Walking together

Add a Comment

Comment by Ronnie Wright on November 19, 2011 at 11:52

Peter, if you look in my profile, or if you read through my postings, you would see that it is no secret that I’m employed by Oxfam but what I post here are my own views, opinions and that of others that I find relevant.  I know that I've told you before that my comments here were my own views and not that of Oxfam.

Don’t think you can rattle me by your claim to “no longer donate to Oxfam” because you don’t like me or my views.  That is your choice and has nothing to do with me if that is what you were implying. 

I would also have to say that either you have a reading comprehension problem or you are intentionally reading into what I said to twist it into something else.

Your comment about what I said in reference to Sir David Attenborough and his documentary is absurd.   I offered no ratting of him or the documentary other than it would not add to my knowledge.  Also, this documentary is not new.  It came out in 2009.  For a more recent introduction to the population issue see the one I linked to called Mother.  For one that is still up to date and more comprehensive watch World in the Balance put out by NOVA. 

I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt so I sat and watched the documentary you recommended, which can be viewed online here, and found it to be a good introduction on this issue but like I thought I didn’t learn anything new by watching it. 

I did not say I was going to “sit” by expecting Nature to solve the problem.

You say that you do not restrict your comments to poor nations but to ALL Nations however your words don’t support that as anyone who reads this very long thread of comments can plainly see. 

I can tell you don’t read books because of the off the wall comments you constantly make.  The books I read are written by respected scientist or science writers.  Who do you think Sir David Attenborough gets his information from?  The amount of information I get through books could not even come close to being covered in a documentary the length of which would be put on TV.  Any TV documentary on population would be only an introduction to the problem.

Since you dispute that the population reduction would take 100 years, as predicted in the scientific study I quoted, perhaps you can provide the results of a study to support your own timeframe; which you still haven’t’ mentioned yet. 

You also still have not disclosed your “plan” to reduce the planets population.

Comment by Peter Wignall on November 18, 2011 at 11:56

Ronnie I am so disappointed you rate Sir David Attenborough lower than the books on  your shelves.  He is surely the one man who has awakened the World to the beauties of all creatures that our wonderful world is (was!) inhabited by.   I am so convinced that you are lost in the machinations of your position in Oxfam, (which you reveal for the first time.) that you cannot see the horizon.  That you chose to rely on 'Books' rather than watch a current up-to-date TV program is really bewildering for an Oxfam personage.

I dispute that the population reduction would take 100 years and am bewildered that you sit by expecting Nature to solve the problem with a catastrophe to solve our predicament  within 100 years!  What a shame for human beings!  With some "thinking out of the square' I'm sure we can do better. 

I shall no longer donate to Oxfam as I now see it as an irrational Charity.

Poor nations today are the Rich nations of tomorrow and I do not restrict my comments to them but to ALL Nations and all people.  We are needing a major rethink in our worldly policies.  Bigger than has ever been presented before.  I do not think we have the wisdom for it, or the ruthlessness, which almost attaches me to your ideas.

I do agree that we must tackle both ideas together, that is consumption and population.  Commenting on Religion bridles so many people however, they all seem to believe we can populate the world with impunity.  This is just not so and people like Prince Charles of England has approached the Vatican on the use of condoms without success, The Pope hoping people will "obey the will of God."  Maybe Religion will wipe out humanity!  c'est la vie.

Are most Climate Trackers Oxfam people?  It would explain the plaudits you receive.

Do you really believe we can convince 'third world Countries' to not want TVs, Cd players, Motor Cars and Computers?   Dream on, you may become an un-believer yet.  Less People is the ONLY solution.  Meaning LESS Businessmen, LESS GDP.  LESS factories, LESS employment. LESS mouths eating MEAT.  LESS Factory Farms.  LESS, LESS, LESS until we reach Shakespeare's World of big trees again.

Comment by Ronnie Wright on November 18, 2011 at 9:50

Peter, you said:

Whowah Cathy,  All those figures you are quoting PROVE my case that the World is overpopulated!

Yet nobody here is arguing against you on that.  We all know that it is.  You’re being a bit delusional.

Comment by Ronnie Wright on November 18, 2011 at 9:32

Peter, I didn’t watch David Attenborough because I have read so many books and watched so many documentaries on the population issue to feel that David would have not added to my already extensive knowledge on this subject.  In fact I keep two documentaries, World in the Balance put out by NOVA and one just recently released called Mother, sitting on our office safe right behind my desk so that our staff and volunteers in the Oxfam Brisbane office can take them home to view.

