Enter your contact details and provide real consumption and lifestyle data in the forms. Then, use the CALCULATE button to view the results. The carbon footprint is a part of the ecological footprint and is its fastest-growing component. Use it for your own and your partners’ benefit and take a step against the worsening climate crisis.

The “Free Carbon Footprint Calculator” program is provided by the iCC – BOCS Team!

• Managing risks associated with GHG emissions and identifying reduction opportunities
• Informing stakeholders and the public (e.g., for environmental and sustainability reporting)
• Opportunities to join voluntary GHG programs
• Preparing for future mandatory reporting and data submission requirements
• Better compliance with potential future government measures and grant conditions (“positive discrimination” by the public sector towards companies that apply carbon footprint calculations)

To neutralize your carbon footprint, use Quality Family Planning Carbon Credits (Quality Family Planning Credit™ – QFPC™). Visit the Hungarian carbon credit website.

Dear Visitor, I warmly invite you to become part of the most effective climate protection team! Calculate your carbon footprint, reduce it, and offset the remaining part with credits! This way, you can achieve climate neutrality. Moreover, you can even reduce your total ecological footprint to zero, allowing you to “float above the Earth like an eco-angel” without burdening it. Invite your friends to join the team as well! This way, you can earn credits. With this highly effective humanitarian action, a small elite group of humanity can bring a decisive turning point in the climate crisis!

You can download our footprint calculator for Android here:

and for iPhone here:

The post Carbon Footprint (CO₂ Footprint) Calculator appeared first on BOCS FOUNDATION.

Therefore, to talk about sustainability in a narrow-minded and short-term way is contrary to the meaning of the word. For example, a project is “sustainable” if its activities can continue after the grant has ended. Population is ‘sustainable’ if there is no population decline. Financial “sustainability” means only the resources to cover expenditure. Moreover, social, economic, etc. sustainability cannot be placed alongside ecological sustainability, since it is ecology that will make or break them.

Sustainability without quotation marks is long-term and systems thinking. E.g. it takes into account if expenditure is partly covered by a legacy that is dwindling. Or part of the income is provided by arable land on which the soil is thinning, etc.
Since the present civilisation is unsustainable (i.e. destroying its very foundations), sustainability without quotation marks can only mean, correctly, that we cannot continue in the present way, but must turn in the opposite direction. But how can sustainability be measured? What shows the right direction?

1.Definition of sustainability: ecological footprint is less than biocapacity

For decades, the calculation of ecological footprints (environmental pressures) and biocapacity (carrying capacity) has been improving, backed by a vast international scientific network. Both are expressed in global hectares (gha, the carrying capacity of an average hectare), so they are easily comparable.
In particular, the website https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/ compares countries’ ecological footprints and biocapacities since 1960 on an annual graph, divided by population per capita. You can see how, over time, more and more countries are becoming unsustainable, with an ecological footprint (the red line) that already exceeds (often by several times) their biocapacity (the green line).
Mankind as a whole exceeded the Earth’s carrying capacity in 1970 and is now nearly double that. The graph shows that the ecological footprint per capita has not increased for decades, and the red line is no higher today than it was in 1970. Thus, the overshoot is essentially caused solely by the population explosion, with more and more people sharing the Earth’s carrying capacity. The green line is sinking due to the population explosion, with less per capita. It’s not overconsumption, it’s overcrowding.

How is it possible to consume more than is available? Biocapacity is the annual yield of an ecosystem that can be consumed in such a way that it can be produced again. An ecological footprint larger than this consumes the ‘capital’ or ‘heritage’ accumulated over millions of years: forests, soils, water, wildlife are destroyed, the climate is disrupted, toxins and plastics are dispersed…

2.The carbon footprint is the largest and most manageable part of the ecological footprint

The ecological footprint of cities, companies, products, events, travel, websites, etc. can be calculated, but reliable data sets for calculating biocapacity are more likely to be available only per country. Therefore, on a smaller scale, carbon footprint calculations are more common, e.g. with a calculator like this: https://bocs.eu/karbonlabnyom-szenlabnyom-kalkulator/
The carbon footprint measures greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, measured in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. CO2 emissions are more important in industrialised countries, methane etc. (livestock, fertiliser, rice paddies etc.) in poorer countries. The carbon footprint accounts for more than half of the ecological footprint, so carbon neutrality is a crucial part of sustainability.
The carbon footprint can be easily calculated for small things, companies, products, events, travel, communication. And there is no need to bother calculating their biocapacity and comparing them. Simply zero the carbon footprint by reducing it and offsetting the rest.
Only that which has an ecological footprint smaller than the available biocapacity is sustainable – and whose carbon footprint is partly neutralised.
We could say that only development that improves quality of life and reduces the ecological footprint, including neutralising the carbon footprint, is the only way to go! And since infinite growth is not possible on a finite planet, especially if we are already almost doubly overburdened, to use the term “sustainable growth” is ignorant or fraudulent

3.The ESG on its base resembles a cake

The three elements of ESG (Environment, Social, Governance) are not side by side, they are not equal. Society is a subsystem of the ecosystem, the economy is a subsystem of society, the financial world is a subsystem of the economy, governance (at least in the profit orientation trap) is a subsystem of the financial world, and this limits its scope.
So ESG is not three letters side by side, but is upside down on its base. On the base of the E (Environment, Ecosystem) stands or falls the fate of Society. And Governance cannot be a mere icing on the cake, but must take over from above. It must break free from the short-termism of narrow profit orientation, to redirect the currently destructive economy and financial system towards a sustainable direction, rather than serving it.

Source : https://fenntarthato.bocs.eu/

This hierarchy holds in the longer term. In the short term, the temporary abundance of fossil fuels has overpopulated humanity, making living energy very cheap and thus making overconsumption affordable. The costs can be externalised for a time, passed on to the poor, women, children, the living world and future children. At the level of governance, it is barely felt for a short time that the earth has been overconsumed for the last half century, grossly overconsumed by humanity.

4.Governance for sustainability instead of destructive profit

So-called “donut economics” goes beyond narrow economic and financial thinking. It shows social deficits in the inner circle and ecological excesses in the outer circle. Governance is caught between social demands (Social) and ecological constraints (Environment). The ecological ceiling should not be exceeded, but at least two thirds of the 9 vital areas are already severely degraded.

Source: https://medium.com/@PeterManthos/doughnut-economics-in-amsterdam-77a34da95434

Profit-driven governance does not even deserve the name Governance, as it is just a puppet of the money system. Even the now obsolete CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) has difficulty in extracting resources from it for social good. Moreover, this S without an S, CSR that serves social demands often does more harm than good: it achieves small and large social improvements often with a damagingly large increase in its ecological footprint. For example, what we do for children now often has an eco-burden that disproportionately exacerbates the hardships they will face later.
Governance should therefore not be about management pandering to the unsustainable demands of employees, customers, clients, owners, etc. It must look beyond them to alleviate their impending suffering, the ecological crisis. Therefore, the first task of management is to train management and all stakeholders in sustainability.

ESG already puts the ecosystem at least first. And the EU’s concretisation of ESG, the CSRD (Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive), although similar to CSR as an acronym, is the opposite: S without E, i.e. it correctly subordinates everything to sustainability.

5.Can social demands be reconciled with environmental constraints?

As the ecological footprint calculation shows, the Earth has been overburdened by overpopulation. We don’t hear much about this because, as Sir David Attenborough puts it in the BBC film How many people can the Earth support? Fortunately, overpopulation is not caused by people wanting to have lots of children, but by women’s lack of opportunities to learn, work and use contraception. The UN estimates that every second, around 4 women realise in despair that they have become pregnant against their will. Hundreds of thousands of children are born every day to parents who did not want them.

So you don’t have to be an ascetic to alleviate the ecological crisis. It is enough to be compassionate, to help girls and women who are deprived of education and contraception. The other big problem, overconsumption and waste, is also limited precisely by slowing and reversing the population explosion. In China, for example, population decline has already started, and not as a result of the one-child policy, as fertility rates had already fallen a decade earlier. As soon as there is no oversupply of labour, wages rise, overconsumption becomes increasingly unaffordable. No more cheap Chinese dumping, only Africa is exploding.
Contraception is the magic wand that can untangle the tension between the three areas of the ESG. Numerous scientific studies support that

1. contraception is a human right (UN, 1968)

2. the most effective climate protection

3. the most effective protection of the environment and nature

4. the key to lifting people out of poverty

5. key to empowering women and educating girls

6. key to reducing maternal and infant mortality

7. key to the physical and mental health of future children

8. reducing the risk of epidemics

9. mitigates conflict, migration and violence, and strengthens peace and public security.

Carbon neutrality in the environment is the main thing to do: what can be reduced, the rest offset by carbon credits. Fortunately, there is also a carbon credit that prevents GHG emissions by helping people without contraception and avoiding accidental deaths: the Quality Family Planning Credit (QFPC). The figure below shows the beneficial effects of some different carbon credits on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). QFPC is the best multisocial carbon credit, so it is useful in all three areas of ESG.

Source : https://ouroffset.com/karbon-piac/

In the Social area, we have to be very careful not to make a big ecoteher to do some small good. As the ecological crisis worsens and environmental awareness grows, image improvement can backfire.

In the governance field, managers need to train hard to navigate a rapidly deteriorating global crisis. Those who only make their companies profitable may soon regret having done so with serious ecological consequences. The key is training for sustainability: preparing employees, customers, suppliers, owners, all stakeholders for a rapidly worsening ecological crisis.

A better understanding of a rapidly changing world gives the power to enforce the Environment against the pressure of money: it enables wiser, better decisions in all three areas of ESG.

Gyula I. Simonyi
President, BOCS Civilisation Design Foundation

Published on:https://www.zipmagazin.hu/a-fenntarthato-nem-fenntarthato-az-esg-talpraallitasa

The post “Sustainable” is not sustainable: recovering ESG appeared first on BOCS FOUNDATION.

Sport is a major contributor to health and happiness and therefore a desirable activity, but what if you are putting yourself at risk by its emissions? For example, skiing will be a dream in a few years’ time because there will be no snow. Fortunately, there is huge potential for this footprint to be reduced, or even eliminated.

In the year of the Olympics and the football World Cup, this is particularly important, as this year the Earth’s climate is on a shocking trajectory, with sea temperatures rising to unprecedented levels that could bring a series of weather disasters.

Major sporting events are primarily a burden on the environment because of the travel and accommodation of spectators and participants, while the carbon footprint of everyday sporting activities is made up of three main components. These are the travel associated with sport, the footprint of building and operating sports facilities, and the smallest footprint of manufacturing sports equipment

These already show where there is the greatest potential to reduce it. Professional TV coverage of a sporting event that attracts a large number of spectators can be far superior to on-site attendance, saving millions of people travelling. Today, lightweight battery-powered drones can often replace kerosene-flying helicopters for coverage, but reducing the number of sporting events can also significantly reduce the carbon footprint.

The carbon footprint of an installation is primarily proportional to the amount of concrete installed and its energy consumption. Therefore, efforts should be made to reduce energy consumption through passive house quality architecture, the use of renewable energy sources and increasing the occupancy of the facility.

Unfortunately, there are some sports where this is not possible, which might be better forgotten, such as golf courses with their huge carbon footprint due to intensive turf management, skydiving with its megawatt electricity consumption, or indoor skydiving with its megawatt electricity consumption. But it also includes motorised “sports”, car racing, cross-country skiing.

For sports equipment, durability and repairability are key, as the carbon footprint of production is reduced per unit of time spent playing sports.

It is crucial to measure the carbon footprint of sport, both at individual and event level, to see where potential interventions can be made to reduce it and how much voluntary carbon credits can be used to offset the remaining carbon burden to reduce it to zero.

In some cases, sport can significantly reduce the carbon footprint, such as when someone replaces driving to work with cycling, walking or running. These need to be encouraged at company and public level, for example through tax breaks, subsidies, provision of secure bike storage, changing rooms, showers, free company bikes and other incentives.

Péter Lenkei

The post Neutralising the carbon footprint of sport can make the masses more climate conscious! appeared first on BOCS FOUNDATION.

For many years I volunteered at planned parenthood, zero population growth, and the Sierra Club action groups on population, because this is the ONLY way to reduce the 9 existential threats we face: climate change, biodiversity loss, deforestation, erosion of topsoil, depletion of fresh water, ozone depletion, land-use change, altered bio-geochemical cycles from overuse of fertilizers, ocean acidification, chemical pollution, atmospheric aerosol loading, and the phosphorus cycle (Steffen et al 2015, Rockström J et al 2009). Not to mention fewer traffic jams, less noise pollution — can you think of a single problem that wouldn’t be helped by fewer people?

