Reply #18: agreed that overconsumption has to be tackled too [View All]

[Lisa]

This is one reason why the focus of population experts has shifted, from the "make poorer countries decrease their birth rates" emphasis of the 1960s and 70s. The less-industrialized countries pointed out, and quite rightly, that if one North American uses 5 times as much as someone in India, they are contributing to ecosystem pressure just as much.

Stabilizing populations in industrialized and industrializing countries does help -- not just a flowers and candy ideal. If the baby boom had continued longer (or if the mini-boom had shown fertility rates as high as the 1950s), there would be more North Americans today. As Lydia mentioned, it's not at all unusual to see fertility rates below replacement levels. Putting the brakes on population growth worldwide is definitely going to help.

As for the other half of the problem, which you have so clearly pointed out -- there's increasing evidence that it's possible to maintain a relatively high standard of living (with modern standards of health care, education, etc.), while consuming a lot less than we do today in the US and Canada. Per capita water use by Europeans is at least a third lower, sometimes almost half, of North American consumption. Some places in the world (like Cuba, and Kerala State in India) have shown that even low-income countries can do a lot towards providing adequate health and schooling. Of course it's not all roses, but at least people are doing something.

As you note, the industrial way of life is a real obstacle, but I don't think that we're limited to either the option of rolling back the demographic transition model to a world with high birth rates and high death rates -- or to one where everybody tries to live like North Americans and the environment collapses.

It will probably be the hardest thing our species has ever attempted, but given how much we already know, about positive measures we can take -- it would be a cop-out if we didn't try.