The Copenhagen meetings did not focus on the one issue that drives our demand for fossil fuels and results in all the CO2. That is human population growth.
If I was trying to be controversial, I might suggest that far from trying to conserve energy and trying to develop renewable sources of energy we should be opposing these changes. Why? Because increasing the energy supply and keeping prices down will simply allow the human population to carry on increasing. How? Because cheap energy allows food to be grown in an otherwise unsustainable way, and that in turn will slow down the rate of human mortality from malnutrition (one estimate I read was that 18 million deaths a year are related to malnutrition, and that figure is probably rising). A cynical view, perhaps. But realistic from a biological perspective. Read Malthus if you are not convinced
However one looks at it, the human population cannot continue to increase indefinitely. Nor can economic growth be sustained indefinitely. History is bound to repeat itself, and in the past numerous civilizations have over-reached their resources, and crashed. It is bound to happen again. To me that is as certain as death and taxes. For millennia famine, disease and war have been a natural part of the human population control mechanism. And if they are repressed for too long then eventually they re-appear with catastrophic results. History teaches that very basic lesson, which Malthus understood all too clearly. And it will happen again, unless an alternative method of population control is implemented.
Britain is set to have a population of over 70 million, all squezzed into an area of less than 94,000 square miles, or just over 60 million acres. With large areas unsuitable for farming, and with so much of the prime agricultural land now covered with roads, buildings and other infrastructure, there is considerably less than a quarter of an acre per person for growing food. Clearly unsustainable -- and yet this is presumably the lifestyle that is being advocated for the so called less developed countries.
It is time for a wake-up call. The British government still subsidises children, millions of pounds are spent on infertility treatments, at a time when a significant decrease in the human population is essential in the medium term, if not in the short term. And in the long term, without population control, nature will intervene.
Meanwhile, every 11 seconds another person (net) is added to the population of the USA -- one of the most energy hungry nations in the world. That's nearly 3 million a year, all demanding economic growth and masses of cheap energy.
The politicians were certainly fiddling while Copehagen was burning.....
Showing posts with label Human Population Crisis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Human Population Crisis. Show all posts
Monday, 16 November 2009
Thursday, 29 October 2009
Water, water everywhere
The Fourth plinth in London's Trafalgar Square was used by a student from Ipswich to highlight water awareness. Dressed as a toilet, he carried a placard stating that "water and sanitation are human rights". PR from Water Aid, the charity backing him claimed that 2.5 billion people lack basic sanitation. Presumably this implies that everyone has a right to a flush toilet.
A great idea, But has anyone actually given any thought as to where all the water for this human right will come from? Or where all the toilet paper that will be flushed down these toilets will come from? Or where all the effluent will go? Like so many of the quick fix solutions to world poverty being inflicted on the less developed world, virtually no thought is given to the environmental impacts. I have tried to gather data on this topic, and would be really interested to see copies of any correspondence relating to EIAs [Environmental Impact Assessments]; I know for a fact that many aid charities do not carry them out, so it is always worth writing to charities to find out if they carry them out, and with what results. What is the Environmental impact of changing traditional farming methods to 'improved' western technology? What is the environmental impact of using artificial fertilisers, pesticides? What is the environmental impact of deep boreholes for water?
I do not have a problem with emergency aid, following natural or even man-made disasters, but long-term, so called development aid, is often ill thought out, with little or no thought about the long-term environmental consequences. And providing water for everyone to use with western style profligacy is one of the biggest potential disasters I can think of. Meanwhile, we at the World Land Trust are working with several of our partner NGOs, to conserve watersheds. They are just as important as the tropical forests that often grow around them.
Is a flush toilet a basic human right or is it a luxury?
A great idea, But has anyone actually given any thought as to where all the water for this human right will come from? Or where all the toilet paper that will be flushed down these toilets will come from? Or where all the effluent will go? Like so many of the quick fix solutions to world poverty being inflicted on the less developed world, virtually no thought is given to the environmental impacts. I have tried to gather data on this topic, and would be really interested to see copies of any correspondence relating to EIAs [Environmental Impact Assessments]; I know for a fact that many aid charities do not carry them out, so it is always worth writing to charities to find out if they carry them out, and with what results. What is the Environmental impact of changing traditional farming methods to 'improved' western technology? What is the environmental impact of using artificial fertilisers, pesticides? What is the environmental impact of deep boreholes for water?
I do not have a problem with emergency aid, following natural or even man-made disasters, but long-term, so called development aid, is often ill thought out, with little or no thought about the long-term environmental consequences. And providing water for everyone to use with western style profligacy is one of the biggest potential disasters I can think of. Meanwhile, we at the World Land Trust are working with several of our partner NGOs, to conserve watersheds. They are just as important as the tropical forests that often grow around them.
Is a flush toilet a basic human right or is it a luxury?
Tuesday, 5 May 2009
Dead Aid by Dambisa Moyo
Dead Aid is a brilliant summary of some of the views I have been espousing for many years. The Authoress, unlike me, can back it all up with facts; she is a Zambian, who has worked in the World Bank, and her book is a devastating indictment of foreign aid in Africa. I am sure all the government aid agencies will dismiss it -- they would wouldn't they? And I am sure Oxfam, Christian Aid, St Geldorf and all the others trying to 'Wipe out Poverty in Africa' will dismiss it. And I am sure not every little detail is interpreted exactly right. But I am also sure that the overall thesis has hit the nail on the head.
Foreign aid is the cause of corruption and poverty in most of Africa. And anyone who thinks otherwise should read this book. Before giving another cent or Penny read it.
Emergency aid is one thing, and will always be needed, but so-called 'development aid' is quite a different matter, and this is the aid that actually helps prevent real development, and feeds corruption. And it also has often huge benefits to the donors. In fact after reading Moyo's account it seems that these are the only real long term beneficiaries: pop-stars, politicians and donors get a real feelgood kick out of it, meanwhile the poor get poorer, and the rich get richer.
As she points out, governments seem all to eager to listen to Bono and Geldorf -- but how often do they listen to those who actually live and try to work in Sub-Saharan Africa? Why should a pop-star know more than them?
I would actually go slightly further than Moyo, as I see elements of cultural imperialism in most aid programmes. Pushing cows that produce more milk into African economies, where the majority of the inhabitants are lactose intolerant is a classic example. I would also argue that there is little difference between the cultural imperialism of the 21st century and the Missionary zeal of the 19th century. The end results are not dissimilar: a form of ethnicide.
Foreign aid is the cause of corruption and poverty in most of Africa. And anyone who thinks otherwise should read this book. Before giving another cent or Penny read it.
Emergency aid is one thing, and will always be needed, but so-called 'development aid' is quite a different matter, and this is the aid that actually helps prevent real development, and feeds corruption. And it also has often huge benefits to the donors. In fact after reading Moyo's account it seems that these are the only real long term beneficiaries: pop-stars, politicians and donors get a real feelgood kick out of it, meanwhile the poor get poorer, and the rich get richer.
As she points out, governments seem all to eager to listen to Bono and Geldorf -- but how often do they listen to those who actually live and try to work in Sub-Saharan Africa? Why should a pop-star know more than them?
