New studies highlight the misconception that population growth has a negligible effect on climate change.
The explosion of the human population and climate change are two global phenomena that affect the world in an overwhelming way. Despite this, there is a trend of denying their importance and ignoring the connection between them. I have written in the past and warned about the need to control the size of the human population in order to prevent disasters, And now a new assessment highlights the dire impact of global warming on billions of people around the world.
Surveys indicate that the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions can reduce the number of people who immigrate from areas affected by extreme climate conditions, but it has been found that there is an equal value to the combination of population explosion and climate change, meaning that a reduction in the size of the population can lead to a similar result to reducing immigration. In the 90s there were attempts and programs to control the population, such as the "one child policy in China" and forced sterilization in India and other countries, but the programs failed miserably and proved to be scandalous.
The idea that population growth will cause environmental damage and human suffering is not new. However, there are places where they continue to deny the process of population explosion and climate change, as well as the connection between them. The terms "Neo-Malthusian" or "Eugeneist" are used as negative descriptions, and the violation of human rights in the name of "the right to fertility" is emphasized. The reality is that a policy that insists on denying the damage caused by the population explosion leads to both environmental distress and increased human suffering.
Today, there are still religious policies, social pressure and government policies that try to convince people to have more children. Such examples appear in India and to some extent in the United States. And of course, the recently passed budget rewards large families and deprives their children of an education that will enable them to manage in life - a dangerous combination.
This is a policy that emphasized the need to give birth to claims bordering on national racism and "economic need", and banned abortions in order to turn ethnic groups into reproductive tools. Many women are in distress, Because they do not have access to contraceptives as a result of the influence of their husbands and family members who prevent them from using them. Implementing a policy that encourages more children not only denies them their right, but also exacerbates poverty and harms the environment.
New studies highlight the misconception that population growth has a negligible effect on climate change. In the last decade it was found that population growth is the main cause of greenhouse gas emissions as a result of the use of fossil fuels. Population growth has a direct effect on emissions, and it cancels out the reductions achieved by renewal and efficiency. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), population growth definitely contributes to emissions and the use of fossil fuels. Population growth also causes water shortages, deforestation and damage to the environment caused by the human population. The connection between population growth and damage to the environment is clear and well-known, but the need for population control continues to be denied.
Denial of the need for population control brings dire consequences. Since the 90s, the need to curb population growth has failed and international funding for family planning has dropped by 35%. Denial of the need for population control is reminiscent of the denial of the need to mitigate global warming, as a result of science's failure to clarify future suffering for millions.
The belief that technological progress will solve the problems and that using low-carbon fuels will fix everything turns out to be wrong. It was found that "green technologies" cause environmental and social problems. It is understood that there is a need and importance for renewable and green energies, But they also have disadvantages. The production of batteries for electric cars requires the use of cobalt mined in the Congo under inhumane conditions, and requires deforestation in areas where wild animals are found. This results in additional emissions, additional consumption of water and additional destruction of habitats.
If we continue at the current rate of growth until the year 2030, it will not be possible to provide a reasonable standard of living without an increased impact on the environmental systems and nature, and therefore there is a need for access to family planning for everyone.
Family planning is not only beneficial for the environment, but also for humans. It seems that in every society where the frequency of birth has decreased, the government's attempts to reverse the direction have not succeeded, because the women have learned the advantages of a small family. At the same time, implementing education in general and women's education in particular will keep us away from disaster.
By all accounts, it is right to emphasize that the need to slow down the population explosion is important and central as part of environmental management strategies and to prevent the spread of epidemics, earthquakes, and also important and central to ensuring national scientific security.
If I have often ended my lists with the paragraph: "The time has come that instead of controlling the environment for the sake of the human population, there will be control of the human population for the sake of the environment" then the main effort for implementation should be education in general and the education of women in particular.
With us, the commandment "produce and multiply and cover the land" still rules, when the combination of climatic ignorance and messianic religious fanaticism dictates a policy of denial that leads to disaster, so it turns out that, like the rest of the world, education (core) in general and women's education in particular will keep us away from disaster.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
- "44 trillion dollars, about half of the global annual economic output is at risk because of the climate crisis"
- The agricultural revolution caused a population explosion in Southeast Asia 4,000 years ago
- The explosion of the human population - a "white elephant" that is feared to be harmed
- Isaac Asimov - The End (an article from the XNUMXs fearing a population explosion)
23 תגובות
There is no need to "empower" women.
