Foreword by a Candobetter Editor: I perceive a problem in the definition of 'environment groups' here. Maybe these NGO's need to be specified as 'professional environmental NGOs'. What the groups surveyed below have in common is financial dependence on membership to maintain staffing and dependence on the mainstream media to get their 'message' out. Since the mainstream media are invested in extreme population growth they will exclude or demonise any environmental group that focuses attention on how human population affect the biodiverse environment and material resources. Ergo, it seems impossible to maintain a true environment group that relies on anything but unpaid activists. But because the Press choose who they market, the only environment groups that most of the public know about are, for all intents and purposes, ersatz: in the business of marketing a brand for membership and donations. Note also that this survey was conducted in the United Kingdom and that policies in Australian branches of some of these organisations are different. For instance my experiences is that Friends of the Earth is one of the worst 'Environmental' NGOs on population in Australia, whereas it comes out best in a bad field in the UK. - Sheila Newman, Population scientist.]
Exploring UK Environmental NGO attitudes on population impact
Over the past year, in an independent project supported by Population Matters [1], Jonathon Porritt and Robin Maynard [2] approached the UK’s main conservation and environment organisations and sought to get them to engage actively with the issue and impacts of population growth. The motivation behind this initiative was to get these leading, trusted bodies to provide the public with a reasoned and responsible debate on population growth here in the UK and globally [3]. Following that attempted engagement process, we ranked the NGOs [4] in order of the ‘most encouraging’ to ‘most disappointing’ responses received, as below:
1. Friends of the Earth
2. The Wildlife Trusts
3. CPRE
4. Greenpeace
5. RSPB
6. Wildfowl and Wetland Trust
7. National Trust
8. WWF-UK
Jonathon Porritt said:
“One really has to wonder when the population penny will drop with today’s leading environmental organisations. Just a few weeks ago, the IUCN updated its Red List of threatened species (adding more than 1,000 new species), citing habitat destruction and human development as the principal cause of this continuing biodiversity meltdown. More people every year, demanding more, every year, from an already stressed-out planet, simply doesn’t add up. And yet most of these organisations still can’t find it in themselves to do anything to address this blindingly obvious physical reality.”
Friends of the Earth did take the initiative to draft a new position paper on population and to debate the issue with its local groups, gaining the organisation 1st position. Nevertheless, whilst accepting the Royal Society’s conclusion that, “It is necessary to address both rising consumption levels and a growing population” [5], FOE’s paper still remains heavily focused on consumption patterns [6].
At the other end of the ranking, WWF-UK comes in at a very disappointing and unexpected 8th and last position. ‘Unexpected’ because WWF International is the co-author of The Living Planet Report [6], which provides much of the evidence underpinning our case for the NGOs to engage with and campaign actively on the population issue. Yet WWF-UK still appears to distance itself from that report’s conclusion that “…human population dynamics are a major driving force behind environmental degradation”. [7]
Like Friends of the Earth, The Wildlife Trusts also produced a new policy position on the issue of population, which can be found (after some searching) on its website [8], ‘Position on Population, Resource Use & Consumption in the UK’.
On behalf of Population Matters, Roger Martin said:
“I have never understood why so many of our colleagues in the environmental movement are so nervous about stating the obvious – that, as David Attenborough so neatly puts it, ‘All environmental problems become harder, and ultimately impossible, to solve with ever more people’. I'm delighted that some of them are now emboldened to start breaking that desperately damaging taboo".
Notes
1. A series of briefings were drafted relating the aims and objectives of the various NGOs to the issue and impacts of population growth. Those briefings, which were sent out to all 8 NGOs and also the umbrella body, Wildlife Link, can be found at: http://www.jonathonporritt.com/Campaigns/population and www.populationmatters.org/
2. Jonathon Porritt is co-founder of Forum for the Future; former chair of the Sustainable Development Commission; and previously director of Friends of the Earth. He is also a patron of Population Matters. His latest book, ‘The World We Made’ has just been published by Phaidon. Robin Maynard is a free-lance environmental campaigner and writer. He has worked for several NGOs over the past 25 years including Friends of the Earth, FARM and the Soil Association. This initiative was supported by Population Matters, but led by Jonathon Porritt and Robin Maynard as an independent project.
3. 80% of people in the UK think our population is too high; 84% think the world population is too high – YouGov survey, May 2011. Latest UN/ONS overall population ranges are: UK (ONS) 2051 - 67 to 86 million; World (UN) 2050 - 8.3 to 10.9 billion.
