Home | About | Donate

Jeremy Corbyn Talks With Naomi Klein About Creating a Better World


We talk about war, inequality, pollution and the rest on a constant basis. Overpopulation underlying most of our problems is seldom addressed. There are reasons for this, religious, defense of inequality, fear of racist undertones and so on. The problem of human overpopulation needs to be aired to be resolved.


If by "they" you mean farmers/agriculturalists, then you are factually incorrect:

I invite you to present evidence to the contrary.


Global poverty levels are decreasing, agricultural efficiency is increasing. Envrionmental degradation and the exploitation of animals are serious issues, but that doesn't mean you can ignore the facts.

That's just a slogan and I don't care for slogans.

The soil issue is real, which is why I'm in favour of organic agriculture. However, even conventional agriculture is getting better in terms of the kinds of chemicals they use and increased understanding of more sophisticated management systems such as IPM. However, even with the problems of soil depletion, it is absolutely untrue to say efficiency is not increasing. It might not increase forever, but so far, it is. Fewer people are producing more food. We live in an age of unprecedented plenty. You can eat oranges in fucking January in Montreal. Maybe it wouldn't kill us recognize how amazing that is.

"Chemically laced food" is also just another slogan. Your options are chemically treated food (organic relies on pesticides as well), or insect infested. Cherry fruit fies are brutal, no one wants worms in their cherries.

Aside from the dangers of handling, there is very little evidence that pesticides are a risk to human health. They certainly don't appear to be a risk to consumers. I invite you to show evidence to the contrary. I haven't found any.

Monsanto does not produce food. As a general rule, "huge conglomerates" do not grow food. Farmers grow food. In the US, many farms are operated by hedge funds. We often aren't talking about small operations. But where are the "huge conglomerates" that are growing food? In most of the world, smaller farms are producing the majority of the food. Even in the US that could be true, I'm not sure.

The distribution of resources is not the purview of the companies and individuals who grow and produce food! Thats not how it works!


How is population growth (which, by the way, is slowing) underlying war and inequality? An argument can be made for pollution, but it's a hard pill to swallow coming from a member of the most wantonly wasteful society in all of human history.

Where is the actual evidence that population growth is a crisis? Global poverty is decreasing. Per-capita food production is increasing. Popluation growth is slowing.

We have problems. Population growth is not one of them.


That big AGR are the ones saying we have enough food is wonderful. Then back to them is that we can stop working on their "high output" seeds, drop GMO, drop the pesticide business and get healthy farming, and healthy food.

Of course distribution is the problem, of people as well as food. Methinks the weather will relocate many more to come.


Like some others out there, the concept of world overpopulation for me is just plain creepy. I suspect these ideas are driving some of this century' s transition to lengthy wars with no plan to end, and killing enemies on sight instead of taking prisoners and releasing them after a truce.
That there are areas with unsustainable agriculture is of course true, particularly in light of recent weather changes.. The principles of sustainability include populations living nearby all kinds of resources, including minerals, water, and all kinds of production, reducing transportation to a minimum. It is of course a principle more than an achievable way of life anywhere for any immediate future.


The vast majority of the cropland where I live is planted with corn and soybeans. Both are headed to mills to be ground into feed for cows, pigs, and chickens. I often wonder how many vegetables could be produced for human consumption if even one tenth of this land were planted with beets, peas, beans, cucumbers, and other veggies. Thank goodness there are some local folks producing these and selling them at our local farmers' markets. I am a supporter!


Yes, humans have overpopulated the Earth. Those who deny it fail to take into account the degradation of greater environments for the rest of life on the planet. If you want to be totally human-centric and selfish you can only consider feeding we humans, but a healthy planet has to be sustainable for ALL life on the planet, and clearly we are failing badly on that count.


Incredible. You people keep parroting this line as if it's a self-evident fact. It isn't.

A minority of the world's population consumes a majority of the resources Then, that same fucking minority turns around and starts quacking on about how we need to reduce global populations.

Population growth is already slowing. Why are none of you addressing the arguments I'm actually making? Population growth is slowing most in developed nations. When you talk about global overpopulation, then, it follows that what you are actually talking about is controlling the population in developing nations.

Think about that for 5 minutes and you should begin to understand why that's fucked up. If you don't want to have kids, great. Don't. You'll thereby contribute to the already declining population trends in the rich countries that are responsible for the majority of GHG emissions.

What does it even mean to address this "problem"? What's your plan of action? Poor people have more kids, on average. So should we sterilize the poor? Or should we just start strategically eliminating undesirable populations?

It's a non-issue with no solutions. Population growth is already stabilizing as poverty rates decrease and education improves. We don't need the great armchair philosophers of the Northern hemisphere engineering any Great Plans for salvation.


What you ignore about the "undeveloped" World, is that is where overall ecosystems are in the most trouble, where human encroachment in formerly wild places is the greatest threat to species diversity - especially among large mammals in Africa. They might be responsible for less energy consumption and waste than the developed west, but are more responsible for deforestation, and disappearing natural habitat.

We need to reduce human overpopulation on a World-wide basis, proportionally. If we don't do this voluntarily, nature will do it for us, in ways that we will find much less desirable, and far more painful. And yes, fertility lotteries, involuntary sterilizations, and forced abortions are going to have to be a large part of the solution to drastically lowering World population. We as a species have ignored warnings of the problem for nearly 50 years, when solving the problem would have been far less onerous. So now comes paying the price for that willful disregard. Nothing less than the future of about 90% of all major forms of life on Earth is at stake. If we do nothing, we deserve our fate, but the rest of life on the planet does not.


