Population is part of the problem, but apparently not the solution.

Let's say you had a problem (we're sure you have several handy examples); but this particular problem happened to involve your house-plants growing, out of control, through the roof of your home, thereby causing your house to flood every time it rained -- tough plants, obviously, but that's not the point.

Your Zen-master neighbor teeters by with his cane, and stops. He says, "You must repair your roof and keep your plants cut back." Then he vanishes in thin air. Cool neighbor, but again -- not the point.

The point is, to keep the problem from happening, you need to do a couple of things. Just repairing your roof isn't good enough, because by next week the plants will have busted through it again. Just keep your plants cut back, however, and you still have a hole in your roof.

Isn't it a mystery then -- one that probably not even your Zen-master neighbor could explain -- that when the Asia Society releases a report citing population growth as one major driver of an impending water shortage in Asia... that they don't say a thing about stabilizing the population as part of the solution?!

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Asia may see more conflicts over scarce water resources in the coming years as climate change and population growth threaten access to the most basic natural resource, a report warned on Friday.

Water problems in Asia are already severe, with one in five people, or 700 million, not having access to safe drinking water and half the region's population lacking access to basic sanitation, according to the report produced by the Asia Society, a New York-based think tank.

Population growth, rapid urbanization and climate change are expected to worsen the situation, according to the report, "Asia's Next Challenge: Securing the Region's Water Future."

It noted water disputes between hostile neighbors India and Pakistan and the complex relations governing the vast Mekong River, which is shared by China and its southern neighbors, Myanmar, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam.

The report said while water issues have more often generated cooperation than conflict between nations in the past, demographic pressures and water scarcity would be unprecedented in the coming decades.

"The potential for conflicts sparked by the direct and indirect impacts of an increasingly volatile water supply should not be underestimated, particularly in the light of rising concerns about climate change," it said.

"No matter how we approach water resources -- whether it is on the basis of quality and quantity, or as the most potent manifestation of extreme climatic events -- hydropolitics is likely to be a growing force in Asian security," it said.

While Asia is home to more than half the world's population, it has less fresh water per person than any other populated continent, the report said. Asia's population is expected to rise by nearly 500 million within 10 years.

-- By Claudia Parsons

Erosion

After working in the sustainable population advocacy field, one can't but help at times wonder, "Will the emotional polarity that this issue brings up in people ever be able to be overcome?"

There is a nasty tendency for this issue to register in people's worldview as either the most important, fundamental issue blocking the way to sustainable living scenarios for all scales of human civilization -- or -- as the most insignificant waste-of-time issue imaginable. That's quite a chasm, yet I don't think I am mistaken to say very few people occupy middle ground between these two great extremes.

It's with great struggle and heretofore unknown results that NECSP has been trying to populate (excuse the pun) that middle ground -- to correctly frame population issues as core considerations that any responsible sustainability advocate must make in struggling for an improved future for planet and people.

Not the only considerations one must make (wouldn't that be nice), but certainly one of them.

Is this really so controversial?

No, not really. But the problem is that in the great din and cacophony of each side shouting at each other, moderate voices are imperceptible -- and the balance of our position renders it useless to the partisans, because it undercuts both of their set-in-concrete ideological positions. Who wants to take the time to leave the high perch of your certainty and come down to the middle ground and start motioning for people to lower their voices? To start problem solving like adults?

No matter how narrow of a ledge you must stand on to occupy it, it's much easier to claim the moral high ground (itself conveniently self-defined) than it is to make peace.

The dynamic replicates itself over and over -- global warming vs. global hoax; growth economy vs. steady state; and, yes, Red Sox vs. Yankees. People tend to make decisions based on emotion, and very few issues cut so close to the human experience as the issues of reproduction, progeny and community.

And, in a relative sense, those of us down here on the middle ground looking up at the warring parties are just as convinced of our position as the extremists. We beleive that like a bell curve, there will always be outliers at either end arguing that, "Population is not a problem at all" vs. "Population is the only problem".

