Follow this blog:
RSS

Jack Hanna on the one word in global warming that everyone’s avoiding

By | May 26, 2010, 2:00 AM PDT

Jack Hanna is an animal expert, director emeritus of the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium, and host of award-winning Jack Hanna’s Into the Wild.

“Jungle Jack” and his animals are regular guests on The Late Show with David Letterman, Good Morning America, Larry King Live, The Ellen DeGeneres Show and The Maury Povich Show. “I don’t care if Dave makes fun of me,” he says about Letterman. “That’s why he has been doing this for 26 years.”

I spoke with Hanna recently about zoos, conservation, and the obvious cause of global warming that he said no one wants to discuss.

When you arrived at the Columbus Zoo in 1978, what did the habitats look like?

It was on the verge of being closed, like a lot of zoos. A lot of the animals were in cages, and it didn’t resemble natural habitats. This is totally a conservation field that has turned around a million percent. Last year, 182 million people went to zoos and aquariums. It’s the largest recreation activity in America—not NASCAR, not football. Today, in some cases the habitats are built better than what they have in the wild. We just opened a polar bear and grizzly bear habitat. The water for the polar bears is 54 degrees, they have salinated water with fish, and it’s a good place for them to dive deep. The grizzlies have a tide pool that goes up and down and a stream stocked with trout.

You’ve said that Baby Boomers are the worst culprits in terms of animal conservation. Can you explain that?

I’m a Baby Boomer. I was born in 1947. When I was a little boy, we had big ol’ gas-guzzling cars, and paid 30-something cents a gallon. People didn’t know any better. But everyone had water, by the way. In 1968 I told people that water would be a problem, and they thought I was crazy. Today’s generation will do more to save the planet than any other generation.

The biggest problem is one word no one wants to talk about, for religious regions or political reasons: overpopulation. As a person who has traveled the world, every continent, many times, I see that it’s overpopulation. We can come up with green stuff, replant trees, create windmills, but we’ll never solve the problem and we’ll never catch up. It’s many steps ahead of us now. The world keeps overpopulating. You have countries that have 6 million people that can only take care of 3 or 4 million. In Rwanda they’re educating people about birth control. It has 8 million people and is the size of Vermont, which has 750,000. You can’t sustain that kind of life.

Why do we have global warming? We have too many people with too many cars. Who creates the problems? It’s the human beings, not the animals. Is it not obvious or what? I tell people what happens to our resources—water, air, trees– will eventually happen to animal life and will eventually happen to human life. I’ve seen this in country after country.

Yet you’re optimistic.

I’m optimistic. I’m not Mr. Doom and Gloom—that doesn’t win anything in the world. We know what the problem is; if you don’t, you’ve had your head in a cave. But if you’re a young person watching the TV news every night, it’s like coming out for a football game being 0-12 for the season and the coach saying, “OK, let’s go out and play. We’re gonna lose.” So I’m real positive. I don’t tell kids everything’s going to pot. I want to leave them with some hope and tell them what we can do.

Why is educating people at zoos so important?

Kids don’t get outside anymore. When folks see the zoo; they’re calling giraffes camels and camels giraffes. You can’t blame them for that. Some kids are afraid to see the chickens in the petting zoo. Teachers ask what can we do, and I say, “How many of you go outside and take them into the woods?” About half raise their hands. You can live in New York City and still get outside and show kids leaves and dirt. That’s where you learn.

How do you teach conservation?

You only teach conservation with one word, and that’s love. You can’t conserve something if you don’t love it. That’s why it’s important for people to go to the zoo and see the elephant and then grow up loving elephants and understand what’s going on with elephants, which are the largest land mammal on earth. When people go to the zoo, they learn things—like the giraffe has the same number of vertebrae as a human being. Zoos will play a major role in conserving the earth’s wildlife.

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Melanie D.G. Kaplan

About Melanie D.G. Kaplan

Melanie D.G. Kaplan is a contributing writer for SmartPlanet.

Melanie D.G. Kaplan

Melanie D.G. Kaplan

Contributing Writer

Melanie D.G. Kaplan is a regular contributor to The Washington Post and WebMD and has written for The New York Times, National Geographic Traveler and People. She holds degrees from Syracuse University and Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism. She is based in Washington, D.C.

Follow her on Twitter.

Melanie D.G. Kaplan

Melanie D.G. Kaplan

In addition to working as a journalist, Melanie keeps the dog food fund flush with occasional consulting jobs. In the unusual event that her writing mentions a company or organization for which she has provided editorial services, she will disclose that fact. She will do the same should she cover any companies in which she holds investments.

She writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
42
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Jack Hanna on the one word in global warming that everyone's avoiding
I just lost all respect for "jungle Jack."

There isn't an overpopulation problem on the planet, there is a corruption problem. Too many corrupt politicians getting theirs and not taking care of real problems.

There also isn't a 'global warming' problem... it's yet another method of the political left to re-distribute wealth. Temperatures have been DECREASING for the past decade, yet the zombies on the left continue to preach 'climate change.'

Sorry, Jack, you've been hanging around Letterman too much.
Posted by sstevens2006
26th May 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Jack Hanna on the one word in global warming that everyone's avoiding
Actually Jack is right...it's ALL about overpopulation. Any environmentalist who avoids the overpopulation issue is not a real environmentalist.

gary
Posted by gdstark13
26th May 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Jack Hanna on the one word in global warming that everyone's avoiding
Well said, Jack. Most environmentalists won't talk about overpopulation for fear of offending religious or political sensibilities. Unfortunately, overpopulation threatens everyone regardless of race, religion, or nationality. More public figures need to be honest about the impact of human population growth. Only then can we work towards a solution for the well-being of all.
Posted by lauraemily
26th May 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Jack Hanna on the one word in global warming that everyone's avoiding
I'm glad to see that someone is finally pointing out the obvious; overpopulation. Anyone who thinks it is not a problem has never been to 3rd world countries, or chooses to keep their heads stuck in the sand and "think happy thoughts".
This planet has large, but limited resources. Any good farmer can tell you that an acre of ground can only support a certain number of livestock. The same applies to humans and this planet.
If more people would step up and speak out, then maybe a solution could be found. Population growth needs to be addressed as the serious problem that it is.
Posted by purevw@...
26th May 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Jack Hanna on the one word in global warming that everyone's avoiding
Whoa Steven! I'm not sure where you're getting your data about temperatures decreasing. Globally they are increasing and we've had our hottest years on record during the past 15 years. http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/jan/HQ_10-017_Warmest_temps.html

Among the science community (they are not all democrats) it is almost universally held that humans have at least contributed to this warming. And more humans will just contribute more. That's math. This is either through contributing pollution to the atmosphere or destroying environments that help regulate climate.

Yes, climate change is a given with this planet. It went through many changes before we humans came along and will go through more after we are gone. But it's pretty difficult to deny that if we aren't causing the current warming that we are at least contributing to it.
Posted by boomchuck1
26th May 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Jack Hanna on the one word in global warming that everyone's avoiding
I agree with sstevens.
Cars add so little to the so-called global warming problem. More
importantly, the earth goes in cycles and it always has. The
problem is the wrong people have the "bully pulpit," and they are
the ones who stand to gain $$$ from their call to arms. The
regular folks are being used again.

bac
Posted by jccoflbi
26th May 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Jack Hanna on the one word in global warming that everyone's avoiding
I must agree with Jack. Overpopulation is a current and future threat with no end in site. China has been attempting to address this issue by limiting the number of children parents can have as a couple. But, global warming is not the greatest threat caused by over population.

Over population causes a strain on resource availability and that issue will ultimately lead to war. On the darker side of bright, war will address the population problem for a short time, but ultimately we will be forced to make tough decisions regarding population growth and resource management.

I'll add one more item to this response. Current medical technology is on track to begin increasing human longevity within 10 years. If people begin living 10-20 years longer than current expectations, then we will see an even larger growth in populations as those individuals live longer.

Peace
Posted by svenwilliams
26th May 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Jack Hanna on the one word in global warming that everyone's avoiding
The climate change deniers seem to have an "all or nothing" mentality. The reality of climate change (warming) is not in doubt. Regardless of whether humans are causing it or not, it will have catastrophic effects for humans, and humans are the only species on the planet that can try to mitigate those effects. We have a responsibility to make the effort.
Posted by jimwhitend
26th May 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Jack's cop-out.
So he takes the "bold" stance by bringing up the issue of overpopulation, but then doesn't bother to suggest how it might be addressed. Clearly, the approach taken by China didn't work, and is actually creating what might be a even bigger problem.

He doesn't even address the primary cause of overpopulation: Western generosity. Through technological development, over the last century we've made food the cheapest it's ever been. We've radically reduced infant mortality globally, and through improved technology and lifestyles we've extended average lifespans nearly twofold.