Fossil fuels are how we were able to exceed these boundaries and overshoot the carrying capacity of the planet, with world population growing from 400 million before coal to 8+ billion today. But it looks like world oil production of both conventional and unconventional peaked in 2018, coal in 2013, and possibly natural gas in 2019, almost as serious as peak oil, since fertilizers are not only made out of natural gas, but use natural gas to create the tremendous heat and pressure to get inert nitrogen in the air to combine with the hydrogen in natural gas — fertilizer that keeps at least 4 billion of us alive today (Fisher 2001; Smil 2004; Stewart et al. 2005; Erisman et al. 2008).

Today the Supreme court undid Roe V Wade, at a time when the carrying capacity of the planet is about to go back to 500 million people and birth control and abortion are the only way to get there besides the four horsemen of the apocalypse…

Also see: Lochhead C (2013) Why is linking population growth to environmental stress politically taboo? San Francisco Chronicle.

Alice Friedemann www.energyskeptic.com Author of Life After Fossil Fuels: A Reality Check on Alternative Energy; When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, Barriers to Making Algal Biofuels, & “Crunch! Whole Grain Artisan Chips and Crackers”. Women in ecology Podcasts: WGBH, Jore, Planet: Critical, Crazy Town, Collapse Chronicles, Derrick Jensen, Practical Prepping, Kunstler 253 &278, Peak Prosperity, Index of best energyskeptic posts

***

“There is no need to decide whether to stop the population increase or not. There is no need to decide whether the population will be lowered or not. It will, it will! The only thing mankind has to decide is whether to let population decline be done in the old inhumane method that nature has always used, or to invent a new humane method of our own.” Isaac Asimov, 1974.

“Unlooked for but swift, we have come on like a swarm of locusts: a wide, thick, darkling cloud settling down like living snowflakes, smothering every stalk, every leaf, eating away every scrap of green down to raw, bare, wasting earth…There are too many men for Earth to harbor. At nearly seven billion we have overshot Earth’s carrying capacity”. Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First.

1) Consumption

The famous equation to describe this is I = P x A x T, which translates to Human Impact (I) on the environment = (P)opulation times (A)ffluence times (T)echnology.

The United States uses 7 billion tons of minerals a year. Per capita that’s 47,769 pounds per American: 1400 pounds of copper, 9 tons of phosphate rock, 300 tons of coal, 16 tons of iron ore, 700 tons of stone, sand, and gravel, and so on.

Although there are some who blame only the wealthiest 2 billion, the poor also have a large impact on the environment:

• Slash and burn farmers migrate deep into rainforests on illegal logging roads and cause massive biodiversity loss, wild fires, erosion
• Deforestation due to illegal timber harvests and to cook food
• Overfishing
• Desertification
• Competition over scarce water
• Sewage and chemical pollution due to lack of treatment
• The poor escape by migrating to wealthy nations, increasing consumption, and lessening the need for birth control
• The best and the brightest leave poor nations, opening the door to autocracy and mafia rule by gangs, who cause even more to flee to rich nations to escape them
• World Population Growth 1950-2050 Source: United Nations Population Division, World Population Prospects, The 2008 Revision.
• World Population Growth 1950-2050 Source: United Nations Population Division, World Population Prospects, The 2008 Revision.

2) It’s taboo to mention the link between poverty and population

Much of the misery and starvation in Niger is caused by having the highest birthrate in the world, which clearly reduces the slice of resources per person (and everywhere). But reporters never mention this connection since it is not politically correct.

3) Don’t worry, America’s birth rate went down

By 1973 the birth rate dropped below replacement level, so the media ran headlines declaring that the population problem was solved and that America had reached Zero Population Growth.

Not true! The population in the U.S. was, and is, still growing. So what if the rate of increase is less, it’s still a hundred times greater than when we were forced to live within limits before fossil fuels. And with 8 billion people, half of them under 30, a lot more babies are born every year than ever before, 80 million a year now, with 3 billion more people expected by 2050.

4) Feminists and Human-rights groups took over the Sierra Club

After feminists and human-rights advocates were put on the population committee at the Sierra Club, they fought to have empowerment of women as the main goal. Dave Foreman was on the committee and opposed this since the goal was population stabilization and then reduction. Empowering women might be a key path to that goal, but was not the goal itself.

The newcomers replied that any implied restrictions, such as a goal of population stabilization, was an assault on women rights to choose how many children they had. The mere mention of limits to growth was coercive.

The takeover of the Sierra Club population platform by people unaware or unable to understand “The Limits to Growth” and “The Tragedy of the Commons” was a tragedy. The Sierra Club was instrumental in making the topic of population taboo and politically incorrect.

Another big factor in why the Sierra club abandoned it’s population position was because David Gelbaum, who had given them over $100 million dollars, demanded they take this position or he wouldn’t continue to give them large donations (Weiss).

Since the 1980s there’s been little media attention to population growth, and close to none since 1994.

Not only did the Sierra Club and other environmental groups stop writing about population issues, they stopped reminding people that overpopulation is responsible for every single problem they were trying to “solve”. Clearly all of these problems would be reduced if there were fewer people:

• Climate change
• Oceans: acidification, overfishing, pollution
• (Rain)forest destruction for agriculture, cattle, construction
• Biodiversity loss (6th mass extinction)
• Providing a good education to children everywhere
• Feeding everyone
• Making jobs available for record numbers of unemployed youth                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Martha Campbell puts this even more strongly – she sees hostility towards mentioning the population question due to universities teaching students that even discussing the connection between population and environment is not a tolerable topic of discussion and politically incorrect to even suggest that slowing population growth might protect the environment for future generations.

5) Cornucopians and Leftists Environmentalists also destroyed immigration and population stabilization goals

You’d think the Left would support conservation, but there are splinters who saw talking about overpopulation as blaming the world’s poor for their plight. Better to stop wealthy countries from consuming so much.

In 1998 the Bay Area Marxist group “Political Ecology Group” succeeded in killing a Sierra Club immigration-lowering initiative. Leftist ideologues also suppressed talk about overpopulation at the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment because Chinese and India’s attempts to gain population stabilization were seen by them as coercive.

6) The American public is not scientifically educated and ignores warnings from scientists

Anyone who denies overpopulation is a problem ought to be called a population denier, just as those who insist there’s no climate change are called Climate Change Deniers. For some reason just about everyone, scientifically literate or not, ignores warnings about population:

• 1798 An Essay on the Principle of Population by Thomas Malthus
• 1968 The Tragedy of the Commons by Garrett Hardin
• 1968 The Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich
• 1973 Limits to Growth by Donella Meadows et al
• 1980 Overshoot by William Catton (especially Chapter 2)
• 1992 World scientists’ warning to humanity. 1,700 of the world’s leading scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in the sciences, issued this appeal
• 1993 The Arithmetic of Growth: Methods of Calculation by Albert Bartlett.
• 1995 The Immigration Dilemma: Avoiding the Tragedy of the Commons by Hardin
• 1999 The Ostrich Factor: Our Population Myopia by Garrett Hardin
• 2001 Global Biodiversity Outlook
• 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
• 2006 The Essential Exponential: For the Future of our planet by Albert Bartlett (video)
• 2014 Nobel laureates call for a revolutionary shift in how humans use resources. Eleven holders of prestigious prize say excessive consumption threatening planet, and humans need to live more sustainably.

7) Educating Women to lower population a nice idea but…

As far as lowering population, Virginia Abernethy has some valid criticisms about whether this will work in “Population Politics: The Choices That Shape Our Future”.

The main reason it won’t work is that it’s too late. We’re too far into overshoot beyond carrying capacity once fossil fuels start declining.

Though it’s still a good idea, so that as energy, natural resources, and population decline, educated women perhaps will fight the loss of their rights because they’ll know it doesn’t have to be that way.

8) Only humans matter, screw the other species on the planet

Nearly all the optimistic books written with the general theme of “YES WE CAN SUPPORT 10 BILLION PEOPLE” ignore other species on the planet. All that matters are human needs. The human-caused mass 6th extinction is well underway. The idea that we can kill off most other species and maintain a population of 10 billion is absurd.

9) Anyone who wants to limit immigration or population is portrayed as a racist

Have you ever seen anyone on TV or in newspapers who stated their reason for wanting reduced immigration and population was their concern over loss of biodiversity, increasing pollution, declining aquifers, fisheries, forests, energy, and other resources? And if they were allowed to speak about environmental issues, they would still be accused of hiding their REAL motivation, which was racism.

Hell no. Only hateful racists are interviewed and their views linked to eugenics, genocide, and colonialism. They are portrayed as not trying to curb all growth, but only that of undesirable people such as the poor or undesirable races.

Many systems ecologists have estimated that without fossil fuels, the United States could support at most 100 million people. The media should be asking people how we can go from 320 million to 100 million without birth control, abortion, and limiting immigration.

I personally think it’s less than 100 million due to what we’ve done to our topsoil, aquifers, massive dieoffs of marine life from eutrophication (due to fertilizer runoff), the lack of land to grow food on once the 4x to 5x intensification of food produced due to natural-gas fertilizers is no longer attained, phosphorous depletion, invasive species, and a whole lot of other ecological showstoppers covered elsewhere on this site.

10) The Sierra club and other environmental groups abandoned immigration level goals in 1989 the Sierra Club’s stand was that “immigration to the U.S. should be no greater than that which will permit achievement of population stabilization in the U.S.”.

But in the 1990s conservationists feared alienating leftist and racial rights groups and dropped immigration to stabilize population from their platforms.

Since then immigration has grown immensely. Until 1965 levels were about 200,000 a year. In 1965 it leapt to 1,000,000, and in 1990 to 1.5 million.

Immigration is now the main cause of increasing population growth in the United States. Between 1900 and 2000 the population almost quadrupled (76 to 281 million), with the largest 10 year increase between 1990 and 2000 (32.7 million).

11) We must have more population growth to fund retirees and grow the economy

That’s clearly a crazy Ponzi scheme that can’t go on forever on a finite planet.

It is also a way to have cheap labor once you’ve got many people competing for jobs, and perhaps the real reason why the elites wanted population growth.

12) Immigrants take jobs Americans don’t want

Who benefits from immigration? Businesses that want to pay people less. Everyone else loses. Wages would be much higher if there weren’t so many people competing for every job, which drives wages, safety, and working conditions down.

Free-market economics likes the high population growth in low-income countries abroad as well, which further acts to depress wages worldwide.

13) We’re wealthy, so we’re obliged to offer shelter to immigrants, and we are a nation of immigrants

Just because we can’t control other nation’s population policies doesn’t mean we should reward them for reproducing beyond their carrying capacity. Since developed nations consume many times more resources, immigrants from India to the U.S. magnify resource depletion 40-fold, since Americans consume 40 times more per capita than Indians.

14) Nature keeps us alive

People are brainwashed by viewing the world through economic filters, forgetting that forests, fisheries, wetlands, aquifers, healthy deep class 1 and 2 topsoil, and other resources are essential for survival, and can be diminished and even depleted.

15) 1994 United Nations International Conference on Population and Development

The Catholic church and well meaning but ecologically ignorant activists at this conference shifted the goal of population stabilization and growth to empowering women. They labeled attempts by China and India as coercive, and thereby killed family planning, replacing it with empowerment and reproductive rights and health, because now family planning was spun as being coercive.

Perhaps they forgot that women are coerced into unwanted pregnancies and often die or are severely injured in childbirth. One of the results of this conference is that many poor women have little or no access to family planning and as a consequence are unable to control their bodies, how many children they have and when they have them.

This conference discouraged discussing the connection between population growth and environmental destruction, because to do so was seen as anti-woman. Anyone who persisted in talking about population growth was dismissively labeled a Malthusian.

16) Standard demographic theory

It was assumed that women would want fewer children as their nation modernized and more women were educated.

A better theory and one that matches reality, is that if men and women can gain easy access to birth control, they will have fewer children.

For example, in Thailand, where family planning is easy to obtain, women with no education used birth control as much as educated women. In the Philippines, where birth control is hard to get due to the Catholic Church, uneducated women don’t use contraception because they can’t get it.

If women could gain access to birth control, the population growth rate would go down.

Women aren’t stupid, they know that childbirth is dangerous – the risk of death or injury is very high. Women would rather stay alive to take care of their existing children. One million children are left motherless every year – childbirth kills 287,000 women and injures another 10 million every year according to the World Health Organization.

17) It’s Human Nature not to worry about overpopulation

In the end it may be that we’re not wired to worry about this issue. Everyone loves babies. We’re tribal. We’re optimistic.