4. An Executive Summary and full report of that ranking exercise are attached as PDFs. http://www.jonathonporritt.com/Campaigns/population
5. People and the planet, Royal Society, 2012
6. The Living Planet Report 2012, WWF-International, Global Footprint Network.
7. http://www.foe.co.uk/files/downloads/population_friends_of_the.pdf
Source:
Press Release: 26 February 2014, “Environmental NGOs still failing the population challenge.” Read Jonathon’s latest blog here:- http://www.jonathonporritt.com/blog/population-still-big-taboo
Comments
quark
Mon, 2014-04-14 13:31
Permalink
Population growth and development drive climate change
Anonymous (not verified)
Mon, 2014-04-14 16:51
Permalink
People ridicule the messengers and don't want to know
Dr Smith (not verified)
Mon, 2014-04-14 19:00
Permalink
No creature is designed to only know perpetual growth
DennisK (not verified)
Tue, 2014-04-15 08:55
Permalink
This growth is not natural.
Sheila Newman
Tue, 2014-04-15 15:17
Permalink
Disagree, all species normally limit growth
DennisK (not verified)
Thu, 2014-04-17 08:44
Permalink
Maximum growth isn't always increasing.
Sheila Newman
Thu, 2014-04-17 12:20
Permalink
To Denis K on r & k reproduction, theory reasons to avoid incest
DennisK (not verified)
Thu, 2014-04-17 17:30
Permalink
I may have to buy and read your book.
Sheila Newman
Thu, 2014-04-17 17:51
Permalink
To Dennis K: The hard sell :-)
Hi Dennis,
Hope you finalise this painful decision! :-)
Here's where to buy them: S.M. Newman, #comment-119421_dtl" id="comment-119421_dtl">Demography, Territory, Law: The Rules of Animal and Human Populations, Countershock Press, 2013, chapters 3 and 4. Available on kindle here: http://www.amazon.com/Demography-Territory-Law-animal-populations-ebook/dp/B00ALE8YSA/ or as paperback here: http://www.amazon.com/Demography-Territory-amp-Law-Populations/dp/1291170928/. (Apologies for repetition of these links).
I'm really impressed that you have taken this much in in the first place. That's because it is actually quite rare for someone to seek to know more of an idea that has not been heavily promoted in the mainstream. Very few people actually seem willing to, let alone capable, of considering alternative views. One only realises this when one tries to get a peer review or sell a book of a new theory. It is really quite interesting to see how much people tend to seek confirmation of their opinions rather than to actually answer questions. And opinions are so often formed based on very slight info from people looked up to or attached to prestigious institutions. Of course you may not agree with my opinions but we can then have a proper discussion.
It might help you to look at a couple of reviews, which I should publish as an article on candobetter, but will just cut and paste here.
Two Reviews of S. M Newman, Demography, Territory and Law: Rules of Animal and Human Populations, (Countershock Press, 2013)
Joseph Wayne Smith
Discipline of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
School of Paediatrics and Reproductive Health
University of Adelaide
This book by evolutionary sociologist Sheila Newman, is book one of four books developing an evolutionary and ecological sociological study of the biological basis of politics, economy and demography. It is a broad-ranging multidisciplinary approach to the study of human society which sociology has long ago abandoned for a descent into jargon, word games and empirically unsubstantiated theory. Not so for Newman who believes and demonstrates that sociology can be scientific, but only if it abandons its isolationist Durkheimian commitment to seeing social facts as sui generis.
The subtitles of the other forthcoming volumes in Newman’s master work are: Volume 2: Land Tenure and the Origins of Capitalism in Britain; Volume 3: Land Tenure and the Origins of Modern Democracy in France; Volume 4: After Napoleon: Incorporation of Land and People. The collected works promises to be, judged by the outstanding merits of the present volume under review, one of the most important contributions to sociology in recent times. Newman systematically applies insights from a wide range of sciences. Further, and refreshingly, she is a French speaker as well as other Latin-based languages, and she has studied the history and philology of Roman language, all giving her access to debates outside of the Anglosphere.
The principal thesis of The Rules of Animal and Human Populations is that both human and animal societies have distinct patterns of dispersal. These patterns affect the size of populations, and in humans, the very nature of economic and political systems. Thus, different land-use, planning and inheritance systems have different outcomes, with some systems resulting in sustainable steady-state economies, while others are geared to exponential growth, the ultimate price of which is collapse. Peeping ahead, clan-based communities, in the Pacific and New Guinea for example, where traditional land-use and inheritance systems are retained, people retain control over natural resources and do not commodify the land by buying and selling it. People strive to prevent, as best they can, natural resources from being alienated and destroyed. This contrasts with the fossil-fuel intensive Anglophone countries where almost everything which can be commodified, has been. These countries are facing a multi-dimensional environmental crisis that is likely to result in social breakdown and dislocation. When collapse does occur societies’ property ownership returns to family connections with the land, and over time the family and clan system re-emerges. Newman hopes that people in the rapidly growing Anglophone societies may be able to regain these organic systems of social organisation as protection against the onslaught of global capitalism.
