Lord Winston slams overpopulationists

[ALB]

Under the headline "My friend Sir David has got it wrong over population crisis, says Winston", today's Times reports the professor and medical doctor Lord Winston as saying at the Cheltenham Book Festival that "the population angle is over-emphasised".

For those who don't read the Times (and can't online) here is what it says:

Quote:

Lord Winston has criticised his friend Sir David Attenborough for predicting a population crisis, saying that people who made such forecasts were "a bit ignorant or not thinking".

The peer said that he did not fear overpopulation, and told an audience at the Festival: "Many of my friends like David Attenborough, who I respect as a most intelligent man, have probably got this wrong."

He said: "Because again and again, where we see technology implemented to get clean water, where you have stable government, where you have education of women, where you actually have a decent infrastructure across society, the problem is not rising population but actually falling population, as it is in most of Western Europe."

Sir David, a long-term advocate of population reduction, said in September: "If you were able to persuade people that it is irresponsible to have large families in this day and age, and if material wealth and material conditions are such that people value their materialistic life, and don't suffer as a consequence, then that's all to the good. "We're very clever and extremely resourceful, and we will find ways of preserving ourselves. But whether our lives will be as rich as they are now is another question. We may reduce in numbers— that would actually be a help, though the chances of it happening within the next century is very small. I should think it's impossible, in fact."

Lord Winston, who was promoting Science Year by Year, a book for which he has written the foreword, said that fears over population growth were "massively exaggerated" and it was ignorant to suggest it was dangerous or that fertility research was a factor.

"What we should, in fact, be doing is celebrating the fact that this new technology has given birth to around 5 million lives worldwide that wouldn't have existed. What often happens with people who are a bit ignorant or not thinking, they say: 'We've got an over-burgeoning population in the world — why create more children?' Well, actually, 5 million against 5 or 6 billion or even 9 billion is such a trivial percentage that it's quite irrelevant. One of the aspects of this is that we know technology has done a fantastically important thing in preventing expanding populations. It's very probable we will see a decrease in population."

Speaking afterwards, he said that Jonathon Porritt, an environmental activist, was another example of a "misguided" commentator. "I have a massive respect for David Attenborough. I do understand he's seen devastation due to overpopulation in many parts of the world, but there are reasons for that and I think the population angle is being over-emphasised by too many people."

At least some others out there understand that overpopulation is a myth.
 

[admice]

I know I'm going to regret this, but where is your substantiation that overpopulation is a myth? Why do you think so? Either way I think there will be mass starvation due to peak oil. People never seem to plan and try to address problems before they become crises.

[Young Master Smeet]

This seems like a good start:http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/earth-carrying-capacity.htmbasically, every additional mouth to feed is a pair of hands to work: poverty exists because of property distribution and politics, not because of the absolute number of human beings, even if we try not to reach the potential carrying capacity of 40 billion. Indeed, there is a strong argument that you are being robbed.  Where countries have  low life expectancies, such as Gambia at around 40, you are being deprived of the useful work, knowledge and skills of those people who are dying young.  Calls to cut the population are calls to make us all poorer.

[Young Master Smeet]

This is a useful resource:http://twistedsifter.com/2013/08/maps-that-will-help-you-make-sense-of-the-world/http://twistedsifter.com/2013/08/maps-that-will-help-you-make-sense-of-the-world/and…

[ALB]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

poverty exists because of property distribution and politics, not because of the absolute number of human beings.

This is developed in this chapter from one of our pamphlets:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/questions-day#myth_overpopand in this article from the Socialist Standard;http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1970/no-792-august-1970/not-too-many-people

[admice]

Did I miss it or do they not quote their sources?

[ALB]

admice wrote:

Did I miss it or do they not quote their sources?