Men must be prevented from destroying the world. prevent them in the first place.
They are the ones causing population explosion everywhere and damages in every field.
As soon as the woman has no choice - there is a high birth rate.
Why is extreme misogyny promoted everywhere today? To make women have lots of children and unfortunately it works.
As soon as the woman's status is removed (and this is done in every false way possible) - the birth rate is high. And if not the birth, then their approach to sex.
For life to be truly good, there must be a true female matriarchy and a small population.
Men intervene and engage in areas that evolution did not adapt them to, such as determining moral values, etc. (you are the exception...but by and large, men are very anti-conscientious).
Reducing the population by reducing the birth rate has difficult and complex emotional and economic consequences. As we are in China, Japan and Europe and several other countries. The principle is that there are not enough young people to finance the old, and the result is immigration to satisfy the needs.
In most countries of the world there is a reduction in the number of children per woman including Arab countries, Iran and African countries. This is a global trend and Israel is the exception to it.
What useless nonsense based on so much disinformation and complete mind engineering.
First of all, what are you afraid of carbon???
All the carbon we burn comes from a fossil source, right?
So he was already in the atmosphere once, right? And when it was in the atmosphere, life on Earth flourished so much that even dinosaurs weighing 50 tons existed that walked in the prehistoric jungle, right?
So what are you so afraid of?
By the way, most of the carbon has already fixed in the form of limestone, and from there it will no longer be possible to release it.
Bottom line, we do a huge favor to all the plants that do photosynthesis when we burn fuels! All in all, returning to the atmosphere what was in it. Like that when I was little.
It is very convenient to talk about population explosion when you are in small and compact Israel. I was just in Argentina, a country 150 times bigger than Israel with a total of 45 million people, that is to say 5 times as many people, you can travel for days without seeing a living soul, how much space for fields for cows and plantations there is! And really unused. And so in many other places in the world, this world will not feel even if there are 90 billion people on it, there will be food for everyone and climate change will not really change anything. Even so, the climate changes cyclically, that's why there are ice ages...so maybe warming isn't such a bad thing...?!
Apparently the selfish person who exists nowadays cannot help but disappear soon...
The government does not understand that if they allow people to work after retirement age without taxing their pension then everyone benefits.
Pensioners will have additional income to spend and the state will benefit from the taxes on the money they spend.
If they continue to work part-time until old age it will preserve their health and reduce the expenses of the health care system
Since the population is really decreasing, the solution is to raise the retirement age to a flexible age and not force people to retire.
and improve medicine so that people can be productive until old age
and encourage them to continue working part-time as much as they want through tax benefits
I see that you wrote about it already 14 years ago here. If only they would listen then..
Lists I post are based on research
and findings published in scientific sources
Qualified (like "Nature" or "Science"),
They have links in the lists,
And yet there are those who "succeed" in reading
the links and respond with regret for being known
Publishes an "opinion article" and not her!
For those commenters and many others below
My personal opinion based on years of observation
and on understanding zoology and the evolution of species
Many including the human race:
The Homo sapiens species is a young species that exists and has evolved
For about two hundred thousand years, many species were born
others that have existed for millions of years,
Since the Homo sapiens broke out and spread throughout the world
He is busy multiplying to the point of population explosion and within
To this end, the continuous destruction of its natural environment,
From a zoological point of view, a species that reproduces without restraint
And while destroying his natural environment he:
Unsuccessful sex! A species that has no right to exist!
Therefore: in order to continue to exist, the human race must
to change his ways, to stop the population explosion,
to stop the environmental and self-destruction,
Restore what was destroyed and learn that it is part
from the natural environment (not control),
If it doesn't happen immediately
Homospines have no right to exist!
This is my personal opinion...
It is appropriate that all those who argue against an "opinion article" read the text again and dwell on the links to scientific articles published in known and accepted sources,
That is, the entire list is based on scientific sources and only at the end I add my personal opinion that for some reason contradicts the sources...
The direction of the article is correct, but the use of the term "coercion" is threatening and terrible, it is the encouragement of a dictatorship in a scientific guise. We have already seen such an approach during the Corona period and it took a heavy social and economic toll without any benefit. Fortunately for us, the trend all over the world except Israel is to reduce the birth rate, this is a welcome trend that will reduce the environmental disaster. It is true that it will also have negative economic and social consequences, but it is simply impossible to continue building the economy on the expectation of exponential growth forever.