So would Jack dare suggest that we stop feeding and healing the developing world? Or would he suggest a more eugenics-based approach?
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
26th May 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Jack Hanna on the one word in global warming that everyone's avoiding
Right on Sven. Your point about medical advances speaks to what will become a huge problem over the next 3 or 4 generations. Not only will life expectancies increase but infant mortality rates are decreasing. As we learn to cure and prevent more and more disease, population is going to skyrocket. Think about what a cure for AIDS alone would do to the world population. My grandfather died of cancer, I know people who have died from Hepatitis C and AIDS, but I must pose the question, if science goes on it's way to cure every disease known to man where is that gonna leave us in battle against overpopulation?
Posted by bradmx44@...
26th May 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Jack Hanna on the one word in global warming that everyone's avoiding
I'll say it one more time......we're screwing ourselves out of a place to live (planet earth). Birth control is not a choice, it is now an imperative. When the youth of the world think sex is just another way to say hello and who cares about the consequences....something is very, very wrong. Humans are like cancer.....their motto is also GROWTH! And like cancer, humans will eventually destroy their hosts.
Posted by cfmack69
26th May 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Jack Hanna on the one word in global warming that everyone's avoiding
To: sstevens2006 and other idiots
"Temperatures have been DECREASING for the past decade,"

Why are ice caps and icebergs all over the world melting?

I suppose that as long as you're satisfied you personally didn't warm the planet, then we just shouldn't worry about it.

Wake up!
Posted by 1Queen1
26th May 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Jack Hanna on the one word in global warming that everyone's avoiding
Back in the sixties there was a belief among some that the "Population Bomb," as it was known, was going to sink Western civilization long before the present day. Obviously, that hasn't happened. However, what we do have is not all that great either. Climate change is happening, and the preponderance of evidence indicates that human activity has at least some bearing on that. Energy resources are becoming more expensive to develop all the time; the recent BP Gulf blow-out indicates just what can happen when development takes place without adequate safeguards. If China tries to achieve an American-style standard of living for its whole population, the rest of us are in for a bunch of trouble. The competition for resources will get ugly.

In a house of fixed size, we're increasing the size of the family all the time. We're all trying to use more appliances and we're blowing the fuses more frequently. We're using more water for our showers and cooking, and it's all coming through the same size pipe. Sooner or later, the house will begin experiencing systemic breakdowns as the utility infrastructure begins collapsing because it can't handle the loads put upon it. Only a fool will believe otherwise.

The crux of the whole problem is this: How do you reduce the population in a humane way? Do you want to initiate mandatory sterilization? Do you want to have forced abortions to control population? Do you encourage same-sex couples? Will there be "Logan's Run"-style termination of life at age 30? The draconian choices all assume that we wait until there are no other alternatives. I'd say it's time to realize there _is_ an issue, and begin dealing with it as humanely as possible. Encourage smaller families. Encourage later marriages. Encourage women in the workforce. Encourage early retirement. Make birth-control technology widely available. Do everything you can in as non-coercive a manner as possible to begin reducing the population. We don't live on a wide-open planet any more; we've been fruitful and multiplied. It's time to move to the next level, and find ways to live a more stable and sustainable life.
Posted by Den2010
26th May 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Jack Hanna on the one word in global warming that everyone's avoiding
Agree with Jack....
But I have considered this obvious for a very long time.
regardless of earth's present temperature status.
There are no limits to the human population...
There are limits to planet earth.
and we are exceeding this earth's limitations much faster than we can provide for migration to other places in the universe.
(I really don't want to leave).

But even as I agree with Jack.. and am also hopeful..
How do you get the rest of the world to see this as an issue that must be faced?
In the 1960s and early 70s.. the subject of birth control was considered an imperative in helping 3rd world nations.
The developed nations gave this up by the 1980s....
Some how it became politically un-popular to address this.
Short sighted goals , the silly belief that "science" or "technology" can fix anything became the rule of the day.

There is no substitute for individuals taking responsibility for their actions.
Posted by jrlambert
26th May 2010
0 Votes
+ -
dbarr, what you advocate has already happened in the west.
Europe has been depopulating for generations now. America would
be doing the same if it were not for immigration. The problem is
almost entirely in the 3rd world.

Now, who is going to go tell the poor countries to stop making
people, and how are you going to enforce it?
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
26th May 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Jack Hanna on the one word in global warming that everyone's avoiding
Here's a riddle for you:
What do you get when you cross a lemming, a cow, and a rabbit together?
I won't give you the answer but here's a clue: stupid people breed more than smart people.
Posted by IndredKold
26th May 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Hanna is so right!
Having studied population in college with the late population guru Philip Hauser, I've got to report that Jack Hanna hit the nail on the head. For more than half a century, population experts have long known that overpopulation will kill this planet. There are just so many natural resources available and so much environmental damage each of us does in the course of our daily lives.

