The elephant in the room; population

[Ludwig]

The only thing I'd add is the I think talking about behavioural change is harder than population reduction. Folk are happy to talk about population reduction because they are sure that they will not be involved personally. It will be someone else who has to not have a baby or die. Behaviuoral change is much more difficult because there is a danger that it might actually involve oneself.

The population reductionists are just scape-goating.

Well, I am actually a population reductionist - in the sense that I think population reduction will happen, whether by systematic implementation or (more likely) by die-off.

I simply don't buy the argument that we can sustain a world population of 7 billion without cheap oil. It seems logical to me.

What I'm not going to do is stand up and say which people I think need killing off. When I talk of population reduction, I'm not assuming that I won't be involved.

I just don't think behavioural change will be enough to save us from the cataclysm. Common sense says that Britain can't sustain a population of 60 million without oil - we just don't have the land, and remember, oil isn't just used for oil imports and intra-national transportation - it's also used in food production (machinery, pesticides etc.), so we could expect to see food production at a considerably lower level even than in WW2, when we only had to feed 40 million people. Remember, we had oil back then.

[biffvernon]

Behavioural change is difficult but I feel that population reduction has to be a major part of this.

I could be persuaded to change my behaviour but I will resist attempts to reduce my population.

[emordnilap]

One possible situation is this: just as declining fossil fuel supply increases the price, limiting use, which then causes the price to fall, in a vicious circle, so it could be with population.

Fuel resources decline, so starvation kicks in until fuel resources can support the population, which then starts to grow again...and so on in a vicious circle. It keeps bumping the ceiling, in other words.

foodimista asked what behavioural changes are required. Limiting you and your partner to a maximum of 3 children (that's your lot no matter how many partners you have in your life and you should only have more children if one of them dies young) and limiting fossil fuel usage in all areas of one's life for the rest of your life are the obvious steps. In transport, housing, food, expectations etc etc. Having a simpler life. Tough call for virtually everyone conditioned to bigger, faster, sooner, impossible I'd say.

How to achieve behavioural change? CO2 rationing - there are plenty of viable schemes - is an easy way if you don't want to act voluntarily. There will be other ways, that's just my favourite. I suppose I'm biased because I would benefit under such a scheme, mid-term, as I have already done what I outlined in the paragraph above.

As to 'by whom', that would happen automatically in a CO2 rationing world, providing the poor are not put at a disadvantage. Optimist!

[2 As and a B]

So population- and carbon use- behavioural changes, by everyone (imposed from on high), by means of (presumably, for it was not stated explicitly, enforced abortion of fourth and subsequent children) and carbon rationing.

Not getting at you emordnilap - thank you for responding - but these are authoritarian responses to difficult questions. Another response might be forcing the work shy (but work able) and the purveyors of various useless consumerist goods such as fashion accessories, greetings cards, cuddly toys, [add your own ideas] and superfluous public sector bureaucrats, to tend the fields and harvest food.

If anyone can provide ideas for behavioural changes don't require a totalitarian state, I'd be interested to hear about them.

Population reduction may be a subset of contrived behavioural change (at least a partly positive action), or it may be the result of unleashed aggressive reactions such as various sorts of inter-communal violence, insurrection, and war over land and resources or aggravated natural disasters such as starvation and communicable disease (all negative reactions and outcomes).

[emordnilap]

I thought we were talking about behavioural changes - of which I can say I'm an example. No-one made these decisions for me and forced them on me. I simply see them as logical and fair. Enforced abortion, no - see the other thread.

Unless you're talking about CO2 rationing exclusive of behaviour changes, of course. That would be called totalitarian by those who have much to lose through it - but it is an equitable solution, however else you'd like to label it.

[the_lyniezian]

If anyone can provide ideas for behavioural changes don't require a totalitarian state, I'd be interested to hear about them.

You use the soft rather than the hard approach- for example, if you want to get those of us who are somewhat more reluctant, but able- to work on the fields, you do it not by rounding them up and carting them off, but making it a condition of continuing to recieve certain benefits. Same with limiting numbers of children per family- child benefit is only payable up to so many children. I am sure any of these measures would be acceptable to a fair proportion of the electorate, perhaps less if you start encouraging sterilisation tho' (else the cry of 'Eugenics!' will ring out...)

