Goodall: Population Growth Should Be Curbed To Fight Climate Change

AFP:

LONDON (AFP) â€" Humans should have fewer babies to help the global battle against climate change, according to the renowned British primatologist and conservationist Jane Goodall.

Read the whole story: AFP

Comments

[MurCal]

01:17 PM on 03/29/2010

Well, of course she is right that the root cause of all of our environmental degradation is over-population. The interesting thing about birth rates, though, is that we don't need to force people to have fewer children, we only have to give them the option of having fewer children. In every country where men and women have easy access to birth control and where women have free empowerment to use them at their discretion, birth rates drop quickly. On the other hand, where good birth control is hard to come by and where women's reproductive rights are unrecognized, birth rates remain high. Shipping poor over-crowded people food without also giving out birth control methods to be used at their discretion is a form of perpetual enslavement. Food equals improved health which equals sexual activity which equals even more over-crowding and a greater need for more food.

It's just the facts folks. Ranting against those who point out the harsh realities won't change the realities.

[iLoveGiraffes]

03:36 AM on 03/29/2010

Maybe the point of animal extinction is to make room for us. If Darwin is right, they don't deserve to survive because they are weak.

[The Meek]

07:24 AM on 03/29/2010

Or maybe humans don't deserve to survive because we trash the very environment upon which our survival depends.

[BBinMT]

02:55 AM on 03/29/2010

When I was in grade school back in the 70's, there was actually a well publicized dialogue on population explosion and over-population. Similar to the so called "energy crunch" of the time, the dialogue faded into oblivion. Over-population should be a root explanation for many of the environmental maladies we suffer with today.

[JScott]

02:32 PM on 03/29/2010

Thank you Reagan revolution!

[LittleMittens]

12:54 AM on 03/29/2010

Stop reckless breeding! In this day and age, you don't have enough time, love, attention for more than two. Be responsible parents

[travelah]

08:15 PM on 03/28/2010

Go back to your apes.

[Shan Wells]

02:44 AM on 03/29/2010

I take it you disagree with population control, then?

[travelah]

03:04 PM on 03/29/2010

That would depend on how you define population control and by what means you would enforce it. The Chinese have been doing this for decades and they now have a population of young males with few women for wives. Enforced abortions and a general disregard for family life are what results from such programs.
Share you ideas on how you would define population control and how would you implement it.

[Veggie Veal]

09:30 PM on 03/27/2010

Jane, I remember you when you were a blond good looking chick! I guess I'm dating myself, but I'm just thrilled that you have spoken up about the fundamental problem of overpopulation. For years many of us have been a voice crying in the wilderness about this root of our current evils. Yep, there's too many humans blighting this earth-- we need to get down to 2 billion again, and soon.
Let the cards fall where they may, but we have to deal with it, now..

[glockman]

05:34 PM on 03/27/2010

I love it when "conservationists" offer us their wisdom in the form of social engineering. "Control the population," they tell us, "or we're all doomed!"

It's foolishness to try and spread the message of environmentalism with such nonsense. Who are we to tell someone to not have children, or to keep it to a two child minimum (and yes, that's part of what she's suggesting)?

Suggesting that certain, "useless" individuals be subjected to euthanasia to save the planet will follow on the heels of paranoia like this.

[sleeperd]

09:25 PM on 03/27/2010

Certain elements of society are already practicing population control: it's called abortion.

Fortunately, it is mostly practiced by left-wing libs so there is a bright side....

[julieintx]

09:43 PM on 03/27/2010

In Asian countries, 100% of the babies who are aborted are girls. That lowers the reproduction rate, so leftists are cool with gendercide.

[glockman]

09:53 PM on 03/27/2010

I happen to be pro-choice. But that's just it, it's a choice. I don't want someone choosing how many children I can have for me.

[SkiingGator]

04:29 AM on 03/29/2010

actually, the entire green message is about responsibility and this is no different. we have close to 7 billion people on this planet and we are using up all the resources in the process. we need to find a sustainable balance to ensure the survival of the species

[rf dude]

12:05 PM on 03/27/2010

The self-correcting action of overpopulation is underrated here.