I would actually go slightly further than Moyo, as I see elements of cultural imperialism in most aid programmes. Pushing cows that produce more milk into African economies, where the majority of the inhabitants are lactose intolerant is a classic example. I would also argue that there is little difference between the cultural imperialism of the 21st century and the Missionary zeal of the 19th century. The end results are not dissimilar: a form of ethnicide.
Thursday, 30 April 2009
IUCN in retreat
IUCN -- the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources-- has just had a retreat. So I read in their newsletter today. And I always find the concept faintly worrying. To start with the idea of being in retreat has a distinctly negative connotation. And even if I sweep that aside, it then has a rather austere, monastic inference. Neither appeals to me. And while it might be a useful function, for the staff and board members to get together, I am not sure it is something that deserves publicity. Cynics in the conservation world have suggested that IUCN stands for International Union for Conversation about Nature, or even worse, I Used to Conserve Nature. The fact remains that too many meetings, with too many delegates are what IUCN has become known for. We need fewer conferences, fewer meetings, less research and more action. Much more action.
Needless to say there was no mention of the most serious of all conservation issues: human populations. IUCN seems to avoid this much of the time. But I was glad to hear over the weekend, that Sir David Attenborough has beome patron of the Optimum Population Trust.
Needless to say there was no mention of the most serious of all conservation issues: human populations. IUCN seems to avoid this much of the time. But I was glad to hear over the weekend, that Sir David Attenborough has beome patron of the Optimum Population Trust.
Tuesday, 7 April 2009
Wildlife, rainforests and vegetarianism
A few of WLT's supporters have suggested that being vegetarian is a way of saving wildlife and rainforests. As is so often the case, the answers are never that simple.
I was brought up a vegetarian (unusual in the 1940s and 50s), but changed in the 1960s to an omnivore diet. The fact is that while there is no question that we do not need to eat the vast quantities of meat that 'developed' (i.e. rich) societies eat, an omnivore diet actually makes as much sense as a vegetarian diet. Grazing sheep on upland pastures can be an efficient way of maintaining interesting habitats, and even in vegetarian areas of India cows are kept to provide manures.
More controversial is the fact that huge areas of rainforest have been devastated for the production of soya beans, which are among the mainstays of vegetarian and vegan foods. The more responsible soya producers only use organic soya, but even those do often get it from areas that were historically rainforest.
My personal belief is that the answer does not lie in vegetarianism per se, but in eating very limited amounts of high quality (organic, pesticide free, locally produced, cruelty free) meat, and locally produced vegetables when ever possible. But international trade is also important to benefit the poorer parts of the world, so ethically and environmentally friendly rice and other cereals etc should not be ignored.
Unfortunately there is no simple answer, other than simply reducing the size of the human population and its aspirations to ever increasing material wealth.
I was brought up a vegetarian (unusual in the 1940s and 50s), but changed in the 1960s to an omnivore diet. The fact is that while there is no question that we do not need to eat the vast quantities of meat that 'developed' (i.e. rich) societies eat, an omnivore diet actually makes as much sense as a vegetarian diet. Grazing sheep on upland pastures can be an efficient way of maintaining interesting habitats, and even in vegetarian areas of India cows are kept to provide manures.
More controversial is the fact that huge areas of rainforest have been devastated for the production of soya beans, which are among the mainstays of vegetarian and vegan foods. The more responsible soya producers only use organic soya, but even those do often get it from areas that were historically rainforest.
My personal belief is that the answer does not lie in vegetarianism per se, but in eating very limited amounts of high quality (organic, pesticide free, locally produced, cruelty free) meat, and locally produced vegetables when ever possible. But international trade is also important to benefit the poorer parts of the world, so ethically and environmentally friendly rice and other cereals etc should not be ignored.
Unfortunately there is no simple answer, other than simply reducing the size of the human population and its aspirations to ever increasing material wealth.
Thursday, 26 March 2009
Stanley Johnson I presume
A few days ago I read in London's Evening Standard a review of an autobiography of Stanley Johnson, father of London's Mayor Boris. I knew and worked with Stanley Johnson many, many years ago when he was one of the great advocates not only of whale conservation, but also the Mediterranean Monk Seal. As a very active European parliamentarian, Stanley was always a memorable raconteur as well, but one thing I had almost completely forgotten until I read the review of his autobiography was that he was also a leading advocate of the need to take human populations' seriously. If only the world had listened to him. Now, millions and millions of humans on the planet later, the problem is almost insoluble.
Monday, 9 March 2009
Africa, Goats, Oxfam, Christian Aid and impending disaster
I have just returned from Africa for a series of meetings with local conservation groups, and the World Land Trust will probably be supporting some of the important initiatives by the NGO sector in both Kenya and Tanzania. Land is under considerable pressure, and one of the main reasons is the rapid spread of agriculture, and to a lesser degree the mechanisation of agriculture. Added to this the dramatic and almost out of control increase in the human population has meant that more and more land once being cultivated is taken over for housing, and other forms of urban ‘development’. All this means there is a significant decrease in the area of grasslands, open woodlands and other habitats where once domestic livestock as well as wildlife once grazed. Add to that the fact that in the past 50 years the numbers of domestic goats, sheep, cattle, camels and other grazing animals have increased even faster than the human population, and it is hardly surprising that overgrazing is widespread.
But still foreign aid charities sell the idea that having lots of goats or even camels, is a way out of poverty for Africa. Of course for the individual that gets a goat or a camel, it probably is. But since none of the donor organisations appear to carry out Environmental Impact Assessments of their projects, little is known about either the impact of all these animals or the impact of the message that is being delivered. I am more concerned about the latter. If the developed world aid charities go around pretending that goats can be bred in unlimited quantities as a solution to poverty, they should at least be able to produce some evidence. In most African pastoralist societies, goats and other livestock are a form of wealth, and accumulated. Camels could be considered as a ‘rolls royce’ symbol in some societies. So dishing out livestock to the poorer members of society may have social implications that the donors are unaware of. Certainly when I met with representatives of Oxfam (one of the few organisations even prepared to discuss the issue) they were unable to point me in the direction of any research into this area.
And my final criticism of the goat and cow brigade is the way they market the idea that they are often providing ‘improved’ breed. I.e ones that give higher milk yields. On my visit to East Africa, I saw very few Ankole cattle this time, but loads of the ‘Holstein’ types. Is it really a good idea to replace cattle that have co-evolved with their local herders, to be suitable for the local conditions, with those that have been evolved to suit the conditions of northern Europe? I don’t know the answer, but I do know that in Europe there is considerable concern of the loss of genetic diversity in domestic livestock, and societies have sprung up to conserve rare breeds. But rare breeds are being created even faster in Africa, with very little concern by the aid agencies. I also know that the introduction of modern veterinary practices also produces short term gains, but may also wipe out long term, much cheaper husbandry practices, as it has done in the north. As a simple example, and one of my hobby horses, in England good husbandry was used to largely control parasites in livestock, but since the introduction of ivermectin and other pesticides, it has been easy to ‘clean’ animals. But this does not take into account the fact that those pesticides also wipe out a huge swathe of other invertebrates, particularly scatophagous insects. Vultures are pretty well extinct in India, entirely because of veterinary medicines, soon to be used more widely in Africa perhaps. The only winners are the northern hemisphere drug companies.