That, and stepping up the public information campaigns, education beyond what we currently expect.

Of course, perhaps we're taking the top-down appraoch, and trying to get governments be the ones who instigate social change... better to raise awareness using a 'bottom-up' approach? (People are wary of authoritarian government in democratic states like ours...)

[2 As and a B]

Ok, I misunderstood you emordnilap. You were talking about people taking responsibility for their own behaviour and making changes themselves.

It's not going to happen on any grand scale though is it?

Not unless the media is muzzled because, at the moment, the media is the propaganda conduit of capitalism and capitalism isn't going to want people buying less and doing more for themselves.

Forgot to add marketing and advertising men to the list of useless consumerist workers who 'need to get out more'.

[emordnilap]

It's not going to happen on any grand scale though is it?

Nope.

I thoroughly enjoy being the odd one out. If people started behaving like me, I'd have to think quick in order to (hiya, Apple) 'stay different.'

[Prono 007]

If anyone can provide ideas for behavioural changes don't require a totalitarian state, I'd be interested to hear about them.

You're living under just such a system. Persuasion through propaganda, or PR if you prefer, is how behaviour is modified in Western democracies. We (or perhaps I should say 'they') are experts at it. PR was used in the mid 20th century to solve one of the great behavioural problems of the day: how to get women smoking. The problem was solved by Freud's nephew, Eduard Bernays*, using techniques based on his uncle's research and was a total success.

The system is so clever and so ubiquitous that most of us have forgotten it's even taking place. Yet every billboard, TV commercial, radio ad etc. is aimed at behavioural change. And it's massively successful hence there is a lot of money in that industry.


* Check out the BBC documentary series 'Century of the Self' which can be downloaded for free from the internet archive. www.archive.org

[Prono 007]

Same with limiting numbers of children per family- child benefit is only payable up to so many children.

The idea of continually blaming the poor for every problem is just so 'Daily Mail'.

This thread is entitled 'The elephant in the room' because it's a big problem no one is even talking about. Until it is discussed and it becomes a national goal to reduce our population the idea of blaming any particular groups in society is surely very premature.

[biffvernon]

Why should it be a national goal?

As the century warms up, the British Isles will increasingly be recognised as a haven of mild climate and we should expect climate refugees from around the world.

Our national goal should be to prepare to reach out the helping hand.

Of course we must also put more effort into helping women's education and child health services around the world, the effective population limitation strategies.

[contadino]

As the century warms up, the British Isles will increasingly be recognised as a haven of mild climate and we should expect climate refugees from around the world.

Or, as climate change takes effect and throws Northern Europe into a new mini Ice Age, we should expect a mass migration of climate refugees away from the UK...

Or, as sea levels rise and London becomes the new Atlantis, we should expect a migration of Londoners to higher ground in the north of England....

The single issue about climate change is that everybody has been so busy fending off Big Energy funded misinformation, that they've had no time to model the likely scenarios. That's what makes preparations so difficult for you.

[Ludwig]

Why should it be a national goal?

As the century warms up, the British Isles will increasingly be recognised as a haven of mild climate and we should expect climate refugees from around the world.

Our national goal should be to prepare to reach out the helping hand.

Biff, the road to hell is paved with good intentions... At some point you have to accept the limits of the possible.

[Lord Beria3]

Why should it be a national goal?

As the century warms up, the British Isles will increasingly be recognised as a haven of mild climate and we should expect climate refugees from around the world.

Our national goal should be to prepare to reach out the helping hand.

A noble idea, but something to be carefully managed in terms of Britains ability to feed its current population before allowing millions of climiate refugees in.

This idea in my opinion is actually qiute dangerious, a liberal minded government with no idea on resource scarcity and the sustainibility of population would let willy nilly millions of climate refugees in, and when it finally woke up the reality that there was no chance of feeding te new lot along with the existing 50 plus popultion, panic would occur and our safe haven would implode into anarchy and starvation - Last Light style.

Think of it like those government centres in London in Scarrows peak oil novels, the ones that allowed thousands of refugees eventually became death zones, the Dome government centre which only allowed a tiny proportion of refugees compared to the rest functioned in a post-peak Britain for over a decade.

[biffvernon]

Our national goal should be to prepare to reach out the helping hand.

A noble idea,

Thankyou.