Whatever happened to Zero Population Growth (ZPG)?

Posted in the Global Warming Forum

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
oh oh

Solon, OH

#1 Apr 28, 2008
Back in the 1970's, ZPG was all the rage. Now, no one talks about it. It seems to me a very obvious way for the world to go "green," limit co2 production (to the extent that it might cause warmng, and better the stabndard of living for all the people of the world would be to just stop reproducing and stabilize the world's population.

But I guess that's no politically correct.

“The Truth Will Set You Free”

Since: Jun 07

Gainesville, FL

#2 Apr 28, 2008
oh oh wrote:
Back in the 1970's, ZPG was all the rage. Now, no one talks about it. It seems to me a very obvious way for the world to go "green," limit co2 production (to the extent that it might cause warmng, and better the stabndard of living for all the people of the world would be to just stop reproducing and stabilize the world's population.
But I guess that's no politically correct.
The ecomaniacs don't want ZPG, they want to reduce the human population by 3/4. They just won't go first.
Mr Giblets

India

#3 Apr 28, 2008
they are too cared to bite the bullet. The CO2 level will of course , have NO EFFECT at all, but it would help with the food problem (the one they are busy creating with their ethanol farce). IOf they don't want too many people, just let the 3rd world starve. They are just too scared to say what their
theories mean. I agree, they should all kill themselves first anyway.
ICare

Oakland, CA

#4 Jun 12, 2008
oh oh wrote:
Back in the 1970's, ZPG was all the rage. Now, no one talks about it. It seems to me a very obvious way for the world to go "green," limit co2 production (to the extent that it might cause warmng, and better the stabndard of living for all the people of the world would be to just stop reproducing and stabilize the world's population.
But I guess that's no politically correct.
I agree -- all the recycling in the world won't save the planet if the overpopulation issue isn't addressed. The reason it isn't addressed is that modern economies rely on consumption of products produced by people and purchased by people -- more people buying products equals more money for businesses. Notice that advertisements always show more than two children in a family -- subtle encouragement by businesses perhaps? Unfortunately, it's getting harder for the planet to sustain the supply/demand concept for discardable goods that deplete the planet's resources. With countries like India and China becoming more "modern" we are eventually going to have to address the HUGE white elephant standing in the living room that everyone wants to ignore --(overpopulation). Either we radically change the economic standard or we get back to ZPG: socially discourage large families in countries that have a greedy ecological footprint and give more respect to couples who decide to go childless (i.e., stop implying that they are "selfish"). But we should, at the very least, start talking about ZPG again. Most likely this topic won't see the light of day until after the upcoming election. Also, there are certain religions that need a wake-up call about encouraging large families (IMHO).

“Act Interdimensional ly”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#5 Jun 12, 2008
ZPG was a knee-jerk reaction to Paul Erlich's laughably inaccurate predictions of a global population crisis that was going to have us all dead by 2000.

Disaster causes tend to be fashionable -- I remember the first "Earth Day" in 1970 when everyone had their knickers in a twist about Overpopulation and Global Cooling.

We've all seen Nuclear Power, Water Pollution, Nuclear Winter, come and go as the bug-bear du jour.

Now, we're all convinced that our own breath will be the seeds of our destruction.

I'm just keen to see what comes next.
Luis Carlos Zardo

Brazil

#6 Jun 15, 2008
If you really think Paul Erlich was wrong, just wait a few more years, the only thing innacurate in his book was the time
JRS

Milwaukee, WI

#7 Jun 15, 2008
Luis Carlos Zardo wrote:
If you really think Paul Erlich was wrong, just wait a few more years, the only thing innacurate in his book was the time
It does not matter what the crisis peddlers say, they are alway right, just wrong. Or is it that they are wrong but right.
Mr Giblets

UK

#8 Jun 15, 2008
oh oh wrote:
Back in the 1970's, ZPG was all the rage. Now, no one talks about it. It seems to me a very obvious way for the world to go "green," limit co2 production (to the extent that it might cause warmng, and better the stabndard of living for all the people of the world would be to just stop reproducing and stabilize the world's population.
But I guess that's no politically correct.
The liberals and lefties like ZPG as long as it applies to the white middle classes and working class. As soon as it is proposed for Africa or India all kinds of objections are raised
and when China actually tries it they don't like it.
Mr Giblets