I am not the first to criticise the aid agencies, and certainly won’t be the last. But my recent visit to Africa certainly confirmed my worst fears. Aid charities far from helping solve the issues of poverty, are probably exacerbating it, despite their good intentions. And I can list a few of the reasons why I believe this is the case
1. Most interventions do not appear to have a clear exit strategy
2. Most interventions rely on western, and often inappropriate, technology
3. Most interventions are designed to make the donors feel good, not deliver the maximum long term benefits to the recipient
4. Very little is being done to address the real cause of poverty, i.e the explosive growth in human populations.
5. Aid encourages corruption
6. Aid absolves governments of responsibility for their own populations
7. Many aid interventions make the recipients dependent on long-term support from the donor countries and create debt.
I realise that for many of the charities and charity gift catalogues, 'Buying a goat' is only a cynical way of playing on emotions to raise funds for worthy causes. I know, because the small print often says so. But what really concerns me is the message that is being spread across the Internet, that increasing the volume of livestock across Africa, will help solve the continents appalling problems. I asked all the African conservationists I met, and all agreed that the main cause of habitat degradation was over-grazing and the spread of agriculture into marginal lands. Both of which are being actively encouraged by aid charities. This is not simply a wildlife issue. It means that short-term gains are going to lead to even greater problems for humans in the not too distant future.
I urge my readers to ask as many of the aid charities as possible to publish their Environmental Impact Assessments, not just for goat projects but for all projects. I think you will be surprised how few actually exist.
But still foreign aid charities sell the idea that having lots of goats or even camels, is a way out of poverty for Africa. Of course for the individual that gets a goat or a camel, it probably is. But since none of the donor organisations appear to carry out Environmental Impact Assessments of their projects, little is known about either the impact of all these animals or the impact of the message that is being delivered. I am more concerned about the latter. If the developed world aid charities go around pretending that goats can be bred in unlimited quantities as a solution to poverty, they should at least be able to produce some evidence. In most African pastoralist societies, goats and other livestock are a form of wealth, and accumulated. Camels could be considered as a ‘rolls royce’ symbol in some societies. So dishing out livestock to the poorer members of society may have social implications that the donors are unaware of. Certainly when I met with representatives of Oxfam (one of the few organisations even prepared to discuss the issue) they were unable to point me in the direction of any research into this area.
And my final criticism of the goat and cow brigade is the way they market the idea that they are often providing ‘improved’ breed. I.e ones that give higher milk yields. On my visit to East Africa, I saw very few Ankole cattle this time, but loads of the ‘Holstein’ types. Is it really a good idea to replace cattle that have co-evolved with their local herders, to be suitable for the local conditions, with those that have been evolved to suit the conditions of northern Europe? I don’t know the answer, but I do know that in Europe there is considerable concern of the loss of genetic diversity in domestic livestock, and societies have sprung up to conserve rare breeds. But rare breeds are being created even faster in Africa, with very little concern by the aid agencies. I also know that the introduction of modern veterinary practices also produces short term gains, but may also wipe out long term, much cheaper husbandry practices, as it has done in the north. As a simple example, and one of my hobby horses, in England good husbandry was used to largely control parasites in livestock, but since the introduction of ivermectin and other pesticides, it has been easy to ‘clean’ animals. But this does not take into account the fact that those pesticides also wipe out a huge swathe of other invertebrates, particularly scatophagous insects. Vultures are pretty well extinct in India, entirely because of veterinary medicines, soon to be used more widely in Africa perhaps. The only winners are the northern hemisphere drug companies.
I am not the first to criticise the aid agencies, and certainly won’t be the last. But my recent visit to Africa certainly confirmed my worst fears. Aid charities far from helping solve the issues of poverty, are probably exacerbating it, despite their good intentions. And I can list a few of the reasons why I believe this is the case
1. Most interventions do not appear to have a clear exit strategy
2. Most interventions rely on western, and often inappropriate, technology
3. Most interventions are designed to make the donors feel good, not deliver the maximum long term benefits to the recipient
4. Very little is being done to address the real cause of poverty, i.e the explosive growth in human populations.
5. Aid encourages corruption
6. Aid absolves governments of responsibility for their own populations
7. Many aid interventions make the recipients dependent on long-term support from the donor countries and create debt.
I realise that for many of the charities and charity gift catalogues, 'Buying a goat' is only a cynical way of playing on emotions to raise funds for worthy causes. I know, because the small print often says so. But what really concerns me is the message that is being spread across the Internet, that increasing the volume of livestock across Africa, will help solve the continents appalling problems. I asked all the African conservationists I met, and all agreed that the main cause of habitat degradation was over-grazing and the spread of agriculture into marginal lands. Both of which are being actively encouraged by aid charities. This is not simply a wildlife issue. It means that short-term gains are going to lead to even greater problems for humans in the not too distant future.
I urge my readers to ask as many of the aid charities as possible to publish their Environmental Impact Assessments, not just for goat projects but for all projects. I think you will be surprised how few actually exist.
Thursday, 5 February 2009
Living in Balance with Nature. Is it possible?
Re-reading my recent Anonymous critic, I noted the claim that "...in biblical times people had great respect for animals and their environment..." * This is a claim a bit like the one often trotted out that indigenous people live in harmony with nature -- the modern version of the Noble Savage from the age of enlightenment. It's a great and noble concept. Unfortunately there is very little empirical evidence to support the idea. Throughout history, humans have lived at the edge of their technology. The reason that most indigenous tribes in South America haven't exterminated the wildlife is they didn't have guns. The reason the forest was not felled is they didn't have chainsaws. And in 'biblical' times every effort was being made to wipe out lions, wolves and other wildlife that threatened humans or their crops. I firmly believe that it is essential to involve indigenous communities and all other local communities in conservation efforts. But I also believe they should not be seen through rose-coloured spectacles. One of the reasons that humans lived in balance in the past was because they had high mortality rates -- and not just from disease, it was often inter tribal warfare, geronticide, or infanticide. I don't believe there would be much support for encouraging a return to this as a way of achieving sustainability.
The WLT is helping fund projects in South America that involve indigenous communities and other local peoples in the decision-making process that conserves land and wildlife, because without local support the long term prospects will never be good. Hunters turned wardens are just one way of using local knowledge, but we believe it is even more important to involve all local people at as many levels as possible. Imposing conservation from the outside can only ever be effective in the short-term, and is likely to leave a legacy which does not help the long term.
I am about to travel to Kenya and Tanzania, to see if there is any way the WLT can assist local conservation initiatives -- and both countries have numerous examples of the problems caused by conservation being pushed from the top down, as a legacy of good intentions during the colonial era. It is not simply a case of bottom up initiatives, which can often result in simply creating a new and different problem. More a case of full participation with all the stakeholders (to use the pc jargon).