"The ecology of humanity has been noted as being that of an unprecedented "global superpredator" that regularly preys on the adults of other apex predators and has worldwide effects on food webs. Extinctions of species have occurred on every land mass and ocean, with many famous examples within Africa, Asia, Europe, Australia, North and South America, and on smaller islands. Overall, the Holocene extinction can be characterized by the human impact on the environment. The Holocene extinction continues into the 21st century, with meat consumption, overfishing, ocean acidification and the amphibian crisis being a few broader examples of an almost universal, cosmopolitan decline in biodiversity. Human overpopulation (and continued population growth) along with profligate consumption are considered to be the primary drivers of this rapid decline.[1][2]"


Creating a better world needs a ruling class?


If Jeremy actually wins a majority and forms a government with the aims he has set out, the UK would be "CUBA-ized" and the jackals would get to work as they have wherever socialist-leaning governments have been elected. For further information, I recommend John Perkins 'Economic Hit Man' expositions.


To the global warming deniers we must add the human overpopulation deniers.


You haven't noticed so I'll point it out to you since you brought up the point that "Population growth is already slowing." The point is slow population is still a growing population.

You think that there's no problem with the world's population continuing to grow? That's only because you aren't well informed on the subject. This earth is only so big. In case you haven't realized it, there's nothing we can do to make our planet bigger for an ever growing human population. Human population growth must stop- sooner is better than latter. I don't like your idea of waiting till later. Humans have already been depleting resources that they once relied on and that's from overpopulation. Overconsumption by a few people isn't nearly as bad as frugal consumption by too many people.



Monsanto’s Poison Roundup Now Under Full Attack In Some States - America's Lawyer - The Ring of Fire Networkhttps://trofire.com/2017/07/15/monsantos-poison-roundup-now-full-attack-states-americas-lawyer/
To learn more about this topic, visit AL.Law Via America’s Lawyer: Mike Papantonio speaks to Farron Cousins, Executive Editor of The Trial Lawyer Magazine, about California’s battle against Monsanto’s cancer causing Roundup. Transcript of the above video: Papantonio: The state of California took action against the toxic profiteering of Monsanto by putting glyphosate on its


20 Years of GM Soy in the Southern Cone of Latin America ...https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/05/21/20-years-gm-soy-southern-cone-latin-america-20-reasons-definitive-ban
The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) has just published its annual report, which confirms that the Southern Cone of ...


Beyond Wetiko Agriculture: Saving Ourselves from the Soil ...https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/03/15/beyond-wetiko-agriculture-saving-ourselves-soil
How much longer do you hope to live? How long do you hope your children or grandchildren will live? Do you think you or your loved ones will live 60 more years?

and so much more evidence.


I agree that population growth (% increase per year) is slowing (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth#/media/File:World_population_growth_rate_1950%E2%80%932050.svg). The projection to the point where the curve of growth vs year will cross the zero axis is 2100 at 10.1 billion people. Many people do not believe this number is in the very long run sustainable though of course there are lot of per-capita impacts that are hard to predict where they'll be 100 years from now. Maybe 10 billion people will live at an average of 1/3 the impact / person of the average person today (which I realize is much smaller than 1/3 of my impact since I live in California, drive to work, etc.). Maybe the entire ocean's fisheries will collapse before that and other calamities will cause massive suffering and death. It's hard to know for sure, but ignoring the problem doesn't help anybody.

I was surprised to see the TFR (Total Fertility Rate which is the right number to look at to see future growth in my opinion) of the US has dropped to 1.87. France on the other hand used to be this level and is now up to 2.07 (which with some mortality before reproductive age is about steady state - still France is overpopulated of course). The overall TFR for the World 2.42 which if we want to level off and later reduce the world population needs to be brought under 2 as soon as possible.

What does it even mean to address this "problem"? What's your plan of action? Poor people have more kids, on average. So should we sterilize the poor? Or should we just start strategically eliminating undesirable populations?

What most people who think overpopulation is a problem want to do to is to be proactive and address it in non-coercive ways now before it gets any worse (which may result in coercive ways becoming instituted as they were in China which has a TFR of 1.6 even though it is still growing - I think that country would have collapsed if they had done nothing). The two non-coercive prongs that I hear discussed are basically education (or propaganda if you prefer) and family planning assistance. I agree that general improvement in woman's rights (education, voting, worker and health) is of course going to have a huge lever as well. An example of the education prong is: https://www.populationmedia.org/2010/08/03/how-soap-operas-might-save-us-from-overpopulation/. Many groups work on supplying family assistance, e.g. https://www.guttmacher.org/. (When I had more disposable income, I gave to both of these groups).

I never understood the big push back from too many on the left when it comes to discussing population control issues. There are plenty of reasonable solutions being discussed and implemented - if you want to be part of the solution, go for it. If you want to criticize, I think they are plenty of better opportunities elsewhere.


Exactly, scratch just a bit beneath the surface of these Erlichite populationists and one see a lot of ugly racism and xenophobia.

It is time to throw Erlich's discredited yellow copies of "The Population Bomb" in the waste paper recycling bin. Population growth rates are declining with population peaking at 9 to 10 billion between 2050 and 2100, then slowly declining. The earth can support these many people with appropriate sharing of resources.

The big danger will be fertility decline and regional population crashes and resulting worse poverty. Just come out here to the depopulating parts of Appalachia and the Rust Belt to see for yourself.

Also, resource consumption under capitalism is a function of economic growth - which in an era of automation, profligate energy consumption, and finance capital accumulation, has little to do with population. The world population could be reduced to only a few million people and those few million people would simply consume the same amount of resources as 9 billion through capitalism-driven extravagance, while exactly the same proportion continues to live in grinding poverty.