Reader comments
Joseph A. Cannon: Climate change and population control: Be careful what you wish for

Anonymous | 6:04 a.m. July 5, 2009

Population control is a good idea. There are too many people who can;t take care of their large families. Unfortunately many of the uneducated people have the largest families.

"Enormous and Adverse" | 6:54 a.m. July 5, 2009

Be careful he says.

Be careful or else what? What are these enormous and adverse effects? He doesn't even bother to mention what they are.

Another Odd Article | 7:24 a.m. July 5, 2009

Yet another head-scratcher from Mr. Cannon.

There are now 6.7 billion people on the planet. By 2050 that number is estimated to be more than 9.3 billion.

Here in the U.S., we went from 225 million as Apollo 11 placed mankind's first footsteps on another world, to 304 million today, and there will be more than 400 million of us by 2050.

Do we have an excess of clean water?

Is there too much arable land on our planet?

Is worldwide food production too high?

Do our national parks feel "too empty" when we go looking for a camping spot with our families?

Mr. Cannon, please explain to us how reducing global, or even U.S. population, by 10% would be a bad thing.

Comments continue below

ustraveler | 7:35 a.m. July 5, 2009

I find it funny that the first two comments Mr. Cannon's editorial fail to actual understand the point he was making. Average numbers of kids per family have fallen and will continue to fall. We are not facing a population explosion but rather, sever population loss. Think about that combined with our aging population. With so many older people, a falling population around 2050, and therefore a lot less younger people to support the economy in general. Who's going to check you out at the grocery store? Who's going to repair your roads? Who's going to pay the taxes to support your Social Security? Who's going to defend our country when the few countries with a higher growth rate and probablyIslamic decide that our country is ripe for the picking? The impacts are large and adverse. Our entire economy is built on growth. I'm a believer in capitalism but I know that the demographic trend Mr. Cannon discusses will require us to think and react in ways we've never had to before.

Lionheart | 7:40 a.m. July 5, 2009

A world wide reduction in population could lead to a rennaissance. That is what happened after the plague. There was more wealth for the survivors. Of course, a breakup of the old order came about too, because so many died.

For the foreseeable future, the poor continue to have more children, which will does not bode well for the short term for civilization.

Mr. Cannon does not extrapolate any possible future scenarios, just posits ominous statements about change. A declining population is a natural occurrance with higher living standards, education and intelligence, that could be very hopeful for the future, perhaps that is the proper evolution. Humans will adapt, as always.

Immigration | 7:47 a.m. July 5, 2009

Declining birth rates in Europe lead to Muslim immigration to take low wage jobs and keep wages down, Pakistani immigration in England, Turkish immigration in Germany, etc. Europe is browning with a wave of Muslim immigration, some who vocally plan to "take over." USA is experiencing a similar immigration for low wage jobs by Latin Americans looking for a better life. Joe mentions nations with declining birth rates, but does not talk about global birthrates. Are less people being born, or are developed nations just declining? Are developed nations declining or with in migration are they actually growing?

If Europe and the USA continue with democratic elections, it appears that the days of white dominance are coming to an end based on simple numbers. I still wonder what dangers this presents? Enlighten us Joe?

Geezer Gary | 7:49 a.m. July 5, 2009

That train has already left the station. No European nation is having children at near replacement rates. Socialist countries can't afford their grandiose social programs and kids too. Musilm immigration is filling the gap, big time. They will take over Europe in the next generation. The same is true for Canada and Russia. This is not idle speculation. The children or lack of have already been born. Buy the little woman a burka and get ready for sharia law.

Careful or what? | 7:50 a.m. July 5, 2009

Not to worry. The birthrate among Moslems is close to 8. They will make up our shortfall.

Ernest T. Bass | 12:13 p.m. July 5, 2009

Joe: The last thing we need to worry about is human extinction.
Why don't you investigate how much more oil we have. If you want to see devistation and panic, wait until we run out of oil. That WILL happen in some of our lifetimes.

Michael Elliott | 2:43 p.m. July 5, 2009

Any time population reduction is mentioned, the primary concern always seems to be an economic one. Our current economic system requires a healthy population growth rate to sustain itself. It's like a pyramid scheme, with the younger, more productive workers at the bottom and the older generation at the top.

The problem with this economic model is that, no matter what your ideological/theological position, it is manifestly unsustainable. The population cannot keep growing indefinitely. At some point the strain on limited resources will become too great, and the inevitable result will be an end to population growth. This is an unavoidable fact, whether or not you believe the population outstrips available resources at this time. At some point, it WILL happen (if it hasn't already).

The argument that we need large families because our economy requires it is, therefore, transparently specious. In reality, it's a thin argument to rationalize what is essentially a racist sentiment--as other commenters have noted, Muslims and other "brown" people have a healthy fertility rate. The real concern is that white people aren't making enough babies.

the truth | 4:49 p.m. July 5, 2009

There is NO arugment for large families,

just for families large ENOUGH,

to create the proper BALANCE you need for success and prosperity.

the number the studies gave was about 2.2,

is that a large family??????

Re: enormous and adverse | 5:47 p.m. July 5, 2009

The average U.S. woman produces 1.9 children, but broken down by ethnicity, the numbers are 1.7 for Asian Americans, 1.8 for non-Hispanic whites, 2.0 for blacks and 2.3 for Hispanics.
The Hispanic fertility rate is the only thing keeping our population rate growing. So we can look to them to be our future producers of food, energy, manufactured products, technological advances, health care and etc. However, with their current high school graduation rate around 50%, you can easily see the consequences would be "enormous and adverse." Care to guess the percentage of Hispanics graduating from college or enrolled in medical schools?

