Stephen may not be right, not right now ,but with the rising population ( staggering ) even with new technology coming out all the time ,it’s just a mater of time, surey ? If the population continues 600,000000 to1800,000000 in 75 years it’s not if but when ,what will it be in 500 years at this rate if we are still here by then? It needs no imagination. Not to mention what we are doing to all the creatures and deforestation etc etc right now.

Sorry I sould have put on three extra Os on these figures, and just may be technology is part of some of the problem, I mean in increasing the worlds life expectancy ,and all these meanness gadgets people now have in the west ( must haves).

Hi Beverley,

Thanks for your comment. I agree that the numbers are staggering. Such great population figures are too great to comprehend so I’m not sure whether the earth’s resources could manage to feed and house that many people. However, I would expect the birth rate to fall in future years – as that’s generally what happens as societies get more prosperous in terms of improved child mortality and healthcare provision.

I didn’t mean to make a personal attack on Stephen and others like him. I’m just curious whether many people like him are motivated to cut their waste because they fear the end of the world, environmentally speaking.

I don’t generally consider myself to be an optimist but perhaps my outlook on this issue reflects that I am! However, I am worried about the future in terms of species variation and hope that we will take greater steps to preserve habitats in the future. I’d really like to see an albatross in my lifetime and I hope they won’t be destroyed by industrial fishing in the meantime.

In terms of the UK population, which is easier for me to comprehend, how many people do you think the UK could sustain? Supposedly there are 60 million + living here now…

I think facts and figures aren’t able to tell the whole story about the population debate.
By selecting this data and presenting it in the way do you I think your real (possibly unconscious) concern is about being outnumbered? I.e. being dwarfed in relation to the highly populated countries, where people are different?

What language and what religion people are doesn’t really have anything to do with the population debate.

The facts tell me there are a lot of people on earth and that some live in poor countries, have different religions, and speak different languages. The data doesn’t prove to me that there are too many people on earth.

Human Population of planet earth:
6,928,198,253 (July 2011 est.)
 rank order
Age structure
0-14 years:
26.3% (male 944,987,919/female 884,268,378)
15-64 years:
65.9% (male 2,234,860,865/female 2,187,838,153)
65 years and over:
7.9% (male 227,164,176/female 289,048,221) (2011 est.)
Median age
total:
28.4 years
 rank order
male:
27.7 years
female:
29 years (2009 est.)
Population growth rate
1.092% (2011 est.)
 rank order
Birth rate
19.15 births/1,000 population (2011 est.)
 rank order
Death rate
8.12 deaths/1,000 population (July 2011 est.)
 rank order
Urbanization
urban population:
50.5% of total population (2010)
rate of urbanization:
1.85% annual rate of change (2010-15 est.)

Joddle, these facts and figures you have posted on your site have been doctored or something ,and are pretty meanless to me also, (my last post)
but the figures from this post are more meaningful, if you would like to look at the interesting bit:  Population growth rate
1.092% (2011 est.)
 rank order
Birth rate
19.15 births/1,000 population (2011 est.)
 rank order
Death rate
8.12 deaths/1,000 population (July 2011 est.) you will see that it’s shocking and the percentage of population is rising year on year and it gets worse when you look at America :  Population growth rate
0.963% (2011 est.)
 
Birth rate
13.83 births/1,000 population (2011 est.)
 
Death rate
8.38 deaths/1,000 population (July 2011 est.)
It don’t get any better because your assumption that ,
the population decreases in a more affluent society don’t stand up, because their is not much difference between the world average,and the riches nation on the planet, and the death rate per1000 is practically the same, and if you and your readers don’t beleve me take a look at the US factbook yourself it’s all their for all to see, it don’t look very promising,unless we have a complete turn a round ,and we as a race of people of planet earth, do something about it now ,stephen and people like him will be proved right, which I for one, sincerely hope his wrong.” I used to be a positive person ,to I got more interested in what was really going on around me, without someone ,or corporation trying to say otherwise I should of stayed with my embroidery classes it would have made me a far happier person, “no scrub that what am I saying ha ha…

Another more optimistic point of view on this subject,

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/05/un-forecasts-global-population-10-bn.php

The only thing that upsets this prediction, is the third world want what the west as got, potentially making the pollution problem worse in the long term, because the western world produces most of the waste and pollution at the moment. And they will only follow suit, as demonstrated now let’s hope this is not the case.

