Monday Moaning

With the world’s population growing at an exponential rate, so too are the uses of nature’s resources and we are running out.

Are we looking at another case of the tail wagging the dog?

We are trying to stem the population growth rate by preventing births, when in fact the problem is we have achieved such medical breakthroughs that not enough people are dying. But, that’s a separate issue

To me the obvious problem is consumerism.

We have become such a consumer society that each day our hunger for ‘more’ and ‘new’ has become outrageous. Our hankering for the ‘lastest’, ‘biggest’ and ‘fastest’ has driven our utilisation of resources beyond the levels of sustainable.

As a society our ethos has to change.

The existing paradigm is not working.

We are giving our kids the wrong message, they give their kids an even worse message, the problem is exacerbated with every generation.

Read a great message on: Stiff Kitten’s Blog a definition of what we have become.

Think about the useless products that are created that people don't need. If you can't crack an egg, stay out of the kitchen

With each new product, we have production increases, more materials used, more pollution, more problems with transport, more and more we find ourselves in the predicament of how do we dispose of the extra rubbish generated. The trash is the packaging and the the advertising. The advertising is polluting our media and the internet, sign boards are polluting our vision, light is polluting our skies, so that we can’t even see the stars at night in the cities. Then there is the dilemma of the disposal of outdated products and worn out components.

Society has to change. We have got to control our cravings. Our mentality is totally screwed up.

The scale of consumerism is closely linked to corporate greed. The corporations want to make more money, so they make more products; to sell the products they have to brainwash the consumer into needing them. The cycle is vicious and never-ending.

It is essential that we tackle consumerism before population control. We have to get the dog back in control of its tail.



4 responses to this post.

  1. I agree that population and consumption are both problems, but I don’t see why they’re exclusive. One of the ideas behind population stabilization is that preventing births prevents a whole chain of subsequent births / generations, which saves more energy than increasing the death rate. (I agree that extending life where there is no quality is a waste of resources, by the way, and intend to opt out early if I end up being old and miserable.) Contraception is cheaper and more effective than technological innovation or behavioural changes. I think overconsumption and population are two sides of the same coin of ecological destruction, and unfortunately, both are pretty difficult to change.



    • @Jennifer, I agree that they are inextricably connected. However, I am thinking more of the ‘want and want now’ attitude. If we all went back to farming and produced our own, made our own, we wouldn’t be so demanding and fussy. It is the consumerism aspect that is wrong, the corporations are to blame for encouraging this. If we didn’t have this corporate aspect, the size of the population is less material. I have written at length (not on this blog, so much) about the wrong principle of not allowing people to die being the major factor in upsetting the balance in the population growth. My attitude to death as I get older is don’t keep me alive, keep me comfortable until the end.




      • I’m with you on the prolonged death thing. I was reading about mad cow disease and how it kills (delayed onset until age 60-ish, then rapid deterioration and death within a few months to a year) and was thinking…that’s not that bad. I would totally take that over years of cancer or Alzheimer’s. As a vegetarian, I’m not at particular risk for prion-based diseases, though!

        The way I see it, we have enough resources to support either a smaller human population consuming at a higher rate, or a larger human population consuming at a lower rate. (Even better: a smaller human population consuming at a lower rate that allows complex natural habitats and their ecosystems to co-exist.) I don’t know which scenario is less likely — re-educate most of human civilization out of consumerism or make contraception and women’s rights a priority to prevent unwanted pregnancies — but since we’re talking about long shots anyway, I push for both. 🙂


    • @Jennifer, I agree, small and small. But we don’t have that. I have read that the sustainable population for the planet to be 500 million (to allow natural resources to recover), we have seven billion, that means there are six and a half billion too many here, that’s a heck of a surplus.




Be green, say something

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: