I am not going to rehash. But go to the Buckminster Fuller Institute and read the free literature. The means, methods and technology are there. I am not saying that we can or should sustain our comparitive extravagance... But Bucky put out ideas he claims (and presents proof) would sustain 100 billion people.

If overpopulation is such a concern to you, why do you ignore the 20th century's most important thinker and potential contributor to the topic?

I am now going to read the magazine.

The US has total fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman 2008 (and 2.05 est for 2009), which is roughly the replacement rate. Growth is thus a factor of immigration. Most industrialized nations have rates below replacement level, as well as a number of other countries. Canada 1.58, European Union is 1.51, Russia 1.41, Italy 1.31, Poland 1.21, both South Korea and Japan 1.21, etc. China is actually 1.79. So in general the richer nations are basically having the negative growth rate that you want.

The world 2.58. We might be able over time to get that number below 2.0. But even then the time it would take to make a noticeable impact on the number of people on the planet would be long indeed.

Population growth is occuring primarily in poorer countries, and where women's education levels in general are low or nonexistent.

So while the situation is would be better off with less people, the real question is just how are you going to get the people in the growth positive countries to limit their birth rates.

Meanwhile those in the developed nations can focus on utilizing technology, city planning and so forth to decrease our impact. I live in a small city/large town, but people drive here just as much as in the city. If across the country we had greater density with corresponding wind and solar power, etc. there would be a major decrease in impact. Again, we know this, and have the technology, how to implement it, while still respecting people's right to choose.

The problem is twofold. Both folds resemble Jevon's Paradox, in which increased efficiency leads to greater consumption.

As acamus notes above, decreased birthrates among national populations are offset by immigration and higher birthrates among the immigrants. There are already Christianist videos going around warning that Europe is going Muslim and the US is going Latino.

Second, we can voluntarily lower our birth rates until the cows come home, but we really have to stop raising and eating so many cows, stop driving so much, etc. But when we do that, when we try to be more efficient, and exhort others to try to be more efficient, there are always others to step in and continue to eat meat and drive cars.

You've been trying to warn people for a while about what will doom the planet but we're the narcissists?

I can hardly breathe through the laughing.

In your list of policy actions, I think you missed an obvious one, CT:

Immediately recind the tax credit for children.

What is it, $1,500 per child now (up to some limit -- maybe 3 kids)? I don't know, because I don't have any children. All I know is that if the guy sitting next to me makes the same salary, but he has kids, he pays thousands of dollars less in taxes than I do. (And these are tax credits, not tax deductions.) Doesn't seem fair, and it doesn't seem like good public policy. (Why do we need to give people a financial incentive to have children?)

In addition, you might be interested in reading a book by Sharon Astyk, called "Depletion and Abundance". The author claims that it is possible for Americans to reduce their carbon footprint by 90%, to about the global average, and the book purports to be about how to do that.

http://www.amazon.com/Depletion-Abundance-Life-Home-Front/dp/0865716145/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254952476&sr=1-1

Let me emphasize that I am just now reading the book (only 50 pages in), and I am not ENDORSING it in any way!! I'm not saying these are the answers. But I am interested in hearing what the author is suggesting. (Interestingly, the author has 4 children -- and she does address this in the book, but I haven't gotten to that chapter yet.)

-- ARG

I don't have time right now to really get into things. I'll come back later when I have a chance to read thru all the discussion.

I just wanted to note that Paul Ehrlich has been ringing the bell about population for decades. He's made some rather dire predictions about overpopulation, particularly dates when we can expect crisis, that have simply not come true.

Just want to remind people that Ehrlich has a reputation as an alarmist, although I don't necessarily disagree with what he wants to accomplish :) I didn't read his New Scientist article, I will later, but I know he's still going to be alarming; I'll concede that he's more "right" now, in that we are much closer to the crisis point than we were when he first started foretelling imminent doom.

Side note: Russia's population is dwindling, and they're facing a lot of demographic problems as a result. And China's birth control policies, although strict, have also created some demographic problems. There is talk in China of easing the 1-child policy to allow couplings of people who were themselves sole offspring to have 2 children.