Do you think we need more house building in Kent, or Britain as a whole? 

Proposed incinerators, sewage plants, lorry parks, landfill sites, wind farms, power stations, etc, all bring howls of protest from those who will live near them, even though they are essential for modern life.

People complain of crowded trains and congested roads. There are many groups for and against such schemes, constantly arguing and bickering over these issues, some with valid points, others are just nimby driven.

We constantly hear that people do not want the countryside ‘concreted’ over.  We may want our open spaces, but we also want all modern amenities. 

Many now have more leisure time and have far greater access to the countryside.

Parks and gardens are becoming ever more appreciated, especially now, with so many urban areas becoming more congested, vandalised and shabby. 

Worldwide we are seeing the destruction of natural habitats, with thousands of animal species threatened by extinction because of habitat loss, as mankind makes ever greater demands on the land, for housing or cleared for crops or fossil fuel substitutes, logging, etc.
 
Often this cleared land is of poor quality and can only be used for a few years before it becomes ‘exhausted’ and so more land is cleared. This can lead to deforestation, often the cause of tragic mud-slides or at the other extreme, using up all the natural water supplies.  

Whatever your religion, most believe in some supreme being, a ‘creator,’ yet do any of these religions believe all this should be systematically destroyed? 

So what is the common thread to all these problems we now face?

At present, we are told, global warming ‘is the greatest threat to mankind’ and it certainly has been very lucrative for world governments to maintain this scenario. But is it the greatest threat? Surely the bottom line for all these problems is over-population?

If global warming is a threat because of man’s activities, then if there were less population growth, the problem would be alleviated? 

As places like Africa become more prosperous and human life there more prolonged, then this increased longevity is at the expense of the plant and animal life, as land is devoured for human food production and lifestyles.

It’s the same in South America, with its huge slum cities and increasing demands on its land and resources.

China and India’s rapidly increasing prosperity, with their huge expanding populations chasing western lifestyles, will see the world’s consumers doubling in a short space of time.

China is often criticised for its pollution problems, but their one child policy for many years (though I think this is changing) has done more for the planet than some of their critics
.
Governments are keen to impose ‘green’ taxes, yet on the other hand, are only too willing to offer child benefits and tax allowances to those who have children. With the advances in contraception, is this policy now outdated?

I am not saying these should be stopped for present-day claimants, but for future births, do these financial inducements, need to be re-considered now we have a real choice in the matter?

Surely it is time for all the world’s governments to encourage their people to refrain from having large families and perhaps be seen as irresponsible to do so.

I know these are not easy concepts to accept.

Children and families are important to a balanced, caring society – it is that feeling of continuation of life, which is only natural.

But in cold reality, every new person is a consumer of the world’s limited resources.
Even in this country we have seen that we are exchanging quality for quantity.

The average house is getting smaller, gardens are getting smaller, people are housed in tower blocks to cram as many people into an even smaller area. Every little space has an infill of a new house. All this cramming brings its own social problems.

Man has been the most successful of all the animals, but we are also victims of our own success. We must endeavour to live alongside the animal and plant world, for it is these basic things that give us our core values.

"Man has been the most successful of all the animals, but we are also victims of our own success. We must endeavour to live alongside the animal and plant world, for it is these basic things that give us our core values."

So true. For moreon this, see:

http://www.vanishingofaspecies.com

 

 

A couple opf quick comments:

AS for feeding the current world population, a report by John Craven on a recent Countryfile (bbc) prog, stated that we, especially the supermarkets and retailers, waste 4 times as much food as could feed the world adequately every year.  I think changes to this would in of itself go a long way to easing the population problem.

As for population per se, a recent BBC Horizon programme with David Attenborough claimed that the world could sustain over twice the current number IF we only had about 2 hectares usage per person.  Currently though the Developing world 'exists' on less than 1 (usually about 0.5), Europe about 3-4 and the USA over 5.

