it's both. You can't separate the two. The more people born, the more resources needed to support them. we have finite resources and, as we destroy our ecosystem, will be even more so the case. we can't keep growing at the rate we are growing and this argument is insanity meant only to enable a capitalist system that relies on growth and cheap labor. No, we need to address both inequality and population growth and move to sustainable and fair system with quality of life being the goal.
This article is, of course, ridiculous. While it is true industrialized nations do produce the bulk of pollution, emissions, with China now being the biggest polluter, the shear trampling of human feet has rendered much of the earth almost uninhabitable, particularly for other living things. The world's population is being maintained by fossil fuels, and that would be in all countries. As the fuels decline in use, either to protect the atmosphere or the outright depletion of the resource, the world will not be able to sustain our present numbers. Most scientist feel the sustainable level is around 2 billion or less. The farther we go down the time scale, the fewer resources will remain and that number will drop even farther. The idea we can continue to expand our population by a million people every 4.5 days, which it has been doing for 30 years, is totally absurd. This kind of thinking is frightening. Goodale is correct and so is the Limits to Growth book. I beg of you to reconsider your position for my one grand child.
It is true that inequalities in power, pelf, position and access to resources are the key drivers for environmental degradation, though population growth has some say.A peculiar issue with climate change is that wealth inequality plays both the roles of cause and an effect too.While inequality is the cause of concern for greater climate change,the climate change exacerbates inequality.In the case of the former, the lesser privileged resort to carbon-intense utilisation thus aggravating the problem and In the latter, there appears a rationale to believe that whatever inequality exists with the disadvantaged population, gets disproportionately widened due to adverse climate changes as they may not be able to cope up and recover to the same degree and at the same pace from the damages made compared to their relatively better off strata.Apart from addressing inequality,perhaps a concept like CFI (carbon footprint index) may be floated up and taxing or incentivising based on the values right from community level may be contemplated,the aim of which is to stir awareness and create responsibility rather than to generate revenue.Ultimately, it is certain that global awareness and participation coupled with a Herculean global effort is the need of the hour where the developed nations have a greater role to play !
It is not a question of blaming anyone, but asking how to tackle the climate and biodiversity emergency. Rich countries must evidently cut their consumption. But it has to be acknowledged that even poorer countries need to reduce their population growth rate. WWF in Uganda have said "population pressure is the main factor accelerating degradation of natural resources. Per capita consumption of wood increases every time the population increases, and that is why managing the populations around water resources and forests is a good idea. Our climate is changing so the homes that have planned their families early are more resilient to the shocks than those that are having unplanned births.” Providing education and health care resources for women are the best way to achieve this.
good, one important point is that population is actually projected to come down much sooner and from a much lower ceiling than reported here (although those are still the official UN figures..). https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/545397/empty-planet-by-darrell-bricker-and-john-ibbitson/
Another is that the population is too high, is itself a symptom of the drivers of inequality: endless growth. Meme's (real ones, not internet pics with text plashed on them) work like this; concepts that transfer from one area to another effecting how all they play out. and in the current meme growth is measured in quantity not quality.
and of corse yet so often lost in the mix is the fundamental system mechanism for the inequality: our privatised monetary system. It is the acceptance of this way of creating and destroying money that both legitimises and distorts markets towards illusory wealth by inflating assets, and the eternal growth just to break even.
This article totally misrepresents Jane Goodall who is actually saying the opposite.
I totally agree that the current system of pumped-up capitalism causes terrible hardship but the writer is missing the herd of elephants in the room and needs to learn the ability to look from outside the square. Over-population has created a human-centric world that is squeezing the life out of the planet. It is the epicentre of the global warming crisis. Despite many beautiful qualities there are dreadful kinks in the human template - ego, greed, social mobility, self destruction and the urge to overbreed. We are the obese species that continues to fight for more fat rights. We need to stop out-of-control breeding. Sugar-coating the issue will change nothing.