18) Don’t worry: the fertility rate and disease are driving population down

Worldwide, family planning brought fertility rates down from 5.5 to 2.5 children per woman. Therefore the media reports: the population explosion is over. But the rate is still above replacement, the population is still growing exponentially. Just a bit more slowly.

19) Propaganda from anti-abortion activists, religious leaders, and right-wing think tanks

The most extreme are not only against abortion, but even family planning. Catholics and Right-to-Lifers strategized to convince people that there was no population problem, since that’s one of the reasons many people supported legal abortions.

Islamic countries are thought of as living in the Dark Ages, but some Muslim countries are the most advanced in family planning. In Iran, subsidies stop after a third child and classes in modern contraception methods are required before a marriage license can be obtained.

Capitalists have succeeded in painting environmentalists with negative terms such as being overly concerned about the environment, which threatens jobs and that their concerns about pollution and endangered species are overblown.

20) Many people don’t understand how powerful exponential growth is

Population doubling times

Years                             Billions                               Years to add 1 billion more people
1800                                1                                            200,000
1930                                2                                            130
1960                                3                                            30
1975                                4                                            15
1987                                5                                            12
1999                                6                                            12
2011                                7                                            12
Source: Scheidel (2003)

21) Republicans cut funding for international family planning programs

Not to mention how hard they’ve fought birth control and abortion at home. Reagan, Trump, and George W. Bush all harmed efforts to provide women in developing nations with birth control and abortions. Because of lack of birth control and abortions, Mexicans and other central americans have far more children than their nations can support, so of course they come here, as do legal immigrants from overpopulated nations. The U.S. functions as a safety valve for nations that can’t control their own population and delays revolution and starvation a bit longer.

22) It’s easier to blame climate change than do something about population

If politicians really wanted to make a difference, they’d put limits to growth in their city limits, based on water availability and so on. In two thirds of California counties, humans sparked 95 to 99% of the fires, not climate change, according to professor Keeley at UCLA. He said “To me, climate change is a distraction from the population problem…they’re comfortable with global warming because they can’t be held accountable, whereas population growth is something that much more directly affects their constituents, right now (Bland 2019).

23) Excerpt from How Nixon and the Catholic Church conspired to stop actions to prevent overpopulation

In 1971, it recognized that reliance on private, voluntary decisions: “will not be sufficient to provide the necessary limitation of population growth unless there is a radical and rapid change in the attitudes and desires. The Church must commit itself to effecting this change. The assumption that couples have the freedom to have as many children as they can support should be challenged. We can no longer justify bringing into existence as many children as we desire. Our corporate responsibility to each other prohibits this. Given the population crisis we must recognize and teach, beginning with ourselves, that man has an obligation to limit the size of his family.”

And in 1972, the Presbyterians called on governments “to take such actions as will stabilize population size…. We who are motivated by the urgency of over-population rather than the prospect of decimation would preserve the species by responding in faith: Do not multiply—the earth is filled!”[3]

This kind of increasing out cry for action made it safe—almost compelling—for American political leadership to identify with the concept of population growth control and to call for new programs to deal with the problem.

It was in this climate of rising concern that President Nixon sent to Congress his “Special Message on Problems of Population Growth.” Special messages to the Congress are exceedingly rare and this was the first such message on population. This action punctuated the beginning of the peak of American political will to deal with the mounting population crisis. The message, for the first time, committed the United States to confronting the population problem. Also rare, this special message was approved by the Congress. Its passage was bipartisan, indicating broad political support for American political action to combat this problem. The message was a water shed development, yet few recall it.

The most important element of the Special Message was its creation of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future. During the signing of the bill establishing the Commission, President Nixon commented on the broad political and public support: “I believe this is an historic occasion. It has been made historic not simply by the act of the President in signing this measure, but by the fact that it has had bipartisan support and also such broad support in the Nation.”

The 24 member Commission was chaired by John D. Rockefeller 3rd. It ordered more than 100 research projects which collected and analyzed data that would make possible the formulation of a comprehensive U.S. population policy. After 2 years of intense effort, the Commission completed a 186-page report titled, Population and the American Future which offered more than 70 recommendations. The recommendations were a bold but sane response to the challenges we faced in 1973. For example, they called for: passage of a Population Education Act to help school systems establish well-planned population education programs; sex education to be widely available for all, including minors, at government expense if necessary; vastly expanded research in many areas related to population-growth control; and the elimination of all employment of illegal aliens.

The recommendations represented the conclusions of some of the nation’s most capable people. The scientists who completed the Commission’s 100 research projects were among the best in their fields. These recommendations are included in this book because it is important for the reader to know what the U.S. response to the population problem could have been and should have been. On May 5, 1972, at a ceremony held for the purpose of formally submitting the Commission’s findings and conclusions, President Nixon publicly renounced the report.[4] This was 6 months before the President faced re-election and he was feeling intense political heat from one particularly powerful, foreign-controlled special interest group—the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. Nothing happened toward implementation of any of the more than three score recommendations that collectively would have created a comprehensive U.S. population policy. Not one recommendation was ever adopted. To this day, the U.S. has no population policy, one of the few major countries with this distinction.

Had these 70 carefully reasoned recommendations been adopted as U.S. population policy in 1973—or if even a dozen or so of the most important ones had been adopted—America would be very different today. We would be more secure, subjected to less crime, better educated now with even greater educational opportunities ahead, living with less stress in a healthier environment, with more secure employment and greater employment opportunities, with better medical care, all in a physically less crowded America.

We would have set an example for the world, and we have good reason to believe that much of the world would have followed. Ironically, the American people were better prepared to accept these recommendations in 1973 than in 1994, even though world population during this brief period has mushroomed a horrendous 43 percent. For the past 20 years, all of us have been subjected to an intense disinformation program staged by the opposition to raise doubts in each of us regarding the seriousness of the population problem.

24) Even Norman Borlaug, who won a Nobel Prize for the Green Revolution is alarmed by overpopulation

The Green Revolution eventually came under attack from environmental and social critics who said it had created more difficulties than it had solved. Dr. Borlaug responded that the real problem was not his agricultural techniques, but the runaway population growth that had made them necessary. “If the world population continues to increase at the same rate, we will destroy the species,” he declared. he warned the Nobel audience that the struggle against hunger had not been won. “We may be at high tide now, but ebb tide could soon set in if we become complacent and relax our efforts,” he said (Gillis 2009).

Quotes

Aldo Leopold: “For one species to mourn the death of another is a new thing under the sun. The Cro-Magnon who slew the last mammoth thought only of steaks. The sportsman who shot the last pigeon thought only of his prowess. The sailor who clubbed the last auk thought of nothing at all. But we, who have lost our pigeons, mourn the loss. Had the funeral been ours, the pigeons would hardly have mourned us”.

Leon Kolankiewicz “Our species is unique, because here and now only we have the ability to destroy, or to save, biodiversity. Only we have the ability to care one way or the other. The destiny of all wild living things is in our hands. Will we crush them or let them be wild and free? Limiting human population will not guarantee success, but not doing so means certain failure”.

Isaac Asimov: “Democracy cannot survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot survive it. Convenience and decency cannot survive it. As you put more and more people onto the world, the value of life not only declines, it disappears”.

References

APPG 2007. Return of the Population Growth Factor: Its Impact on the Millennium Development Goals. All Party Parliamentary Group on Population, Development and Reproductive Health.

Asimov, I. 1974. The future of humanity. Newark college of engineering. asimovonline.com.
http://www.asimovonline.com/oldsite/future_of_humanity.html

Beck and Kolankiewicz. 2000. “The Environmental Movement’s Retreat from Advocating U.S. Population Stabilization”

Bland, A. 2019. So why isn’t anyone talking about population? East Bay Express.

Cafaro, P, (ed) et al. 2013. “Life on the Brink. Environmentalists Confront Overpopulation”.

Erisman JW, Sutton MA, Galloway J, et al (2008) How a century of ammonia synthesis changed the world. Nat Geosci

Erb, Karl-Heinz, et al. 2009. Eating the Planet: Feeding and fuelling the world sustainably, fairly and humanely–a scoping study. Social Ecology Working Paper no. 116. Institute of Social Ecology and Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

Erlich, P. 1970. Population Resources Environment: Issues to Human Ecology.

Fisher D (2001) The Nitrogen Bomb. By learning to draw fertilizer from a clear blue sky, chemists have fed the multitudes. Discover magazine

Gillis J (2009) Norman Borlaug, Plant Scientist Who Fought Famine, Dies at 95. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/14/business/energy-environment/14borlaug.html

Hays, S. 1987. Beauty, Health, and Permanence: Environmental Politics in the United States, 1955-1985.

IUGS (International Union of Geological Sciences) 2013. Geoindicators. Soil and Sediment Erosion.

Levinson “The Box”

Meijer, R. I. Apr 16 2014: Overpopulation Is Not A Problem For Us. Theautomaticearth.com

Scheidel, W. 2003. “Ancient World, Demography of”. Encyclopedia of Population.

Homer-Dixon, T. 2001. Environment, Scarcity, and Violence.

Rockström J (2009) Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Ecology & Society 14(2):32.

Smil V (2004) Enriching the earth: Fritz Haber, Carl Bosch, and the transformation of world food production. MIT Press

Stewart WM, Dibb DW, Johnston AE et al (2005) The contribution of commercial fertilizer nutrients to food production. Agron J 97:1–6

UNFAO 2006. Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. United Nations Food & Agriculture Organization.

Weiss, K.R. October 27, 2004. The Man Behind the Land. Los Angeles Times.

APPENDIX 1
[Here are excerpts of a more nuanced look at overpopulation denial ]

Diana Coole (2013) Too many bodies? The return and disavowal of the population question, Environmental Politics, 22:2, 195-215.

During the 1960s and early 1970s population growth was regarded as an urgent environmental issue. Since then the topic has fallen into abeyance. Despite continuing demographic expansion and anxieties about a range of socio-ecological problems – from the stresses of high-density urban living to climate change, water, energy and food insecurity and loss of biodiversity – there is currently scant consideration of the benefits of population stabilization or decline.

Indeed, the problematization of population numbers is widely disavowed or regarded with profound suspicion. Why have we become so reluctant to ask whether we are too many or to countenance policies that might discourage further growth? I identify five discourses – population-shaming, population-skepticism, population-declinism, population-decomposing and population-fatalism – that foreclose public debate and subject them to critical analysis.

In 1950 world population had recently exceeded 2.5 billion. By 1990 it had doubled and by 2020 it will have tripled. October 2011 marked one among numerous demographic milestones on this expansive journey as the 7 billion threshold was crossed. This is in line with conclusions to the United Nations’ 2010 revision that ‘world population is expected to keep rising during the 21st century’, albeit more slowly during the latter part. It projects some 9.3 billion of us by 2050 and over 10 billion by the century’s end (United Nations 2010). Such an ongoing increase surely conveys an alarming story to anyone concerned about environmental sustainability and social wellbeing. Or does it? I ask why concerns about population growth and over-population have virtually disappeared from the political agenda of developed countries, especially, since the mid-1970s. Have they simply forgotten about, even resolved, the issue? Or is it rather, as my analysis suggests, that problematising it has been foreclosed? For despite periodic eruptions of concern among democratic publics, members of the policy community have been noticeably reluctant to address these anxieties. Even among critical theorists and Greens, scant attention has been paid to the topic over recent decades.

These are analytic distinctions. In practice the discourses overlap or work in conjunction, the most obvious factor they share being antipathy to the Malthusian equation between population growth and resource shortages. But these are not merely analytic categories; they are also profoundly political. Each has a distinctive genealogy in terms of its ideological and professional investments, the political interests it serves and the narratives in which it is embedded. The more that key demographic variables become amenable to policymaking, the greater the impact of the discourses that frame them. It is not my contention that arguments for disavowing the population question are simply specious; but I do think they warrant critical investigation. Do they offer good enough reasons for excluding population talk from public debate or for dismissing certain types of policy intervention?

My analysis shows how a taboo on considering the merits of population stabilization is complemented in developed countries by a policy framework that favors higher birth rates and net inward migration as a condition of sustained economic growth.

Population talk in more developed countries operates at three levels: concerning their own demographics; concerning trends in developing countries; and regarding global numbers more generally. Regarding their own population size, first, it is helpful to summarize a few salient elements of Malthus’ argument in An Essay on the Principle of Population (2004 [1798]). Malthus claimed that while the means of subsistence develop in a linear manner, population grows exponentially. These different tempos reach a critical threshold as productive land is exhausted; a situation of disequilibrium he associated with more developed countries like Britain. Either population growth must thenceforth be reduced through rational means, notably by sexual abstinence, or, if these ‘preventive checks’ fail, more painful ‘positive checks’ will ensue as the unsustainable excess falls victim to famine, disease or war, thereby restoring balance (Malthus 2004).