If any of my readers want to support conservation in Africa, now is your chance -- deatils to follow when I return, after 15 February.
*I am not sure when biblical times were. Presumably when people in the bible were alive or when the authors were alive, so up to about 300 AD?
The WLT is helping fund projects in South America that involve indigenous communities and other local peoples in the decision-making process that conserves land and wildlife, because without local support the long term prospects will never be good. Hunters turned wardens are just one way of using local knowledge, but we believe it is even more important to involve all local people at as many levels as possible. Imposing conservation from the outside can only ever be effective in the short-term, and is likely to leave a legacy which does not help the long term.
I am about to travel to Kenya and Tanzania, to see if there is any way the WLT can assist local conservation initiatives -- and both countries have numerous examples of the problems caused by conservation being pushed from the top down, as a legacy of good intentions during the colonial era. It is not simply a case of bottom up initiatives, which can often result in simply creating a new and different problem. More a case of full participation with all the stakeholders (to use the pc jargon).
If any of my readers want to support conservation in Africa, now is your chance -- deatils to follow when I return, after 15 February.
*I am not sure when biblical times were. Presumably when people in the bible were alive or when the authors were alive, so up to about 300 AD?
Tuesday, 27 January 2009
Sir David Attenborough Speaks out on God
Compulsory reading:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/27/david-attenborough-science
Sir David is very outspoken on his views about God -- views with which I personally entirely concur. I am often told that I should not let my views on religion be known as it can alienate those who have deep religious beliefs. But since I see religion as having a significant bearing on our attitude to wildlife and nature, this is simply not possible. The idea that man was given dominion over nature is an anathema to me. And almost all opposition to birth control (in its various forms) has a religious basis. I do not have any issue with those who have religious beliefs as long as they keep them to themselves. For that matter I don't really mind if anyone wants to believe in ghosts, UFOs fairies or elves. They are all just about as rational as each other, and those that do believe in them often do so passionately. But that does not mean that they exist. Evolution is demonstrable. Climate change is demonstrable. Habitat destruction is demonstrable, and actions based on such demonstrable events are rational. That is not true of anything based on a belief alone. Such actions are irrational.
It is demonstrable that the world's human population cannot grow infinitely. It is demonstrable that the rapidly increasing population is responsible for the destruction of nature. QED if we want to do something about the destruction of nature we MUST do something about rising human populations. Less than one thousand years ago, i.e. in Medieval Times, the human population of the entire world was probably less than that of present day Europe. Until a few months ago there were of course people who believed that economic growth could continue indefinitely. An irrational Belief. And if anyone believes that the human population can continue to increase at its present rate, they too will find there is another 'crunch' on its way.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/27/david-attenborough-science
Sir David is very outspoken on his views about God -- views with which I personally entirely concur. I am often told that I should not let my views on religion be known as it can alienate those who have deep religious beliefs. But since I see religion as having a significant bearing on our attitude to wildlife and nature, this is simply not possible. The idea that man was given dominion over nature is an anathema to me. And almost all opposition to birth control (in its various forms) has a religious basis. I do not have any issue with those who have religious beliefs as long as they keep them to themselves. For that matter I don't really mind if anyone wants to believe in ghosts, UFOs fairies or elves. They are all just about as rational as each other, and those that do believe in them often do so passionately. But that does not mean that they exist. Evolution is demonstrable. Climate change is demonstrable. Habitat destruction is demonstrable, and actions based on such demonstrable events are rational. That is not true of anything based on a belief alone. Such actions are irrational.
It is demonstrable that the world's human population cannot grow infinitely. It is demonstrable that the rapidly increasing population is responsible for the destruction of nature. QED if we want to do something about the destruction of nature we MUST do something about rising human populations. Less than one thousand years ago, i.e. in Medieval Times, the human population of the entire world was probably less than that of present day Europe. Until a few months ago there were of course people who believed that economic growth could continue indefinitely. An irrational Belief. And if anyone believes that the human population can continue to increase at its present rate, they too will find there is another 'crunch' on its way.
Friday, 2 January 2009
Buy land. Save wildlife. 27 years crying in the wilderness
I was doing some filing over Christmas, and I came across some newspaper cuttings dating from September 1981. I had created a furore by giving a paper at the Annual Meeting of the British Association in which I pointed out that while millions of pounds were being spent on preserving post-Pleistocene relics such as the Giant Panda, thousands of species were going extinct in the rainforests.
According to a report in the Times of the 5th September 1981 I "called for a radical change in the approach of conservationists, and urged them to move away from funding research in favour of acquiring land to protect species...." At the time I was the Executive Secretary of the Fauna & Flora Preservation Society (now Fauna & Flora International), and my comments on the fate of the Panda led to calls for my resignation.
However it was not until five years later that I left the FFPS, and soon after that I did put my money where my mouth was, and founded what has become the World Land Trust. But in the intervening quarter of a century the situation has continued to deteriorate, and we are still a voice in the wilderness (what is left of it). Economic crises have come and gone, the world's human population grows ever more out of control, poverty increases in Africa, more and more aid is poured in to poorer countries, arms flood the world. And millions of dollars, yen, pounds, euros etc, are still being spent on (often pointless) research into endangered species. All of this continues, but wilderness, wild places natural habitats also continue to disappear at an even more alarming rate.
So. Despite all the gloom and doom, if you are inclined to make New Year resolutions, can I urge all readers to spread the word? If we want to conserve wildlife for the future, there is only one way that is truly realistic: save habitats.
The World Land Trust has shown how it can be done. We can never do it on our own, but our world-wide network of small, dynamic NGOs is helping spread the word. Our target for 2009 is to raise at least £5 million. Next to nothing in the grand scheme of things. But if much of that comes from donations of £50 or £100, and if the rest comes from the corporate world, the multiplier effect is significant. And if it is spent through strong and integrated partnerships, then it is multiplied even further.
I was recently asked why the WLT had become so successful over the past few years. The answer is very simple: Because we are successful and transparent. Success breeds success, and we can demonstrate some of the most successful conservation projects , some of the the most cost effective projects, and some of the most sustainable projects. Others are now copying us, with varying degrees of success. But our model is certainly effective.
But PLEASE HELP 2009, OUR 20TH ANNIVERSARY, BE OUR MOST SUCCESSFUL YEAR SO FAR.
According to a report in the Times of the 5th September 1981 I "called for a radical change in the approach of conservationists, and urged them to move away from funding research in favour of acquiring land to protect species...." At the time I was the Executive Secretary of the Fauna & Flora Preservation Society (now Fauna & Flora International), and my comments on the fate of the Panda led to calls for my resignation.
However it was not until five years later that I left the FFPS, and soon after that I did put my money where my mouth was, and founded what has become the World Land Trust. But in the intervening quarter of a century the situation has continued to deteriorate, and we are still a voice in the wilderness (what is left of it). Economic crises have come and gone, the world's human population grows ever more out of control, poverty increases in Africa, more and more aid is poured in to poorer countries, arms flood the world. And millions of dollars, yen, pounds, euros etc, are still being spent on (often pointless) research into endangered species. All of this continues, but wilderness, wild places natural habitats also continue to disappear at an even more alarming rate.