A much better and fairer  re-distribution of land use to support the current 6.8billion (albeit and rising) would seem to be long overdue. 

Population control through contraception must apply to all,- (it would also help against STD's like HIV etc) not just the Developing world alongside changes in land use and food distribution.   The 'religious' objections would have to be countered though aswell.

GM Crops are touted, usually by agribusinesses, as a supposed solution, but given my first remarks re  the wastage, and the UN report in 2009 that Africa could feed itself on organic crops; that Sth American soils could be rejuvenated by bean crops, then crop-rotated with maize etc, within a few years and without loads of pesticide use (C4 prog in 2003-Julian Pettifer)  and that we have bearly started down these routes, this along with, as I said better land usage, and distribution would not require GM.

 

Mr Hudson's contribution to the over-population debate is neo-malthusian. Too many people, consuming limited resources and as a consequence, creating a disaster in over-consumption. Unfortunately, Mr Hudson fails to recognise key aspects in his flawed and not-so-new theory. First, that currently in the United States 1% of the population owns & consumes 95% of the wealth. So what we have is the basic problem of an economic system that is both unequal and in-balanced and has in its genesis the foundation for social, political, economic and class conflict. The second, is that in poorer nations, be it in Africa, South America of Asia, even developing countries such as India and Brazil have no welfare or social protection schemes, thus forcing the poorest people to produce children, not for economic and social development, but to provide the means for economic protection in the latter years. Better to have an off-spring of 10 in which 3 are expected to survive and provide for the oldest members of the family. Again, poorer nations like the US have massive in-balances between their respective betters in terms of wealth, status, education and economic development. Mr Hudson's view is not new, as stated, but neo-malthus propositions always fall at the first hurdle, when the idea is exposed to the irrational economic system that man has devised for itself. (Capitalism) When the obvious solution of management, allocation and sharing of wealth and resources is the only rational option, mankind seems intent on turning away from this obvious solution and thus as a consequence, deserving every conceivable crisis and blunder on its well deserved worn head.

Over-population of the state sector in UK is an urgent  problem, but not one that party politics is willing to tackle.  The EU increased the creeping corruption and control freakery of petty bureaucracy, whose swollen ranks have overwhelmed and diverted public spending away from the rest of us. Local councils especially have lost their traditional and proper place in society. They have perversely spun their way into massive salary packages for themselves and service cuts for us. Public sector is a monopoly-misspending mine field that is more dangerous than industrial and manufacturing unions ever were. Government incompetence, cover-ups, worthless watchdogs are all hindrances to cost-efficiency. Obtuse councils double standards have eroded public trust and created a vacuum where class conflict is rising.   Economically they have not been viable for more than a decade, their unions and affiliations have gained them privileges they do not earn or deserve. SOLAS want regulations removed, claiming that tick-box culture  regulation is costing £2 billion annually. Get ting rid of unfit-for-purpose councils and regulators would save us  £billions to spend on essential services and to pay back cash-strapped PAYE single and childless taxpayers.  Government and all its "agents" have made our lives over-complicated, but carry on regardless. Unemployment, poverty and destitution will bring Dickensian misery into our homes if we do not look after ouselves - if that requires us to throw the tax-funded parasitic state sector cuckoo out of our nests, so be it.  The discriminated-against taxpayer and genuine entrepreneurs will not survive under unrealistically artificially-created financial pressures. Party politics and the part-privatised state sector is a toxic mix that needs a permanent cure if we are to recover from 12% national debt to GDP, and rebuild a fairer future with freedom from authorities that turned into tyrants and dictators living on expenses, allowances, bonuses and incentives even when they do a lousy job. . Financial abuse is a corporate crime that has gone on long enough. I am proud to be a campaigner for affordable living who wants voluntary restraint and social responsibility from government. Sadly there is no sign that MPs, councillors or councils and their "partners" are ready to embrace austerity and self-discipline.