Human Population Joins Mainstream Concerns
GR:–The human population problem is reentering main-stream concerns after a 45-year hiatus, and it is being properly connected to global warming. When I published my first population post on this blog in 2014, this was certainly not the case. Over the past two years I published 82 more posts that explored and reported on the population problem. There was a creeping sense that attention was returning to the problem, but nothing so clearly marked the return than what Joe Bish reports below. In my first post in 2014, I focused on an article in Science that supported continued population growth. Perhaps the authors would not dare publish such rubbish today. Here’s how I opened the 2014 article:
Can We Feed 3 Billion More People and Save the Environment?
The U. S. Census Bureau uses world data to estimate that in 2150, Earth’s human population will reach 9 billion and stay around that number for the next few centuries. But must we stop? Can’t we go on to 12 billion? In an article published in America’s leading academic journal, Science, a group of scientists led by Paul C. West say yes. Link.
Rubbish indeed. For Earth’s ecosystems to recover from humanity’s environmental impacts, the human population must shrink. Reaching a number that Earth can support requires several generations of one-child families, the number of generations depending on the death rate. One of the most common objections to this argument is that children with siblings are mentally healthier than children raised alone. My answer is that by making a small effort, families can bring their children together to provide adequate social experience. In my novel “The Human Problem,” the Tsaeb solve the socialization problem by temporarily relocating families with children to a central neighborhood. Of course, such a drastic move would not be required for us humans. The Tsaeb civilization had to bring families with children together because long ago, long before humans evolved, the Tsaeb solved the aging problem. They became immortal. Stability in an immortal population could be maintained only if society permitted a birth after a death. Deaths are so rare that Tsaeb neighborhoods with children are too rare for childhood socializing. Hence the temporary relocation.
Article by Joe Bish
The following is a current report by Joe Bish: “NPR printed the following article yesterday (August 18, 2016), which centers on the work of Dr. Travis Rieder, Program Director for the Master of Bioethics degree program at Johns Hopkins University. Rieder is very interested in the question of responsible procreation in the era of climate change.
“While the article below is certainly worth your time, let me strongly encourage you to also read a paper Rieder has co-authored, which is titled, “Population Engineering and the Fight against Climate Change.” If you are seriously interested in the population issue, you will be highly engaged by the content.
“I should point out that Bill Ryerson is directly referenced in the paper and Rieder engages specifically on entertainment education serial dramas. At first glance, there seem to be nits-to-pick about Rieder’s definitions of, and intellectual delineation between, what he terms “preference adjustment” and “choice enhancement” strategies (and how he applies them to entertainment education programming). Nonetheless, overall the paper is remarkable — even more so is that NPR printed the content below and did not simultaneously throw Rieder or the population issue under the bus.” –Joe Bish, Population Media Center.
The NPR article: Without Batting an Eye — NPR Puts “Population Engineering” on The Table
Should We Be Having Kids In The Age Of Climate Change?
Travis and Sadiye Rieder read a book with their 2-year-old daughter, Sinem, in their Maryland home. Travis is a philosopher and ethicist who argues against having too many children – for moral and environmental reasons. His wife always wanted to have a big family. —Ariel Zambelich/NPR
“Standing before several dozen students in a college classroom, Travis Rieder tries to convince them not to have children. Or at least not too many. “He’s at James Madison University in southwest Virginia to talk about a “small-family ethic” – to question the assumptions of a society that sees having children as good, throws parties for expecting parents, and in which parents then pressure their kids to “give them grandchildren.” “Why question such assumptions? The prospect of climate catastrophe. “For years, people have lamented how bad things might get “for our grandchildren,” but Rieder tells the students that future isn’t so far off anymore. “He asks how old they will be in 2036, and, if they are thinking of having kids, how old their kids will be. Continue reading– http://www.npr.org/2016/08/18/479349760/should-we-be-having-kids-in-the-age-of-climate-change