UK

#9 Jun 15, 2008
ICare wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree -- all the recycling in the world won't save the planet if the overpopulation issue isn't addressed. The reason it isn't addressed is that modern economies rely on consumption of products produced by people and purchased by people -- more people buying products equals more money for businesses. Notice that advertisements always show more than two children in a family -- subtle encouragement by businesses perhaps? Unfortunately, it's getting harder for the planet to sustain the supply/demand concept for discardable goods that deplete the planet's resources. With countries like India and China becoming more "modern" we are eventually going to have to address the HUGE white elephant standing in the living room that everyone wants to ignore --(overpopulation). Either we radically change the economic standard or we get back to ZPG: socially discourage large families in countries that have a greedy ecological footprint and give more respect to couples who decide to go childless (i.e., stop implying that they are "selfish"). But we should, at the very least, start talking about ZPG again. Most likely this topic won't see the light of day until after the upcoming election. Also, there are certain religions that need a wake-up call about encouraging large families (IMHO).
China already has a "one child per family " policy, so why don't the econuts and liberals praise and copy it? Make all aid to 3rd world countries conditional on ZPG, as you wouldn't pay welfare to a mom who keeps having more kids.
groen

Wellington, New Zealand

#10 Jul 17, 2008
"no"!! govt talks or advercates "ZPG" as economic growth ---as in return to shareholders by small and large companies global or otherwise depend on growth i.e an increasing level of profit for so called share holders 3 ways to increase profiot no1 increase cost no2 decrease overheads no3 increase customer base and hencefoth consumption at present easy in most countries in the western world to increase the customer base by imigration which i see as being used as a form of wage controll however willing to be corrected chewrs Keith
Mr Giblets

UK

#11 Jul 22, 2008
Luis Carlos Zardo wrote:
If you really think Paul Erlich was wrong, just wait a few more years, the only thing innacurate in his book was the time
that is like saying "Gore's film is right, the only things he got wrong were the facts and the predictions".
Mr Giblets

UK

#12 Jul 22, 2008
ICare wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree -- all the recycling in the world won't save the planet if the overpopulation issue isn't addressed. The reason it isn't addressed is that modern economies rely on consumption of products produced by people and purchased by people -- more people buying products equals more money for businesses. Notice that advertisements always show more than two children in a family -- subtle encouragement by businesses perhaps? Unfortunately, it's getting harder for the planet to sustain the supply/demand concept for discardable goods that deplete the planet's resources. With countries like India and China becoming more "modern" we are eventually going to have to address the HUGE white elephant standing in the living room that everyone wants to ignore --(overpopulation). Either we radically change the economic standard or we get back to ZPG: socially discourage large families in countries that have a greedy ecological footprint and give more respect to couples who decide to go childless (i.e., stop implying that they are "selfish"). But we should, at the very least, start talking about ZPG again. Most likely this topic won't see the light of day until after the upcoming election. Also, there are certain religions that need a wake-up call about encouraging large families (IMHO).
ZPG must be advocated for ONLY the 3rd world. some advanced countries have too FEW people. They must not rely on immigrants, but have large families, and all aid to the 3rd world stopped until they have ZPG. It is better they never have the children than have them then starve them to death, as in Africa. ZPG is more humane.
Luis Carlos Zardo

Xanxerê, Brazil

#13 Sep 14, 2008
Mr Giblets wrote:
<quoted text>that is like saying "Gore's film is right, the only things he got wrong were the facts and the predictions".
no, it´s like saying "continue bringing more mouths to the table and reducing the table´s size as we are doing right now and in a few more years we´ll be all doomed, along with the whole environment and anything that relies on oxigen to survive.
about the zpg only appliable to third world countries (where it´s obviously more needed) you should think twice, there´s not a single country in the entire world whose population is actually getting smaller
Just in