It is hardly surprising that such views should have provoked antagonism. Anti-natalist ideas about curtailing the proliferation of the human species challenged deep-seated traditional beliefs. In raising the specter of excessive numbers, the population question crossed vitalist and religious taboos regarding the sanctity of life and privileging of human life. It challenged Enlightenment ideas about humans’ mastery economists’ views on the engine of prosperity, humanity’s most fundamental ideas about the sacred, life and death, as well as on some of its most enduring identities and rituals regarding the family, marriage and sexuality.

Demographic change entails three principal variables: fertility, mortality and migration. All provoke profound ethical questions, especially once the state involves itself biopolitically in their modification. During the 1960s, Malthusianism nevertheless acquired fresh resonance in advanced industrial countries where there was renewed anxiety about a population explosion (Ehrlich 1972, Meadows et al. 1972, Goldsmith and Allen 1972). Despite the post-war baby boom the rate of increase here was relatively modest, but the multiplication of increasing affluence by larger numbers suggested imminent catastrophe.

The Malthusian alternative between choosing limits or facing disaster was widely spoken about. New reproductive technologies and feminist challenges to conventional gender roles seemed to make population stabilization more viable, yet the task of restoring equilibrium between population and environment seemed no less difficult given predilections for sustained economic growth. Reducing population nevertheless became integral to an environmental sensibility that mobilized new social movements and found common cause with new left critiques of consumer capitalism (Marcuse 1964, 1972). Limits-to-growth arguments accordingly provided the framework for a radical discourse in which economic and population growth were recognized as mutually reinforcing and equally exponential, thus exceeding the capacities of a finite planet. Restoring balance suggested a fundamental social transformation in which fewer people might use technology creatively to improve the quality of lives sustained by less toil, wasteful consumption or excessive reproduction but enriched by a more harmonious relationship with nature. By 1969 even President Richard Nixon was warning Congress that the domestic pressure of 200 million Americans was threatening democracy and education, privacy and living space, natural resources and the quality of the environment (Nixon 2006, pp. 775, 777). Official reports to both the American (1972) and British (1973) governments advised stabilizing population numbers in the national interest. Yet this antigrowth orientation would shortly fall into abeyance, with the very language of limits or constraint being rejected.

On a second level, developed countries express concern about population growth in developing countries, where most increase now occurs. I want to emphasize here the way this concern rebounded to reframe their own views on the population question. On the one hand, radical arguments for controlling fertility in economically advanced nations were complemented by support for population control policies in the global South, where they provoked accusations of racism. My account of population-shaming shows how third-world suspicion about first-world motives rebounded to render the topic uncongenial to democratic publics.

On the other hand, while many governments in developing countries still struggle to contain their burgeoning populations (United Nations 2011), new anti-Malthusian discourses in developed countries are helping to reframe their views, thanks to the circulation of transnational discourses through bodies like the United Nations or World Bank and via non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and academic currencies. So even here, the epic story of runaway population growth that formerly galvanized efforts at fertility reduction has become muted: despite regional demographic differences, discursive frameworks are increasingly global and hegemonic.

Population-fatalist. These generally recognize that the multiplication of relatively small but expanding ecological footprints in poor countries plus the larger ones imprinted by richer individuals are collectively responsible for exacerbating phenomena like climate change (Wire 2009, O’Neill et al. 2010). As the Living Planet Report 2008 concludes, ‘with the world already in ecological overshoot, continued growth in population and per person footprint is clearly not a sustainable path’ (WWF 2008, p. 29).

While such claims suggest that world population numbers are hesitantly being re-problematized, demographic solutions are routinely rejected as too controversial or inefficacious to contemplate.

Discourses of dismissal and disavowal. Population-shaming. Among my five silencing discourses, population-shaming is most indicative of the poisonous legacy of North/South relations. Like population-skeptics, its protagonists reject claims that there is an objective demographic growth problem. Rather than charging neo-Malthusians with misplaced anxiety, however, they suggest that ostensible concerns about over-population are a subterfuge for pursuing heinous ulterior motives (Furedi 1997). The humus of population-shaming is a pervasive suspicion that limiting population actually means limiting certain categories of people who are deemed redundant or undesirable. Those who persist in advancing such arguments risk public humiliation for playing a numbers game that is interpreted as a blame game: one in which the world’s problems are refracted through population growth and blamed on the incontinent fecundity of the less privileged, whether they be the poor, women or inhabitants of the global South.

Sometimes advocates of population stabilization are presented as misanthropic people-haters, as when Murray Bookchin (1991, p. 123) asserts that deep ecology ‘blames ‘‘Humanity’’ as such for the ecological crisis – especially ordinary “consumers” and “breeders of children”. Sometimes they are charged with misogyny, inasmuch as women’s fertility is blamed for under-development or family planning programs are credited with promulgating unsafe contraceptive procedures (Hartmann 1987, Rao 2004). But the most serious charge concerns racism, linked here to colonialism, eugenics and genocide. As an article in the New Statesman (2004) states: ‘We dare not discuss population growth lest we be called racist’. But why is this association so pervasive?

First, despicable motives are attributed to population agencies, which are condemned for disguising their real aims through humanitarian rhetoric. This allegedly hides their true agenda (racism) and practices (coercive), which are claimed ‘in fact’ to represent the dictates of international institutions and national governments. International agencies are charged not only with sponsoring compulsory sterilisation but also with ‘withholding from some populations aid for food or sanitation infrastructure’ with the specific aim of culling the world’s poor. Multinationals’ ‘thirst for profit’ is presented as complementary to a broader racist project in which ‘poverty and disease become indirect tools of population control’. In short, both sorts of Malthusian check are identified here: the preventive type being imposed coercively and the positive kind cynically being left to run its course. In the context of developing countries they acquire distinctly racist significance. Such charges are not unfounded, with India especially commending itself as the referent for Hardt and Negri’s invective. Mass famines there had sometimes been presented by colonial administrators as salutary checks on overpopulation. Neo-Malthusian views would subsequently persuade the new republic to initiate the world’s first family planning program (1952) but it soon found itself dependent on foreign aid and mired in geopolitical interests. While at home Americans were fretting about the domestic effects of a population explosion on the environment, abroad their Cold War anxiety linked population growth to social instability and hence vulnerability to communism. Following disastrous harvests in the mid-1960s, food aid to India was used by the Johnson administration as leverage to insist on a robust family planning program whose respect for human rights was noticeably deficient (Caldwell 1998, Rao 2004, Connelly 2006). These equations formed the basis for considerable hostility to the population establishment and its Western supporters, with opposition being eloquently rehearsed by third world delegates to Bucharest in 1974 (Finkle and Crane 1975, Hodgson 1998). They interpreted population policies advocated by the US government as neocolonial and racially-motivated while accusing the West of blaming population growth for poverty rather than recognising the international capitalist system as the principal cause of under-development.

Because they are unspecific about these circumstances they imply that all family planning programmes with wider demographic goals are coercive and racially-motivated. Despite Multitude’s focus on the poor, its authors ignore the bleak effects of rapid population growth on the everyday lives of those who inhabit slums or the misery of unwanted pregnancies for those whose need for contraception remains unmet (Davis 2006, Stephenson et al. 2010). Nor can they consider the global consequences of increasingly affluent populations, since ecological concerns have been ruled out as mere hypocrisy.

A second association between population policy and racism is made via allusions to eugenics. Hardt and Negri condemn those who are ‘concerned primarily with which social groups reproduce and which do not’. For much of the twentieth century the project of improving the species’ genetic stock had influential adherents but by the 1920s, negative eugenics entailed sterilising the degenerate: the insane, the criminal, certain races. This policy gained its most notorious expression under Nazism as population policy became genocidal. The link in Multitude is undoubtedly reinforced by its authors’ indebtedness to Foucault, who explains that treating population as a matrix of different races permits the state to kill others as a condition of making life healthier (Foucault 2003, p. 245). In an age of colonial ambitions race accordingly justified genocide, while for eugenics programmes killing the enemy was a way to purify one’s own race. Historically, such references remain very powerful. Yet again, the link to population policy is specific and contingent. It is surely not a good enough reason to avoid population talk in the current century although it does provide a good explanation for our proclivity to do so. In a third linkage, Hardt and Negri refer to ‘racial panic’: a phenomenon elsewhere referred to as ‘race suicide’. In light of the decline of white European populations, they argue, perceptions of a demographic crisis primarily concern racial composition: the increasingly ‘darker color’ of European and world populations. ‘It is difficult’, they argue, ‘to separate most contemporary projects of population control from a kind of racial panic’. The term race suicide emerged early in the twentieth century when President Theodore Roosevelt condemned families who chose to produce merely two progeny: a nation that wilfully reduced its population in this way would deservedly commit race suicide, he maintained, adding that the differential fertility rates among Anglo-Saxons and immigrants might deliver an especially regrettable form of race suicide (Roosevelt 1903). It is indeed the case that population policies have sometimes been motivated by nationalist or ethnic desires to increase a people’s powers by multiplying more strenuously than its competitors. But this is not limited to white European populations; it is more typically associated with selective pro-natalism and population concerns are not reducible to eugenic ambitions, especially when it is the affluent who are most unsustainable. Hardt and Negri are helpful for illustrating how vulnerable demographic policies, especially those designed to achieve differential birth rates, are to racism and xenophobia and how susceptible to entanglement in broader geopolitical struggles. The warning remains salient inasmuch as such connections have acquired renewed resonance in light of unprecedented migration flows since the mid-1990s. In developed countries, immigration has replaced fertility as the principal demographic variable provoking public anxiety about population growth (United Nations 2000, Coleman 2010), with concerns about overcrowding and the environment again being interpreted as cloaks for racism. The connection certainly reinforces the sense in which population numbers are an inherently controversial issue. But does it not also show why anxieties provoked by demographic change must be subjected to public deliberation rather than being summarily rejected as too shameful to acknowledge?

Population-skepticism Although demography is for the most part an arid quantitative discipline, it also has its own narratives and these provide conduits investment. This section begins with a brief discussion transition theory (DTT), which is currently the dominant narrative and is responsible for population-skepticism among experts. By skepticism, here, I mean doubt that there is any longer a population problem since fertility is declining almost everywhere. In the latter part of the section I consider a more political variant of population-skepticism that suggests population growth is not detrimental anyway. In this case I show how the population-skepticism promulgated by demographic revisionists neoliberal and social conservative values. skepticism are hostile to an alternative Malthusian narrative. In the first case this is judged anachronistic; in the second it is rejected as predicated on fundamental misunderstandings of modernity’s capacities for sustained growth.

DTT comprises one of the great narratives of modernisation (Kirk 1996, p. 384). As Lee and Reher (2011, p. 1) write of transition, this ‘historical process ranks as one of the most important changes affecting human society in the past half millennium, on a par with the spread of democratic government, the industrial revolution, the increase in urbanization, and the progressive increases in educational levels of human populations’. DTT identifies four demographic stages that are integral to modernisation. Relatively stable populations with high fertility and mortality (DT 1) are disrupted by biopolitical regimes that reduce mortality rates. This causes rapid population growth because there is typically a lag before fertility drops correspondingly (DT 2). Thereafter, low mortality is matched by low fertility: the transition proper. Growth nevertheless continues thanks to the momentum of large, youthful populations (DT 3). Only in a final stage is transition completed as the population ages and growth stops, thereby restoring equilibrium albeit at a higher level (DT 4). This account stifles the population question by contextualising it. If population growth is caused by the second stage it is observed most anxiously in the third, yet by then fertility is already falling. While developed countries are currently in the final stage of transition, exponents of DTT maintain that most of their developing counterparts are advancing through the third stage and all are expected to follow suit. There is indeed considerable empirical evidence supporting fertility transition and the theory is useful for classifying the demographic situation in particular locations. It is nonetheless worth making some critical observations about the theory’s predictive powers and its relevance for the future, given that transition is routinely cited to justify demographic complacency.