As things stand I think it is only fair for some redistribution of wealth to occur. I would like to live in a more equitable world where people who live in developing countries aren’t short changed for the goods and services they provide.

There is nothing fated about a world of 9 billion people–in 2050, or ever. While true control of population is beyond our aspirations and capacities, policy choices are available that will nudge our numbers closer to environmentally and socially sustainable levels. The choices are rooted in human development and human rights, specifically the right of all, and most directly of women, to decide for themselves when it is the right time to bring a new child into the world.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/05/ending-population-growth-why-family-planning-is-key.php

Trade generates incredible wealth, and links the lives of everyone on the planet. However, millions of people in poor countries are losing out because the rules controlling trade heavily favour the rich nations that set the rules.
World trade rules have been developed by the rich and powerful on the basis of their narrow commercial interests. Rich countries and powerful corporations have captured a disproportionate share of the benefits of trade, leaving developing countries and poor people worse off. Trade rules should be judged on their contribution to poverty reduction, respect for human rights, and environmental sustainability.

Instead of robbing half the world of a proper living, trade could help millions of poor farmers and workers in developing countries beat poverty, and change their lives for good.

But this will not happen unless countries change the way they trade or we as consumers are more Ethical on consumer choice, large corporations will aways use cheap labour were ever they can get it and it up to us inthe west to buy Wisely.

@Beverly Knight

I don’t see what social inequality, trade, fair or otherwise, and capitalistic greed have to do with population growth and environmental armageddon.

Ultimately, When It comes to population growth I believe that we have enough room. Most of the world’s population is condensed into cities, but we are not short in space. In terms of food shortages caused by population growth, I believe that humans have the extraordinary ability to adapt, but more than that, they have the extraordinary ability to make money, and food is one surefire way to do that. Supply and demand.

Now, lastly, let’s say I’m wrong( which is possible, but unlikely), what do you propose to do about it? Putting sterilisation drugs into the drinking water or mass culling of the herd seems the only effective plan of action. But then you are only a hippy, and not a fascist.

@Jade As for environmental apocalypse, I don’t know the science so won’t pretend to know whether or not we are facing the apocalypse. I do know that scientists concluded that we were going to die of an ice age due to the carbon in our atmosphere a few decades ago.

Tarik
I think the two site link of mine Explains the link between poverty in the third world and increased population, if the the so called western country’s did not demand cheap goods etc from developing country’s, and then diktat the price they can charge, for the services/goods, we would not have the Inequality and mass population in these very poor country’s but it will most probably be at the expense of the western country’s getting poorer which may slow down this Society of waste and perceived greed, the point about scientist, Science gets it wrong from time to time but they base their logic on the evidence that they learn at the time, their is a lot that scientist don’t know about the world and probably will never know, at the moment the jury is still out over the Atlantic conveyer, eg: mini ice age for the UK as the ice cap is sill melting and the fresh water coming from the north pole though melting, is still happening, mixing with the salt water that may turn off the atlantic golf stream, so we may get winters of -55c below as in Canada on the same latitude, but one thing is for sure the average temp in the last 50 years has been higher then expected and continues to melt the ice caps, their will not be any ice in the summer in the north pole in the next couple of years destroying the habitat for the poler bear and others, that is why governments are now concerned to get the Co2 down to try to stop this green house affect, But one must remember it’s all speculation at the moment, their is so many theory’s out their, “confusing isn’t it”             

At the moment the UK is one of the most productive environments for food production in the world at this latitude,but we could not support our selves in food or resources for 67,000 000people. Most of the land that can be farmed is farmed unless you want to see our island under a sea of concrete!

If we stopped imports we would find it almost impossible to support ourselves let alone even more people, if we look back in history, look what happened to Easter island in the middle of the pacific ocean where hundreds of thousands of people died because they used up their resources and had no where to go. The island must of been like a paradise when they first got there from the other side of the pacific, and they most likely would be there now if it wasn’t for too many people on a finite resource. Now there’s nothing but a waste land and a some statues, I think we should learn something from them. The world is our Easter island.                                  

Just one more to add to the debate:
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/overpopulation/index.html

I’m the stephen that started This discussion off on My Zero Waste, I’m not a prophet or guru, clairvoyant  or can I predict the future, but I am just concerned for humanity,and the especially for the Creatures and plants that live with us, on this Absolutely beautiful and fascinating place we call home, but in Recent years, Primarily due to a Large proportion of mans Activities we seem to be hell bent in destroying it all, I think Beverley as pretty much summed it up with her posts and some of her links, that I and many many other people believe that,because of the worlds over population we and all Other life on this planet have a uncertain future and more and more people every day have come to the same conclusion, we can “do our bit” but I ask myself is it enough, in the end it may take governments to take the Initiative, and stop this Absurd road we seem to be going down,” before it IS to late.”The last link of Beverley’s as a pretty Convincing view point!.

