Comments on: Let’s talk (carefully) about climate and population

By: keinst

keinst — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:03:19 +0000

I thought the article was very interesting and I’m happy that we’re taking the time to talk a bit about morality. First of all, I would like to say that I believe population and consumption both play a role and therefore, both have to be taken into consideration when solving a problem as complex as this. I think it was extremely useful to mention in your article that fertility rates tend to drop when the status of women rises. In fact, many western European countries have an unsustainable low fertility rate. Since we all agree that advancing the status of women is moral, I believe that it would be the first most logical step to take.

Whether fining people when they have children is moral or not, is another question. I personally believe that the existing burden of having children is considerable enough that I question how effective an extra tax would play into the equation. Of course, people would think twice to have children if this extra tax were to be significant, but the result would then be that only rich people could have children. From this, I believe civil unrest would result because a question of economics turns easily into a question of race.

In conclusion, I believe the moral justification of having an extra tax on children is questionable, therefore, we should first advance the status of women and only resort to such drastic measures when all other options fail.

By: T. Caine

T. Caine — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:41:04 +0000

My thanks for broaching a prickly topic, Marc. We are at a point where people have to start asking the annoying questions that no one really wants to deal with because the answers will may not come about in their children’s lifetime, let alone their own. The population is undoubtedly an environmental issue and the sooner we can address it, the better.

For me, the annoying, yet simple, question is “Can the world support an infinite number of humans?” I think most people would say no. After that it is merely a question of which generation would like to take the onus to figure out where a feasible level of stasis is.

Pete Murphy also makes a good point for countries like the U.S. that continue to operate with an understanding that free market capitalism requires continuous growth. In order for population to be addressed, economies like ours needs to find new ways of measuring success rather than an ever-increasing output.

T. Caine
Intercon

By: Pete Murphy

Pete Murphy — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:51:36 +0000

The biggest obstacle we face in changing attitudes toward overpopulation is economists. Since the field of economics was branded “the dismal science” after Malthus’ theory, economists have been adamant that they would never again consider the subject of overpopulation and continue to insist that man is ingenious enough to overcome any obstacle to further growth. Even worse, economists insist that population growth is vital to economic growth. This is why world leaders continue to ignore population growth in the face of mounting challenges like peak oil, global warming and a whole host of other environmental and resource issues.

But because they are blind to population growth, there’s one obstacle they haven’t considered: the finiteness of space available on earth. The very act of using space more efficiently creates a problem for which there is no solution: it inevitably begins to drive down per capita consumption and, consequently, per capita employment, leading to rising unemployment and poverty.

If you‘re interested in learning more about this important new economic theory, then I invite you to visit either of my web sites at OpenWindowPublishingCo.com or PeteMurphy.wordpress.com where you can read the preface, join in the blog discussion and, of course, buy the book if you like.

Pete Murphy
Author, “Five Short Blasts”

By: pat

pat — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:11:59 +0000

I’m not sure of the morality of the question… but there are serious moral or ethical considerations. Initially, I would think that poor people would overwhelmingly be courted (and court) any sort of “payment” for not having children. The financial incentive would be less of a draw to a wealthier individual, where the same incentive would make comparatively less of an impact on their income. But, then again, like your recent post on behavioral economics… humans are not the perfectly rational decision makers we are touted as, so the disparity I suggest may not be nearly as clear cut.

Logistically it would be problematic. Enough people don’t want children that identifying the couples that do want children, could be tricky (since I could see couples who don’t want children masquerading as those who do).

By: betsy teutsch

betsy teutsch — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:30:21 +0000

Nicholas Kristof writes so eloquently about the impact of educating girls in Half The sky, a fabulous book. In the Pacific Rim where countries invest in girls’ education, they have flocked to factory jobs and helps power an economic boom. We might see these as sweat shops producing cheap goods, but compared to being stuck in rural villages with no sanitation, power, or opportunities, they look good
These women contribute to the economy and send money back home, lifting up their families as well. Because they are working, they delay marriage and childbearing – a double benefit to developing countries.
educate women, provide health and info – and people opt for smaller families. The extreme of this is upper middle class Americans who now delay marriage into their late 20’s, often pushing children into their 30’s. Over time this slows population growth significantly.
Now we just need to get affluent people to consume less. Maybe incorporating the cost of climate change and clean water provision into pricing will help.

By: Responsible and Childless

Responsible and Childless — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:28:48 +0000

I am half of a responsible, childless, U.S. couple. If we have children, we’ll have 2 at the most. It is environmentally and socially selfish and irresponsible to have families today that are 6,8,9,10, 18, 20 children, and equally wrong to deny the health services, tools and resources that people in developing countries need so they can choose to NOT have large families. I agree with Dave G’s comments and thanks Marc for writing so well about this important issue. Just like U.S. employers are starting to pay/incentivize employees to not smoke or be overweight, I would love to see an incentive for people who make responsible choices in terms of family size.

By: Duncan

Duncan — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:15:43 +0000

“Does population, per se, matter for the environment?”

Amazing to me that people so commonly get things so backwards.

Environment matters for the population, not the other way around.

Prove somehow that your concern about population growth isn’t related to the color of the population that’s growing. If it were all going to be people like you, this article wouldn’t exist.

By: Dave Gardner

Dave Gardner — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:38:16 +0000

Thanks, Marc, for writing about this (carefully). It needs to be okay to write and talk about overpopulation. I would disagree that “overconsumption is the biggest culprit.” It cannot be any bigger than overpopulation, because it is people who overconsume. Two people overconsuming creates twice the problem of one person overconsuming. It’s simple math, and with scientists in general agreement that a sustainable lifestyle for 7 billion people would be drastically simpler than the current European or American lifestyle, it is simply unrealistic to expect that focusing on consumption alone will move us into a truly sustainble mode.

As for your morality question, today there are numerous financial incentives in many nations (including the U.S.) to have more children. If that is not immoral, then a financial disencentive cannot be immoral.

Dave Gardner
Producer/Director of the documentary
Hooked on Growth: Our Misguided Quest for Prosperity