Our task then -- at least philosophically -- is to operate on the conviction that though the outlying, highly opinionated folks at the ends of the bell curve may have loud voices, that some critical mass of of our 6.9 billion co-inhabitants of the actually Earth fall within the "reasonable" zone; and, it's our job to find them, empower them, amplify their voices, organize their efforts when neccessary and eventually watch those cliffs of extremism collapse into the sea.

Sir David Attenborough Joins OPT

The broadcaster Sir David Attenborough has become a patron of a group seeking to cut the growth in human population.

On joining the Optimum Population Trust, Sir David said growth in human numbers was "frightening".

Sir David has been increasingly vocal about the need to reduce the number of people on Earth to protect wildlife. The Trust, which accuses governments and green groups of observing a taboo on the topic, say they are delighted to have Sir David as a patron.

Sir David, one of the BBC's longest-standing presenters, has been making documentaries on the natural world and conservation for more than half a century. In a statement issued by the Optimum Population Trust he is quoted as saying: "I've never seen a problem that wouldn't be easier to solve with fewer people, or harder, and ultimately impossible, with more."

The Trust, which was founded in 1991, campaigns for the UK population to decrease voluntarily by not less than 0.25% a year. It has launched a "Stop at Two" online pledge to encourage couples to limit their family's size. Other patrons include Jonathan Porritt, chairman of the UK Sustainable Development Commission, and Dame Jane Goodall, founder of the Jane Goodall institute.

BBC environment analyst Roger Harrabin said population was a fraught area of debate, with libertarians and some religious groups vehemently opposing measures by governments to influence individual fertility.

In turn, the Trust accuses policy makers and environmentalists of conspiring in a "silent lie" that human numbers can grow forever with no ill-effects. In January 2009, Sir David revealed that he had received hate mail from viewers for not crediting God in his nature programmes. His most recent documentary focused on how Charles Darwin came up with the theory of evolution and why it remained important.

Visit NECSP.ORG to learn more about population issues and take action!

Guest Writer: Frosty Wooldridge

Frosty Wooldridge has bicycled across six continents – from the Arctic to the South Pole – as well as six times across the USA, coast to coast and border to border. In 2005, he bicycled from the Arctic Circle, Norway to Athens, Greece. He presents “The Coming Population Crisis in America: and what you can do about it” to civic clubs, church groups, high schools and colleges. He works to bring about sensible world population balance at http://www.frostywooldridge.com

Below, please find part 1 of Frosty's Book Review of "Overloading Australia" by Mark O'Conner.

With a scant 21 million people on the vast continent of Australia, how could anyone state with any certitude that Oz suffers from human overpopulation? What impudence might that take? How out of touch? How completely absurd? Definitely not ‘fair dinkum’!

China features not much more land mass than Oz but houses 1.3 billion souls. The United States--at least the lower 48 states--equals about the same land mass, but houses 306 million people. Mexico, less than a quarter the size of Australia, features 108 million people.

So what’s the problem? How could there be a snag? Australia encompasses an endless amount of land. It features 2,970,000 square miles of terra firma. How do I know? In 1984 through 1985, I cycled 17,000 kms around Australia including Tasmania. One Aussie, after learning that I intended to cycle the entire perimeter of Australia said, “Well Yank, you must be dead from the neck up!” I answered, “Yes, but it’s a great adventure.” He responded, “Do you know what the Nullabor Plains means?” I said, “No.” He said, “It means treeless for 2,000 kms and 40 degrees C. every day. You’ll fry in the heat!”

None the less, I traveled from Sydney down the Princess Highway to Melbourne; sailed over to Tasmania, up the Great Ocean Road to see the 12 Apostles, to Ceduna and across the Nullabor Plains (treeless) and on to Esperance and then to Perth, onward to Port Headlands and upward to Darwin. From there to Cairns and back down to Sydney! What did I see and how did I feel? I fried in the saddle and sweated while I slept at night under the Southern Cross. Withering heat at 120+ degrees F. daily! I stopped at the Great Australian Bite, saw Bondi’s boat that beat the Yanks in the Americas Cup, viewed the Pinnacles of Cervantes, rode past the ant castles, witnessed the ‘prison boab tree’ near Port Headlands and watched the big crocs in Darwin. A frilled lizard scared the daylights out of me near Tenant Creek and I dove on the Great Barrier Reef. I read A.F. Facey’s “A Fortunate Life.” I’m still friends with John Brown in Kiama and Lance Hill in Perth. I’ve backpacked with Lance in Nepal and push-biked across the USA with John. I love Oz and its people.