I find it interesting that you should point out the importance of educating women to reduce the population level considering this is something I’ve pointed out to you on at least two occasions recently (here is one and here is another) and isn’t it you that is claiming that I am the one relying on Bureaucrats for my ideas?

The biggest difference I see between you and me is that you believe that the ONE way to deal with climate change (as you state here) is through population control and judging by so many of your comments you feel the need to focus on poor nations even though many of them have less impact on our planet when compared with countries like Australia.  Whereas I recognise that we don’t have the time to reduce the population level quick enough to prevent the worst case scenario (things like feedback loops that would cause runaway climate change) from happening and therefore can’t rely on population control exclusively as you are suggesting. 

A recent study by Pimentel and colleagues (2010) suggests that the Earth can support a population of two billion individuals, but only if all individuals are willing to live at a European standard of living and use natural resources sustainably. These researchers state that reducing population from today's level of over 6.8 billion [now estimated to have reached 7 billion] to the suggested 2 billion would take slightly longer than 100 years if every couple, worldwide, agrees to produce an average of only one child.

You say that you are thinking outside of the box but your position is one that has been around for many years.  Your ideas are not new or creative.  In fact I would have to say that some of your ideas are outdated.

For many years we have had activist fighting on the population front and others fighting on the consumption front with both claiming to have “the” answer to cure all our ills.  I feel that only when you are able to see the big picture will you finally figure out that it is a combination of both we must fight.  We must fight against over consumption because of its ability to achieve immediate results and population levels for our long term survival.

Personally I don’t think we will fully accomplish either and that we are heading for a crisis that will see nature reduce our population for us at rates numbering in the billions.  James Lovelock may very well be right when he said that 80% of humans will perish by 2100 AD. 

If we do not get consumption, mostly in the wealthy developed nations and a few of the large developing nations like China and India, under control your ideas for reducing our population will fail and mother nature will deal with us herself.

There is more I would like to say here but then I would just be repeating what I’ve already said to you here.

Comment by Peter Wignall on November 17, 2011 at 12:39

Cathie it seems that you didn't whatch SBS TV with Sir David Attenborough at 7.30?

Comment by Peter Wignall on November 17, 2011 at 12:35

Whowah Cathy,  All those figures you are quoting PROVE my case that the World is overpopulated!

All the other things you are saying about Americans working for less than "a dollar a day," PROVE my point that they require a PERMANENT unemployment policy.

There is no unemployment policy in China.  Most factory workers migrate from the country to find work if they don't find work they RETURN to the country to work on the land!

Do not feel offended at my blogs.

Comment by Catherine Rogers on November 17, 2011 at 9:44

No one is curling up Peter.  I just find it difficult to respond to your xenophobic arguments.  How you have developed the idea that unemployment in America is because Chinese people have taken American jobs is astounding.  The notion that people in countries such as China can be unemployed and simply live off the land is unreal.  The reason so many jobs have been pushed offshore to China, India and so forth is because developed nations do not want to pay the real price for their goods.  Do you think that the $5 toasters and $1 plates that are sold at Kmart could be manufactured in Australia and make any kind of a profit?  Or that the goods sold at Walmart in the US could be made in America?  Who in America is willing to work for less than $1 a day? 

The price of food, relative to the cost of living hasn't increased in 30 years! Factory farming (the biggest contributor to GHGs) exists because we demand cheap protein.  Until consumers grow a conscience and think about what they are demanding for their dollar our problems will only worsen. 

Just to remind you of the real picture:

Poverty, hunger and malnutrition

• More than one billion people in the world live on less than US$1 a day
• 2.7 billion struggle to survive on less than US$2 per day
• More than 800 million people go to bed hungry every day, including 300 million children
• Every 3.6 seconds a person dies of starvation, and most of those who die are children under age of 5
• Every year 6 million children die from malnutrition before their fifth birthday - How is hat for population control Peter????

You talk about solutions to the growing population and attack countries such as China and Pakistan.  Yet China is the only country in the world that has adopted policies to curb their population growth (with huge human rights ramifications!)  

Basing arguments on state borders is useless.  Besides, how anyone could imagine that countries trying to combat poverty, famine, illiteracy and conflict could even conceive of how to deal with climate change is beyond me.  If we here in developed countries are unable to make any significant efforts, what example are we setting and do we really want to see change?

Comment by Peter Wignall on November 17, 2011 at 8:14

Wow!  Have my critics curled up and taken notice or did the SBS TV program convince them that People are killing the World?.

