From: lessgovt@gmail.com   
      
   A British perspective on population and biodiversity   
   by Philip Cafaro, April 18, 2023   
   [ . . . ]   
   For both amphibians and birds, the relationship between increased human   
   population density and increased percentages of species declining is   
   statistically significant. Chapter nine notes that this correlation between   
   population density and recent    
   biodiversity loss has been found worldwide, in studies looking at measures of   
   biodiversity intactness: “across the world as a whole, more people are   
   correlated with more biodiversity loss.” Conservation biologists generally   
   agree that preserving    
   habitat is the key to preserving biodiversity, leading to support for   
   ecological restoration of former agricultural lands as a cornerstone of   
   conservation efforts going forward. But as Beebe notes, in densely populated   
   countries with increasing concerns    
   about food security, such agricultural deintensification in not likely to be   
   widely adopted.   
      
   Given the evident importance of population matters to biodiversity   
   conservation, one would expect more attention to this matter. On the positive   
   side, chapter eight notes that polls regularly show that the general public   
   understands the importance of    
   reducing human numbers for biodiversity conservation, and that naturalists and   
   conservation biologists have increased their population advocacy in recent   
   years. On the negative side, environmental organizations generally ignore the   
   issue. Worst of all,    
   the wealthy foundations that many of these organizations have come to depend   
   on punish those which address it.   
      
   The timid silence of most environmental NGOs arguably amounts to a dereliction   
   of duty, given the impacts of increasing human numbers on their stated   
   objectives. Beebe levels similar criticisms at mainstream politicians: the   
   platform of the UK’s Green    
   Party “seems designed to minimize offence rather than to propose action,”   
   while other major parties remain silent about population. Into this breach   
   step the economists, who are uniquely unsuited to advise on population   
   matters, given their obsession    
   with economic growth and their demotion of other species to mere “natural   
   resources,” to be used or exterminated whenever this is convenient for   
   people. “It is pertinent to ask why economics is so highly rated in the   
   corridors of power,” Beebe    
   writes. And again: “the demotion of economics as a major driving force in   
   the political arena might well be the best of news for the future of Planet   
   Earth.”   
      
   In a final chapter titled “Conservation in a Crowded Country,” Beebe wades   
   into controversial questions regarding population policies at home and around   
   the world. He notes that widespread worries about low birthrates and stable or   
   declining    
   populations have led many countries to introduce policies to increase   
   fertility rates in recent years. Yet few of these countries have biodiversity   
   intactness index scores that merit such policies, and many have such large   
   populations that their real    
   worry probably should be whether they will be able to feed them in a warming   
   world. Focusing on the UK, Beebe quotes one study that estimated it could only   
   sustainably feed a population of 20 million people, far below the current 67   
   million or the 78    
   million projected by UN demographers for 2100. He goes on to discuss tax and   
   incentive policies to lower UK fertility rates, and gingerly broaches the   
   topic of limiting immigration, the leading driver of continued population   
   growth in the UK, as it is    
   throughout the developed world.   
      
   As throughout the book, Beebe’s policy discussion here is reasonable and   
   non-dogmatic, while not avoiding the hard issues. As he concludes:   
      
   Without bringing human numbers into mainstream thinking in the context of   
   wildlife and human futures, significant changes for the better look almost   
   impossible. For far too long discussion about overpopulation in developed   
   countries including the UK has    
   been taboo in polite society. This needs to change. A humane pop   
   lation-reduction policy would not have a rapid beneficial effect but is vital   
   for any chance of proper recovery for Britain’s outstanding wildlife   
   heritage in the longer term. To this end,   
    it will be necessary to replace blinkered economic arguments that have   
   consistently ignored the real biological world in which human society   
   functions.   
      
   https://overpopulation-project.com/a-british-perspective-on-popu   
   ation-and-biodiversity/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)