Patience, patience...

[JScott]

11:39 AM on 03/27/2010

Finally someone dares speak truth.

[hobo62]

02:28 PM on 03/28/2010

I agree.

[banker67]

10:39 AM on 03/27/2010

Especially if the grim predictions of global warming prove correct, but it's not an easy issue.
Seems like over-population is at the root of many problems. We've tried plague, mass murder, mass starvation and natural disasters, but here we are all the same with some ten billion mouths to feed.
So maybe it's time to try birth control seriously. Instead of four kids, try two. That sort of thing, when you have a choice in the matter.
Malthus had a point, but we have the technology to do better and to find a humane balance. Whatever your feelings about birth control, you have to concede it's better than the horrors inflicted in the 20th Century.

[constitutional 1]

12:27 PM on 03/29/2010

slippery slope when thinking of regulating birth control. While i am for every one's choice to reproduce individually. Here is an interesting quote from Justice Ginsburg

"at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of."

[mom72]

11:31 PM on 03/26/2010

calling all Duggars, Octomom, and the Gosselins! Reality check on aisle 5!

[MGhamma]

11:28 PM on 03/26/2010

There will never be a serious discussion about controlling world population as long as capitalism is concidered the only viable economic system.

Capitalist economies have to grow to survive, and the only way they can grow is if populations continue to grow.

And also if raw materials and resources are readily available.

Our world is sick with the cancer of capitalism. And it's only going to get sicker.

[climastrology101]

11:36 PM on 03/26/2010

The communists were great at murdering millions. Is that what you're proposing?

[guinganbresil]

12:09 AM on 03/27/2010

Bull! - Industrialized societies usually have population growth only as a result of immigration.

[fxtrade]

10:16 PM on 03/26/2010

I always love people that over population is the problem with the earth. They are the ones that live in the biggest houses, drive the biggest cars, fly in private jets and still believe the disproven theory of man made global warming. These are the same people that never live up to the hatred they spew. If you do want children fine, just do not try to impose your beliefs on me,

[Just4theHalibut]

10:59 PM on 03/26/2010

Really? Jane Goodall leads a very modest life style. Personally I do so as well; that includes having only 2 children. What I DO have, like Jane, is degrees in science. Please explain, How is encouraging society to have only 2 (birthed) kids per family, "hatred"? This is an amazingly irrational response, as are many other similar ones in this blog.

[glockman]

05:36 PM on 03/27/2010

it's not hatred, it's social engineering. And it's pretty much the opposite of free decision making.

[ilovecandy]

11:15 PM on 03/26/2010

Just think of it this way. Earth is a giant fish tank, and humans are the fish. Not to mention we have the plants, the animals, etc. Now a fish tank has limits, you can't 200 fish in a small fish tank, they'll run out of oxygen and die. If you had another tank, you could move them over to that one, but we don't have another earth. We have one. One earth, or one fish tank can only support so many people, uncomfortably. If you take away all the big cars, big houses, and put a house on every piece of land (first we'd be dead because there'd be no oxygen, and no food, etc, but less supposed we weren't). Even then you'd have a limit.

Unless you believe the planet earth can support an unlimited amount of people.

[glockman]

05:37 PM on 03/27/2010

Um, when a fish starts reasoning, painting and creating great pieces of literature, get back to me.

When a fish starts building great architectural structures and discovering the cure for cancer, we'll talk.

[Just4theHalibut]

09:27 PM on 03/26/2010

Jane Goodall is the closest person I can think of, to a saint on earth. She is a brilliant scientist as well as a humanitarian. She has documented the results when adjacent chimpanzee groups outgrow their food supplies-- war, infanticide, cannabilism, starvation, stress-induced illnesses. Humans are only a couple percent of the genome different, from these cousins of ours.

Oh yeah, and she has one child.

[glockman]

05:38 PM on 03/27/2010

"Oh yeah, and she has one child."

By her own choice. Who is she to choose for someone else?

[BBinMT]

03:01 AM on 03/29/2010

How about being responsible and only have one or two.

[realpolitic]

09:21 PM on 03/26/2010

Perhaps the science deniers who deny climate change can have fewer kids.