in China's explosive economic growth. By limiting the need to provide for its own people, China now has the capacity to produce goods for other countries, and enjoy the rewards of its labor force through export.

Yet, I don't expect to see any serious discussion of limiting the number of Americans. Immigration, legal and illegal, tends to benefit politicians in their districts by giving them more people to represent. Money for programs is dispensed based on the latest census. The debate heats up in an election year, and then fades when other priorities surface.

Family planning is completely missing from the Act. Abortion has rightly been called the "third rail" of politics. Like the third rail on an electric commuter train, you don't want to touch it, lest you get burned. Any politician who dwells on that issue is bound to alienate half his constituents, so he's motivated to have other things to talk about. The Pro-Life group believes that all life, before and after birth, is deserving of protection by the government; whereas Pro-Choice groups want the government to protect and subsidize the individual's right to continue or terminate a pregnancy. Neither group would want the government to limit family sizes, as is policy in China. China's one-child policy might even be loosened as the government determines a large, stable number of people are necessary for sustained growth and prosperity. Young Chinese couples may go the way of upwardly mobile Americans known as DINCs (dual income, no children), choosing a BMW over daycare.

But according to the Global Warming advocates, our problems today stem from industrial activity started in the 19th century. It's obvious that pollution and energy consumption increase with population. The world population in 1900 was about 1.7 billion people, far less than the 6.8 billion today. 

If that's the utopia we're striving for, we have a long way to go.