So why does Australia suffer an overpopulation crisis? From my firsthand experiences, I am here to tell you: desert and sand cover 95 percent of Australia. No water and no arable land! It’s a wasteland with kangaroos, emus, wombats and stray camels eking out their existences in the devil’s horrid heat. When I traveled Oz, it featured 14 million people which it could support. Today, at 21 million, it’s on the edge of its own non-sustainable future. Australians might fool Mother Nature in the short term, but they cannot in the long run. Oz doesn’t possess water or arable land needed to grow food thus to sustain a large human population. That’s a brutal fact!

However, powerful governmental, capitalistic and growth oriented organizations expect to push Australia’s population to 50 million tortured souls. Much the same holds true in the United States and other countries where ‘growthists’ disregard reality and push human populations beyond the ability of the land and water to sustain them. How do they do it? They promote unlimited immigration from other countries that have already exceeded their carrying capacities---and simply exhaust their excess humanity onto the shores of Australia and other countries that possess stable populations. The third world grows by a net gain of 77 million annually, so the line never ends. That alone should give any Oz citizen pause!

The author Mark O’Connor of Overloading Australia, lamented, “I found this book almost impossible to write.” He found the fortitude to finish the project only after teaming with his co-author, conservationist William J. Lines.

With electrifying clarity, O’Connor and Lines spell out a sobering future for Australia. Any kangaroo could figure out what the ‘kangaroo’ government in Canberra cannot seem to grasp! As one man who has seen more of Australia than 95 percent of Australians, I can vouch for the fact that Oz does not possess the farmland or the water to sustain any more population.

“Rightwing growthists demand endless growth of ‘the economy’ backed by endless population growth,” O’Connor said. “Forced since late 2006 to accept a serious public debate about water supplies and about how to maintain ‘growth’ without increasing greenhouse gases, they are nevertheless determined to scotch any discussion about limiting growth.”

I found it exceedingly exasperating that the ‘very’ people in charge of Australia’s future, like Prime Minister Rudd in 2008, did and does not understand the consequences of his/their own actions. He promotes a “Faustian Bargain’ on every citizen in Australia that will force a “Hobson’s Choice.”

“Rudd announced a million news homes would need to be built over the next six years to house the influx [of people] he did not venture to question,” Lines said.

Where might that influx originate? Answer: Australia immigrates roughly 300,000 people annually into its dry and dusty desert country.

Why?

“There is a powerful lobby concerned not with whether human life or that of other species would be better in a ‘larger’ Australia, but with profits!” O’Connor said.

What ‘growthists’ create stems from that “Faustian Bargain” or selling their souls to the devil of growth for the present to place everyone into an environmental and unsustainable ‘hell’ later. Once another five or ten million Australians manifest on that desert continent, everyone suffers “Hobson’s Choice”: if you pick door number A—you walk through and over a cliff. If you pick door number B—you walk through and sink into quicksand. In other words, all your choices lead to death of your civilization.

TO BE CONTINUED...

Thoughts on Development

A post from Sarah, NECSP's grassroots outreach coordinator:

Fifteen years ago this September, 20,000 people gathered in Cairo, Egypt at the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) to tackle issues poverty and clarify the relationship between population growth and underdevelopment. But clarity and consensus on the relationship between population growth and underdevelopment are still elusive, as recent statements made by Archbishop Celestino Migliore, the Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations illustrate.