AOL

#14 Sep 14, 2008
oh oh wrote:
Back in the 1970's, ZPG was all the rage. Now, no one talks about it. It seems to me a very obvious way for the world to go "green," limit co2 production (to the extent that it might cause warmng, and better the stabndard of living for all the people of the world would be to just stop reproducing and stabilize the world's population.
But I guess that's no politically correct.
Remember China, when China instituted their one child policy, ZPG became very un politically correct.
Gary

United States

#15 Dec 17, 2008
oh oh wrote:
Back in the 1970's, ZPG was all the rage. Now, no one talks about it. It seems to me a very obvious way for the world to go "green," limit co2 production (to the extent that it might cause warmng, and better the stabndard of living for all the people of the world would be to just stop reproducing and stabilize the world's population.
But I guess that's no politically correct.
Funny, but this morning I sat in on a discussion about the coming global economy with the CEO of Coca-Cola, Muhtar Kent. He talked about the opportunities -- and the impacts -- of a worldwide middle class that will grow by 1 billion in the next twenty years. This new middle class will have consumer powers heretofore unknown on this planet, and its demands for fuel, food, water and other natural resources will be unprecendented -- and perhaps unmanageable. On my way out I, a boomer, remarked to my partner, "What the hell happened to Zero Population Growth?" I am involved in sustainable development and construction, and yet, in all my readings and discussions, I have not heard a word about ZPG, as obvious as it is an integral part of sustainability. In the next twenty years, to stay where we are in terms of consumption of natural resources, we must reduce our consumption by at least as fast as the increased demand by population growth. No one has even come close to showing how this could happen. Who are we kidding to not have ZPG a part of the conversation? Who are the idiots connecting this with political correctness?

“Act Interdimensional ly”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#17 Jun 16, 2011
"Overpopulation is the ultimate racism -- just enough of me -- WAY too much of you" -- P.J. O'Rourke.

Anyone who thinks the world is over-populated and isn't personally willing to kill themselves to lighten the load on the rest of us just isn't committed to the cause.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

#18 Jun 16, 2011
Rick Moss wrote:
"Overpopulation is the ultimate racism -- just enough of me -- WAY too much of you" -- P.J. O'Rourke.
Anyone who thinks the world is over-populated and isn't personally willing to kill themselves to lighten the load on the rest of us just isn't committed to the cause.
Whenever some left wing lunatic liberal nut job starts bloviating about overpopulation, I always say, "You first" Usually shuts 'em up.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#19 Jun 17, 2011
It all started 5 million years ago, when humanoids split from apes, allegedly.
We now number almost 7 billion.
Europe has apparently managed to control its population growth fairly successfully and has it moving back to about 1950s level.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world is doing a good job of increasing the number, fast.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_popul...
World polulation clock:
http://www.worldometers.info/population/

“Act Interdimensional ly”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#20 Jun 17, 2011
Earthling-1 wrote:
...Europe has apparently managed to control its population growth fairly successfully and has it moving back to about 1950s level...
All that means is that of the growing population of the Earth -- a smaller and smaller percentage of them will be Europeans.

So, perhaps there is a silver lining to this whole thing.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#21 Jun 17, 2011
Rick Moss wrote:
All that means is that of the growing population of the Earth -- a smaller and smaller percentage of them will be Europeans.
So, perhaps there is a silver lining to this whole thing.
LOL, most amusing.
I'm sure you'll be just as pleased when Europe is populated by a Muslim majority?
Don't forget, that will affect the rest of the world, including Singapore.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What role do you think humans play in global wa... 29 min LonePalm 4,118
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 50 min Agents of Corruption 51,393
Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 1 hr IBdaMann 33,925
Scientists witness carbon dioxide trapping heat... 6 hr Fair Game 9
Global Warming "PREDICTIONS" 10 hr SpaceBlues 119
Global Warming Standup Comedy (Apr '07) 15 hr SpaceBlues 3,666
Nothing Warm About the Arctic Fri IBdaMann 12
More from around the web