Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee
Sounds backwards: overzealous breeders are screwing with everyone else's quality of life.  |
I suppose it would be as a much a population issue as it was a lifestyle issue if per capita resource consumption was more or less equal across the board, but it ain't. We have about 1+ billion hoovering up
more than half the planets resources with the other 5+ billion sucking down about the same amount, and if we ignore national boundaries and focus on wealth it's probably worse.
So, lets say we address the poor countries w/ 5+ billion and higher population growth rates. Each billion people contributes about 2.2 hectares per person in terms of the global average, so to get down to a sustainable level by only addressing population in the "breeder' countries, we would have to knock off 3+ billion people. On the flip side, w/ 1+ billion responsible for the other half of the impact, that's about 10+ hectares per person in terms of the global average, so to get down to a sustainable level by only addressing population in the "non-breeder' countries, we would have to knock off .6+ billion people, probably less in terms of the wealthiest people in the world.
If we can get the same result by reducing population by 3+ billion that we can by reducing population by another .6+ billion or less, is that a population problem or a lifestyle problem? Heck, if we can get the same result w/ no change in population, just a change in lifestyle, is that a population problem or a lifestyle problem? Granted, it's not strictly an either or thing, but I still think it's primarily a lifestyle problem because the problem could be solved by a change in lifestyle alone, while a change in population wouldn't be enough since the increase in impact associated w/ lifestyle hasn't shown the same signs of slowing down that the growth of population has. Also, living in a more sustainable way seems more ethical that forcing someone else not to live, at least according to most morals I've heard of.