No matter how great our scientific accomplishments may be, overpopulation undermines our ability to spread prosperity throughout the world. Sadly the continued population explosion in "third world" countries threatens the planet as much the environmental damage we perpetrate through our self-centered abuse of the environment.

Now I know that the members of the radical right who write here will no doubt flame me with all sorts of personal attacks as is their wont. So before you go wacky on me, my wife and I drive a 2001 Honda Insight (near zero emission hybrid) that has gotten 45.5 mpg for the life of the car and even 80 mpg on the highway. Our "big" car is a 2007 Honda Fit Sport that has averaged 30.5 mpg during its life -- and we've got only 70,000 miles on the two cars in their combined 12.5 years.
Posted by dl@...
26th May 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Hey dl, most liberals like to flame me as "radical right"...
...and I agree with you: Population is a problem.

But my question to you is this: Exactly how do we stop population
growth in non-Western countries that will not result in us being
considered Nazis?
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
26th May 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Jack Hanna on the one word in global warming that everyone's avoiding
It's been shown that the single biggest factor in reducing birth rates is educating and empowering women. In too many of the societies with the highest birth rates women are considered chattel to be used by men. Educated women can take control of their own fertility.
Posted by riverat1
26th May 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Jack Hanna on the one word in global warming that everyone's avoiding
Thank you, John, McGrew. There are some good answers here and some not so good, but yours is the best. The developed world is not increasing in population, at least not very much, or is actually shrinking. The poor souls in the Third World are still following the biological imperative to reproduce, often because they want to have kids who will take care of them in their old age and also because they expect to lose some. Good luck telling them NOT to reproduce. And we often help the problem with our generosity instead of letting nature takes its course, which would be a monstrously callous attitude for us to take so what are we to do? Let other humans die? On the other hand, how much are these people, mostly living in technologically undeveloped areas, damaging the ozone layer? With their non-existent cars or their non-existent factories and power plants?
Finally, what flames do some of you expect from the Religious Right? They are mostly Protestant and therefore do not object to birth control, only abortion.
Posted by mlmiller1959@...
26th May 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Jack Hanna on the one word in global warming that everyone's avoiding
The paradox is birth rates decrease as living standards and education increase.
Posted by Repeal
26th May 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Jack Hanna on the one word in global warming that everyone's avoiding
I am an engineer, but I worked and gained a degree in Zoology, physiology, cell biology, psychology and some more. By the time I finished my degree I was sick of zoologists, environmentalists and every other branch of biological science. Why, because they place more value on animals 'loving elephants' is one such comment by Jack Hanna, whoever he is. What about culling seals and whales and other fish guzzling creatures so that the human being can get fed. A seal eats about half of its body weight in a week and they average 20 stone (work it out in the silly French Metric system for yourself). I read an article that suggested moving the whole population in an area of 1500 square miles in one of the Indian states to allow tigers to roam (freely). They stopped hunting foxes in Britain, because it was cruel to the fox, yet they want to let wolves roam in the hills of Scotland, where they will I presume humanely kill the deer they live off. Have you seen wolfs bringing down a deer, eating it from the arse forward, that?s not cruel according to the people who claimed fox hunting was cruel?
The problem with the world is that minority groups are getting their own way, that includes politicians, and the rich are steal ever more of the money that show go to people who actually do the work of keeping society functioning.
You get a fairly good impression of what a tiger looks like from a stuffed one!
Posted by Stovies
26th May 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Jack Hanna on the one word in global warming that everyone's avoiding
Too many distortions and absolute lies to begin commenting on. It's amazing how easily people accept them.
Posted by jwlthe4th
26th May 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Jack Hanna on the one word in global warming that everyone's avoiding
Jack's two examples, Rwanda and Vermont, are supposed to
cement the idea that over population is a major factor in "global
warming" needs a bit more examination. There is a massive
difference in the populations of the two, roughly equal areas of
land. Then he seems to tie in population with too many cars. I'm
betting that comparing the number of vehicles between Vermont
and Rwanda would yield something closer to the truth and
further studying the uses of those vehicles would get you even
closer.

If you were to take the area with the highest population density
and force all of humanity into a single location with similar density
you'd likely be shocked at how little space it occupies. Similarly,
if you spread the entire population evenly across the globe (or
even the easily habitable parts of the globe) you'd likely be
shocked at how close (or far away) your nearest neighbors
would be. For most of us, they'd be a lot farther away than we'd
be comfortable with.

Every citation of overpopulation I've ever seen has concentrated
on the highest population densities.