I assume you mean for the claim that the resources exist to more than adequately feed the present world's population (since Young Master Smeet has provide those refuting the "overcrowding" issue)?The chapter from the pamphlet does give a couple of sources:

Quote:

Godwin's point about every extra human being bringing in an extra pair of hands is still valid. The real issue is whether the social system allows those hands to be used to produce the extra wealth. It has long been known that the world can produce more than enough food for all. Lord Boyd-Orr, the first Director-General of the FAO, pointed out: 'There was no difficulty about producing enough food for the present population of the world, or even twice that number, but the problem was, could politics and economics arrange that the food that was produced was dispersed and consumed in the countries that needed it?' (The Times, 22 July 1949). At the second international agricultural aviation conference in Paris in 1962, Dr. Maan, the director of the International Agricultural Aviation Centre at the Hague, was reported as saying: 'The world's population, now a little over 2,000 million was expected to reach 6,000 million in the not very distant future. It had been calculated that the earth could support a population of 28,000 million if food production were organised on lines now known to be practicable' (The Times, 24 September 1962).

I know these are dated and that the world's population has grown since then but so has the capacity to produce, if only because of the extra "pairs of hands" that Godwin and YMS have mentioned.The second article was part of a special issue on "A World of Abundance". Here's the accompanying article on Food Production (with more sources):http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1970/no-792-august-1970/food-production-world-can-feed-us-allFor a more up-to-date article (with plenty of sources — 29 in fact!) see:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/depth-articles/resources/how-we-could-feed-world

[admice]

I MEANT TWISTEDSIFTER'S sry caps, maps. What is the basis for them? I gather you all put no stock in the UN? I 'haven't  followed all the links yet, but will, tho you've already given me at least a weeks reading to do and I actually have to do some work at work lately.

[admice]

I haven't read the links to your articles yet, but the issue isn't poverty or hunger it's demand for energy, for clean water, land suitable for farming. One reason here and now to reduce population is wages decline because there's an excess of workers. Another reason for family planning is multiple pregnancies increase threat to maternal health. As a woman and mother thats rather important to me.I know nothing about it, but I would think child slavery would also be related to high birth rates.

[admice]

I agree poverty from politics and economic system. I'm some kind of socialist. But still didn't source Twistedsifter, whom I've never heard of. How stuff works, not necessarily reliable.Not shortage of hands, shortage of rain, pestilence, fertilizer, taxing soil.HAven't studied the carrying capacity issue in 10 years, but was more than just about food, as above.Energy shortage alone evidenced by China and US competing (and warring in the case of US). Yes, if not for profit we would have added renewables and alternatives 30 years ago. sigh

[steve colborn]

Admice, poverty is, "hunger". Hunger comes directly from "poverty"! If one is not "poor", then one can afford the means to maintain oneself in bodily "health". Poverty being the issue, also translates to, demand for energy, clean water, for food or sustenance, rather than "land suitable for farming".In a world, commonly owned by us all, the arable land condusive to this activity, would belong, to us all. As science has proved, this land is sufficxient to provide the dietary requirements of at least, 4 times the present population of the earth.So what do we, as class conscious individuals, make of this? We have no alternative, other than to conclude that, "we need to  radically change the basis that society is organised on". From a system of, "production for profit", to a system based upon, "production for direct human use". Socialism, Communism, Free Access, whatever one wants to call it, or is your "buzzword" of the moment.Get real, get aware and get active, class consciously that is. Tell leaders to go, "follow themselves". Tell intellectuals to go, "understand themselves", and tell workers to have enough faith in themselves and their knowledge, to "trust themselves". And while I'm at it, tell Capitalists to go and "fuck themselves"! Save us the bother.Steve Colborn.

[steve colborn]

I'm not complaining, but how has a post, I sent to the "capitalim creating abundance" thread, appeared on this thread? I'm not complaining, because the post merits wider dissemination! I would just like to clarify the technical reasons, as to how this has occured? Steve Colborn.

[steve colborn]

OOps made a mistake.I should never try to multitask. Please ignore the above post. YFS Steve Colborn.

[admice]

Poverty isn't the same as hunger as you seem to say later in your post, so huh? Aside from that, all the above keeps addressing hunger as the issue about overpopulation and that we're not overpopulated because we can feed everyone, my point washunger is not an issue, other things are.I think, even if there is scarcity of some things, and there is, economic democracy is still a better way. Marx doesn't have to be right about everything and all your assumptions don't have to be right, for socialism to be a better alternative. I'm cranky today, but would still think so if I weren't.

[Author]

Posts