Hi Stephen,
Thanks for your comment. I agree with your thoughts about the world’s beauty and the magnificence of its creatures. I enjoy nothing more than walking in the countryside, experiencing new landscapes (a post coming about this later today).

When I think of it, I’m alarmed by how much things have changed in my own lifetime, regarding creatures. Swarms of butterflies, water snakes, nightly parades of frogs were all things I saw in my summer holidays in the countryside. In the same places I no longer see these things; but I may not be looking at them with a child’s eyes any more.

My concern is 100% with the creatures and their habitats. But I’ll reiterate; I don’t think humanity is facing impending doom due to over population. The abundance and variety of creatures and habitats is threatened. Absolute poverty in developing countries is an issue. Astounding inequality of wealth among nations and within nations is an issue.

But humanity, as much as it is reckless, is ingenious and resourceful. I think we’ll be around for some time yet.

Out of interest, would you call yourself a scientist or hippy kinda guy (although they aren’t exclusive!)? I used to be a humanities student – ‘an ideas person’. I’m trying to catch up with the scientific outlook, one of the ways I do this is by reading widely. I notice you read up a lot on these issues, so I’m curious, that’s all…

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”  In the past that logic has worked against the spread of steady-state thinking.  Now the logic has turned:  if you want to make money, you’d better acknowledge reality, including the reality that on a finite planet there are limits to growth.  To those of us concerned about the fate of a civilization that’s outgrown its ecological niche, this is a welcome development.

http://steadystate.org/learn/blog/

“This man also follows your ideas joddle.”
Mountebank Wins Nobel prize,for Infinite Planet Theory

http://steadystate.org/mountebank-nobel/
In his presentation of the award, Mr. Norborg stated, “Dr. Mountebank has demonstrated imagination and inventiveness beyond what the rational mind can comprehend.” Indeed, it is because of his theories that we all do what we do economically. Nations strive for continuous GDP growth and endless expansion of consumption thanks to infinite planet theory
The end of cheap oil, species extinctions, climate change, deforestation, resource depletion, crippling poverty, loss of ecosystem services, soil and aquifer degradation—these are trifling problems, so long as we continue to grow the economy toward its ultimate size: infinity and beyond. Under no circumstances should we allow creeping thoughts about a finite planet or constraints handed down by universal physical laws to get in the way of building a bigger economy. And certainly we should shut our ears to the dreary doomsayers who continue to rain their inane facts upon our parade of growth. Growth, alone, is the moral and political ideal.
Dr. Mountebank ended his acceptance speech on a personal note, observing how infinite planet theory had soothed the fears of his young grandchildren. He said, “They told me they were scared about what was happening to the environment. I patted their little heads and told them not to worry.  After all, you can’t harm nature on an infinite planet. By definition, there’s always more.”

Joddle ,you might do yourself some good, and read Paul gildings book “,The Great Disruption “published on the 25th of April this year so it’s up to date, it’s not all doom and gloom but is positive in his outlook if we choose to follow his Ideas, “Anyway just a thought”.

I am one of those who do not hold a particularly bright outlook for the future of the planet. But this is not so much because I expect some apocalyptic end – I am inclined to agree that ways and means will be found for (at least some of) the human race to live on (although I can’t help but think it may favour the richer members of society).

My fear rather, rests in the state in which the planet will end up/ our legacy. For I seriously doubt that the world (and society) that will exist in the wake of supporting the consumption of 9 billion people is one in which I would want to live in or bring children into.

@Clair –
Thanks for your comment. I’d be interested to know how you think society would inevitably change for the worse by the time there are 9 billion people on earth? Do you think we would be competing for too few resources? Would this bring out the worst in us? Might people living in poverty be exploited even more than they are today, both in developing countries and the UK?

A while ago I wrote a science-fictiony 500 words about the future before us, if I can find it Ill post it us here!

@Stephen – Thanks for the book suggestion. I’ll have to wait until its resell value on Amazon goes down a bit

Hi Joddle,

I think you’ve pretty much got the jist – with increased competition for fewer resources and in all likelihood more inclement conditions i.e. storms, flooding, drought etc. I can see people being driven to do things – anything – to survive. The looting, traffiking etc. that has followed recent floods and earthquakes offer a glimpse (on a small scale) of what I think is likely to happen.