It's really disappointing that such a pile of clichés that come from an ideological position are posted here. This is an unfounded opinion article and very far from being a scientific article.
When you call someone who disagrees with you a "denier", you have abandoned the world of science.
I haven't seen such a ridiculous column in a long time. The web is full of articles about the birth rate in drastic decline, if in 2000 the global fertility rate was 2.7, today it is 2.3 and more.
Estimates say that starting in 2030, the rate of the world's population will begin to decrease. Even now, the largest countries in the world are experiencing a decline in population, so there is no need to plan a reduction in births, this is already happening. And even if someone starts thinking about it now, in any case by 2030 it won't affect anything, and according to the columnist's claim, the drastic impact on the world's resources will not be prevented.
Logic - those who are to blame for turning unambiguous and clear scientific issues into political disputes are the oil tycoons who appointed right-wing parties all over the world.
Some problems with the concept:
1) In almost all developed countries the birth rate is negative. voluntarily without any coercion. And the trend is expected to strengthen as Generation Z enters reproductive age.
2) The solution to a significant reduction in the use of fossil fuels is to reduce carbon consumption per person, not to reduce the power of the number of people. Shifting work from home and the city to ecological villages will solve most of the problem (yes to the villages. Urbanization and the tendency of the greens to crowd the population in the cities is a grave mistake. A low carbon footprint is only possible in rural life when everyone grows a significant part of the food, use of water and waste for fertilization, and a tremendous reduction in the transportation of goods and people ). This is the actual situation in China and India and that is why the carbon consumption there is so low.
The problem is that there is not a strong enough force to push governments to reduce carbon consumption. (A simple law requiring companies to switch to approximately 70% remote work would solve, cheaply, a significant part of the carbon consumption). Living in ecological villages will reduce consumption and therefore there is no economic body that will push for this.
Indeed, population growth is most likely a significant factor in increasing human influence on the climate. But the scientific community should avoid publishing articles on climate change, the desired population size or any other topic that is highly political (and therefore less scientific). To the best of our knowledge, the large population is in the stages of stopping. As far as we know, warming at the poles is faster than at the equator. Therefore there are less temperature differences and less extreme weather.
So it is better to publish here only really well-founded articles and not opinion articles.
It is likely that at some point they will be forced to exert great pressure on the population to stop at 2 children per family and will be forced to significantly limit energy consumption.
Correction of error: In the Torah it is said to multiply and fill the earth
They did not cover the land.
To the very article. I am about 70 years old. And seventy years ago with a population of only 2,5 billion there were the same articles of intimidation and panic that said that the earth could not feed such a large population. that the oil will run out by 1990
And we are expected to starve to death soon
At that time, the Torah intimidation was from a new ice age, believe it or not. This is the same "science" with those scientists in their own eyes who develop theories based on unbaked models and mainly corporate and globalist politics.
So the sea is talking about warming even though there is no evidence of warming and NASA already announced years ago that no global warming has been measured in the last decade
And they blame it on the "greenhouse gas" co2 even though we are at an all-time low in co2 concentration. Bauer and farmers who want good crops push co2 into greenhouses.
In short, this is a journalistic article with an agenda without any scientific basis
He wrote an opinion that is suitable for the country and not for science.
There are more political opinions here than information and knowledge.
The economy is built on a younger generation that is quantitatively larger than the older generation. The ideas presented here will cause an economic collapse and mortally damage civilization.
The Chinese policy of the 90s brought it to the brink of collapse due to an aging population
So you say that the world is on the right and good path and as many children as possible is a blessing?
And that there is no connection between the issues of the destruction of the world and the ever-increasing population density?
If you have to quote, then at least quote correctly.
There is no verse 'produce and multiply and cover the earth'
This is an opinion piece that belongs to the 90s. The whole western world is trying to increase the number now with the help of bribery and trying to convince women and it has failed miserably. Who will take care of the old if there are no young. The young are the ones who are responsible for everything in developed countries, pensioners cannot go to the army or work. So apparently if empowering women was the solution to population explosion now the opposite should be done
There is an excellent book called "The Inferno" written by David Bladchi that describes a situation that will solve this problem in the best way possible (no spoilers)