Speaking on April 1^st at the 42^nd session of the Commission on Population and Development, he denounced what he called the anti-life attitude in the preparatory documents for the U.N. summit for the ICPD (known as Cairo +15). The Papal Nuncio was also critical of the “population reduction” mentality expressed by Secretary Hilary Clinton as she accepted the Margaret Sanger award from the Planned Parenthood Federation of America days earlier.

Archbishop Migliore and Secretary Clinton represent recent iterations from public voices of the two sides of a critical, though often ignored, debate on the relationship between population and development. It is a matter that deserves careful attention from advocates of a stable population. If our goals are not integral to the goals of human dignity, equality, economic justice, and opportunity to live a full and meaningful life in any society across the globe, now and in future generations, then there is no justification for our work. We are advocates for population sustainability precisely because we are convinced that achieving these goals of justice, especially in underdeveloped regions of the world, will not be possible without simultaneously stabilizing human population. We affirm that the widespread availability of family planning, along with investment in education, local sustainable development, gender equality, health care, participatory governance, and environmental conservation, are all necessary components of just development.

Yet inclusion of this family planning component of our vision for just development is a matter of deep contention for many people. Archbishop Migliore in his statement argued that the presence of a large young workforce in proportion to elder dependents is a key developmental advantage for African nations with high fertility rates. Over the years, advocates for population stability have often been accused of racist and nationalistic fear that drives them to oppress disadvantaged people by depriving them of their younger generations and the full potential of their human capital.

In his book Population Control: Real Costs, Illusory Benefits, Steven Mosher also argues that since the rate of population growth is falling (taken as a global average), we should create public policy to enhance rather than diminish birth rates. Mosher notes that population growth is associated with economic growth, concluding therefore that those who would limit birth rates among the poor would, again, see them deprived of their capital.

So, are high birth rates an advantage or disadvantage for poor families in developing nations? We can assume that intelligent and caring people on both sides of the issue all have the best interests of poor people and future generations at heart. But who better understands the complex dynamics between population and development, economics and politics, and the capacities of the ecosystems underpinning it all?

As good observers of the natural sciences, we can begin by recognizing and sizing up the limiting factors that are placed on us by our ecological systems. Sadly, ecosystem science is often left at the sidelines of our political discourse, but it makes a critical difference. If we could be certain that our only limiting factor was the size of the earth, then we might look upon population growth with much less urgency. In the real world, though, the human community lives embedded in a complex ecosystem which must be able to sustain itself in order to continue to support us. We are already placing such strains on that system that we must shift our way of living on the planet into a more harmonious balance with the living systems that support us.

Archbishop Magliore and others point out that the greatest amount of abuse on those systems is coming from those nations that have low birth rates. This is true, and must be addressed, not only for the sake of justice toward underdeveloped nations, but also for the sake of all of our survival. But calling for economic development with restrictions on family planning means growing that unbalanced economy farther and faster than ever, accelerating us toward a situation of critical unsustainability. Recognizing the limitations of our ecology is still a controversial move in the population/development dialogue, but it must be undertaken to address the full reality of the situation.

In terms of economic development itself, however, continued population growth is not proving to benefit poor families and nations. The relationship is complex in this dynamic and globalized world where children of poor rural families often migrate and find gainful employment in cities. Our economy lends itself to high concentrations of people that would not have been possible in previous generations. Of course, this depends on increasing the intensity of demands on ecosystems to produce more food per acre and absorb more emissions into the atmosphere and oceans. Eventually the capacity of these systems to integrate these intense pressures will wane, so the continued intensification and concentration of human demands is unwise.

Therefore, large families within the global economic context may not always impoverish a family as it would have in the past when they would have had to share the resources of a small plot of land among growing numbers of descendents. Research presented by David Canning this month at the Commission on Population and Development does show that lowering fertility rates in developing nations does benefit the family and the country by decreasing the number of child dependents, therefore allowing more female participation in the work force, which results in more investment in child health and education, and increased economic development.