In such a scenario it follows that those (individuals/ countries) most likely to survive are those who have managed to secure the most food, water and/ or arms!

Put simply, we will be clambering over one another in the crush.

Hi again all,

Our ancestors lived closely with nature, respecting that the finite resources of our planet needed to be maintained in a delicate balance. They had learnt that consuming too many resources had left humans starving in the past very few people can relate to this, due no doubt to most now living in cites and towns (84% of the UK) ,and can not seem to relate to nature in any meaningful way it seems

Consumerism as we know it was developed only in the 1950’s, so its in its infancy as compared to our historic way of life, yet we have depleted resources at an alarming rate.

Our economies have grown and we have become wealthier, and our population has soared, and we have found a way to live largely outside of nature!.

Our goal has became profit, even when that means to the detriment of the planet or its people!.

With escalating population and technology, it appears that we cannot continue at this rate. Eventually the resources WILL run out and the planet will be destroyed as we know it ! and ultimately the human race will become extinct. Our ancestors could see this, which is why they did not waste resources and kept consumption sustainable, so why can’t we?

Our population growth is a major factor in escalating the problems.

Consumerism is spreading worldwide, particularly Asia, which continues to develop at astonishing rate, soon projected to overtake America in consumption.

We have all enjoyed the wealth from this system. Nobody wants to return to living in mud huts! Yet, to carry on as we are, is surely at the risk of the destruction of our planet, the extinction of even more species, and ultimately the death of the human race!

Some facts to ponder about human impact on the earth:

1. humans have made 60% of creatures on the planet extinct over the last 250 years and especially in the last 50 years

2. we have depleted 80% of the once great forests

3. the size of wales disappearing evey year to slash and burn etc,

4. oil and coal is coming to a end and now we want to trash the north and south poles, all in the name of greed,

And does this consumerism make us happy? There is evidence that it does not for many people.

A small percentage of environmental groups and a few people are doing the best they can to try and stop this insanity but Population control would certainly help slow things down. But we also need to change the way we live, to work with nature like our ancestors did, but this is going to be much harder done than said…

you don’t need to be a Clairvoyant or particularly clever we only need to look at the past to see what our future may be (Learn by our mistakes and what we have done right because the path we or going down at the moment has to be wrong ).

Hi Clair – I found the thing I wrote a while ago. I was going to make a series of it but abandoned the idea. I don’t think it’s very good! Any way here it is:

The discovery of the Kentish oil field gave rise to national jubilation – the announcement of the tidings being all the more sweetened by the immediately authorised three-day public holiday, and accompanying bacchanalian street parties.

People danced in the street, drunk with the hope and glory of the prosperous years which lay ahead of them. No more scavenging. Out with reusing. Done with economising.

It was their chance to make up for all they had been denied. And they would begin by repealing the Single Use Item Dictat – which in a bid to eke out resources, had stringently proscribed the use of plastics in the manufacture of disposable life-essential ware.

The timely overthrow of the rule coinciding with money in the pocket meant the people were able to pay proper heed to their neglected health, compromised through years of contaminated contact with each other and self-hosted microbes.

When Boots relaunched its One Brush toothbrush (all pricepoints) shareholders reaped the rewards of blue skies thinking, and a generation of marketers were catalysed to promote the health and practical benefits of single use consumables for clean men, women, and children.

Conveniently and defensively shielding the user from potentially hazardous bacterial, viral, or fungal infections, single use products afforded sensible consumers the chance to be safer than sorry; healthier for longer.

Consumption had become phenomenally growth-inducing, in one respect aided by the average British citizen’s consumption of home-delivered toiletries per week:

13 One Brush toothbrushes (or equivalent brand)
14 snap packs of pea-sized toothpaste
15 dental floss pods
3.5 hairbrushes
6 combs
3 sachets shampoo
2 sachets conditioner
7 tabs of soap
1.5 pairs of tweezers
2 razors
28 fluid bags

@Beverley thanks for returning to Waste AM!

I am totally with you about consumerism. There is so much more I want in life even though I recognise that material goods will not bring me lasting happiness. I’m trying to waste less in my life and hope that over time I can streamline my life so that it has a less destructive impact on nature.

What do you think of my paper free life idea? http://wasteam.co.uk/28/reduce-reuse/paper-free-life/

I’m trying to stop using so much paper as the paper industry is more destructivel than most people realise.

