|
|||
|
|||
|
|||
The Obligations of Death Must Be Observed
The Issue of Population from Both Ends of the Curve
By Jim Stiles
|
|||
|
|||
Copenhagen. December 2009.
The joke is onus.
The
issue of climate change, global warming, the potential collapse of the
earth's eco
systems, mass extinctions, a dramatic rise in sea level and the ultimate dramatic forced migration of millions of humans and untold animals—i.e, the end of life on Earth as we know it—has been set aside yet again. The Copenhagen Summit was a disgrace.
The
politicians and media in the United States disingenuously suggest that
the develop
ing nations, and China specifically, sabotaged any hope of a significant agreement among the nations of the Earth. There is little or no mention of the fact that, l) we have been exploiting the natural resources of the developing countries for our own greedy pleasure, for centuries and that, 2) if China now has the power to hold the rest of us by our throats, it is only because we gave it to them in the first place. We
continue to empower Asia even more
with every passing day. As long as our society measures prosperity in terms of accumulated material "wealth," as long as our governments promote and cheer an increase in consumer debt, when politicians encourage an inexpli cable leap in holiday spending and praise the latest energy technology that allows even more consumption, no matter how "green" it might be, we are fools. We
degrade the integrity of our species, we
ignore the consequences of our neglect and we leave a shameful legacy to the future. If, a thou sand years from now, there is a human race to recall these times, we will be reviled. As
the Copenhagen Cop-out sputtered to a
close, with no binding agreement, we sneered at the developing nations' demands for a "cut of the action," accused them of demanding eco nomic "hand-outs," and belittled their own taste for a piece of the promised Green Economy. And
the charges are absolutely right. We have
taught them well. We always claimed we were the envy of the world. Wasn't that what the fall of Communism was all about? They wanted to become us. It's what we wanted as well. And they have. But there simply isn't enough to go around.
If America represents 496 of the world's population and consumes almost 30% of its resources, the math is simple. Global population is set to surpass 7 billion in 2012. De mographers believe it will peak at about 9-10 billion, near mid-century. No matter how "green" we shift our technology, the expanded human population, combined with a much hungrier global consumer economy, cannot stave off the effects. It cannot be done. And
if, by definition, this global free market economy DEMANDS an
ever-growing con
sumer population to fluorish, what do the demographers propose, once or if the popula tion DOES stabilize? There is little or no mention of the fact that,
1) we have been exploiting the natural resources
of the developing countries,
for our own greedy pleasure,
for centuries and that,
2) if China now has the power to hold
the rest of us by our throats,
|
for
more than three decades. Their "one child" strategy has generated human
rights abuse
charges and even claims that it encouraged infanticide. But Zhao insists that China's population policy has made a dramatic contribution to the issue of global warming. Zao says that China's family planning policy has resulted in 400 million fewer births. The decline in births produced 18 million fewer tons of CO2 emissions a year. Even
a report from the 2009 State of World Population, released earlier by
the UN Pop
ulation Fund claims that, "Calculations of the contribution of population growth to emis sions growth globally produce a consistent finding that most of past population growth has been responsible for between 40 per cent and 60 percent of emissions growth." The report noted that if the global population could be slowed to 8 billion by the year 2050 instead of the projected 9 billion, "it might result in one billion to two billion fewer tons of carbon emissions".
Zao
concedes that China's population program
has been controversial-its population is aging more rapidly and it does face the issue of "gen der imbalance." "I'm
not saying that what we have done is 100
percent right, but I'm sure we are going in the right direction and now 1.3 billion people have benefitted," she said. "But 85 percent of Chinese women in reproductive age use contraceptives, the highest rate in the world....This holistic ap proach that integrates policy on population and development, a strategy promoting sustainable development of population, resources and envi ronment should serve as a model for integrating population programs into the framework of cli mate change adaptation." Zao's comments generated little interest in the world press.
In the United States, population control is a
non-issue. Political suicide. In
Australia, its "progressive" Prime Minister
Kevin Rudd supports an increased population rate. He recently proposed that Australia's popu lation expand to 35 million from its current 22 million by 2049. He
sais, "I actually believe in a big Australia.
I make no apology for that...I actually think it's good news that our population is growing. I think it is good for us, it's good for our national security long term, it's good in terms of what we can sustain as a nation." National Security? His
own treasury secretary Ken Henry doubted whether Australia's
environment could
accommodate an extra 13 million people by 2049. "With a population of 22 million, we haven't managed to find accommodation with the environment. Our record has been poor, and in my view, we are not well placed to deal effectively with the environmental challenges posed by a population of 35 million." The explosive population rates of developing countries is well-known and we do very |
||
Still on one level, albeit controversial,
China HAS confronted one of the two major issues
that have led our species and our planet
to the brink.
|
|||
|
|||
POPULATION & BIRTH CONTROL....The Unmentioned Issue
Please
understand I have no sympathy for China or her clear quest for world
economic
domination. They have become a far more successful version of the model we created. And their unwillingness to deal with a crisis of global proportions whose consequences will not be felt for decades or centuries is even more detached than the United States. Still on one level, albeit controversial, China HAS confronted one of the two major issues that have led our species and our planet to the brink. At
the Copenhagen meetings, the population issue was barely mentioned.
Andrew
Revkin, the climate change expert for the New York Times, noted the lack of discussion and even blamed the media, in part, for failing to force the subject. But China at least raised the issue.
At
Copenhagen, Zhao Baige, vice-minister of National Population and Family
Planning
Commission of China (NPFPC) said, "Dealing with climate change is not simply an issue of CO2 emission reduction but a comprehensive challenge involving political, economic, social, cultural and ecological issues, and the population concern fits right into the pic ture," It is true that aspects of China's draconian family planning policy have been condemned
|
little
to assist. Not yet at least. One can't help but wonder if the richer
nations see popu
lation growth, not as a threat to the planet, but as a future opportunity. Where will the cheap labor force come from 50 years from now? You have your answer. THE OTHER COMPONENT OF OVER-POPULATION...
The Unspeakable Issue While
the looming threat of over-population is scarcely mentioned in the
mainstream
media, the issue of health care in the United States and elsewhere is a topic of constant and never ending debate. Of course, what issue can be more personal, and therefore more critical, than our own physical well-being? But "well-being" is the key to health care.... feeling well is my goal. Being merely alive physically-maintaining "biological function"— -without being well, is an issue lost in the discussion. In
the United States, health care opponents accuse each other daily of not
only being
insensitive to the health needs of the country, but that the intransigence of each side will "cause more deaths." As if dying is the issue here, when it should be living and living well. More than twenty-five years ago, Colorado Governor Richard Lamm committed politi-
|
||
|
|||
16
|
|||