It claims universal applicability but European experience provides its template and ideal. A problem arises insofar as diverse transitional patterns are classified as manifestations of a deterministic mechanism guaranteeing that transition will everywhere be completed. This greatly enhances the sceptical potency of the theory but like other modern end-of-history arguments, it relies on dubious teleological assumptions to inflate its predictive claims. For example, DTT presupposes that secular, Western attitudes to contraception and family size will prevail, yet it is by no means certain that this can be relied upon in a multicultural world in which religious, patriarchal cultures are gaining relative demographic advantage (Norris and Inglehart 2004, Kaufmann 2010). It assumes there is no Malthusian trap whereby high fertility forecloses opportunities for development, for example by suppressing capital accumulation. While current projections are broadly congruent with DTT expectations, this is unsurprising inasmuch as projections must extrapolate from current trends, a practice that relies on assumptions themselves furnished by DTT optimism. Projections ‘must not be confused with current reality’ precisely because their ‘assumptions reflect the spirit of the era in which they are framed. To them are transmitted its hopes and fears’ (Le Bras 2008, p.153, van de Kaa 1996, ONS 2008, pp. 23, 24). Their uncertainty is indicated by the production of several variants. So while the UN’s oft-cited medium variant for 2100 is 10.1 billion, this increases to 27 billion were 2005–10 fertility rates to remain constant (United Nations 2010, p. 1). In short, there are no guarantees that fertility will decline universally or irreversibly. Ironically, since worldwide completion of transition relies on contingent factors such as the willingness of international donors to fund family planning programs, population skepticism helps to disincentivise the very policies fertility decline depends on and to challenge projections’ accuracy.

Let us assume, however, that population does stabilise around 10 billion or perhaps declines thereafter. Would this be a good enough reason for dismissing population growth anxieties, as sceptics do? Might environmentalists not still wonder whether such levels are sustainable or desirable, especially when coupled with aspirations for global economic development and equity and in light of current ecological challenges? Should those who currently urge pronatalist policies in order to increase the post-transitional birth rate as a driver of economic growth not be challenged to justify their arguments in relation to the longer-term wellbeing of future generations and the planet? There is an important distinction here between skepticism levelled at the prospect of continuing demographic growth and normative doubts regarding the social benefits of living at thickening densities. Yet it is partly to suppress such reflections on the merits of returning to smaller populations, I now suggest, that population-skepticism has been embraced by neoliberals as an antidote to limits-to-growth arguments. An excellent place to start disentangling this political dimension of population-skepticism is the ‘Policy Statement of the United States of America at the United Nations International Conference on Population’ (The Whitehouse 1984). My analysis is designed to show the high ideological stakes the population game had assumed by the 1980s as neoliberal interests invested in population-skepticism. Despite developing countries’ antagonism to Americanled initiatives on population control in Bucharest, many had introduced donordependent, national family planning programmes by the 1980s because they regarded population growth as detrimental to development. It was in this context that the intervention of the Reagan administration, in an official document preparatory for the Mexico City conference (1984), represented a dramatic shift in perspective. The Statement insists that centralised targets for reducing population have no place in ‘the right of couples to determine the size of their own families’ (The Whitehouse 1984, p. 578). Such arguments have affinity with populationshaming but with two important differences. From the neoliberal perspective it was East/West rather than North/South political relations that were at issue, while the link between population policy and coercion was made from the point of view of the political right rather than left. A dichotomy was now constructed between coercion and voluntarism, the implication being that reproductive rights are antithetical to state intervention because this is ipso facto coercive. Population-skepticism is advanced here by displacing the problem of population growth onto a problematisation of the (socialist) authoritarian state.

While exponents of DTT are sceptical that population increase remains a problem since growth rates are slowing, the Whitehouse (1984, p. 576) advanced the bolder claim that growth is itself a ‘neutral phenomenon’. ‘The relationship between population growth and economic development is not necessarily a negative one’.

Julian Simon (1977), one of demographic revisionism’s principal proponents, maintains that population growth is in the longer run beneficial for economic growth and the environment because more people are a spur to and resource for hard work, ingenuity and technological innovation. This approach continues to furnish the standard riposte to limitsto-growth arguments: bigger populations are held to be sustainable because the inventiveness of more people will endow ecosystems with the resilience needed to accommodate them

Where population growth remains a problem, free markets were presented by the Reagan administration as a panacea. Thus ‘economic statism’ not only hinders development by stifling individual initiative; it also disrupts ‘the natural mechanism’ for slowing population growth. This natural ‘controlling factor’ is glossed as ‘the adjustment, by individual families, of reproductive behaviour to economic opportunity and aspiration. Historically, as opportunities and the standard of living rise’, it is argued, ‘the birth rate falls’. This is allegedly because ‘economic freedom’ engenders ‘economically rational behavior’ that includes responsible fertility choices

The ideological intentions of the Statement were made clear by a lightly-coded attack on the American new left. The Whitehouse policy response to population is advertised as ‘measured, modulated’, as opposed to ‘an overreaction by some’. Overreaction (in response to imminent environmental crisis) was identified in 1984 as an unfortunate consequence of rapid population growth having coincided with two regrettable factors that ‘hindered families and nations’. The first was foreign socialism; the second involved the counter-culture’s alleged ‘anti-intellectualism’, attributed here to anxieties caused by the West’s rapid modernisation. Cultural pessimism, rather than material concerns about sustainability, was thus identified as the source of domestic population anxiety. This interpretation left the way clear for a ‘rapid and responsible development of natural resources’, that is, the sustained economic growth through technologically-enhanced development that revisionists and neoliberals associated with population growth. For the radical right, in sum, the problem of population growth simply evaporated since in the West it had been merely a delusion of left-wing infantilism, while in poorer countries the solution lay in liberalised markets whose congenial effects on fertility choices would be complemented by the efficiency of privatised health services.

Before leaving this category of population-skepticism it is important to notice how social conservatism was also incorporated. Once population growth had been discounted as a relevant issue it became easier for social conservatives to instigate changes that would not only undermine support for population policies but also direct funding away from family planning programs. The defining issue here was abortion. While abortion had been viewed as an integral part of family planning by much of the population establishment, the Reagan administration’s emphasis on human lives included the unborn whose rights coincided with its pro-life policy. Population policies must, the Whitehouse insisted, be ‘consistent with respect for human dignity and family values’, including religious values. Abortion was now scuttled into the category of disrespectful (‘repugnant’) coercion. ‘Attempts to use abortion, involuntary sterilization, or other coercive measures in family planning’, it stated, ‘must be shunned’ (The Whitehouse 1984, p. 578). This judgement was not merely rhetorical: it had immediate practical implications for family planning organizations, NGOs, the UNFPA itself, which now lost US funding even if they only in principle supported abortion.

By placing social and religious conservatism at the heart of American population policy, the Republicans gave succor to traditional antipathies to modern contraception and women’s reproductive autonomy while introducing an additional level of value-conflict into a field where secular attitudes had formerly dominated. This opened a new dimension in the population-silencing frame. Asking why population growth now attracts so little attention in the United States, Martha Campbell cites ‘anti-abortion activists, religious leaders and conservative think tanks’ as a major cause (Campbell 2007, p. 240). As religious voices have become more strident in a context of multiculturalist respect for diversity and neo-conservative support, espousing population concerns that imply anti-natalism has correspondingly become more risky.

Skepticism also has a more political dimension inasmuch as it is reinforced by revisionist claims that population growth is advantageous: a view that is congruent with neoliberal desires for sustained economic growth and anathema to limits-to-growth arguments.

Population-declinism is a corollary of population-skepticism in that it is an expression of the final stage of demographic transition. It warrants its own discursive category, however, because it differs from skepticism in two significant ways: regarding mood and policy implications. Its affective tenor is quite different from the dynamic, pro-growth bullishness of political skepticism. A symptom of completing transition is that the population ages. This phenomenon engenders a sense of melancholia and loss connected to fears of relative decline; it is despondent about completing transition. Population declinism is currently powerful in precluding enthusiasm for population stabilization because rather than welcoming ageing as a sign that modernity’s enormous demographic expansion is ending, it promulgates images of enervation and decay in which the faltering powers and risk-averse outlooks ascribed to older people are attributed to whole regions (like ‘old Europe’). For declinists, low-fertility societies are destined to fail relative to more youthful, energetic competitors, with feebleness in the global economy accompanying weakness in the military theatre (Jackson and Howe 2008). The remedy is to encourage renewed growth. Such anxieties induce skepticism. While the latter rejects state interference in influencing population numbers, regarding it as unnecessary, inefficacious and coercive, population declinists do advocate interventionist policies. Unlike earlier limits-to-growth exponents, however, they promote pro-, rather than anti-, natalism, alongside immigration, in order to rejuvenate developed world populations (Commission of the European Communities 2005, Dixon and Margolis 2006). In 2009 almost half the governments in these countries regarded their population growth as too low

The power of declinism is such that this is rarely complemented by consideration of whether upward trends enhance quality of life or the environmental systems on which it depends

The principal danger of declinism is that it operates within a short timeframe that focuses on temporary fiscal and productivity challenges, yet its demographic remedies are likely to aggravate unsustainability later on.

Population-decomposing. A fourth category of silencing discourse

Talking about population as a totality that can be planned and managed has come to be regarded as not only political dangerous but also methodologically crude. This is a more elusive discursive effect than the first three categories but it has been effective in disenfranchising the population question in three ways: normative, methodological and ontological. Normatively, population-decomposing has been effective in rejecting ‘the numbers game’. This is congruent with population-shaming and political skepticism but this argument is rather different in its aversion to referencing population size as such. The numbers game is played by those who worry that the mass of human flesh is unsustainable or that thickening population densities degrade wellbeing.

Iconic texts like Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb were explicit about population being a numbers game. In light of an imminent environmental crisis, Ehrlich (1972, preface) defined population control as ‘the conscious regulation of the numbers of human beings to meet the needs not just of individual families, but of society as a whole’. In other words, reproduction was understood as an other-regarding act. Ehrlich (1972, p. 3f.) had concluded that ‘no matter how you slice it, population is a numbers game’. He was probably referring here to the need for statistical familiarity with the properties of exponential growth, but to critics his work suggested an equation between the numbers game and state-imposed coercion. As a consequence the focus on population size and growth rates, especially when linked to targets and sanctions, fell into disrepute. This antipathy is encapsulated in UNFPA’s observation that since the mid-1990s, there has been ‘a shift in population policy and programs away from a focus on human numbers’ to a focus on ‘human lives’. Policies based on perceptions of a ‘race between numbers and resources’ are eschewed as synonymous with a ‘numbers game’ presented as antithetical to human rights (UNFPA, n.d., p. 4, UNFPA 2008, p. 1). In sum, even to focus on overall demographic quantities becomes anathema to personal choice and liberty. Reproduction is recast as a self-regarding act. One outcome has been to devolve population issues into matters of reproductive health and individual welfare entitlements.

The change of emphasis they entail has helped to exclude discussions about overall numbers while supporting the view that population is best approached at an individual or familial level.

Its disavowal of the numbers game, provoking critics like Ehrlich (2008, p. 107) to lament the way environmental repercussions of population growth now succumbed to ‘a narrow focus on issues of reproductive rights and maternal and child health’. The focus is in no way reprehensible but it has had the effect of displacing population growth as a global environmental issue. Campbell (2007, pp. 237, 243) cites Cairo as ‘the turning point in removing the population subject from policy discourse’, noting that talking about population became politically incorrect thereafter because it was perceived as disadvantageous to women.

This decomposing trend has been reinforced by the way aggregated population numbers have come to be regarded as methodologically and statistically crude, thus further undermining the possibility of advancing (neo-) Malthusian arguments. Figures at a more fine-grained level make less obvious headline news or dramatic narratives. Complementing new emphasis on demographic complexity is a widespread view that population dynamics such as age composition or urbanization are more relevant for policymaking than broader trajectories of population size. This, too, dissolves narrative impact by translating demographic trends into numerous policy challenges. These disaggregating effects thus serve to de-politicize and de-problematize the issue because as data has been refined, the demographic phenomena that mobilized players of the numbers game are occluded.

Demography as a discipline has itself, moreover, become more closely modelled on economics and concerned with economic data, thus sharing with economics its own movement away from macro-level approaches towards micro-level, statistical studies where individuals feature as rational agents making choices on the basis of cost–benefit analysis. Le Bras maintains that every branch of demographic analysis has been renewed in this direction over the past two decades. ‘In fertility studies, the dominant position is now occupied by microeconomic models of the family’ based on work by Gary Becker and George Schulz (Le Bras 2008, p. xi). Ehrlich also argues that as a discipline, demography ‘has largely diverged from environmental concerns and the broad analyses of social structures’ it formerly undertook. It now ‘focuses on measuring and modelling the dynamics of various populations’: a process judged valuable but peripheral to ‘the really big demographic issue’ of the environmental cost of population growth and its rectification (Ehrlich 2008, p. 103). It might also be noted that macro-level analysis was formerly associated with structural, Marxist approaches that have themselves fallen from grace as planning regimes have succumbed to more laissez-faire frameworks emphasizing individual decision-making. In sum, the normative and methodological dimensions of population-decomposing together help to demolish the framework in which population numbers matter and in which society has an interest in and responsibility for sustainable levels. This makes it difficult to identify, problematize or debate population growth as a social issue amenable to democratic debate or collective action.