Newman argues that these seemingly unstoppable forces of population and economic growth which are leading Anglophone countries like the United States, Australia, Britain and Canada to overshoot, do not exist in the Western continental European systems. Europe’s population is already too big and is causing environmental destruction, but natural attrition is downsizing the population to more sustainable levels. Writers like “Spengler”, David P. Goldman, in books with melodramatic titles such as It’s Not the End of the World, It’s Just the End of You, (RVP, New York, 2011), raise an alarm about such a decrease in population, but ecologically it is really just the population returning to more sustainable levels. By contrast, countries such as Australia, through undemocratically imposed immigration, largely produced by the lobbying muscle of powerful ethnic and business groups (especially the housing/real estate lobby), are set to push their populations to completely unsustainable levels, paying no respect to environmental and resources crises such as peak oil. Part of the problem with Australia’s runaway growth in population, Newman points out, is that people, as in other Anglophone countries, have little democratic power to defend communities from the assault of the forces of the market, by contrast to continental Europe where the state controls most of the land-use.
Anglophone countries have political and business elites dogmatically committed to unending economic growth and “progress.” Progress has become a secular religion for them. In chapter 1 Newman subjects this religion of progress to a penetrating critique. Progress requires vast quantities of materials and energy, in the form of fossil fuels. What happens in complex computer societies if there is no longer abundant fossil fuel? Is freedom, democracy and “progress” in such complex societies a product of relatively cheap fossil fuel, and will these institutions disappear in the coming age of scarcity? Her answer is “yes”, for democracy in the sense of full participation in decisions is more likely in small communities not based on techno-industrialism. She sees “peak oil” and the rapid depletion of other resources needed for techno-industrial societies to grow, as major forces terminating their lives.
If economists have been wrong about the ideology of progress, what else have they been wrong about? Chapter 2 of Rules of Animal and Human Populations discusses myths of fertility and mortality that have dominated contemporary anthropology, especially the idea that hunter-gatherer societies, supposedly lacking mechanical contraception, only maintain stable populations through Malthusian forces and violence, producing high mortality. Newman goes to considerable lengths in this chapter to show that modern anthropology has forgotten a massive body of evidence about “pre-transitional” societies, such as the Kunimaipa people in the highlands of Papua New guinea, who maintain stable populations through a variety of strategies such as breastfeeding for four or five years, abortion, infanticide and post-partum taboos. Other societies have used equally as innovative strategies to prevent women being sexually active during a large part of their adult life, including norms of premarital virginity, incest avoidance and other restrictions. For example, brothers traditionally shared one wife in Tibet leaving 30 percent of women without an opportunity for marriage. Surprisingly enough, even Malthus documented cases of stable populations in continental Europe at the end of the 18th century, such as the Swiss parish of Leyzin. There are, though, other important factors including incest avoidance and the Westermarck effect which Newman discusses in depth.
Newman advances a new theory about how incest avoidance and the Westermarck effect impact upon patterns of human settlement and population growth. Incest avoidance, the avoidance of inbreeding, is not limited to humans but occurs in many other organisms including cockroaches. Second, the Westermarck effect, first observed by 19th century Finnish sociologist Edvard Westermarck (1862-1939), is that incest avoidance also applies to people raised together independent of whether or not they are genetically related. The effect has been confirmed many times. Newman argues that contrary to received sociology, incest avoidance and the Westermarck effect are probably indistinctive norms in humans, a product of genetic algorithms underpinning human social organisation. Inbreeding avoidance occurs in many other species, including plants, suggesting that a mechanism such as hormones may be the generative mechanism rather than conscious calculations. In short; “hormones will deliver more or less fertility according to the availability of living space. Space (territory) required per individual will be affected by density and reliability of food distribution, and all of this will be mediated by some degree of incest avoidance/Westermarck effect, which is also related to social dominance.” (p.83)
Incest avoidance and the Westermarck effect have the impact of avoiding the genetic ills of inbreeding, producing fewer homozygous defective genes, but beyond this, incest avoidance regulates population size and density so that animals would have more territory than if numbers were greater without restrictions on inbreeding. For humans, Newman argues, population dispersal and spatial organisation are a function of incest avoidance. Conventional sociology holds that incest avoidance is achieved by modes of population dispersal, but Newman proposes that incest avoidance itself causes dispersal. The same algorithms of population spacing found in other species are hypothesized to occur in humans and these algorithms are adjusted to hormonal responses to sensory feedback from the environment. Anglophone countries have been severely disorganised by runaway capitalist development which has broken relationships with the land which have traditionally been used to navigate incest avoidance and the Westermarck effect, leading to a “chaotic soup.” Disrupted societies, be they of men or mice, have a tendency for unstoppable population growth and the overshoot of ecological resources.