So. Despite all the gloom and doom, if you are inclined to make New Year resolutions, can I urge all readers to spread the word? If we want to conserve wildlife for the future, there is only one way that is truly realistic: save habitats.
The World Land Trust has shown how it can be done. We can never do it on our own, but our world-wide network of small, dynamic NGOs is helping spread the word. Our target for 2009 is to raise at least £5 million. Next to nothing in the grand scheme of things. But if much of that comes from donations of £50 or £100, and if the rest comes from the corporate world, the multiplier effect is significant. And if it is spent through strong and integrated partnerships, then it is multiplied even further.
I was recently asked why the WLT had become so successful over the past few years. The answer is very simple: Because we are successful and transparent. Success breeds success, and we can demonstrate some of the most successful conservation projects , some of the the most cost effective projects, and some of the most sustainable projects. Others are now copying us, with varying degrees of success. But our model is certainly effective.
But PLEASE HELP 2009, OUR 20TH ANNIVERSARY, BE OUR MOST SUCCESSFUL YEAR SO FAR.
Wednesday, 17 December 2008
Stop Breeding more humans: Save wildlife.
Those familiar with my regular rants about politicians who ignore the human population crisis will understand why I like this website: http://www.vhemt.org/
Those not familiar who like wildlife, think the planet's in a mess shopuld also take a look.
Those not familiar who like wildlife, think the planet's in a mess shopuld also take a look.
Credit cruch and good news
While the worldwide credit crunch could undoubtedly have a serious impact on charities like the World Land Trust, there could be a silver lining. Ever since the beginning of 2008 there have apparently been declines in the value of real estate; and this means that the cash the WLT raises can potentially go a lot further. There is no better time than the present for the WLT to work with its ever increasing network of partners to spread its network of nature reserves. If it's all added up, between the WLT, WLT US and all our partners, there are probably somewhere in excess of five million acres under protection, that might otherwise have been lost. But even this huge number is a drop in the ocean compared with what is needed. However, in the 20 years since the WLT first started to help buy land we have seen dozens of other groups start up, and seen governments take the issue more seriously. In many ways this is the really important benefit of saving land with the WLT: the fact that it sets a really good example. Our successes encourage others. It is, as one of Council Members, Simon Barnes, recently described, the leverage effect. Punching above our weight.
That is not to let governments off the hook for ignoring the real problem that is driving deforestation, carbon excess etc. Human population growth. And greed. Last night I watched a video of a BBC TV production of Anthony Trollope's The way we Live Now. So pertinent and up to date. And that rapacious greed, that is destroying the planet, also leads governments to allow expansion of airports such as Stanstead, not because Britain needs extra capacity, but simply to stop other European countries getting the traffic. Greed. Pure unadulterated greed, is unfortunately what seems to be the great motivator of the 21st century. Most people in the developed world have material wealth several orders of magnitude greater than the poorer parts of the world. But still we want more. And with our population still growing at an alarming rate, only a major pandemic of disease (or similar catastrophe) can reverse this, unless governments take the issue seriously -- really seriously and not just lip service. But there is absolutely no sign of it. And even the world's biggest conservation conference (IUCN in Barcelona 2008) did not exactly put it at the top of its agenda.
That is not to let governments off the hook for ignoring the real problem that is driving deforestation, carbon excess etc. Human population growth. And greed. Last night I watched a video of a BBC TV production of Anthony Trollope's The way we Live Now. So pertinent and up to date. And that rapacious greed, that is destroying the planet, also leads governments to allow expansion of airports such as Stanstead, not because Britain needs extra capacity, but simply to stop other European countries getting the traffic. Greed. Pure unadulterated greed, is unfortunately what seems to be the great motivator of the 21st century. Most people in the developed world have material wealth several orders of magnitude greater than the poorer parts of the world. But still we want more. And with our population still growing at an alarming rate, only a major pandemic of disease (or similar catastrophe) can reverse this, unless governments take the issue seriously -- really seriously and not just lip service. But there is absolutely no sign of it. And even the world's biggest conservation conference (IUCN in Barcelona 2008) did not exactly put it at the top of its agenda.
Monday, 8 December 2008
The endangered lion
Lion numbers have plummetted from around 450,000 ca. 50 years ago to around 20,000. When I was the secretary for the Fauna and Flora Preservation Society some 20 years ago I suggested to the Council that the lion was in serious difficulty,and that the society (now known as Fauna and Flora International) should initiate a conservation programme -- a proposal that was turned down. I pointed out at the time that the lion together with the unicorn was on the royal coat of arms. In fact, one of the origins of the unicorn has been suggested as the Arabian or White Oryx -- a species saved from extinction by an initiative of the Fauna Preservation Society (as it was then).
But still lion numbers decline, and will continue to do so as more and more of their territory is taken over by humans and their ever expanding flocks of domestic livestock (particularly if charities continue to encourage more and more goats as Christmas presents). The fragmentation of their habitat is the real problem. While lions are not Territorial like most cats, they do need large numbers of prey, each time habitat is fragmented, the survival of lions is threatened. And because they are large predators, and both humans and cattle, as well as sheep and goats are all well within their natural prey range, conflict is inevitable. Lions were exterminated in Europe over 2000 years ago, and throughout much of the Levant and Middle East by the early 20th century. India has lost all but one tiny population. The Cape Lion has gone, and so has the North African population. The rest are pretty well doomed, unless we can create corridor ts between the fragmented patchwork of national parks and other protected areas. The World Land Trust is pioneering the creation of corridors, but as yet has not been able to do so in Africa. We probably need at least $2 million to kick start such work. Any Offers?
But still lion numbers decline, and will continue to do so as more and more of their territory is taken over by humans and their ever expanding flocks of domestic livestock (particularly if charities continue to encourage more and more goats as Christmas presents). The fragmentation of their habitat is the real problem. While lions are not Territorial like most cats, they do need large numbers of prey, each time habitat is fragmented, the survival of lions is threatened. And because they are large predators, and both humans and cattle, as well as sheep and goats are all well within their natural prey range, conflict is inevitable. Lions were exterminated in Europe over 2000 years ago, and throughout much of the Levant and Middle East by the early 20th century. India has lost all but one tiny population. The Cape Lion has gone, and so has the North African population. The rest are pretty well doomed, unless we can create corridor ts between the fragmented patchwork of national parks and other protected areas. The World Land Trust is pioneering the creation of corridors, but as yet has not been able to do so in Africa. We probably need at least $2 million to kick start such work. Any Offers?
Wednesday, 22 October 2008
Population, human population. That's the problem
Why, oh why do the politicians ignore it? The real problem behind all the crises facing the world is not a shortage of oil. It is not the credit crunch, it is not global warming. It is the thing that fuels all of these, It is the ever expanding human population and its ever increasing greed. The rich get richer, until many are what can only be described as obscenely rich, while the poor not only get poorer, but there are more of them. Governments and aid agencies pour millions into "poverty alleviation" in Africa, and meanwhile the population continues to grow, natural resources are further depleted, and wildlife disappears. Human population growth cannot continue indefinitely, so why not call a halt now?