We would all like to live in a world where the gap between the rich and the poor is dramatically reduced, everyone has access to a healthy and fulfilling life, and the prospects for our children are bright. We want to achieve this with the greatest balance of justice and respect for people, especially in light of their own cultures and values. As advocates for a stable human population, we believe this can only be achieved in a world without growing numbers of human beings making impossible demands on our ecosystems. We agree that the lifestyles of the rich nations must be changed along with efforts to invest in underdeveloped areas. And we thoughtfully affirm that education about and provision of family planning to all who need it is a key component of our efforts to assist in the just development of poor nations.

Moderate and Determined

After reading the two responses to Henry Barbaro's letter in the Jamaica Plain Gazette, perhaps readers can now appreciate both the difficulty and absolute necessity of the mission New England Coalition for Sustainable Population has set for itself: to raise awareness of and promote action on the ways to achieve sustainable population for the region, the nation and the international community. With 225,000 net people added each day to a planet in ecological crisis, this issue is not going away anytime soon.

Both writers agreed that lowered birth rates and stabilized population were worthy and admirable “ends” that must be achieved if our human communities have any real chance at attaining sustainable living scenarios. In this, they are surely correct. Talking “sustainable development” is just a pie-in-the-sky pipe dream -- unless it involves a stabilized population.

But the “means” each author suggested couldn’t have been more divergent. One warned against state-mandated, involuntary human population management and advocated for robust access to voluntary means of birth control and increased education to lower birth rates. The other called for enforcement of strict policies on procreation to alleviate the occurrence of poverty.

The good news is that both have realized that stabilizing human population is a core-component of the urgent need to implement sustainable development regionally, nationally and internationally. On this point, NECSP strongly agrees with them – and its our job to encourage this dialog and provide New Englanders the tools necessary to be activists on sustainable population issues.

As to the “means” each author was suggesting, Glenn Ingrham is right to note the power a government of, by and for the people can wield – when so motivated, our democratically elected officials can marshall profound influence on the choices citizens make (think seatbelts and smoking). On the other hand, Rene Ruiz is right to warn against the very real potential of grevious human rights abuses when government acts mindlessly or with excessive, myopic urgency.

The middle ground is “we the people” identifying stabilized population as fundamental to the path towards a peaceful, ecologically sustainable future and then turning the positive power of our self-government towards that goal. Afterall, it’s the power of our government that is best positioned to ensure the education, literacy and access to family planning that will allow people to make voluntary decisions about reducing their fertility.

In closing, here are two examples of the type of democratic self-government that would do wonders for attaining sustainable population. One: Taking birth control pills off prescription and providing easy access to modern contraceptive methods with subsidies and sliding scale charges. Two: Requiring pre-marital counseling regarding family planning, the economic benefits of small family size and the environmental consequences of population growth –before any marriage licenses are issued.

Please visit the NECSP website, www.necsp.org, to become a member and get involved in this most interesting and crucial of issues.

Poles, Problems and A Middle Way?

As part of the Global Population Speak Out, NECSP board member Henry Barbaro wrote a letter to his hometown newspaper, the Jamaica Plain Gazette, laying out the basics of the population issues facing humanity at various scales (regionally, domestically and internationally).

Then, in response, a very good thing happened! Other local citizens found their voices and also submitted letters on the topic. And, wow! What amazingly different views the authors had. Scroll down to read two very different letters and tune in tomorrow to read Henry's response.

GOVT SHOULD NOT HAVE POPULATION CONTROL
In the March 20 edition of the JP Gazette, I read with interest the letter written by Henry Barbaro, board member of the New England Coalition for Sustainable Population, on the subject of population control. I welcome debate on this subject, as we should all be concerned about humanity consuming too many resources to maintain a reasonable standard of living and ecological health. It may be the case that, if we cannot stabilize our net environmental footprint, the only solution to this problem is population control. However, previous attempts at population control have had questionable effects on vulnerable populations.

Writing about the Irish potato famine in “The Great Calamity,” Christine Kinealy states the English gov-ernment used famine-related government policy to “…facilitate various long-desired changes within Ireland. These included population control and the consolidation of property…”

The US has also seen ethically dubious policy on this matter. In the 1927 decision Buck v. Bell, the US Supreme Court upheld the right of Dr. Bell to forcibly sterilize his mentally disabled patient Carrie Buck, because, in the opinion of Justice Holmes: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” Birth control advocate Margaret Sanger argued in “Birth Control Review” (April 1932) for: “A stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.”