I don’t know if the debate is still going on, but Australia seems to be worried about over population, and there’s 22 million people in Australia at the moment, the country is 100 times bigger than the UK with over 67,000,000, and they are worried?
http://podcasts.mrn.com.au.s3.amazonaws.com/alanjones/20110530-aj3-dicksmith.mp3

http://another-green-world.blogspot.com/2011/05/31-years-of-la-resistencia-pacifica-del.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Life style ism, green consumerism, carbon trading, all the token green wash of business is part of the problem, we have to change economic and political structures.
However what they don’t want is for the resources to be stolen and the environment to be smashed.
If you love your planet give them solidarity and learn from them…we can build a different economy based on life not just money.

Hi Stephen,

Yes the debate about climate change continues here. Bad news today about increased CO2 emissions. We really aren’t on track to turn things around.

Do you think the greatest difference is made by individuals, the government, or at global summits?

Hi joddle
Myself have had no faith   in governments making decisions about normal people’s health and wellbeing, since they have been at the coattails of  large businesses and Greed Mongers… it seems their think of us as a Commodity, a “Consumer,”to be discarded when no further use, so I don’t hold much hope that they would do the right and proper thing over The climate change, looking after indigenous people’s,saving the rainforests, stopping the extinction of millions of species, or anything else, unless there is some profit in it,(money)? so I’m afraid it seems we are on our own, I think it is up to individuals to act, and do what they feel is right, for all other forms of life on this planet that we live with, some people seem to think we are somehow separate from nature, And it’s nice to have it but not essential to our life, and up until now oil has given us the power And  illusion to do just that, but when oil as run out we will have to live in the confines of the natural world, we make so much produce from oil its incredible that we’ve lived so long without it in the past, oil is the main reason that there is so many humans on this planet in it’s many forms not just fuel, Its fertilisers plastics,clothes, paints,etc etc the list is almost endless, but all this has come at a cost to the environment the planet and us, and it absolutely hasn’t made us happy in the long run, Now with the massive population we are standing on the threshold of annihilating every creature and plant on the planet, the sooner people realises this the better and we can move on to try to do something about it, I know that I’ve touched on several taboo subjects but unless as individuals we face up to it, absolutely nothing will be done, to it is too late ,we should live in harmony with all other life on this planet and only then  As a species is our future is secured ,all this may sound like a sermon, but I am only stating a common sense evaluation of the situation, on a very much finite planet. In a way technology is not the solution it may be the problem in the end “though it’s only my Opinion”,
 A starting point for most would be not to waste so much and not to buy so much! unless it’s absolutely necessary ,our ancestors couldn’t imagine the waste we produce today, and a total disregard for our environment, the reason that people seem to keep on buying things is the brainwashing effects from the TV, media etc, orchestrated by governments and business to have this continuous upward spiral, purchasing more and more!,sorry that this sounds so depressing but I have come to terms years ago about this, and it no longer makes me unhappy but concerned ,to do something about it, because it seems very few people are really interested and get on with their own lives ? with no concern for the future generations, or especially for other forms of life on this absolutely fantastic planet, for how much longer depends completely on us ,as individuals that can make a difference. If we really wake up to the problems instead of living in vain Hope that technology can continue to send us down this path of ours, Instead of a more sustainable natural lifestyle with hopefully a few billion  less people. 
http://m.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/the-idiocy-of-endless-growth-20110529-1fata.html
 
In the end “Even if we could, who wants to live on a world with 50 trillion or more people, and no other forms of life, perhaps that’s  what hell is,if there is such a place.”?

Hi all If only scientific evidence always helped us discover what we wished for and nothing more, that would be the best thing. Unfortunately science presents us occasionally with what is unwelcome whenever we acquire, however tentatively and unexpectedly, knowledge that runs counter to human desire. We have seen occurrences of this kind before.

If human beings evolved on Earth (did not descend from heaven or come here from some other place in the universe) and the emerging data of human overpopulation of our planetary home are somehow on the right track, then humanity could soon confront daunting global challenges.

Perhaps hubris, greed and foolhardiness confuse human reasoning about the “placement” of humankind within the natural order of living things. There is the rub, I suppose. We have learned from God’s great gifts to humanity—natural philosophy and modern science—that Earth is not the center of the universe (Copernicus); that we are set upon a tiny celestial orb among a sea of stars (Galileo); that such things as the Law of Gravity and the Laws of Thermodynamics affect living things equally, including human beings (Newton, et al); that humankind is a part of the general evolutionary biological process (Darwin); and that people are to a significant degree unconscious, mistake what is illusory for what is real and, therefore, have difficulty both adequately explaining the way the world works and consciously regulating our behavior (Freud).