Tuesday, 16 September 2008
The Population Bomb. And the causes of poverty. An update
Readers of my blog, will be familiar with my rants about how we are ignoring the real issues that drive climate change, endanger species, destroy habitats: i.e. rapidly increasing human populations.
I have just returned from an extensive visit to South America, and unlike Africa, this is a part of the world that is experiencing rapid economic growth. Increasing prosperity. And even more rapid destruction of natural resources.
I was also able to see first hand the results of doing-good by aid charities and missionaries. Not a pleasant experience. And it reminded me of the response I got from one of the world's largest aid charities when I asked them what their policy on human populations was. Here it is, verbatim:
Thank you for your e-mail. Christian Aid does not have a specific policy on population. Our mission is to help people in developing countries improve their lives. We do this by exposing and tackling the root cause of poverty and injustice worldwide. We support and fund projects in developing countries that enable communities build sustainable economies.
To me, it is utterly incomprehensible how an organisation delivering aid to human populations in the most impoverished areas of the world does not have a policy on something so indelibly linked with poverty. And of course, the root cause, which they claim to be tackling, is obviously unsustainable population growth.
And presumably the sustainable economies they are helping build, are based on the unsustainable market economies of the donor countries.
I have just returned from an extensive visit to South America, and unlike Africa, this is a part of the world that is experiencing rapid economic growth. Increasing prosperity. And even more rapid destruction of natural resources.
I was also able to see first hand the results of doing-good by aid charities and missionaries. Not a pleasant experience. And it reminded me of the response I got from one of the world's largest aid charities when I asked them what their policy on human populations was. Here it is, verbatim:
Thank you for your e-mail. Christian Aid does not have a specific policy on population. Our mission is to help people in developing countries improve their lives. We do this by exposing and tackling the root cause of poverty and injustice worldwide. We support and fund projects in developing countries that enable communities build sustainable economies.
To me, it is utterly incomprehensible how an organisation delivering aid to human populations in the most impoverished areas of the world does not have a policy on something so indelibly linked with poverty. And of course, the root cause, which they claim to be tackling, is obviously unsustainable population growth.
And presumably the sustainable economies they are helping build, are based on the unsustainable market economies of the donor countries.
Monday, 28 July 2008
Fuel and food myths
There is a panic in the press about rising fuel prices and rising food prices. This is misleading the public, because the reality is that for the past 40 years we have been living in a blip in history. We are now getting back to normality.
Historically, the basic necessities of life have consumed most of an average family's income. For hundreds of years, most of the income a family generated went on feeding, clothing and housing. But for the past 40 years, in Britain and Europe, all these commodities have been getting progressively cheaper and cheaper. But this reduction in cost was based on unsustainable premises.
I could argue that a lot of the western economy, based as it is on extreme capitalism, is under threat. Crocodile tears have been shed at the collapse, or near collapse, of financial institutions, but why should we care? What do they really contribute? When capitalism is taken to the extremes of globalisation, there are huge numbers of people making money out of doing absolutely nothing productive -- simply shifting money around (but of course somewhere, someone is almost certainly being exploited, as any old fashioned socialist can explain to you). I can't get too upset about this, except it does have a major impact on wildlife. It leads to ever more rapacious attacks on natural resources. Agriculture expands, to provide more and more, cheaper and cheaper food, for our wasteful societies. I recall a recent statistic that stated around 40% of food in the UK was wasted. No wonder the rainforests are being cut for soya plantations.
What's the answer? Forget switching off the TV, we need to be far less wasteful in many other really big ways. Forget the idea of constant economic growth. Forget the idea that everything should be as cheap as possible, and thrown away in a few months. And bring population growth to the top of the political agenda. More and more people are going to put more and more pressure on resources; resources such as healthcare and transport.
I will repeat myself (and continue to do so whenever possible): Governments are using climate change and all environmental issues to obfuscate the real issue, and that is human population growth. And they are also ignoring the fact that any increase in population in a developed country, has significantly more environmental impacts than in a very poor country.
Historically, the basic necessities of life have consumed most of an average family's income. For hundreds of years, most of the income a family generated went on feeding, clothing and housing. But for the past 40 years, in Britain and Europe, all these commodities have been getting progressively cheaper and cheaper. But this reduction in cost was based on unsustainable premises.
I could argue that a lot of the western economy, based as it is on extreme capitalism, is under threat. Crocodile tears have been shed at the collapse, or near collapse, of financial institutions, but why should we care? What do they really contribute? When capitalism is taken to the extremes of globalisation, there are huge numbers of people making money out of doing absolutely nothing productive -- simply shifting money around (but of course somewhere, someone is almost certainly being exploited, as any old fashioned socialist can explain to you). I can't get too upset about this, except it does have a major impact on wildlife. It leads to ever more rapacious attacks on natural resources. Agriculture expands, to provide more and more, cheaper and cheaper food, for our wasteful societies. I recall a recent statistic that stated around 40% of food in the UK was wasted. No wonder the rainforests are being cut for soya plantations.
What's the answer? Forget switching off the TV, we need to be far less wasteful in many other really big ways. Forget the idea of constant economic growth. Forget the idea that everything should be as cheap as possible, and thrown away in a few months. And bring population growth to the top of the political agenda. More and more people are going to put more and more pressure on resources; resources such as healthcare and transport.
I will repeat myself (and continue to do so whenever possible): Governments are using climate change and all environmental issues to obfuscate the real issue, and that is human population growth. And they are also ignoring the fact that any increase in population in a developed country, has significantly more environmental impacts than in a very poor country.
Thursday, 10 July 2008
Should we call for an end to aid in Africa?
I have written about the problems of foreign aid on many occasions, and am going to develop the theme I first put forward on 28/06/07. Does aid wipe out poverty? Thinking about it, raised another question in my mind. Does aid actually encourage poverty? I don't know the answer, and would welcome feedback, particularly from the agencies which promote it. But surely if aid agencies pump in millions of dollars worth of aid into a country, they are really taking away the responsibility for carrying out those vital humanitarian actions from the government of the country concerned. Many of the recipient countries have significant natural resources
Take Uganda, for example -- a country universally accepted as being fairly corrupt. In the most recent budget I could find (2007-2008) income of $3000 million was projected, of which 10.2 million was to be spent on anti-corruption -- an indictment in itself. But $19 million was spent import of arms -- the most recent figures according to:
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/ug-uganda/mil-military
According to this latter website Uganda spends 2.2% of GDP on military, but only 1.9%on health. Could it be that pumping foreign charitable aid into a country on a longterm basis is actually a cause of ongoing poverty? It certainly does not seem to be solving the problem. Finding out how much aid the NGOs etc were pumping into Uganda proved beyond my resources.
And is charitable aid, just another form of colonialism? Again, I don't know. But I I know huge quantities of western-manufactured medicines and equipment are purchased, and I see images of relief operations unloading vast packages of plastic bottles containing water. I do wonder if the bottled water industry is benefitting more than the aid recipients, and I am certain the pharmaceutical companies are profitting. Surely a lot of aid is simply encouraging the sort of consumerism that dominates our own societies? It certainly is not encouraging 'sustainable development' (what ever that is, if it's not an oxymoron).