As advanced countries have developed service or digital economies, and as the more obviously material costs of industrialization have become less emphasized, so attention to the material needs and costs of more bodies, qua needy biological entities engaged in physical labor, has also waned. Diane Coyle (1997) writes evocatively of a ‘weightless world’ and urges governments to embrace an age of de-materialization. This complements a tendency to understand social systems in virtual terms, with production and consumption re-figured as virtual flows of data, symbols and images that can be regarded as having little actual impact on the environment. Yet a corresponding emphasis on the human capital that drives the knowledge economy detracts from the space that embodied humans require and ignores the consumer durables – like cars, refrigerators, plastics, swimming pools – they desire. It permits an illicit substitution of the idea of sustained, indefinite growth for earlier recognition of the material limits of a finite planet.

From a virtual viewpoint there is in this lightness of being no obvious limit to the numbers the earth can sustain or to their capacity to invent new technologies that will render resources infinitely elastic and felicitously ethereal. This surely rests on a dangerous illusion. Population-fatalism In a final discursive category, the term population-fatalism captures some contemporary British inquiries into challenges posed by population growth. Because these are testimony to renewed concern about expanding numbers, they are suggestive of a return of the population question. They are nonetheless distinctive precisely because their overall tone is not fatalistic: they are mainly confident that the challenges of 9 billion (70 million in the United Kingdom) can be met. But they are fatalist in treating population growth as a given; as an aggravating or critical factor they are powerless to change and reluctant to address. Instead, they identify challenges and calculate abatement costs. This distinguishes their arguments from: population-skepticism, which does not see population growth as a problem; population-declinism, which encourages population growth to foreclose shrinkage; population-decomposing, which disavows the very framework of numbers. But it shares their antipathy to antinatalist policy and is probably apprehensive about population-shaming.

The Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change is a good example of population-fatalism. Although population growth is included as a significant contributor to global warming there is no suggestion that a demographic element might be incorporated into climate change policy (Stern 2006, p. 12). This formula of neglectful concern has been the hallmark of other recent studies, which prefer technological solutions to controversial political interventions.

Future of Food and Farming: Challenges and Choices for Global Sustainability cites population growth as an urgent challenge in light of the need ‘to ensure that a global population rising to nine billion or more can be fed sustainably and equitably’ (Foresight 2011, introduction, p. 9). But in neither case is there any suggestion that further population growth might be tackled. The Economist’s (2011) ‘The 9 billion people question’ and the Institution of Mechanical Engineers’ ‘Population: One Planet, Too Many People?’ (2011) follow a similar logic, with (bio)technological solutions being proffered for a demographic fait accompli.

Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution’s The Environmental Impacts of Demographic Change in the UK (2011) goes further by explicitly excluding population growth as an appropriate policy domain (Coole 2012b). Despite acknowledging that ‘total population is likely to continue to grow, at a historically relatively high rate’ in the United Kingdom and that some regions suffer ‘obvious pressure on infrastructure, services and environment’ (RCEP 2011, 2.22, 6.2), the report constructs an either/or choice between seeking to influence demographic change or trying to mitigate its environmental impact. It unequivocally opts for the latter, declaring the former not ‘a good basis for policy’ because unspecified ‘objections on social and ethical grounds would outweigh the environmental gains’

Conclusion

I have asked why, as the twenty-first century proceeds inexorably towards a world population of 9 billion plus, there is so little discussion of the socio-ecologically deleterious effects of continuing population growth. I identified five discourses that together explain why there is currently no politically acceptable framework within which population numbers can be problematized or remedial action commended. While they are mutually-supporting in their silencing effects, two of these discourses seem especially powerful: population shaming, because it renders the population question so morally treacherous, and population-skepticism, because of its complacency and its congeniality for hegemonic pro-growth ideologies. I have not attempted to refute such arguments but I have suggested that they are not good enough reasons for suppressing discussion about population numbers and the merits of fewer people, especially as renewed public concerns emerge over resource insecurity, biodiversity, climate change and high-density urban living.

Why did everyone stop talking about Population & Immigration?

The post Why did everyone stop talking about Population & Immigration? appeared first on BOCS FOUNDATION.

The direction of human evolution is to cheat brutal earth evolution with contraception and euthanasia!

1.

Have you ever been fooled by this materialistically misinterpreted Gandhi quote a million times? “The world is enough for everyone’s needs, but not for their greed.”

It is completely false to understand this in material terms alone. Greed in Gandhi means also the multiplication of subjects! In addition to the powers, religions, ideologies that force procreation, parents are also greedy when they procreate irresponsibly (clumsily in sexual greed) or selfishly (their child’s labour, elderly caretaker)!

Gandhi was not an ignorant warmonger, and although there were no precise ecological data at the time, he never thought the world’s resources were sufficient for an exploding human population if it did not consume greedily (i.e. sink into world oppression).
India’s population has exploded more than fourfold since then, so that its per capita subsistence is only one-ninth that of Hungary. In other words, the poverty trap is closed for them, and their current poverty is no longer sustainable! Although the average Indian has an ecological footprint of only about a quarter of the Hungarian average, India’s population is more than three times overburdened and is rapidly depleting its land.

The lesson: those who do not work primarily for the human right to contraception, but who preach about reducing consumption by quoting Gandhi’s materialistic phrase, not only do not understand ecology, but have no heart (or idea of poverty), since access to contraception is the key to lifting people out of poverty.

See also: Antinatalism – Gandhi’s Gait

.

2.

The “nature”
– is a resource to be exploited by the exploiters,
– boring, inconvenient and prickly to the non-nature walkers,
– a nostalgic beauty to those who miss it,
– for the conservationists, the basis of human life, but also a value in itself,
– for science, a brutal state of being, evolution: forced unlimited reproduction, scarcity, struggle, suffering,
– for the mystic, a low rung in the universe.

A beautiful ring of galaxies on every finger, even on every toe. And on every finger of all 8 billion people, since we already detect more than 200 billion galaxies.
The average galaxy contains more than a hundred billion stars. That’s more than 2 trillion stars for every person living on Earth today in the universe as we know it. And we’ve already detected more than 200 exoplanets nearby in the last two decades, where life could be possible.
What advanced life systems could there be in this vast cosmos?

.

3.
The earthly order of being, evolution, is rather low, brutal:
– all beings must reproduce in a forced and unlimited way,

– so it must constantly encounter resource constraints (scarcity) and competition (struggle, suffering),

– it must strive to differ, to modify, to mutate, to somehow overtake its competitors, but most of these modifications lead to destruction, descharge,

– for many creatures to survive, to reproduce, they have to cause suffering, to kill, to defraud, (and the sadism of evolution programs eternal struggle even into mating relationships, since the strategy of successful gene propagation is both male and female cheating + jealousy, i.e. deceiving and restricting each other at the same time)

– and then evolution selects for the “fall of the worm” brutality, moreover selects for indifference to suffering, ruthlessness (those who cannot expel the horrors of life on earth from their psyche become depressed, not winners),

– and what few survive successfully flourish on the skeletal heaps of failure, suffering, death, destruction.

– but we who have survived for the time being do not grasp the brutality of evolution, because the vast majority of the extinct no longer have any news or lessons to learn, because history is written by the victors, the wailing of the suffering is not heard in the cheers of the victors.

“Evolution is an amoral, heartless process that proceeds pragmatically, without concern for ethical preferences, codes of honour or value systems. Of course, it does not distinguish between prosocial cooperation and antisocial manipulation, because only what works for survival and reproduction matters.” (Lixing Sun)

.

4.
Do procreationist religions worship evolution (“natural law”) as their god? (While even denying evolution, lest their idolatry be exposed.)
Evolution doesn’t care how much is lost in horrible suffering, only the most productive ones who make it to further reproduction matter.
Humanity forces reproduction at the expense of quality and suffering, humanity does the opposite.

Even though gene evolution was preceded by meme evolution (since changes in behaviour under the influence of memes are much faster than mutations in genes), it is also contaminated by forced reproduction. The family or ethnic group that was better able to push its daughters and wives into the birth machine (through memes, religion, socialisation, violence) gained the advantage.
Carelessness and interest dance around procreation, but the music is played by evil, which brutally enforces (public thinking, social pressure, law, education, socialisation…) the gene-evolution reproduction in the meme-world as well.

In brutal evolution, life is generally not pretty. That it is beautiful is what the reproductionists would have the masses believe. Otherwise people would not want to pass on a life that is not nice. And for the few, having many servants is what makes life somewhat beautiful. So many must live a not-nice life for the few to live a nice life.

And the production of slaves produces sacrifices: not only are the vast majority of the children born slave labourers for the rest of their lives, but the earth’s ability to support itself collapses underneath.

In recent decades, masses of people have been able to rise out of poverty, seemingly to the benefit of all. Who suffers the price? Children, the poor, wildlife and future generations. They are the most vulnerable, their voices are not heard, they cannot defend their interests.

For it is not only the human slave army of the population explosion that serves the somewhat beautiful lives of the few, but also an army of machine slaves. They are eating up the future as fuel. They destroy the climate, the soils, the forests, the waters, the wildlife, they pollute and poison the biosphere.

.

5.
Only goodness that helps those without contraception! Without this chariity is ignorance or hypocrisy.
It doesn’t really matter if you responsibly procreate a little, because you can help prevent ten or a hundred times more by helping those with unmet need of contraceptives.

The human race has evolved in evolution, but it is outgrowing it, it is already in dissonance with it, it considers the need to reproduce, scarcity, struggle, suffering, brutal. Even primitive peoples have apologised to the soul of the hunted beast and explained to it that, unfortunately, they have to kill to feed.
Why are we in the world? To recognize the lowliness of the earthly order and to ascend to a higher level.

.

6.
Contraception is the most crucial element of becoming human, a way to override instinctive reproduction, the driving force behind the brutality of evolution. The more evolved man can achieve pleasure without reproduction. It is the separation of fertility from sex that has set man apart from the animal world. Animals do not have sex, they only procreate (with a few advanced exceptions).

What is it that makes responsible procreation (and nonprocreation, childfree) so widespread in our time? What is the unlucky-luck that has pushed the human species beyond evolution? Already five major (and many minor) extinctions in the history of life on Earth have been caused by catastrophes: asteroid impacts, series of supervolcano eruptions. The current sixth great extinction is the first caused by evolution itself.
So far, the incessant population explosions have been self-correcting, e.g. locusts multiply, devour everything, then die out en masse. Now, however, the overpopulation of the human species has triggered a super-volcanic eruption-like catastrophe: it has punctured the Earth in millions of places and blasted the extracted fossil energy, underworldly envy, back into the biosphere, into the surface.

.

7.
Thus humanity is well on its way to the higher level envisioned by Gandhi, to extinction from the brutal Earth, i.e. to “ascend” to a more advanced cosmic existence. The question is how much of this ascension will be humane and how much of it will be horrible.

A higher moral, humane ascension might work something like this:
– Responsible procreation (see below), so few offspring, for whom it is not an overload, but much joy, little suffering.

– Many manage to enjoy life, but are responsible, so they don’t want to procreate because they know their offspring will probably not be so lucky, but may sink into the vast majority of sufferers. Fortunately, the childfree choice also makes life more enjoyable.

– For the vast majority, life is largely suffering, so they would not procrea tewithout the social pressure, brainwashing and heartwashing that reproduction forces. Hundreds of millions can resist even this pressure, but they are brutally pushed into a birth machine queue, deprived of the human right, knowledge and means of contraception. Morality begins by mitigating the deprivation of contraception

– It is part of human dignity to be able to choose to end one’s life on earth. Jesus also taught that one must be ready to give up life on earth (bios) in order to gain a higher life (dzoé). Even today, a significant number of people commit “suicide”, but the slave-producing society does not let them escape from slavery so easily, ninety-nine percent of them are pulled back (“rescued”, so that they can then mostly fight to die again). The adoption of euthanasia (good death) can help the poor to have the opportunity to do what is still mostly the privilege of the rich: to have the legal and health care to make their own choices and to move on under appropriate conditions.

.

8.
Unfortunately, it is possible that the majority of humanity will not die out of the Earth in such a “die-off”, but
– suffering individually, eagerly waiting for death to “lift our brother who opens the gates” (St. Francis of Assisi: Hymn to the Sun), and in the meantime suffering accidents, sometimes even accidental death, so that they cannot break the eternal cycle of procreation, suffering and death,
– and, as a human species, according to the rules of brutal evolution: the misery of civilizational collapse, climate catastrophe, nuclear war, etc., caused by overpopulation.
But goodness is effective even in such cases: the amount of suffering in the greatest catastrophe can be alleviated by supporting contraception.

