Don’t Say the O-Word

Without coming to terms with the urgent need to reduce the human population to 3 billion, all of these Green Party issues debated at the Green Party of St. Louis-hosted forum “The Green New Deal: Promise and Problems” are “linguistic detoxification:” the bureaucratic propensity to declare messes cleaned up, rather than actually clean them up. The growth problem isn’t our capitalistic greed-driven economy, it’s our exponential population growth.

As oil exponentially declines, so will population and food.

What is Overpopulation?

Overpopulation is an undesirable condition where the number of existing humans exceeds the carrying capacity of Earth. Overpopulation is caused by number of factors. Reduced mortality rate, better medical facilities, depletion of precious resources are few of the causes which results in overpopulation. It is possible for a sparsely populated area to become densely populated if it is not able to sustain life.

So what happens to an industrialized society practicing modern agriculture when it loses its fossil fuel energy base? There are two countries where it has already happened: North Korea and Cuba. Both countries have little or no oil resources of their own, both relied upon the Soviet Union for their oil imports, and both experienced a swift and severe drop in their oil imports following the demise of the Soviet empire.

Korean-style totalitarian retrenchment is without doubt one possible response to a severe energy supply disruption

North Korea’s one per cent resorted to vicious repression coupled with nuclear threats while Cuba tapped into 19th century agricultural traditions and demonstrated much resilience. In North Korea, a calculated political famine then swept away nearly a million peasants or three to five per cent of the population. For ordinary people, the trains stopped and homes went cold in the dead of winter. Children grew thin and sick.

The ‘Special Period in Time of Peace in Cuba:’

Cuba completely relied on the Soviet Union for oil imports, Cuba’s oil import immediately dropped to 10%.

The collapse of the Soviet Union had a huge impact. Cuba lost around 80% of its exports, 80% of its imports and its GDP (Gross Domestic Product) dropped by almost 35%. Food and medicine became scarce.

Food consumption was reduced to 1/5 of their normal level and the average Cuban lost about 10 kilograms. Although starvation was avoided, persistent hunger, something not seen since before the Cuban Revolution, suddenly became a daily experience, and initially, malnutrition in children under six was evident after just a month of these food shortages.

Green Party Debates Green New Deal

By Don Fitz, originally published by 

Double Denial/Don’t Tell the Children

  • October 17, 2019

Despite the furor over the Green New Deal (GND), many of its supporters have no idea of the wide variety of views on it, especially within the Green Party (GP), where it originated in the US.  From June through August, 2019 Missouri Greens held public discussions contrasting at least three distinct GP views to those from the Democratic Party (DP).

Instead of advocating what was necessary for human survival, the audience heard that Green candidates should put a wet finger in the air to find out which direction populist winds were blowing.  Three months after Hawkins told Greens in St. Louis that he would think about the negative potential of “alternative” energy he told his Springfield audience that the best way to deal with it was to ignore it.

The Population Elephant

Unfortunately, in today’s world, we are content to address only the consequences of the The Problem – climate change, energy depletion, food shortages, etc. This is the same classic mistake that a physician makes in treating only the patient’s symptoms, and ignoring the fundamental disease.

Many in the scientific community propose that an 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050 is necessary to forestall the extreme consequences of global warming. But how can this be done when at the same time we are adding 3, 4, or even 5 billion more people to the world?

Likewise for energy and food consumption…

…and the dramatically increasing standard of living of the existing populations in developing countries like India and China.

So then, the million dollar question is: “Why aren’t we addressing the real problem?” 

Now the world, facing a horrifying disaster in the making, is left with only a grassroots effort by handful of individuals with personal websites trying to sound the alarm.

Worry not, God or Capitalism or Democracy or Technology or Environmentalism will solve this problem.

The Problem has no friends. 

So – one problem with The Problem is that it requires a godless socialist dictatorship in power in order to mandate any actual action.

So — one (last) problem with The Problem is that the only reasonable solution is the worst possible choice — except for all the others.

The Patriarchy is Terrified of Allowing Women to Control Population

If you really want to diminish population, don’t just set down a controlling policy as they have done in China (where now there is an excess of males as a result of that policy, a result that has caused other problems), show women respect. Support their rise to positions of leadership, starting with assuring their education. Make certain women have access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health care including abortion. Support policies which help women to work outside the home, to participate in public life.

It sounds simple to recommend a “one child per female” policy but the pushback and resistance would be enormous. Without violent means of enforcement, (which few of us want) the systems of “democracy, capitalism, and religion” must be transformed so that women are equals. Change will not be sustainable until women have power equal to men.

Why are we not addressing overpopulation? Because the patriarchal system underlies all other systems. The dominant male power continues to resist change. Create a culture where women are equals and much will change. Women would start by addressing overpopulation of their families!

No positive spin can be applied to this solution — except that in a hundred years, people will still be here and will be living on an increasingly healthier planet.

All our environmental problems become easier to solve with fewer people, and harder — and ultimately impossible — to solve with ever more people.” 
 – Sir David Attenborough

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.