There are other even more difficult questions that need to be answered: for instance, is it morally right to prevent the traditional forms of population limitation, to increase survival rates, but without introducing alternative forms of population control? I think it was Spike Milligan who once said that every loaf of bread sent to Africa should be inside a condom... or words to that effect.
These sorts of issues are swept under the carpet by aid agencies and politicians alike. But I think it is high time they were addressed. The quality of life is certainly not improving for the majority of Africans, and in the 40 years I have been taking an interest in it, the negative impacts on the natural environment and wildlife have spiralled out of control. And while putting more and more (often marginal)land under intensive agriculture may well make aid agencies feel happy, and will almost certainly line the pockets of agri-business, but is unlikely to help the starving of Africa. Anymore than increasing the out-of-control goat population of the continent will benefit the people living in marginal habitats.
It does seem that countries in South America and Asia, once just as poverty stricken as much of Africa, have fared much better. Why?
I wrote most of the above several weeks ago, and now I am on a sabbatical in Paraguay where I happened to watch a spokesperson for Oxfam on the BBC World News, justifying their activities in Africa. The problem was that nothing she said gave me any confidence that the aid agencies had thought through their activities properly. It was still full of the hyperbole of 'wiping out poverty' and worse too, almost everything the aid agencies say smacks of social Darwinism. That there is "progress" towards a "better" , more "advanced" society. As any biologist knows, that is not what evolution is about, though Soapy Sam Wilberforce tried to portray it as such. Organisms evolve to be fitter for their environment. They do not progress to a higher plane -- that was/is an anthropocentric view, based on the premise that there was/is God, them humans, then the rest of creation. Aid agencies are very little different to 19th century Christian missionaries. Convinced they know better, convinced that theirs is a better way of life. And what does long term aid actually achieve? One thing I do know it achieves: absolution of the governments concerned of their responsibilities -- those government invariably have the resources needed; they just choose to use them on lavish lifestyles, grandiose western-inspired 'development' schemes, or worst of all, armaments.
Finally, I would add that I am not discussing emergency aid, in the wake of disasters -- that, as recent events in Burma, China and elsewhere have demonstrated is an entirely separate issue.
And I am not coming to any conclusions, yet. But the more I see of the world, the more I doubt that most long-term international humanitarian aid has significant long-term benefits other than to the donors, and the economies of the donor countries. Clearly a controversial view, and one I would be happy to modify, should evidence present itself. Just as if aid agencies were to carry out environmental impact assessments before carrying out projects that impact the natural environment, I would have more respect for them. But at present I am more of the opinion that the majority modern the foreign aid programmes carried out by NGOs are far too similar to nineteenth century missionaries in both outlook and objectives. Of course this is a personal view, but I wonder how many people think this, even if they don't admit it? The world has become so politically correct, that it is often considered wrong to even question the staus quo.
Facts and figures contradicting some of my assertions would be welcome. Opinions are easy to find, but facts much more difficult.
Take Uganda, for example -- a country universally accepted as being fairly corrupt. In the most recent budget I could find (2007-2008) income of $3000 million was projected, of which 10.2 million was to be spent on anti-corruption -- an indictment in itself. But $19 million was spent import of arms -- the most recent figures according to:
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/ug-uganda/mil-military
According to this latter website Uganda spends 2.2% of GDP on military, but only 1.9%on health. Could it be that pumping foreign charitable aid into a country on a longterm basis is actually a cause of ongoing poverty? It certainly does not seem to be solving the problem. Finding out how much aid the NGOs etc were pumping into Uganda proved beyond my resources.
And is charitable aid, just another form of colonialism? Again, I don't know. But I I know huge quantities of western-manufactured medicines and equipment are purchased, and I see images of relief operations unloading vast packages of plastic bottles containing water. I do wonder if the bottled water industry is benefitting more than the aid recipients, and I am certain the pharmaceutical companies are profitting. Surely a lot of aid is simply encouraging the sort of consumerism that dominates our own societies? It certainly is not encouraging 'sustainable development' (what ever that is, if it's not an oxymoron).
There are other even more difficult questions that need to be answered: for instance, is it morally right to prevent the traditional forms of population limitation, to increase survival rates, but without introducing alternative forms of population control? I think it was Spike Milligan who once said that every loaf of bread sent to Africa should be inside a condom... or words to that effect.
These sorts of issues are swept under the carpet by aid agencies and politicians alike. But I think it is high time they were addressed. The quality of life is certainly not improving for the majority of Africans, and in the 40 years I have been taking an interest in it, the negative impacts on the natural environment and wildlife have spiralled out of control. And while putting more and more (often marginal)land under intensive agriculture may well make aid agencies feel happy, and will almost certainly line the pockets of agri-business, but is unlikely to help the starving of Africa. Anymore than increasing the out-of-control goat population of the continent will benefit the people living in marginal habitats.
It does seem that countries in South America and Asia, once just as poverty stricken as much of Africa, have fared much better. Why?
I wrote most of the above several weeks ago, and now I am on a sabbatical in Paraguay where I happened to watch a spokesperson for Oxfam on the BBC World News, justifying their activities in Africa. The problem was that nothing she said gave me any confidence that the aid agencies had thought through their activities properly. It was still full of the hyperbole of 'wiping out poverty' and worse too, almost everything the aid agencies say smacks of social Darwinism. That there is "progress" towards a "better" , more "advanced" society. As any biologist knows, that is not what evolution is about, though Soapy Sam Wilberforce tried to portray it as such. Organisms evolve to be fitter for their environment. They do not progress to a higher plane -- that was/is an anthropocentric view, based on the premise that there was/is God, them humans, then the rest of creation. Aid agencies are very little different to 19th century Christian missionaries. Convinced they know better, convinced that theirs is a better way of life. And what does long term aid actually achieve? One thing I do know it achieves: absolution of the governments concerned of their responsibilities -- those government invariably have the resources needed; they just choose to use them on lavish lifestyles, grandiose western-inspired 'development' schemes, or worst of all, armaments.
Finally, I would add that I am not discussing emergency aid, in the wake of disasters -- that, as recent events in Burma, China and elsewhere have demonstrated is an entirely separate issue.
And I am not coming to any conclusions, yet. But the more I see of the world, the more I doubt that most long-term international humanitarian aid has significant long-term benefits other than to the donors, and the economies of the donor countries. Clearly a controversial view, and one I would be happy to modify, should evidence present itself. Just as if aid agencies were to carry out environmental impact assessments before carrying out projects that impact the natural environment, I would have more respect for them. But at present I am more of the opinion that the majority modern the foreign aid programmes carried out by NGOs are far too similar to nineteenth century missionaries in both outlook and objectives. Of course this is a personal view, but I wonder how many people think this, even if they don't admit it? The world has become so politically correct, that it is often considered wrong to even question the staus quo.
