New Museum Head Says Lower Population Would Cut CO2 at Fraction of Renewable Energy Cost
by Kenny Luna, North Babylon, NY on 07.23.07
The new head of the Science Museum in England has an uncompromising view about how global warming should be dealt with… And that includes getting rid of a few billion people. Chris Rapley is certainly not afraid of offending anyone in his quest to cut the population, but “I am not advocating genocide,” he says. “What I am saying is that if we invest in ways to reduce the birthrate - by improving contraception, education and healthcare - we will stop the world's population reaching its current estimated limit of between eight and 10 billion.” And that, of course, means less CO2 heading up into the atmosphere as fewer individuals consume energy based on fossil fuels, driving the temperature up. His point is that doing this would take only a fraction of the money that it will take to bring about technological changes such as new nuclear power plants or renewable energy plants.
Of course, it’s also not an issue that many people talk openly about, though there has been some significant discussion here on Treehugger. Especially when I posted about the fact that the Optimum Population Trust, a non-profit in England recently suggested that there should be an optional limit of two children for every citizen in that country who truly wants to go green, and then some parents of large families fired back that since some have none, they can have more with little net consequence. Now, in response to both global warming and flagging attendance at the museum itself, Mr. Shapley intends to focus on the issue as a way of educating people about the realities of a population increase while driving attendance at the same time. Sounds like an intriguing win/win to me…
"What I am saying is that if we invest in ways to reduce the birthrate - by improving contraception, education and healthcare - we will stop the world's population reaching its current estimated limit of between eight and 10 billion.”
And let's not forget abortion, that procedure that one third of American women will have, half the country is against, and 80 percent of US counties don't have a provider for.
Too bad that the Bush abstinence only doesn't do anything for improving contraception, education and healthcare. It would help prevent many of those abortions they're against.
Okay , half of you people have to move . . . .
I suggest the Moon or Mars . . . .
Consider this your 30 day notice . . . .
Now , will the rich people want to go or will the poor become transportees . . . .
Is this to be a voluntary or a forced diaspora . . . .
Just another facet of the "Lets not talk about the real problem" stratagem that the Bush administration has been using since the first election.
This is a fine point, and sticky for some at the same time. I do hope though that the future brings greater insight into the realm of human population control. I think its easy to agree that if the world had half as many people as it did the world wouldn't be in as rough a shape as it currently is. It is an avenue worth exploring.
me and my wife have chosen either no kids or 1 kid. If we do have one kid a prompt sterilization is to fallow for me ;). I am not fond of the idea though that me and my wife's decision makes those who want large families not feel as guilty because some people are choosing to have less. The effect of too many humans putting stress on the world is felt by everyone and is a burden that everyone bears. I liken it to i ride a bike to work and you ride an SUV, you say it equals out. but your luxury and "want" is at the expense of another.
I do think that the current native birth rates in the US is barely at replacement levels, Europe and Japan are falling. I do believe that the current surge in population is outside of developed countries. I don't think that is the fault of Bush or the American health care system.........
Who not adopt a kid if you are in favor if population control? I don't think the problem is with developed countries...rather 3rd world countries.
The Economist runs a story periodically reirating an ongoing research project which shows the BEST way to stablilize world population is to provide equal education to both boys and girls. When girls enter school, they become part of the cash economy, and delay age of first motherhood and also have smaller families.
I love this. Where has this been, people need to start talking more openly about this. You need your child to have more people to have friends. Just get them more involved with things outside the house. Don't add more to your family numbers.
If your afraid that small families will have spoiled children. Its the upbringing not the quantity that causes spoiling. I have seen evidence of this. There are plenty of studies and statistics to point this out.
I'm one person, and I see a constant non-acceptance of things from our (human) perspective. We don't seem to like death, and in a normal eco-system few young mature to the point to have their own children. However for most of the 'civilized' world, the reality is quite different. Civilization doesn't have a tough time getting near 100%. More then two children, even just one more is an increase of population that a family has chosen.
I'm speaking out here not because of myself, but for the kids who are growing up. That will yet again have to deal with the problems that their parents have failed to deal with. Who have yet again, as every generation before them has been given a world that is just WORSE then it was.
Please start doing something, please stop complaining the government isn't doing enough. It is time for us to start getting stuff done.
There is a nasty man in a white building, he is an idiot. He has sent people to other nations to take treasures away from those nations. While in his own service he went AWOL. He also was part of the national guard which was in itself a way to stay out of Vietnam [National Guard of that era were not sent overseas].
Though he was part of the National Guard, so he could stay out of the Vietnam War, he has no problem of sending the current National Guards to raid other nations treasures. Who is this lovely person. Why it is Idiot Bush (I didn't vote for him, so I don't honor the title, nor do I give Idiot Bush any honor other then to capitalize his name.)
So let us all do our part, with or without the Government!
I can't believe all of you really think that people -- or at least the number of people living, is a bad thing.
Our population is out of control. It would be nice for a religious organization to mention that their congregation needs to think about their decisions, whether they are mentioned in the a holy document or not. I only mention this because our current President has a huge religious following.
We need to have more free condoms everywhere, so that they are readily available for anyone in the world. We definitely need less people. do more with less.
The people who you adopt from will see it as a way of perpetuating their seed and will keep/increase the birthrate levels up.
Fertility and propagation is the more dominant driver in most cultures.
The natural population in western countries are, mostly, in decline. It's aggressive immigration thats keeping population levels up.
When one U. S. citizen consumes the same resources as 10 or more citizens of 3rd world countries the problem is every bit as much in the developed nations. However, the "education and healthcare" should be applied universally.
The term "third world" is not really kosher any more. FYI.