Comment by Peter Wignall on November 15, 2011 at 11:17

Ronnie, just watch SBS TV tonight at 7.30 when that most mild mannered Sir David Attenborough will host a program on "just how many humans can safely inhabit the Earth."

He probably will avoid the issue of how many animals we have already driven to extinction to concentrate on your idea that we cannot stop the avaricious selfishness of humans so we kick the can down the street placing it in the "too hard basket."

Contrary to what you say I have already laid out a plan to REVERSE the  growth of Earths' population by educating, even forcing sterilisation, ("oh you can't do that!") to regulate human birth to a maximum of two per family.  It is already proven that educated women do not allow themselves to end up with more children.

When push comes to shove humans will do ANYTHING for self preservation.

When the World starts falling apart, "no food, no jobs, no order to society" then war will break out. (Do you think the Street riots in Britain was not "the thin end of the wedge.")  People without will flock to those with by any means at their disposal.  We already see this in migrations.  England, with its Social Security has increased its population from 50 billion when I was young to 70 billion now.  That's an extra 20 billion in 60 years. (What does that mean for 50 years from now!)  This is bursting the seams of all requirements of the Social Services of Great Britain, houses, food, transport, living space and anything you can think of.  The Government is chasing its' tale trying to keep up and Failing.

That The world has finite amounts of OIL may be true but we are far from finding out just how finite, OIL is being discovered  every day.

The solutions I put forward worry even myself, however, they won't be of my making they Will happen.  I am just warning you of their coming, hoping you may try to be more buoyant with your approaches.

Cathie just what I am premeditating is a 'brave new world' where GDP is reduced each year.  Where "Big Business" does not rule the world.  Where populations are reduced and rather frightening events will come about.  I believe that 'the writing is on the wall'.  In the next 50 years the world will change dramatically.  China is increasingly taking jobs away from countries like America.  America will have to introduce "Permanent unemployment Benefit" for people to survive without other income.  In China they just go back to the country and live off the land when unemployed.

  The world of Banks is like a tangled sceigne of wool around the Globe, borrowing and investing 'down the road' until they suffocate in their own dealings.  Europe is the main example spending $billions to 'rescue' each other from cyberfigures of debt.  It is all in the "ether' of the internet, floating about "up there."

It reminds me of a Country & Western song I have by Don Williams,  "Where do We go from here?"

I may sound crazy but I am just thinking 'out of the square,' while Ronnie is relying on Bureaucrats for his ideas.

Comment by Ronnie Wright on November 15, 2011 at 7:21

Well Peter it’s all so easy to point fingers and make claims but perhaps you can give us your plan on how this problem should be solved.  I don’t want to hear things like “we need to reduce the population”, which is all you ever say and is oblivious to most people by now and I’m sure everyone here would agree with that, I want you to give me the plan on how you expect to do that.  I can’t recall you ever giving a single suggestion although I’ve explained to you on several occasions what has been shown to work and have also explained why those methods are so slow to bring about reductions.

You have not stirred up any debate Peter.  All you ever do is make a few off the wall comments about the population level, criticize others and you never offer any solutions.  It’s easy to sit back in your easy chair and ramble on about how bad things are.  It’s a bit harder to join the real world and try to actually do something about the problem.

I get the impression from comments you have made on several occasions that the method of reducing population you are suggesting is to either let them die of starvation or kill them off in wars.  If that is not the case then now would be a good chance to set the record straight and give us your plan for population reduction.

You mention the number of cars Pakistan now has and how many they might have in the future.  Are you suggesting that Australians are entitled to have cars but the people of Pakistan aren’t?  You know it only took me three minutes to see that you are ignorant about the reality of this situation.  Here are the facts on auto ownership: Australia 730 motor vehicles per 1000 people and Pakistan 11 motor vehicles per 1000 people.  Here are the actual numbers:  Pakistan has 1,955,877 motor vehicles and Australia has 16, 204,540 motor vehicles.  Perhaps you also are not aware that the world’s oil production has levelled off and, according to the International Energy Agency, will never go up again even though demand has continued to rise.  Pakistan is a poor nation and as the cost of fuel goes up, because demand has out stripped supply, fewer of them will be able to afford to drive.  If you want to complain about car ownership you should complain about Australians.

You would be far more helpful if you could think a little further beyond the oblivious problem to a place where there are solutions.  Constantly restating the problem is not stirring debate or putting forward a solution.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page