Facts and figures contradicting some of my assertions would be welcome. Opinions are easy to find, but facts much more difficult.
Thursday, 8 May 2008
A Voice from the past
While doing some filing I came across a paper I had written 27 years ago. It was presented at a meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, and as I recall caused a considerable rumpus at the time. In fact the Chairman of the World Wildlife Fund contacted the Lord Craigton the Chairman of the Fauna Preservation Society (now FFI), and asked that I resign -- I was the Executive Secretary. It is difficult over a quarter of a century later to see what all the fuss was about, but it reached the columns of the Times newspaper, with conservationists joining in to defend my comments.
http://www.worldlandtrust.org/news/future-extinctions.pdf
What I found interesting re-reading this paper (and it should be borne in mind it was given to the Palaeontolgy section of the Conference)is that nearly a decade before we founded the World Land Trust, it was already becoming apparent that land purchase was going to be the best way of conserving wildlife.
And interestingly, at the time I was writing a new glacial period seemed more likely than he global warming we are now recording. Times change, but the number of endangered species continues to spiral out of control. And then as now, human population was the key issue. And it still remains unaddressed.
http://www.worldlandtrust.org/news/future-extinctions.pdf
What I found interesting re-reading this paper (and it should be borne in mind it was given to the Palaeontolgy section of the Conference)is that nearly a decade before we founded the World Land Trust, it was already becoming apparent that land purchase was going to be the best way of conserving wildlife.
And interestingly, at the time I was writing a new glacial period seemed more likely than he global warming we are now recording. Times change, but the number of endangered species continues to spiral out of control. And then as now, human population was the key issue. And it still remains unaddressed.
Wednesday, 26 March 2008
People in third world countries have too many babies
People in third world countries have too many babies
I was surprised to find this response put on the Oxfam website as a common myth.
And the paragraph below given as their response:
Rubbish! It really is time to get shot of this. First of all, in lots of poor countries, families are getting smaller, not bigger. This is because people have fewer children when they begin to prosper – which is good news, all round. And the bad news? Millions of kids are still born into poverty, and don't even make it past their fifth birthday
The problem with this claim is that it cannot be substantiated, and is actually contradicted by virtually all the published statistics. And not only do people in third world countries definitely have too many babies, so do many people in the developed world. The world population is growing at an alarming rate, and to deny it is on a par with denying climate change. And there is a strong linkage between the two. The fact that families are getting smaller, hides the more significant fact that the birth rate is still outstripping the death rate, and that the human populations of most parts of the world (including Britain) are not sustainable.
Making poverty history in these circumstances may be an admirable objective, but it is fundamentally completely unachievable -- which is probably why no one has ever shown a plan as to how it will be achieved. Apply crude animal population dynamic theories to any human populations and it is immediately obvious that the present rate of increase cannot be sustained. It therefore follows that there will be catastrophic declines from time to time, either from disease, natural disaster or warfare, or all three. I have yet to see any models that can demonstrate an alternative. And certainly none of the Aid agencies have any on their websites; it's an issue they conveniently ignore -- or as shown above are misleading. Interestingly the Charity Commission in the UK has recently revised definitions of poverty. In the developing countries it can mean "lacking basic essentials such as clean water, food and shelter", but in the UK "it could refer to those living on less than 60% of the average income". Now to me this certainly seems like one rule for the rich and another for the poor, helping the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Which definition do aid agencies use?
I was surprised to find this response put on the Oxfam website as a common myth.
And the paragraph below given as their response:
Rubbish! It really is time to get shot of this. First of all, in lots of poor countries, families are getting smaller, not bigger. This is because people have fewer children when they begin to prosper – which is good news, all round. And the bad news? Millions of kids are still born into poverty, and don't even make it past their fifth birthday
The problem with this claim is that it cannot be substantiated, and is actually contradicted by virtually all the published statistics. And not only do people in third world countries definitely have too many babies, so do many people in the developed world. The world population is growing at an alarming rate, and to deny it is on a par with denying climate change. And there is a strong linkage between the two. The fact that families are getting smaller, hides the more significant fact that the birth rate is still outstripping the death rate, and that the human populations of most parts of the world (including Britain) are not sustainable.
Making poverty history in these circumstances may be an admirable objective, but it is fundamentally completely unachievable -- which is probably why no one has ever shown a plan as to how it will be achieved. Apply crude animal population dynamic theories to any human populations and it is immediately obvious that the present rate of increase cannot be sustained. It therefore follows that there will be catastrophic declines from time to time, either from disease, natural disaster or warfare, or all three. I have yet to see any models that can demonstrate an alternative. And certainly none of the Aid agencies have any on their websites; it's an issue they conveniently ignore -- or as shown above are misleading. Interestingly the Charity Commission in the UK has recently revised definitions of poverty. In the developing countries it can mean "lacking basic essentials such as clean water, food and shelter", but in the UK "it could refer to those living on less than 60% of the average income". Now to me this certainly seems like one rule for the rich and another for the poor, helping the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Which definition do aid agencies use?
Thursday, 7 February 2008
Fundamentalist religion and conservation
Conservative religion and conservation are rarely sympathetic. As the rest of the world becomes more and more enlightened, it often appears that the USA becomes more deeply entrenched in pandering to the fundamentalist wing of Christianity -- none of the presidential candidates seem prepared to speak out against what is a significant minority of voters. Not all conservative Christians are right-wing bigots of course, and some are even perceived as rather benign isolated, peace-loving outsiders. The Amish (Mennonites) for instance.
But the Mennonites in general, while avowedly peace-loving, are also a major threat to wildlife and the natural environment. They are a priori farmers, often living on the edges of the modern world. Often ultra conservative in both their dress, and their way of life, as well as their farming methods, but they can destroy nature on a grand scale. The last desert-dwelling population of the Aplomado Falcon, in the grasslands of Chihuahua is threatened by Mennonites plowing up their habitat. In N Belize, it is the Mennonite famers that have cut down the rainforest surrounding those protected by the Programme for Belize, while in Paraguay, they are spreading into the Dry Chaco, one of the world's most fragile habitats. Mennonites have large families - often very large - and nearly all their children want to have land. And they are very efficient at clearing wilderness. And they are great pioneers of the untamed frontiers -- do we really want to see those last untamed frontiers disappear under the plow......?
But the Mennonites in general, while avowedly peace-loving, are also a major threat to wildlife and the natural environment. They are a priori farmers, often living on the edges of the modern world. Often ultra conservative in both their dress, and their way of life, as well as their farming methods, but they can destroy nature on a grand scale. The last desert-dwelling population of the Aplomado Falcon, in the grasslands of Chihuahua is threatened by Mennonites plowing up their habitat. In N Belize, it is the Mennonite famers that have cut down the rainforest surrounding those protected by the Programme for Belize, while in Paraguay, they are spreading into the Dry Chaco, one of the world's most fragile habitats. Mennonites have large families - often very large - and nearly all their children want to have land. And they are very efficient at clearing wilderness. And they are great pioneers of the untamed frontiers -- do we really want to see those last untamed frontiers disappear under the plow......?
Any suggestions.....?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
