Blog

Monbiot on Population growth

I’ve just come across a great article by George Monbiot on the subject population growth.

Published in the Guardian, he shows how climate change has nothing to do with population growth, but is in fact related to consumption and wealth of and by the rich.

You can read the full article, but consider this quote:

“People breed less as they become richer, but they don’t consume less; they consume more. As the habits of the super-rich show, there are no limits to human extravagance. Consumption can be expected to rise with economic growth until the biosphere hits the buffers. Anyone who understands this and still considers that population, not consumption, is the big issue is, in Lovelock’s words, “hiding from the truth”. It is the worst kind of paternalism, blaming the poor for the excesses of the rich.

So where are the movements protesting about the stinking rich destroying our living systems? Where is the direct action against superyachts and private jets? Where’s Class War when you need it?

It’s time we had the guts to name the problem. It’s not sex; it’s money. It’s not the poor; it’s the rich.”

I couldn’t have put it better myself.

Read the full article in full.


POSTED 29.09.09 BY: admin | Comments (3)

3 Responses to “Monbiot on Population growth”

  1. On October 9th, 2009 at 4:13 pm Ian said:

    Thanks for this Mike. I think this adds some useful focus on being rich. I don't count myself being rich. Other reports I have been reading talk about both and, that it is about sex on one side and about wealth on the other, and not either or. I still think the Optimum Population Trust are right to encourage those in the rich west not to have large families, and think about sustainability. I agree with you that it would be quite wrong to expect the 2/3rds world to have to population management, we all should. This is also not about having a go at families, it is about having a go at families who think it is ok to have large families over 3 kids. I think the article is not entirely balanced, but does rightly make the point that rich parts of the world should consume less.We do need to remember facts such as the seas can only sustain fishing at present rates for 41 years before there will be no more food from the sea. So population control is part of it, but rightly as you say, it is also about rich countries consuming less. As a socialist I would point out that the poor are not justin the 2/3rds world, the poor are in every country.So why is there not a tax on luxury petrol guzzling cars, and ridiculously large people carriers? They should be taxed. Why are trains not subsidized? Why are flights not heavily taxed? I agree…. You will see in my previous blog post on ecological stewardship there is great evidence that these things should be a must and not an option.

  2. On October 10th, 2009 at 6:29 pm Kerry Dawkins said:

    Interesting discussion. I have just looked up Optimum Population Trust and its charitable aims seem to me to be good. Reading the Guardian article again, it doesn't seem to me to be balanced. It feels very defensive. Surely yes it is about the rich learning to consume less as well as families, particularly Christian ones, knowing that they do not have a God-given-right to have unsustainably large families. This seems to me to be just. So it is not just a while post-reproductive upper class male attitude – that is just polemical and not very fair. I hold the same view as a black, poor physically disabled woman.

  3. On October 11th, 2009 at 9:22 am Michael Radcliffe said:

    Kerry -Hi there – I thought you'd like this post. :-) I was half expecting you to respond when it went up last week, but I guess you must have been on holiday that week.Responding to your points:I'm glad you've mentioned the idea of polemics as I'm becoming increasingly disillusioned with polemics as a way of discussing things. I only put this article up to balance out Ian's previous post on the same subject, which I felt was quite polemical to start with. Just in the interest of fairness and balance, you understand. :-) The problem with polemics is that we can all point the finger if we want to, just as we can all take the victim mentality too. Whatever happened to Jesus' words about "Do not judge others and God will not judge you."? And yet it seems that some Christians have an almost pathological desire to "challenge" people regularly. There is a right time to challenge people, and a wrong time and it's important to discern when those times are.The problem with a devil's advocate approach is that it takes no interest in people's stories and histories, and is therefore a bit of a blunt instrument that sometimes works, but often doesn't. It's hard enough persuading parents and couples to come to moot as it is, without polemics stirring things up. I had about 5 parents who were interested in coming to moot. When they saw that previous article about population control (which was quite polemical in itself), I got some very negative reactions from people at my kids playgroup, and now the one missional thing that I was able to do has been scuppered. The devil doesn't need an advocate!As Ian has rightly conceded in his previous comment here, the issues are a bit simpler than straightforward population control – there are other issues to think about such as how we consume in the west. Ian is also quite right about fish stocks. And also there is a problem with red meat! The global warming issue in NZ is huge due to the amount of cattle they have to raise to supply our meat-rich diet. In fact if everyone in the world lived on our meat-rich diet, the planet would not be able to sustain that level of intensive farming!So where is the christian imperative to encourage us all to become vegetarians?Kerry, I'm sure that you will have plenty to say about what I have written, but I shall probably not respond, as I've made my position quite clear now, and do not have much to add. It would be very easy for me to play the victim as a parent living on a run-down estate who is being targeted by ASBO kids, but I shan't, as it would be right to have that perception of myself both challenged and affirmed in equal measure.I hope that this discussion and the previous one that Ian posted have been helpful to you. Mike x