Part 23:  European model, dead zones, acid rain

In a world already horrifically overpopulated, which country will take a stand?  Make a statement?  Provide leadership?  As you look at India at 1.16 billion today, growing by 12-15 million net gain annually (they cannot keep up with their own growth rates)—on its way to adding 480 million by mid century—you might scratch your head—what makes them tick?  What do they use for brains?  How do they keep at it?  Who makes decisions like that?  Why?

Today, 1,000 Indian children under 12 die every day of diarrhea, dysentery and other water borne diseases.  That goes on year after year as they add 12-15 million people to their country net gain annually.  They cannot solve THAT problem let alone dozens of other problems such as quality of life—but they keep on propagating!  Folks, what if 1,000 children died in the USA every day from such easily solved problems?   We would go nuts screaming at our leaders and they would solve it, or be voted out! It’s unimaginable, but that happens in India EVERY day!

Bangladesh: they suffer 157 million people in a landmass the size of Iowa.  They expect another 100 million within fifty to six years.    Any slowing down?  Any birth control?  Any chance for human decency?  Nope! Religion, as in India, trumps common sense, rational thinking, education and reasoned thought!

China, at 1.3 billion, forced “one child” per family and still growing via ‘population momentum’ at eight million annually net gain, will add 400 million by mid century.  India expects to overtake China!  China and India stand nostril-deep in overpopulation today—but the United States follows behind them as the third fastest growing country in the world!  We add 3.1 to 3.4 million annually, about 90 percent by all forms of immigration. 

The USA reached 2.03 fertility in 1970, thus a stable population within itself.

When will world leaders grow a brain? 

In his book, Too Many People, Lindsey Grant addresses such things as our destruction of earth’s operating systems and much more.  You may find his book at  www.sevenlockspress.com and www.amazon.com .   Grant is a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Environment and Population Affairs.

“Europe’s population growth is on the verge of turning around, and the almost universal reaction has been panic at the prospect—as if the population it so recently attained is essential to its survival,” said Grant. “The reaction raised as population grew, but the end of growth is seen as a disaster.  I think this topic needs more serious thought and less visceral reaction.”

The oldest fear remains that if populations stop growing, they cannot maintain the labor force to support aging populations in Europe and Japan.  Once again, those persons think in 20th century paradigms that cannot and do not work in the 21st century.  Exponential growth cannot be sustained.  What good to add more population when you cannot feed, water and sustain it?  I am forever amazed that leaders cannot get their minds onto a reality platform!

Even the UN pushes for “replacement migration” to help declining populations grow!  Go figure!  You might think that anyone with the brains that God gave a goose could put two and two together and figure this thing out. 

Instead of Europe growing by immigration, Grant advises to lower its population to sustainable levels.  For instance, Great Britain suffers 62 million people on an island the size of Oregon.  Would anyone in the great state of Oregon, with less than 3.8 million, want to host 62 million in that state?  Germany houses 82 million in a landmass less about the size of Colorado.  I live in Colorado and we already suffer 5.1 million people, air polluted skies, gridlock traffic and water shortages. France suffers 62 million in a tiny amount of space. And, Holland, at 150 miles wide by 180 miles long houses a huge 18 million people.  They could not sustain that number if not for modern food production, imported energy and just about everything imported.

“Let me propose a very different view: a smaller European population will be good for Europe and for the world, and the transitional problems are manageable, if difficult,” said Grant. “Recent world growth has put very heavy pressure on the environment.  It has driven up the natural carbon, nitrogen and phosphate levels load in the biosphere, generating fundamental changes in the world ecology. It has led to water pollution and atmospheric acidification, and it drives worldwide problems of carbon loading and climate change.  Europe and Japan are two of the most crowded regions on Earth. With populations more like those of 1950, or even earlier, they could enjoy the benefits of prosperity without environmental costs that have come to characterize it.”

Grant talks about pesticide use in Europe triple that of the USA. Fertilizer use remains double that of America’s.  Consequently, their rivers run full of poison residue.  In fact, the main rivers running to the North Sea like the Rheine, Thames and Seine—create the largest ‘dead zone’ in the world at 27,000 square miles, or, the same size as South Carolina. 

So, I ask you, what positive results can the United States anticipate by adding 100 million people to this country within 25 years?

##

Frosty Wooldridge has bicycled across six continents - from the Arctic to the South Pole - as well as six times across the USA, coast to coast and border to border. In 2005, he bicycled from the Arctic Circle, Norway to Athens, Greece. He presents "The Coming Population Crisis in America: and what you can do about it" to civic clubs, church groups, high schools and colleges. He works to bring about sensible world population balance at www.frostywooldridge.com He is the author of: America on the Brink: The Next Added 100 Million Americans. Copies available: 1 888 280 7715