Many collapseologist theorists have agreed with writers such as Jared Diamond in Collapse in seeing Easter Island (Rapanui) as a paradigm case of a society overshooting its ecological limits. However, Newman in the final chapter of her book sets out to show that this story is incorrect. In a fascinating critique she points out that there is no evidence that the Easter Islanders ever achieved population levels of 10,000 or even 5,000, and that demographic decline is poorly documented. Further, these people lasted 900 years before the collapse, which suspiciously enough occurred just before the arrival of Europeans. She notes that European trade wars over South American and other colonies had been occurring for more than a century, so it is implausible to suppose that Easter Island was in splendid isolation up to 1722. It is a more parsimonious explanation to posit that European contact led to Easter Island’s destruction, and there are in fact documents indicating that Europeans enslaved the people of Easter Island (see Benny Peiser, Energy and Environment, vol. 16, 2005, pp. 513-539). The population of Easter Island may never have exceeded 2,000 – 3,000 people.
In conclusion, Rules of Animal and Human Populations is a contribution to sociology of Weberian dimensions, combining innovative hypotheses, critical thinking of the highest calibre and a firm commitment to seek facts rather than be bound by politically correct dogmas. It is scholarship at its best which is now being frequently done outside the intellectually stifling confines of the modern university.
Review by Dr Peter Pirie, Professor Retired at University of Hawaii at Manoa:
This is an original, enjoyable and thought-provoking book which additionally, has the admirable virtue of quoting one of my works at some length. The paper cited was "Untangling the Myths and Realities of Fertility and Mortality in the Pacific Islands",(1997). "The Rules of Animal and Human Populations" examines the rules, workings and effects of economic, political and social systems as they have developed in modern societies as compared with the same systems as they applied to traditional societies. The Pacific Islands, because of their small dimensions, relatively recent human settlement and varied histories of colonialism are particularly useful as examples of the transitions. Newman's interest in my work lay in the instances I described in which Pacific Island populations did not conform to the theory of demographic transition.
For instance I suggested that the surge in fertility that followed the introduction of effective public health in most colonial territories was not, as was then commonly described, a return to "traditional" levels that had been disturbed by the introduction of alien diseases following their "discovery" and colonization by European powers. It was instead a destabilization that could lead to unsustainable population densities and poverty if not checked by limiting birth numbers or permitted emigration. In the absence of the vast majority of communicable diseases that could have depressed population densities, traditional societies on the Pacific islands employed an ingenious variety of ways of limiting human reproduction in the interests of keeping population densities in comfortable relationship with local resources. Among these stratagems were gender separation, customs which delayed marriage such as bride-price, prolonged lactation, post-partum taboos and temporary separations, attempted contraception, abortion and infanticide, deprecation of sexual interest, acceptance of homosexuality, and the encouragement of celibacy. All of these have been observed in recent times in isolated or less impacted populations such as remote atolls and in parts of New Guinea but also recorded in descendant cultures where contact has been more prolonged so that these practices may have been abandoned (or suppressed).
What I did not include in my primarily demographic account, because the anthropologists on whose work I depended never mentioned them, were incest avoidance" and the Westermarck Effect. The examination of these two is a major contribution of Newman's book. The way in which incest avoidance and and the Westermarck effect limit mating in proximate populations and therefore on the distribution and density of populations is particularly important in the Pacific Islands which characteristically are of small area and were populated recently compared to other regions and originally by small bands surmounting marine distances. In the future, demographers, sociologists, population geographers and particularly, anthropologists, will be unable to ignore these two forces, and need to be grateful to Sheila Newman for bringing them to our attention.
S. M Newman, Demography, Territory and Law: Rules of Animal and Human Populations, Countershock Press, Lulu.com, 2013 (paperback). Kindle and paperback version available from www.amazon.com. Order by mail from PO Box 1173, Frankston, VIC, Australia, 3199 or write to astridnova[AT]gmail.com
Dennis.K (not verified)
Thu, 2014-04-17 20:53
Permalink
Biology
Greg (not verified)
Wed, 2014-05-07 22:30
Permalink
Telling it like it is
Add comment