Now comes apparently unanticipated, unfortunately unwelcome and heretofore unchallenged scientific evidence that indicate we have widely shared and consensually validated an inadequate, preternatural understanding of human population dynamics and willfully refused to appreciate the necessity for regulating certain distinctly human global “overgrowth” activities. That is to say, as a consequence of the current colossal scale and projected growth rate of worldwide overconsumption, overproduction and overpopulation activity by the human species in our time, humanity itself could soon be presented with a predicament resulting from 1) increasing and unchecked per capita consumption/hoarding of limited resources, 2) seemingly endless expansion of production/distribution capabilities in a finite world, and 3) unbridled species propagation.

Extant scientific evidence indicates that human influences could directly and primarily account for excessive extinction of biodiversity, creeping environmental degradation, and the dissipation of limited natural resources. A convergence of scientific evidence points us to something undeniable: global overconsumption, overproduction and overpopulation activities by the human species are occurring synergistically on the surface of Earth and could soon become patently unsustainable.

It does look as if the challenges posed to humanity by certain unregulated human overgrowth activities overspreading Earth now are huge ones. Even so, we can take the measure of the looming challenges and find solutions to problems of our making that are consonant with universally shared, humane values.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/melting-of-the-arctic-will-accelerate-climate-change-within-20-years-2290780.html
An irreversible climate “tipping point” could occur within the next 20 years as a result of the release of huge quantities of organic carbon locked away as frozen plant matter in the vast permafrost region of the Arctic, scientists have found.

I’m reading the book by Dick smith these are his opening lines:…
It was my daughter Jenny who first alerted me to my staggering ignorance  about the matters of over population shortly before the Copenhagen climate conference she rang me to ask why there was no discussion of population when the world had come together to discuss the consequences of human induced climate change, she was right, I looked in vain in the acres of newsprint and hours of news reports devoted to the conference and there was no reference to the single most important cause of greenhouse gases us!
There were no protesters holding up banners asking ‘people??, no politicians game enough to raise the issue, and in the final documents of the population question is barely whispered let alone openly discussed, the best the intergovernmental panel on climate change could offer was an oddly fatalistic shrug of the shoulders; the scope and ongoing debate if only it was debate; in truth population is the great taboo, not to be mentioned in polite company, the media gives it little coverage, the politicians run scared, the scientists stay silent and anyone with the courage to discuss it is howled down by an unholy alliance of religious groups property developers and dreamy demographic optimists ,I kicked myself for being so blind to the obvious , and I begin asking; why, when so many global problems have their roots in the numbers of humans on the planet, we seem so reluctant to discuss it?I discovered in place of rational discussion, there were a number of long-held myths about why population growth is necessary  because it enhances the economy; that it generates jobs and keeps the lid on higher prices; that it help even out demographic bumps and adds to our security , while giving more people the opportunity to enjoy the great benefits of life on earth, the truth is it does none of these things, or not for long, and the real  costs are never counted, to me the biggest deception of all was that somehow population growth was out of our hands, like some kind of natural phenomenon we are powerless to influence, it was claimed to be the inevitable consequence of a healthy, growing economy, there is nothing inevitable about a healthy economy, however, and increasingly it looks as if crude economic growth may be costing our quality of life more than it delivers, these answers have surprised, even shocked me and they have inspired me to spend the rest of my life doing something about it, I hope it will be the most important thing I ever do of course, if I do nothing it most likely will not affect me or people of my generation , but my little grand-daughter, who has the somewhat unlikely name of Charlie brown, she is very Likely to live to the end of the century and I would not want her to say in later years” my grandfather, Dick Smith was supposed to be a person of influence, why didn’t he do anything about it?…. It may be a good idea joddle to get a copy to greater understand what’s going on right now in the world!…

@Stephen I have responded to your comment about whether it’s people or policy which makes the biggest difference on a new thread: http://wasteam.co.uk/01/food-waste/less-food-waste/

Hi joddle,

I must say I Agree with Stephen.