.

9.
No one has the right to procreate! Unless …

Only women can decide if, when and by whom they want to get pregnant. But they can only say NO on their own, not YES!

No one has the right to procreate without fulfilling the rights of a potential future child:

● the right to conceive by responsible choice, not by accident

● the decision of a well-prepared couple

● who are mature in their personalities

● who are raising children in a stable parental relationship

● the right to a loving home and community

● to a small age group, where there are as few as possible psychologically damaged, destitute children unwanted by their parents, where people are rare treasures, not overproduced, expendable slaves, and do not have to fight in droves for increasingly scarce water, land, shelter, shade… (so only those who help those without contraception procreate responsibly!)

● a healthy nature, an Earth that can live for at least a century

● where you will receive the spiritual and material resources necessary for a happy life.

So only those who help those who do not use contraception are responsible!

.

10.
Contraception is a fundamental human right (UN, 1968)!
A child is not a tool, but a person. It should not be conceived for any nationalistic, religious, economic, political, family, military, family, relationship, psychological, individual, etc. interest, but only for the sake of the future child. E.g. those who panic about depopulation do not consider future children as persons, only as a means to their quantitative ends.

No one has the right to procreate! Meditation before the most serious decision:

Do you really want to have a child with us and conceive now?

(This is the title of our collection of texts on responsible procreation.)

“There is nothing so deceptive as human life, nothing so deceitful. Surely no one would accept it if it were not given without his knowledge. Therefore, too, if the greatest fortune be not born, hold it nearest to that, after a short life to be speedily restored to the former state.” (Seneca: Consolations)

.

11.

“The man and the woman were both naked, yet they felt no shame. But the phallus was more  crafty  than any animal the God created.

The phallus said to the woman, “Did God really say that you, being already distinguished among the animals, can now no longer enjoy each other’s bodies?”

The woman replied, “We may still enjoy each other’s bodies, caressing, kissing, licking, sucking and fucking what we have. God only said about the sperm: ‘From now on, don’t let it into the vagina, or you will die.’”

Then the phallus said to the woman, “You will not certainly die any more violently than you did before, like animals. God knows well that your eyes have been opened, you have become like gods  knowing good and evil. So if the sperm enters your vagina, you humans will create, rule, decide on life and death. God wants you to procreate and multiply and rule over every living creature on earth.”

She knew that the phallus was pleasurable, pleasing to the eye, and she loved to feel it in her vagina when he orgasmed. So she was still not careful, and she told the man that there was no need to be careful. So the sperm got into her vagina and she was now pregnant as a human.

But with their eyes already open, they were shaken by the heavy responsibility of becoming parents. They realised they were naked and that they had become like gods, knowing good and evil. They can multiply, create humans on Earth, and decide which beings they want to displace from existence. What they had experienced with animal unconsciousness, the relentless cycle of procreation, suffering, death, now horrified them. They sensed the low brutality of earthly evolution, driven by forced reproduction.

They sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves. Then they heard the sound of the God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the God among the trees of the garden. But God called to the man, “Where are you?”

He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”

But he said: “Who told you that you were naked? Though you have risen above the animal level, have you ejaculated into her vagina, which I forbade?” The man replied, “The woman you put here with me, still did not want to take care, so didn’t I.” God asked the woman, “What is this you have done?” She replied, “The phallus deceived me, that’s why I did it.”

So the God said to the phallus, “Because you have deceived human, you have lied that evolution is God, you have encouraged procreation and domination, you will be cursed, the plague of overpopulation on the world. I will put opposition between you and woman, she will shrink from even pleasure, terrified of pregnancy. She will not trust you and you will have to trick, brainwash and force to get her pregnant.”

And to the woman God said: “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you, especially if he has already made you pregnant.”

To the man God said, “Because you have continued in animal negligence with the woman and ejaculated into her vagina, although I have forbidden it, cursed is the ground because of your overpopulation. Through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return. You cannot reach the Garden of Eden until you have tamed your phallus, which evolution’s reproductive compulsion has mastered, into a human penis, a player of pleasure.”

Then the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. But he will not easily give up the destructive power of procreation. Let us see how long it takes him to recognize the brutal inferiority of earthly evolution driven by the compulsion to reproduce. Then he will again abstain from irresponsible procreation, break the inexorable cycle of procreation-suffer-death, die out from the Earth, die up to the Garden of Eden.”

(Based on Genesis 2-3 chapters, by Gyula I. Simonyi)

Simonyi, Gyula I.

The post No one has the right to procreate? appeared first on BOCS FOUNDATION.

Being a poor Catholic is tragic. The horrendous social and ecological and climate-changing devastation of the Vatican’s contraception ban can be seen in a comparison between successful Buddhist Thailand and the failed Catholic Philippines.

Thailand’s per capita land area fell by 40% from 1960 to 1990 (from 1.7 gha to 1.0 gha) due to the population explosion, but has since risen slightly to 1.2 global hectares. Look at this miracle (with Hungarian subtitles). I did some work on this myself in Thailand in 1992 ​

https://www.ted.com/talks/mechai_viravaidya_how_mr_condom_made_thailand_a_better_place

In contrast, the Philippines’ per capita subsistence level has fallen from 1.0 gha in 1960 to 0.5 gha today, and continues to decline due to the population explosion. They are already locked in the poverty trap: their country does not have the carrying capacity to have a chance to rise with such a large population.

Thailand has come from a huge disadvantage to a staggering lead: its GDP per capita in 1960 was half that of the Philippines, and today it is more than double! Both countries are more than twice as overstretched, but Thailand has a chance to become sustainable from twice the level and with its population explosion under control. The population of the two countries was about the same in 1960. Since then, Thailand’s has swelled two and a half times but is barely growing (at 0.25% per year), while the Philippines’ has exploded almost four times and is still exploding (at 1.52% per year, six times the rate).

The BOCS Civilisation Planning Foundation in Székesfehérvár has been working since 1975 to abolish the Catholic ban on contraception and to help the hundreds of millions of people who are without contraception! (Note: gha = one hectare of average carrying capacity. Data source http://footprintnetwork.org ).

A cluster analysis of 60 years of 103 countries (published in English, German and Hungarian) demonstrates that the key to lifting girls out of poverty is access to contraception, curbing the population explosion through girls’ education and women’s liberation. Find out more: https://afrika.bocs.eu

Simonyi, Gyula I.

The post Thailand: access to contraception is key to lifting people out of poverty appeared first on BOCS FOUNDATION.

An ecological deficit is when the ecological footprint of a population exceeds the biocapacity of the area available for that population. A national ecological deficit means that the nation imports biocapacity through trade, depletes the national ecological wealth or emits carbon dioxide waste into the atmosphere. An ecological reserve exists when the biocapacity of a region exceeds the ecological footprint of its population. (See: footprintnetwork.org)

Apart from Russia, the ecological reserves of the other large areas still green on the map are being rapidly destroyed by the population explosion there and by immigration. In just over half a century, the ecological reserves of Argentina and Sweden have halved, those of Canada have fallen to 1/3, Brazil, Bolivia and Mongolia to 1/4, Australia and Colombia to 1/5, Peru and Namibia to 1/6, Madagascar to 1/7, Congo and Angola to 1/10, and all of these only because of population growth, since the per capita ecological footprint has not increased.

Since intensive agriculture about 10,000 years ago, larger populations have meant greater power, so population boomers (half a millennium ago, e.g. Western Europeans, until the 20th century) usually swarmed over and destroy areas with populations that were in balance with nature.

The rapidly worsening overloading of the Earth is now threatening the very existence of humanity and all living things. The only chance is to reverse the population explosion, liberate women. “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth..” (Gospel of Matthew 5,5) But where the population is finally declining, the invasion and exploitative pressures of the still exploding majority of the world threaten.

How can a non-overpopulated region protect the ecological values of its territory from the aggressive, population exploding majority of the world?

Machines and weapons can change the balance of power so that population size is not such a decisive factor. This eased the power push for reproduction in the 19th century. Until then it was in the interests of all kinds of power to overproduce people, to have lots of vulnerable and therefore cheap workers, birthing machines and soldiers. The “surplus” did not cause much trouble for the powers, it was destroyed by famines, epidemics, wars.

The abundance of fossil energy has brought such “development” in health, agriculture, etc., and thus an accelerated population explosion, that overproduction has become a threat to the powers that be. (More and more rebellion of slaves, revolution, freedom struggle, workers’ movement, women’s movement, unemployment, etc.) Therefore, overpopulation has long ceased to be an interest, but the brainwashing and heartwashing that has been forcing religious-cultural-social reproduction for millennia is deeply rooted in the collective psyche. Therefore, humanity is too slow to wake up to the devastating consequences of overpopulation. Fortunately, more and more enlightened groups of global capital (e.g. Gates, Warren, Rossmann) are putting interests of longer-term survival ahead of the short-term profits from the population explosion, and therefore support the human right to contraception.

The last hope for wildlife, and thus for humanity, lies in those areas that are not yet ecologically overburdened and can protect themselves from overpopulation (caused by population growth and/or immigration), and from the exploitative onslaughts of the world’s overpopulated majority.

Population explosions are always aggressive, since their main purpose is to produce human material (slaves, cannon fodder, birth machines), to take over as much of the future generations as possible and as quickly as possible (i.e. the race for population).
– Aggressive first and foremost with their own daughters and women, whom they keep in breeding stock, otherwise they would not be able to explode,
– secondly, agressive with their children and their poor, whom they keep in slavery, otherwise they would not be able to supply the exploding population,
– thirdly, agressive with the wildlife in their territory (“Get rid of anything you can’t eat or that doesn’t feed your food” – Daniel Quinn),
– fourthly, agressive with other peoples from whom they want to plunder new resources to exhaust.

The first point can save the life on earth: liberating women by the secret weapon of contraceptives (IUD, implant, inject) that can be hidden from those who force reproduction. Support the professional organisations that help hundreds of millions of people without contraception!

Gyula I. Simonyi

The post Russia is perhaps the last refuge of life on Earth – and therefore of humanity appeared first on BOCS FOUNDATION.

For a quarter of a century now, Gyula I. Simonyi, president of the BOCS Civilization Planning Foundation, has been giving lectures under this title. If we use fossil energy, we will get fried, if we don’t, we will starve. What is the way out of this deadly dilemma?

According to the Hungarian Encyclopaedia of Environment (published in 1993 and 2002), the Bokor Eco-Group, the acronym behind BOCS, began to address the global crisis in 1975. Climate awareness education was added to their repertoire in the context of the 1992 World Conference on the Environment in Rio. In 1994 they were sent the 1,000-page World CO₂ Trends Report from the USA. Below is a paper by Gyula I. Simonyi.

Economic actors can do more than politics

Unfortunately, the climate catastrophe has only worsened in recent decades. This graph shows that the plethora of climate conferences and major international treaties have failed to break the frightening pace of human carbon dioxide emissions growth.

Moreover, it is not just CO₂ that is driving the Earth’s climate crazy, but a wider group of green house gases (GHGs). This includes nitrogen, fluorine and other compounds, and their impact on the atmosphere is expressed in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO₂e). But since the other main contributor to the GHG group, methane, is also a carbon compound, the term carbon neutral is more commonly used than the more accurate climate neutral.

Carbon dioxide dominates emissions in industrialised countries, so climate movements tend to point to industry as the main culprit. But if we look at the overall climate impact, non-industrialised countries also have a significant detrimental impact, e.g. through rice paddies, fertiliser, livestock, population explosion, rising consumption by the widening middle classes, etc.

Quota or credit? Pollution permit or real prevention?

The Kyoto Protocol, launched in Rio in 1992, concluded in Kyoto in 1997 and entered into force in 2005 with ratification by a sufficient number of countries, established a carbon quota and a mandatory market for the world’s major GHG emitters. In Hungary, more than one and a half hundred companies, mainly power plants, are covered. They have to measure and report their emissions and if they do not have enough allowances in a given year, they have to make a mandatory purchase.

Carbon quotas should not be confused with carbon credits. A quota is a free political atmospheric pollution (emissions) permit, of which there are fewer and fewer every year. It is traded by countries and companies on a mandatory market registered with the authorities. Hungary used to have a surplus because the Kyoto baseline date is 1990, and the country’s emissions have fallen significantly with the industrial decline since the fall of communism.

Carbon credits, on the other hand, are a verifiable form of emission avoidance, prevention, reduction and sequestration. The results of countless projects (forest conservation, non-fossil energy, family planning, energy saving, etc.) have been evaluated by independent experts. The certified avoidance, reduction, sequestration of emissions is equivalent to one credit per CO₂e tonne. These credits are held in registries, from which companies, organisations and individuals who voluntarily strive for carbon neutrality can take them to offset their emissions. The voluntary market is the subject of an annual global report, which is now available online and up-to-date.

