Humans increase as wild animals decrease

Another gap in writing, and I again have a huge backlog of articles. Writing just feels pointless at times as few want to acknowledge that human overpopulation is a major problem – certainly not those with influence.

A new and horrifying report was released in September that predicted the world’s population could climb to 11 billion by 2100 – rather than peak and decline as has previously been the accepted scenario. That is just over one-and-a-half as many people as today.

Another analysis was also released last month by the WWF stating that Earth had lost half of its wildlife in the past 40 years (as contrasted to domesticated animals, which are also in plague proportions). However the report only mentions human consumption as the culprit, not our growing numbers also.

Despite the implications – ultimately far more alarming than the terrorist scaremongering currently occupying governments – the extinction article barely recieved a mention in the mainstream press, as the letter below points out (Herald-Sun, 3/10):

Threat underplayed

I READ with great interest the snippet, “Wildlife plummet” (HS, Oct 1), stating that wildlife numbers have plunged by more than half in 40 years as the Earth’s human population has nearly doubled.

Given that humans are consuming natural resources that would require L5 Earths to sustain, I cannot comprehend why this was on page 21. This is an extremely serious threat to life as we know it. Granted, it doesn’t appear to be as immediate or sensational a threat as terrorism, but this has the potential to be a planetary disaster. Every day I am further convinced of the truth of the underlying message in Dan Brown’s novel, Inferno, in which the problem of overpopulation is the central theme.

– Geoff McKeon, Huntly

Given these two factors, the Earth of 2100 (when I will be dead, barring access to any life-extension technology of then) will be a far less biodiverse planet. The few wild animals left will live out restricted lives in nature reserves or zoos. Megacities of tens of millions will sprawl over the various continents like grey cancer cells. Big forests such as the Amazon or Siberian taiga will have all but vanished. Global warming will wreak havoc. Aside from the mega-wealthy, many humans will likely also have miserably restricted lives, seeking to escape from their bleak reality into the virtual world with whatever technologies have evolved then. In fact that is not too far off the Earth presented in the movie Avatar.

A recent book by Paul Hanley on the topic of eleven billion was featured on io9. He seems to be optimistic that humans will find ways to cope, but I find such optimism dangerous – it is a complacent feeling of “No worries, things will work out” rather than take measures now to prevent the population getting to such a huge number in the first place (prevention is preferable to the cure).

Well, we can look at 11 billion as too many people, or look at the population as huge potential to do things like reclaim deteriorated ecosystems. There are some 3 billion hectares of deteriorated ecosystems by some reckoning (see Rattan Lal) Restoring those lands, which would require a huge amount of work, would be like adding a new continent to the world. It would also ameliorate climate change by capturing huge amounts of carbon in plants and soil. But in rick areas where people have more than we need, we will have to look at shorter work weeks, more job sharing, lower income and consumption, but more time to do things like hang out with family and friends, be creative, garden, etc.

We may be able to restore the natural world, but I think there will be a net loss of biodiversity what ere we do. But ecological function can be prioritized, leading to better incomes for the rural poor. I talk about an outstanding large scale example of this on China’s Loess Plateau.

I don’t find the prospect of such loss of biodiversity at all acceptable – humans don’t own the Earth, but share it with other lifeforms. We as a species should not let things get to such a condition in the first place – this should be considered a moral imperative.

“It is not primarily the number of people that’s important in population policy, it’s what they are capable of, their level of education, and their health.”

– Wolfgang Lutz, director of the Vienna Institute of Demography

A quote from the first “11 billion” article which I strongly disagree with for reasons previously stated.

Melbourne on the path to ruin

Haven’t written for a while, though there have been quite a few articles on population issues; I feel disheartened that nothing ever seems to change regarding the problems faced, and that governments and business remain in denial of overpopulation’s negative effects.

“Fast-growing Melbourne heading towards becoming Australia’s largest city”, H-S, 3/4. Dismaying news for my home city, and this will completely destroy its livability, despite the positive statement of the apparently-delusional Premier. At 4.35 million now, traffic on the roads virtually grinds to a halt at times every day, and public transport is beyond capacity. Victoria’s population has also been growing rapidly as a whole (from overseas and interstate), currently at 5,768,000, most of whom head to Melbourne. It has become too popular and this is ruining it. But all Premier Denis Napthine does is “welcome” the strong growth.

“Mumbai: Bright lights, tight city”, The Age, 21/2: article from February on the extreme overcrowding in an Indian city. The situation is quite horrifying, and the people questioned are obviously unhappy about their situation – “We have already reached saturation point. We’ve got skin-to-skin contact on the trains. How much closer together can we live without going mad? There is nowhere to walk, nowhere to throw a ball or have a picnic”. It is obviously extremely unhealthy both mentally and physically. The proponents of high-density living in other countries (including those in Australia) should read this as a cautionary tale: an ultimate outcome of uncontrolled population growth and urbanization.

There has been a lot of recent attention on foreign buyers purchasing residential property in Australia – estimated at one-fifth of all buyers – particularly those from China. Our lax laws encourage this, and it is a major factor in driving up property prices to ridiculous levels, along with strong population growth. Canada recently (and sensibly) cancelled its own 28-year-old visa scheme designed to attract wealthy foreigners to the country, so Australia is now the next easy target for buyers. Of course such attention inevitably attracts criticism that such concern is “racist”, but a government’s priority should be toward its own citizens in providing essential services – shelter is a basic human right – and in this it is failing. The trend is also fuelling unwanted demolitions and inappropriate developments in once-pleasant suburbs, as a columnist laments.

Some collected letters: