The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2012.Here
and
Now
opinions
Scientists call for rethink on consumption, population
By Chris Wickham LONDON©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.
12 Comments
Login to comment
nath
Malthus 2.0
The Royal Society has been pushing their population management for over a hundred years now in one form or another.
Who voted them to be god?
Only a mother and father can and should decide how many children they want in their family. It's nobody elses business. Especially not the "Royal" Society of London, whose members mostly likely live in huge mansions and eat caviar for breakfast.
WilliB
Never Submit:
Well, Malthus 1.0 was right, except then the "green revolution" with industrial mechanized agricultue, massive use of fertilizers, massive use of pesticides and genetic engineering came along. And suddenly there was plenty of food.
But with the combination of land degradation, urban sprawl. and peak oil, that is now coming to an end, so unless another miracle happens, you better get ready for Maltus 2.0.
Serrano
"economic and environmental catastrophe"
There'll be a major catastrophe when the oil starts to run out.
amida
I think it's already too late to try to fix the problem. The world is basically dead. There's no future.
So why not consume the crap out of this planet while you still can?
nandakandamanda
People with children cannot allow themselves to think like you, amida.
In the meantime I would invite Sir John to come and stay here in Japan and see just how far we have cut back on everything. People in Britain could learn a thing or two.
nath
All of this will depend on giant corporations being much less greedy.......goodbye world.
susano
nandakandamanda..... maybe you should check the statistics.... on a per capita basis japan consumes more than the UK and also produces more c02 (per capita).
nath
cO2 is not a pollutant. It is as essential for plant life as oxygen is for animal life. In case you don't know, plants ingest cO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. I agree with NeverSubmit; the Royal Society isn't about science, it's about politics. When the "elite" start talking about population management, they aren't talking about themselves; they are talking about the rest of us.
gonemad
How comes I don't find any of these numbers startling? Most countries in the developed world have sufficient water supplies. Water is not transported from developing to developed countries. Water consumption in both areas is completely unrelated. What's wrong when 6 billion people, more than ever, have reached sufficient calorie supplies? Those people with insufficient supplies live mostly in the countries with the highest unused agricultural potential. When people in the developed world consume less, it will not create any incentive to explore that potential.
What's the problem with these numbers, especially for those minerals which were simply not used for any products before?
Similarly, Serranos comment:
It's a myth. Oil will never run out. Oil will be abandoned as a major source of energy long before the available resources are exploited. I would even go as far as to say that some time before or around the mid of the century there will be an oversupply of oil in the market.
Population management by promoting contraception, educating women etc? It doesn't work. Make sure those people reach a certain level of wealth and the birth rate will decline automatically.
It's first and foremost a stupid politician. When western consumers consume less it doesn't mean that the food or goods will be diverted to the developing world. Unless developing countries increase their income drastically, primarily what will happen is that production will be reduced. In the worst case, subsidized goods from the developed countries with oversupplies will be dumped onto the markets of developing countries, with devastating effects on their economies.
I'm always surprised when I see the naivity of scientists who only think in static cause and effect relations without considering how the basic parameters are interrelated and change over time.
nath
The Royals can't tout their theories as much as they want, they've been doing so for decades, but the numbers and the markets especially speak for themselves.
Every Western government is subsidizing its farmers to the tune of billions of dollars a year. They do so because there's actually massive overproduction in farming and if governments didn't subsidize farmers, which basically means paying them not to plant anything, there would a huge glut in the grain, rice, corn and soybean markets.
The oversupply of food is set to get worse as the Former Soviet Union, which used to be a net importer of grain, has now become a net exporter because of improved land management and private ownership of farms.
Basically, there's more than enough food to feed the world, just ask any farmer.
Paul Kangas
I vote for a mandatory 1 child every 10 years policy. It worked in China to reduce crime & poverty. Mao was correct. This is why China is now a great economy You tube. Paul8kangas
gaijinfo
That's one of the biggest myths around. There's enough KNOWN reserves under the United States alone to last a couple hundred years. And every year, the KNOWN reserves increase, because technology makes finding more oil easier.
End of the world doom and gloomers have been around forever. And they always seem to think that "This time it's different!"