Issuers are liable to mitigators for the damage they cause

Voluntary carbon neutralisation is in fact the most sensible way of applying the “polluter pays” principle. Money flows from the emitters to the preventers, reducers and sequestrators. This payment really compensates their emissions. It’s like when a factory replaces its lighting with LED bulbs, so they use less electricity, but anyway some emission remains. They have to offset this remainings, for example, by the retrofunding of an already evaluated project that replaced street lighting in a village with LED bulbs and thus reduced electricity use, i.e. emissions.
The word “credit” means credit because the work has already been done, the costs have been advanced. The emitters owe a debt to those who mitigate the damage of their emissions. The purchase of the credit is the post-project financing, which project owners can use to do further climate mitigation work. Another meaning of the word “credit” is trust, but here there is no need for up-front trust, as it is a proven result of work already done.

You can’t carbon neutralise at the cost of a booby prize, it’s greenwashing. One tonne of CO₂e emitted is currently estimated to cause between USD 120 and 180 in social damage. Although the market price of quotas and the carbon taxes levied in some countries do not reach this amount today, polluters must at least mitigate a significant part of the damage caused. Companies, organisations and individuals should not use cheap greenwashing to lie about carbon neutrality, but should actually pay the international market price for quality carbon credits.

Carbon offsetting can’t be done by promises (e.g. planting trees)

Planting trees to neutralise carbon is a common misconception. They estimate in advance how much carbon will be sequestered in ten to twenty years by the trees they plant. But it will only be possible to assess how much carbon the tree plantation has actually sequestered in ten to twenty years, and the credits verified as having been generated can only be used for carbon neutralisation in ten to twenty years’ time.

Of course, tree planting and, in particular, much more efficient forest conservation, has many benefits. But it is only suitable for carbon neutralisation under specific commitments and conditions. The carbon credits generated by planting and forest conservation can be destroyed later, depending on the fate of the forest. This is why it is called “endangered credit” and the revenue generated when it is used for carbon neutralisation is called “carbon mortgage”. This is because, when the credit is destroyed, this revenue (which is in fact a loan) must be used to buy a carbon credit to replace the destroyed one.

Carbon sequestered in forests and soils is threatened by a number of hazards. In addition to non-origination (in the case of tree planting) and cutting, in the event of felling, drying, forest fires, flooding, pests, rotting, damage by game, etc., the CO₂ sequestered is released back into the atmosphere. In such cases, the carbon credits used for carbon neutralisation are destroyed and the carbon neutralisation is invalidated. If, in 20 or even 50 years, the CO₂ sequestered in the forest is released back into the atmosphere, this is not climate protection.

An organisation that carbon neutralises by deforestation and tree planting must therefore assume a perpetual obligation, which is passed on to the future owners/maintainers of the forest, to replace from other sources the carbon credits already used for carbon neutralisation but which are destroyed as the forest’s CO₂ balance is reduced, i.e. to carbon neutralise the negative carbon balance and CO₂ emissions of the forest.

The five steps of carbon neutralisation

Step zero is, of course, to make the decision.

The first step is to calculate the carbon footprint of the company, organisation, person or event, for example. This can be done by anyone, for example by using the calculator on the BOCS website, which has forms for entering data on buildings, transport, internet use, waste, diet, lifestyle choices and even pets.

The second step is the potential reduction of emissions. Going through the items in the calculation can give you a number of ideas for streamlining your company’s operations in ways that can reduce emissions and even costs.

There is often considerable scope for reducing emissions, as shown for example by the current savings in gas consumption in Europe. The Human Development Index (HDI) is the most widely used measure of the quality of life in society. This is a number between 0 and 1, above 0.7 is considered high, above 0.8 very high. Some countries can achieve a very high HDI of 0.8 with two-thirds of the Hungarian ecological footprint. This shows that it is possible to save up to a third of consumption without compromising quality of life, through innovation and by reducing waste and carelessness.

Reducing emissions can often be said to be “money thrown in”. For example, using less energy can also reduce costs. This reflection also helps to prepare for the climate crisis and the risks from GHG emissions.

The third step is to buy carbon credits to offset the emissions we have not yet been able to reduce. We can do this bit by bit, starting with just carbon neutralising your company’s website, or your fleet of vehicles, or a key product. The latter could be because we are a supplier and our products are required to be carbon neutral, or because the customers of a particular product are particularly climate conscious.

The fourth step is to communicate our carbon neutrality to all stakeholders, both externally (customers, clients …) and internally (managers, employees, owners …). This can not only improve public perception and increase market results, but also the loyalty of employees and business partners, and the satisfaction of investors with our sustainability reporting.

The fifth step is to make carbon offsetting a part of the annual routine and to look forward with a calmer conscience to better compliance with any future government measures or tender requirements.

Last but not least, it feels good to have done something significant for the future of ourselves and our loved ones. It will be appreciated by young people, children, future generations and the whole living world.

Gyula I. Simonyi, BOCS Civilization Planning Foundation

The post Should we get a heat stroke or starve instead? appeared first on BOCS FOUNDATION.

Evolution is the order of life on earth. Both the living world and, to a large extent, society operate according to the rules of evolution:
1. All beings must reproduce with all their might and cling to their biological life.
2. This overproduced biological raw material (plant, animal, human quantity) is forced to compete, mutate*, be selected, suffer, die.

* Mutation can happen not only with genes, but also in social functioning e.g. enterprise, change of livelihood.

The key to protecting nature, climate and the environment, promoting peace, justice and quality of life, the key to the effectiveness of any humane goal is to humanise brutal, abject evolution.
In other words, defying the rules of evolution: contraception, euthanasia, quality of life, non-violence…
In this way, an ecological spaciousness is created.

Humanity has only half-humanised evolution and is therefore in overshoot instead of ecological spaciousness (e.g. overpopulation). It is forced to compete, to enter into business, to select, to suffer, to destroy, according to the rules of brutal, abject evolution, in order to survive and to maintain its position.

Imagine a world where brutal, abject evolution is humanized by humanity, where instead of struggle, suffering, destruction, ecological spaciousness is opened up by the responsible procreation, in defiance of the reproductive compulsion.

Napoleon‘s army of a million men advanced victoriously towards Moscow. (A little history to repeat: the Russians kept retreating and evacuating, Napoleon waited in vain in empty Moscow for them to come and ask for peace and pay tribute, and was finally forced to go home, and Europe’s largest army was beaten by the climate, the vast majority of the retreating army froze or starved to death. The vast majority of the half a million Russian casualties were civilians.)

The majority of the council of war believed that it was possible to advance, to win, to raid indefinitely. But General Green wanted consumption reduction, smaller rations, economy of food, rations, clothing, ammunition, etc. due to scarcity of resources.
General Azure (Mature Green) said the opposite: The more frugal we are, the farther we advance, the later we are forced to turn back, so the more terrible the retreat will be. Being frugal is harmful as long as we are going in the wrong direction because it delays the system’s response, so we will understand the feedback later, that we are marching “victoriously” to our doom. Then, when we have turned back, it will make sense to save to mitigate the collapse and get at least some of us back with as little suffering as possible.

In the analogy, the advance is the population explosion, the retreat is the population decline to a sustainable level. Austerity, reducing consumption, only delays the system’s feedback that the Earth is not willing to support so many people. Immature greens only delay and thus make the collapse even more dire.
– The larger the number and
– the tighter the belt and
– the more depleted the Earth becomes, the more humanity will start to depopulate, the worse the civilizational collapse will be. The more terrible will be the famine, pestilence, war, heat, which will reduce the population.
So, as long as the population explosion continues, it is harmful to cut consumption and save. The mature greens are working for universal access to the human right, knowledge, tools of contraception, and to crush reproductive ideologies etc., and developments that will mitigate the horror of the collapse.

The 1960s saw the rise of a mature green thinking that recognised the world-saving importance of contraception. In 1968, with the bestseller The Population Bomb being reprinted almost monthly, the United Nations made family planning a human right, and although a few months later, the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights made family planning a human right, the world’s first ever family planning treaty was signed in 1968. Pope Paul II defiantly reaffirmed the ban on contraception, which was not accepted by the vast majority of Catholics (and the authority of the clergy declined), youth riots around the world broke the taboo on sex (and the acceleration of the population explosion). In 1971 the UN launched the ODA, in 1972 the Club of Rome published the Limits to Growth, the Sierra Club, WWF, the Pugwash Conference and many other movements and groups addressed the importance of contraception.

But the overwhelmingly still reproductive societies could not tolerate the taboo-breaking Azure way of thinking, so civilisational self-deception (technocratic or consumerist naivety etc.) got the money, the recognition, the publicity, the positions (also within the green and other movements). The 1994 Cairo Action Programme no longer has the status of international law. Access to contraception was only belatedly added to the 2000 Millennium Development Goals when it was seen that in the midst of the population explosion, the goat’s milk would go hungry and the cabbage fields would be ruined. It has also been ignored in the 2015 Sustainable Development Goals, tucked away in the sub-targets of the health and women’s equality goals.
If half a century ago the human right to contraception had been universalised, there would be no ecological crisis. Today, on the contrary, civilization is collapsing, and the best we can achieve is to crash-land instead of crash-land.

Do you want to take effective action for the climate, for future generations, for the poor, for wildlife, for forests, for animals, for the beauty of the Earth? Do you have the vision to recognise your own interests (which are shared with the poor)? Do you have the heart to step out of apathy and hopelessness? The “Azure Elite” are waiting for you, who will first carbon neutralise their way of life by helping hundreds of millions of people without contraception.
Make a donation to the BOCS Foundation’s OTP account 11736116-20130037 or click on the Support me button in the header of the page and carbon neutralise your lifestyle. Each January you will receive a certificate of your carbon neutrality for the previous year: https://qfpc.bocs.cf This is by far the most effective and humane way to save the world, so you don’t have to worry about trivial (often self-deceptive, even harmful) green stuff, you can live as you like without guilt. Future generations will be most proud of you!

The post Azure is the new green! appeared first on BOCS FOUNDATION.

UPDATE: The BOCS Civilisation Planning Foundation is one of the main signatories of a similar letter to COP28!

NEW COALITION OF ORGANIZATIONS CALLS FOR SUSTAINABLE FAMILY PLANNING IN FACE OF CLIMATE CRISIS

National organizations urge COP26 leaders to protect most vulnerable

San Francisco, CA – Dozens of leading NGOs are calling on the President and Delegates of the COP26 in this open letter to take an urgent and clear public position recommending just and sustainable family planning as the most effective solution to address the climate crisis, and rising global inequality, including gender inequity.

The global community has failed to inform and support a universal effort towards just and sustainable family planning, which:

• Is human-rights centered
• Ensures sustainable and equitable resources for greater investment in each child
• Enables communities and governments to protect children and future generations while upholding reproductive rights

On the contrary, pressures to increase births, or to obstruct family planning programs, are driving our biggest crises and putting the health, safety, and welfare of current and future generations in peril. Unsustainable population growth, a documented threat multiplier, is contributing to catastrophic climate change, unprecedented flooding, pandemics, ecosystem destruction, groundwater depletion, mass extinctions, and environmental degradation. Worsening inequality, in large part driven by our growing population, is also a grave threat to democracy and political stability across the globe.

Here are the facts:

• The most effective way to address many of the impacts on our environment and other species, like climate change, is by choosing smaller families. It’s up to 20 times more effective than changing diet or forms of transportation.
• By 2100 world population could vary by billions of people, depending on whether the average woman in the world today has one child more or one child fewer in her lifetime.
• Better family planning is the best way to reduce inequality. Other interventions alone are simply too late.

Nandita Bajaj, Executive Director of Population Balance says, “Our growth-driven policies are not only a cause of immense suffering for marginalised human and ecological communities, present and future, but they are premised upon oppressive power structures. Not only are reproductive, intergenerational, and ecological justice under attack, our current unsustainable growth-centred family planning policies are threatening all life on earth. We collectively need to acknowledge and address the urgency of this predicament.”

Fair Start Movement is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization dedicated to reforming family planning by replacing growth-centered family planning models with the human rights-based and child-first Fair Start model. 

Population Balance is a 501(c) 3 nonprofit organization that provides education and solutions to address the impacts of human overpopulation and overconsumption on the planet, people, and animals.

Source: Fair Start Movement | Carter Dillard | 27 Okt. 2021

The post Family planning and carbon offsetting saves children’s future appeared first on BOCS FOUNDATION.