I agree with some | 6:45 p.m. July 5, 2009

contributions above about the oddness of this article. I realize that a number of people in religions have been told that the highest purpose in life is to "multiply and replenish the earth", many of us now think that this has been accomplished many times over. With all these billions of people in the world the biggest problems are trying to provide for everyone. I think the unspoken here may be that the writer is concerned with the reduction of his race that will almost certainly occur. Caucasian people are the lowest "producers". But most of us are not as concerned with the numbers as we are about people in general and taking care of the human race. There are certainly pros and cons to everything in life, but facts are facts. Women do not see themselves as only meant to produce children anymore and this is not likely to change. We are all important in our roles in life which are now varied and vast more than ever.

Chad | 7:17 p.m. July 5, 2009

I am struck by how many comments espouse the thoughts that people are bad for this world. Versions of the "too many people" arguments have been around for centuries. So far, we have risen to the challenge by producing more and more food from smaller pieces of land. The US now farms less acreage than at any point in the past 100. Also, our air and water have been getting cleaner year after year for decades (it's true - look it up!).
In short, the lives of people in developed nations is amazing and miraculous. The places where people are reproducing rapidly are those places without the technology to keep pollution down and the efficiencies to feed themselves without help from us. When the us stops being us, the planet is in for an humanitarian and ecological disaster. The best hope for the world is continued development by the first world and exportation of those technologies to the rest.

Without humans, this planet is just another floating rock. It is our use of it and our ingenuity that makes this planet special and worth observing.

To those who think the world is better with fewer, jump off a bridge.

rsp | 7:42 p.m. July 5, 2009

This was a good column and anyone who keeps up with news at places other than "Daily Kos" has been aware of these trends for years. The people who posted here that population decline was probably a good thing are people who were too selfish to bring another life into this world. This is a major problem. If you can't see what the ramifications are then you're too thick-skulled to understand even if someone laid it out for you. Do you think it means more for everyone else? Hardly. Go ask Germany how easy it is to sell treasury debt when bond buyers know there are no future generations coming along to pay off the principal. Go ask Vladimir Putin why he's paying cash rewards to people to have babies. If you think this planet is better off with no people then so be it. If you think this world will be better off when Ayatollahs are calling the shots because Muslims were the last ones standing then more power to you- but you're wrong.

5 fewer hunters meant starvation | 12:02 a.m. July 6, 2009

"What makes today's economic growth unsustainable is not that it is about to exhaust the Earth's bounty, but that it is consuming more human capital than it produces."

Cannon is right on this one. A reduction in world population will lead to a host of problems. One of the posters above mentioned an issue that I think is important. Mortality rates for adults is decreasing and people are living longer which means that there will be more older people. When this is coupled with a decrease in the workforce age population we will see a major problem. Our society has grown and has a lot of need for a lot of labor both specialized and general. That was not the case several hundred years ago.

Let's go back in time to a hypothetical point where we were hunter/gatherers. Why were infertile women and men considered a threat to society? You have to have enough hunters and enough gatherers to provide for the community.

Now we need enough doctors, farmers, construction workers, garbage men, etc to provide for society's needs. The necessary labor to sustain society won't disappear even if people do.

People | 8:52 a.m. July 6, 2009

People are this earth's greatest asset. Simple as that. There are plenty of natural resources to sustain greater populations if they are used wisely and economically. Besides, how can I have 2.2 children. If I have two I'm not doing my job, but if I have three, I'm overpopulating. Perhaps me and a few neighbors can do rock, paper, scissors to decide who gets three and who's stuck with two.

Anonymous | 9:15 a.m. July 6, 2009

And the ponzi scheme of unsustainable growth continues to get support from people at the top of the scheme.

Jud | 10:36 a.m. July 6, 2009

I think certain basic urges will remain in place, and Mr.Cannon has nothing to worry about.

redrockrider | 10:41 a.m. July 6, 2009

More ominous than any change in population is the TYPE of reproduction. Rising percentages of children are trapped in dysfunction environments. Examples: 1) Children in single-parent homes. Neighborhoods dominated by broken homes produce gangs, drug addicts, criminals. 2) Extremist Muslims still tend to have large families. Their children are prone to terrorism, bigotry, and general hate crimes.

In both cases above, the parents (when they can be found) are not capable of supporting their offspring above the poverty line. That creates a huge burden on any society.

@ Chad | 2:55 p.m. July 6, 2009

You said it very well. But I think the arguments of the "Global Warming" group go further than most of us think. I believe there are fanatics among them who want all the people on the Earth (except maybe themselves) to just vanish and leave a pristine planet for the plants and animals.

The Earth has managed to go through ice ages in the past without any help from people, so I don't think it would help as much as they think.

Face it, people, the Earth was created for man; we are not usurpers. We must learn to take care of it better, but stopping all human activity would not stop those climate changes. Just how much power do you think we have?

23 year plan | 5:27 p.m. July 6, 2009

I have a 23 year plan that will cure all that ills America. Every constitutionalist needs to breed like rabbits for the next five years. New voters with common sense and rational judgment will hit the voting booths in 18 years, and the number of new constitutionalists will soon quintuple. The mental disease otherwise known as liberalism will fade into the 23rd year horizon.

Life is beautiful! Now breed like a constitutionalist.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.