General attitudes about humanity among population control theorists are also instructive. Caltech nuclear scientist Harrison Brown, in his 1954 book “The Challenge of Man’s Future,” states that the carrying capacity of the Earth is probably between 50 and 200 billion humans. However, he says this fact must be kept se-cret, as humanity is analogous to “a pulsating mass of maggots.” Therefore, according to Brown, humanity must not be allowed to “have its way” regarding population growth. In “The Population Bomb,” biologist Paul Ehrlich analogizes humans with cancer, and suggests compulsory birth regulation may be necessary.

In 1974, US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger produced National Security Study Memorandum 200, in which he concluded the US government must take an activist role in depopulating the developing world. Like Ehrlich, Kissinger goes on to suggest an alternate view that asks if “mandatory population control measures” are appropriate for the US and others.

I support a woman’s right to choose, and an individual’s right to access birth control, and therefore I think we must guard against ceding control of our reproductive rights to government in any form. Too often, population control efforts conclude with unacceptable policies that put the burden on the less fortunate. Therefore, I call on the New England Coalition for Sustainable Population to clearly state on its web site that it will never support any form of state-mandated, involuntary population reduction or control. Voluntary methods, such as access to birth control, raising income and education levels, raising literacy rates, etc., are acceptable, so long as they are done with the consent of the population in question.

GOVT SHOULD LIMIT LOWER CLASS PROCREATION
I couldn’t agree more with Henry Barbaro’s letter in the March 20 issue of the JP Gazette (“Population surge threatens the environment”), where he states: “addressing human overpopulation is critical to assuring human sustainability and security in the 21st century.”

I offer a slightly different perspective on population control than that offered in Mr. Barbaro’s letter. In the current era of economic cutbacks, layoffs and burgeoning costs for the care of the lower class, it is imperative we reexamine policy as to how best to ameliorate poverty. Spending on health and human services is the largest portion of the US government’s annual budget at just over $700 billion in Fiscal Year 2008 (www.federalbudget.com).

Throughout history, the poor have garnered much attention, perhaps epitomized by an infamous biblical quote: “The poor you shall always have with you...” (Matthew 26:11, New International Version). According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the official poverty rate in 2007 was 12.5 percent. In 2007, 37.3 million people were in poverty, up from 36.5 million in 2006.

One overlooked aspect of the policy debate over poverty is that of limiting lower-class procreation through social engineering in Iceland, during the mid 1800s, Gunnar Karlsson noted: “The only obvious way to reduce the expenses of poor relief in the future [is] to limit procreation. At this time, marriages were restricted in Iceland in the same way as in Denmark: those who had received poor relief as adults needed special permission from the communal authorities to enter marriage” (“The History of Iceland,” 2000, 231).

Bioethicist Onora O’Neill noted: “Direct coercion of procreative decisions would not be unjust. Such emergencies would arise only when recklessly fertile poor people persist in having children whose needs could not be met by their parents or by others, either by increasing or reallocating resources….Preventing such reckless procreation would coerce less than would failing to prevent it” (“Faces of Hunger,” 1986, 158).

Using census data to determine poverty rates, families in certain income ranges should be restricted to a certain number of children (or none). The current federally established poverty income level of $21,200 an-nually for a family of four should be redefined to a family of three (one child). Those who are unexpectedly brought into the ranks of the poor through job layoff, injury or illness should still be provided human services and support as is the current intent of entitlement programs. However, once in poverty, strict policies on procreating should be enforced in order to avoid “spreading” the low-income status. Economists would likely need to develop charts to determine how many low-income workers might be needed in any given year, based on the prior year’s economic trends and job needs (unemployment rate and other usual economic indices).

Limiting the procreative tendencies of the lower income classes would benefit the larger society through decreased economic, political and social costs, including a reduction in those crimes that are correlated to poverty.