All this talk about green issues, and trying to do what’s best for the environment, has really been going on for thousands of years, and we didn’t even know it, it seems that unless you were Gentry, or a large business tycoon, most other people in the world had to make do and mend, And lived very fugal lives;(environmentally friendly) . Most of this gluttony and waste has happened over the last 60 years, mainly in the western cultures and mainly from only one generation, Us! and from abject poverty by today’s standards, to unimaginable prosperity in relationship with previous generations.

I must admit that I am not proud of what my generation has done to be honest, the western cultures have made the poor of this world even poorer, to the point of starvation, and made western cultures use even more resources and waste, and we have created a population of mostly obese individuals in the west, that are mostly in denial of the problems that this is causing, it’s not only our poorer cousins that this is affecting, but every creature, plant ,material and resource on this finite planet, I look at the blogosphere and see a great many people in denial of this fact, it’s very much a taboo subject in the western cultures, when the very people that should be aware of it, are in denial of it, because of the simple fact that they want it to continue at any cost! and don’t want to go back just one generation, that their mothers and fathers and their grand parents had, what has made all this so much more of a problem, is the absolute explosion in population, and the continued aspirations of practically every human on the planet to go down this in insane path of ours, it can only stop when people realise that this is just plain wrong, and we should share resources worldwide and respect nature and our environment, and have much lower aspirations on this insane luxury existence, and start being happy with a lot less, and we must have smaller families Looking forward, its just inevitable, in just my lifespan and at this rate with (compound calculations) the next generation the population is going to be 12 times this amount.

It doesn’t take any imagination at all to realise that this finite planet could not support anywhere near this amount of people because any technology that we may invent that may help Achieve this needs resources and we will just run out of most of today’s resources even one generation from now ,the way we are going, without a drastic cut in the population?

@Rosemary you make a very strong argument. This topic could go on forever! There’s so much to say on the matter I’m doing a podcast on it which we live on the site later in the week.

If any of the readers here have specific questions they would live us to try and address about population in the podcast please email me at joddle.wasteam.co.uk and I’ll include a response in the podcast

What I meant to say joddle is in my generation the worlds population has tripled,! and at this rate, in one generation there would be 12 times the amount of today by my calculations,and the scientists have revised their calculations, on population, and the popular belief is that by 2050 the population of the world may be 10.5 billion people, it just cannot be that the world could support this, with today’s infrastructures in place, and attitudes towards the third world, there would be anarchy, But as women we have the power to stop it in its tracks right now if we wished!.

I think ultimately joddle you would think it was of great interest, 
because what we are talking about here is the ultimate fate of the human race and life on this planet,
I find it astonishing that more people are not concerned, or ultimately interested About the subject?
I think they can relate to collecting a few sweet wrappers and putting them in the right recycle bin, which is all very commendable, and it is certainly a good start,
 but what society really needs is to do a lot lot more,  I think it has a lot to do with the human psyche the  fight or flee mentality, I mean when we see imminent danger, we do something about it, we either confront it head on or we run away from it,

 And at the moment it seems most people are in denial of the fact that there is a problem at all, and it seems that they want to see what they wish to see, mainly because they can’t perceive a imminent threat to their lives, and they acknowledge their may be some localised freak weather, and I have even heard that they even wish for global warming? so that they can have warmer summers, and they seem to be disappointed that they don’t seem to be getting it,? or a record breaking temperature one year and a flood the next year!, sometimes we get a cool spell at the beginning of the year and a hot spell halfway through  when it’s not normally the case, but of no general consequence!,

Now for the last 30 or so years climate scientists have been arguing the fact that humans have been making a impact on the climate and ecosystems of this planet, but this was not unanimous by any way, in the same way when scientists discovered the hole in the ozone layer, and also discovered that CFC’s were ultimately responsible there was an awful lot of scepticism for at least 20 years before it was ultimately discovered fact! 

Over the years I’ve been keeping track of the situation on peer group papers from Cambridge University etc and also white papers on the subject amongst the scientific community and now I have come to the conclusion there is absolutely no doubt that humans are responsible for ultimately catastrophic change in our climate in our lifetime, year after year the scientific community on this subject has modified its calculations as to when the tipping point has ultimately going to be reached Only this year scientist discovered the methane from rotting vegetation at the poles due to higher temperatures in these regions is melting the permafrost and adding to the calculations as to when this climate tipping point may occur and the popular census of opinion now is that by 2020 this may be the case which is ultimately shocking and no I don’t think there’s a climate scientist on the planet that doesn’t realise that this is happening the only debated at the moment is when this point may occur and what the ultimate increase in temperature will be some say it may rise as much is 6° which is seemingly preposterous there was a pod cast by the Cambridge University in America in 2006 which is particularly poignant and interesting about the impact the human species is doing on the planet mainly due to the population explosion phenomenon that is occurring at the moment and it can be accessed by the public on iTunes which could be interesting to some,

