I’m glad to see this question becoming more public. Though it seems to still be considered radical. It is one of many factors that went into my (and my wife’s) decision not to have children decades ago.
P.S. I should really correct my statement above. Neither I nor my wife ever really wanted children. But, while we were still of breeding age and before my vasectomy, when we’d hear a wailing infant, we’d make comments like “Reason number 837 not to have kids.” But, we’d also make comments on hearing about overpopulation or some environmental crisis, especially climate change and ocean acidification, like “won’t be our kids dealing with this.” Actually, we still make such comments.
I’ve been talking about the Great Human Die-off for years and have felt like somewhat of a crackpot for doing so. I’ve usually qualified it as just my opinion based on hearing and reading a lot of environmental science.
Now, it seems that the idea of human extinction within the time frame of those alive today is no longer such a crackpot idea.
He’s right. We don’t. And, some of us are very glad about that. Here’s Michael McIntyre confirming my more minor reasons for not wanting kids. Other more major reasons include not wanting them to grow up in our collapsing world, not wanting to pass on my diabetes, not wanting to further overpopulate the planet, etc.
First let me state that the victims and their families of this explosion and of the recent explosions in Boston have my deepest sympathy and condolences.
Wednesday’s fire came one day after the 66th anniversary of the worst industrial accident in American history—the Texas City disaster, another fertilizer explosion that left 581 people dead when a French vessel hauling ammonium nitrate caught fire.
I’m sure many who read my blog have been convinced for a while that I’m somewhat of a fear monger with respect to climate change and overpopulation. Perhaps. Before you make up your mind, read this:
The figures come as one of the world’s leading environmentalists issued a warning that the global food supply system could collapse at any point, leaving hundreds of millions more people hungry, sparking widespread riots and bringing down governments. In a shocking new assessment of the prospects of meeting food needs, Lester Brown, president of the Earth policy research centre in Washington, says that the climate is no longer reliable and the demands for food are growing so fast that a breakdown is inevitable, unless urgent action is taken.
Good thing climate change is just a hoax. Dig hole in sand. Insert head. Fill in hole. Ignorance is bliss.
“Armed aggression is no longer the principal threat to our future. The overriding threats to this century are climate change, population growth, spreading water shortages and rising food prices,” Brown says.
Great news! Someone is dealing with the biggest environmental problem in the world. Most environmental groups won’t even say the word. But, Monsanto is actively addressing the real issue, the cause of climate change, ocean acidification, overfishing, deforestation, all forms of pollution, world hunger, and possibly even war.
Monsanto has taken it upon themselves to address overpopulation.
This is great news folks. If we do not limit our population, nature will limit it for us … mercilessly. So, when I read this, I was thrilled.
All the times that I said that I hoped that global civilizational collapse would begin late enough for me to live out my life expectancy I had hoped that I was just disasturbating. No such luck.
When Population Connection posted this on their official Facebook page, they warned of strong language. If 4 shits and a fuck are too much for you, you’ve come to the wrong blog. The cursing is neither particularly offensive nor in high enough quantity to detract from the content, IMNSHO.
The old elephant is still hanging around the room … has been getting bigger … and is getting seriously pissed off. But, can we mention the elephant yet? For most of us, the answer is no. As usual, Mother Jones created a great cover for this one.
I don’t know that I agree with him on all points, especially about other civilizations. But then, he’s Stephen Hawking and I’m not even making mud pies yet.
This is the elephant in the room. This is the taboo subject that even most environmentalists won’t discuss. And yet, all of the other severe problems facing humanity stem from this one issue. We may discuss carbon footprint, but not the number of feet. We may discuss the risk of thermonuclear war but not the population pressure that increases both the size and severity of warfaring. We may discuss poverty and starvation but not the fact that reducing population automatically reduces poverty.
Here’s an excellent write-up that describes the ways in which we are stealing from future generations to feed ourselves and the parallels between doing so and any other Ponzi scheme.
I’ve read Plan B 2.0, an excellent book, and notice that there is a link to a new version Plan B 4.0 by Lester Brown.
Don’t forget, the article doesn’t even mention the fact that not only is the oil at the pump a subsidized and limited resource, so is the oil we pour on our corn as fertilizer.
That’s right, industrial fertilizers are petroleum products. We’re eating oil!! That can’t be good for either our health or our long term prospects in terms of a very large population dependent on a fossil, non-renewable, resource.
This may appear to undermine a number of my earlier posts. However, in this case, I think the point is extremely important. We must begin to recognize and tell the truth of the true nature of our problems. That said, we must also use every weapon in our arsenal to fight for the preservation of the environment to the best of our ability. Most likely the only tool that will actually be worth a damn will be birth control. Yet, we must still do all we can to reduce our ecological (including carbon) footprints while at the same time taking action to reduce the number of feet. The regulars on this blog will remember that I have already argued that the planet cannot support even 300 million of us, let alone 6.7, 8, or 9 billion. So, in that sense, this article is still somewhat consistent with my prior posts. However, I cannot recall previously gotting to the point of wording the issue such that climate change is a mere symptom of a much larger problem, one that involves not only too many people, but people with a completely failed view of the finite planet on which we depend for our very lives every single day.
I’ve been of the belief for quite a few years now that agriculture has been very bad for humanity. It is true that it allowed increased specialization into scientists and slaves, kings and serfs, executives and janitors, etc.
However, I would note that long before agriculture was invented, people were already producing impressive art in places like Lascaux. So, clearly, even at a time when there were far fewer humans on the planet, people were capable of some impressive culture.
Overall, has agriculture really been good for the individual members of the human species?
Name a major world problem that would be here even if there were only 6 million people in the world rather than 6 billion.
My claim is this, all of the real problems we have to deal with are caused by there being too damn many homo sapiens on the planet. Please note that inter-tribal skirmishes and warfare cannot be considered a global problem regardless of whether they are among chimps or humans.
First and foremost, I must state that this write-up is hatched out of my own little brain and is not intended to be truly scientific. It probably does not even qualify as a SWAG (scientific wild-assed guess).
That said, perhaps it will ring true through plain ordinary logic with a few facts mixed in. Please let me know where I have gone wrong on this. I have attempted to deliberately over-estimate the population to come up with what would be considered a less unpleasant number by all but the most misanthropic among us.
Also, check out the incredibly impressive Heart of the Adirondacks project in the Adirondack State Park, the largest park in the continental United States at twice the size of Yellowstone.
Posted by Misanthropic Scott 
The Misanthropic Principle 