The great population debate: too many carbon footprints?

Battle of Ideas 2010, Royal College of Art, London

Speakers:

Roger Martin, chairman, Optimum Population Trust

Brendan O'Neill, editor, spiked; author, Can I Recycle My Granny and 39 Other Eco-Dilemmas

Chair: Ann Furedi, chief executive, British Pregnancy Advisory Service

Blurb:

Contemporary fears about climate change have brought historical concerns about global population numbers back onto the agenda. There has been much discussion about the need for lifestyle change, particularly in the Western world, to reduce the amount we consume. But a growing number of voices argue that this skirts around an equally important consideration: the need to reduce the absolute number of 'carbon footprints' left on the planet. With the global population set to reach seven billion in a few years time, some argue we are heading for a crisis, as food supplies and energy sources wane in the face of increasing demand.

On the other hand, it is pointed out that similar arguments have been made throughout history -- most notably by Thomas Malthus -- and have been proven wrong, as development and human ingenuity have solved the problems posed by apparently natural limits. Critics object to the way more people are seen as a burden on the planet, rather than a source of creativity. Moreover, the world population is growing in the developing world rather than the richer countries, and there is a concern that population reduction arguments might be tainted with racist undertones.

The Optimum Population Trust produces calculations to show how reducing population levels will ameliorate the environmental and social crises provoked by growing numbers of people. Others argue controlling population has immediate benefits -- to women, who in some parts of the world lack access to modern contraception; and to families on low incomes struggling to support the children they already have. Some family planning organisations have brought the environmental argument together with the arguments for reproductive choice, claiming the number of 'births averted' through abortion is a boon. But what -- if any - is the link between individuals' reproductive choices and the state of the natural environment? Is it irresponsible for people to have large numbers of children in the knowledge they will consume more resources? Is there anything wrong with promoting voluntary strategies for limiting family size?

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• 2010
• battle
• ideas
• institute
• public
• debate
• politics
• overpopulation
• population
• control
• Malthus
• carbon

[blackman666ful]

Men interfered with nature's ways of controlling human populations and replaced nature's ways with his own diabolical methods.Most man made ways of controlling population involves programming individuals to indulge in self destructive behaviours that have been advertised as something that would benefit them.These man made ways to die mostly applies to people who live in man made settings,If we thing about what caused the deaths of most that we knew who died it's clear that man was involved.

[natdrip]

FINALLY!! Overpopulation topic is ignored by mainstream media, and those who adopt the idea that overpopulation is not a problem have a very famished mind set. Over population is a problem and it is THE PROBLEM. Think about what technology could bring everyone if they were only responsible with there numbers. No more war, not more hunger, no more starvation, no more depleted food nutritional, natural recycling,..etc,etc.

[RayDandy]

what exactly does he mean social progress,social progress is stifled by population growth, how can you attain this social progress when the population growth continues to fragment society.

[RayDandy]

and yes "finiteness" is real,stop mitigating it and face reality

[RayDandy]

"the fluidity of resources" , ha,the man who said that is full of it.

[RayDandy]

@madhoyden  keep drinking the kool aid.

[RayDandy]

@TheNorwegianSkeptic Agreed.These people are delusional.their arguments against overpopulation are emotionally driven and weak.doesn't matter, its all meaningless talk.let them ignore and deny the direction things are going in.the party will be over soon. their optimistic fantasies will fall apart.they were warned and given the solution.

[madhoyden]

Tough crowd for Martin. :o)

Millions of people are dying and suffering all over the world in the "most shittiest situations" is not because of overpopulation but mostly because of political unstability, poor distribution of resources (we have enough food to feed everybody in the world), lack of education and lack of opportunities for people to escape various conditions whether it be poverty or war.

[nortryk]

global overpopulation is the elephant in the room - quite literally.

[TheNorwegianSkeptic]

This video was disturbing to watch. Here we see people arguing that population growth isn't a problem while millions of people dies or suffer in countries all over the world in the most shittiest situations. The notion that everything can grow and grow forever is a delusion.