Now at the moment Public opinion with any interest in the subject  is divided,  it seems Joe Bloggs at the pub says all this is a load of codswallop! and it’s only a ploy by  governments to extract more money from the public through Carbon taxes etc I’m definitely sure that governments are extracting more money under the umbrella of carbon taxes for their own gains,! but the question of the environment and the climate change, is a very real one and ultimately needs to be addressed quickly by the governments, yesterday on 8th June climate scientists in Australia have been threatened with their life because the Australian government have put carbon taxes in place and the mass populace thinks it’s a ploy to extract even more money from a impoverished state due to mass unemployment and economic problems it has shown me that the penny as just not dropped in the public arena about climate change,
 and if governments don’t take the appropriate action we as a species are ultimately doomed,! People need to wake up now,! people need to wake up, otherwise we are just sleep walking into oblivion! And this is not just  my opinion it’s  every climate scientists view at the moment, and they need to take more action to notify the mass populace directly, Because  Ultimately people are just not believing governments,In my opinion and not taking the  
 appropriate action.

“A little more for your podcast Joddle if you can put a few Paragraphs in it haha” 

Sorry the rise in temperature to 6 degrees may be forecasted for 2100 at the moment, unless we cut admissions now! the problem with CO2 is it can remain in the atmosphere up to thousands of years and the role on effects could be very pronounced then first thought, and the heating effects from the sun may be accumulative in the seas and oceans so it seems even if we stop now the CO2 heating effect will continue maybe up to a 1000 years! scientist at the moment are not too sure of the accumulative effects of all this! ,joddle  we have just touched the tip of the iceberg as it were, there is an awful lot more to say about it,most probably this place is too restrictive to get a broader picture of the problem.

http://www.endsreport.com/24283/climategate-review-still-no-doubt-over-climate-science-credibility

A recent study found that 195 of the 200 most widely published climate scientists have signed public statements supporting the idea that humans are causing climate change.

For people that still have doubts on over population; Campaigning for environmentally sustainable populations in the UK and worldwide,
 ”to reiterate;” this time from “Population Matters”.
http://populationmatters.org/wp-content/uploads/D4Water.pdf
http://populationmatters.org/issues/environment/climate-change-2/
http://populationmatters.org/issues/people/reproductive-health/
http://populationmatters.org/issues/environment/impact-biodiversity/
http://populationmatters.org/issues/people/population/

How do Human Activities Contribute to Climate Change
and How do They Compare with Natural Influences?
https://www.ipcc.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/faq/wg1_faq-2.1.html
Human activities result in emissions of four principal greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and the halocarbons (a group of gases containing fluorine, chlorine and bromine). These gases accumulate in the atmosphere, causing concentrations to increase with time. Significant increases in all of these gases have occurred in the industrial era (see Figure 1). All of these increases are attributable to human activities.

I spent a great part of last year thinking about possible permutations of environmental armageddon. This year, I feel a lot more optimistic. This week, in particular I feel really optimistic-perhaps its is because I have just read Shaun Chamberlan’s Transition Timeline. I somehow get the feeling that ordinary folk everywhere like myself are ready to embrace change-often we just need someone else to give us a little nudge in the right direction. The stats are frightening, yes but the fact remains that ordinary people everywhere can make a big difference. Collectively we can boycott the shareholders and big supermarket chains etc etc and yes I do believe that we can break our debilitating dependecy on the oil industry. I would say that I was an optimist/realist-no technological miracle is going to save us but a massive grassroots movement can.

Hi Zerowastelifestyle, thanks for commenting. Sorry for the late reply – my comments are playing up!
I’m positive about the grassroots movement too – there’s a lot of people out there like ourselves who have the passion and enthusiasm to lead positive environmental change

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/18/population-7-billion-planet
“Business as usual” blah blah blah!….

Hey I read this yesterday – and shared it on Google + (do I really need another?) If you’re on it I can add you to the reading circle I’ve created as I think its a better way for sharing links to a group than is possible via Twitter or FB

Good idea, if only I can get on though,
 Google just says:

“You need an invitation
Right now, we’re testing with a small number of people, but it won’t be long before the Google+ project is ready for everyone. Already invited? We’ve temporarily exceeded our capacity. Please try again soon”.?