The thing is, the problems we face are not as simple as cutting
population or doing 'x'.
Posted by carlos.benjamin
26th May 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Finality
Many years ago, a noted science fiction writer (I think it was Robert Heinlein) postulated that there would be three final wars. He referred to these as "The Resource Wars". The First would be about "Energy"; the Second would be over water; and the last would be over arable land (for growing food).
We may have had the first, or it might be still happening. As several writers here have noted, the "carry capacity" of the land is being greatly exceeded. How we solve this problem, IF it can be solved, remains to be seen.
Posted by JTF243@...
26th May 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Unfortunately @riverat1...
...since much of the exponential population growth is taking place in
the Islamic world, the idea that we would be able to "empower"
women does not seem very likely.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
27th May 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Jack Hanna on the one word in global warming that everyone's avoiding
I also agree with Jack on this, and think that sstevens2006 needs to go back to sleep.

The other problem, is the tie between global warming and over population. There are two aspects of this relationship.

The first problem is what we tend to think of. More people burn more fossil fuels and release more pollution, etc.

The second problem is one I do not hear discussed. The earth has massive potential energy, like a battery. Our atmosphere is a closed system. Think of a pot of water on the stove.

As the population increases, it's like turning up the heat on the stove. The release of CO2, etc. is like putting a lid onto the pot, which causes the water to boil faster with less energy put into the system.

What we don't consider is that consuming energy ultimately releases heat into the atmosphere. The more people you have and the faster you burn energy, the more heat you release, like turning up the thermostat in your house.

Using a battery analogy, as you increase the current draw, the battery heats up. At some point, if the temperature increases too much, the battery may fail before it ever runs out of juice.
Posted by charlesk61
27th May 2010
0 Votes
+ -
@charlesk61
The amount of heat directly produced by human activities is so small compared to the heat energy from the Sun that it can be ignored for all practical purposes. Although it can have a local effect in some cases in the big picture it amounts to a rounding error. Human caused emmissions of GHGs is a bigger factor by a couple of orders of magnitude.
Posted by riverat1
27th May 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Name one of these problems that won't be fixed by population control
War?
Famine?
Disease?
Destruction of resources?
Depletion of resources?
Crime?
Polution?

I have always thought we had too many people, the moral problem is who do we exclude? That is why no one wants to try answering this aspect of the question. You end up looking like a bigot of one kind or another. It still doesn't fix the root problem TOO MANY PEOPLE! And, any system will short change someone.
Posted by mikifinaz1@...
27th May 2010
0 Votes
+ -
mikifinaz1@
That looks like a list of the things that will fix the overpopulation problem for us if we don't do something about it first.

As I mentioned above the most important thing we could do to mitigate the problem is to educate and empower women around the world. As John McGrew pointed out that's not going to be easy.
Posted by riverat1
27th May 2010
0 Votes
+ -
The fix for over-population
For over 4 thousand years, we have known that the solution to population growth is "civilization", that is to say, living in cities. Every large city since antiquity has had negative population growth bar immigration.

The reason population growth has fooled the experts over the last 100 years is that they did not take this into account, and the impact of people leaving the land in places like India has significantly reduced population growth in those areas.

Pu simply, people who live in cities do not need lots of children, and they find the means not to have them - even before the pill.

The planet will eventually enforce population control - the real question is do we want to suffer the impact of systemic failure, or do we plan and act now to mitigate the "correction". History would suggest that we will sail along as before, and bleat and whine when the inevitable happens.
Posted by dimonic
28th May 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Jack Hanna on the one word in global warming that everyone's avoiding
I agree with Jack. We are creating a problem by over-population of our planet. However, this is not causing global climate change. Are we polluting out planet in too many ways to mention, you bet! However, this is not causing global climate change. Is there any way to stop global climate change? Nope, the Earth has been warming up and cooling down since it came into being 4 billion years ago. So what do we do? We stop polluting, learn to control our population and start planning on how we are going to survive on a planet that is going to get hotter and colder to extremes. If you want to worry about something else, go read up on the upcoming and by most accounts late reversal of the Earth's poles. When it happens, the magnetic field that protects us from the radiation of the sun virtually collapses. Until the reversal is complete, BTW it takes several thousand years, many species will disappear, man included unless we start planning now on how to survive. If you don't believe me, Google "Earth Magnetic Field Reversal" and read up on what's coming. It's scientific fact not scientific fiction like mankind causing global warming. And since I don't usually come back to read your snappy responses, I'd be happy to entertain your replies at seffner2003@yahoo.com.
Posted by taustin21@...
28th May 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Jack Hanna on the one word in global warming that everyone's avoiding
Over population of any kind [ranching of cattle, sheep etc.] can
contribute to global warming but that's an obvious issue and
close to impossibility to resolve, political or otherwise.

what can be done is to relocate future cities to non-arable land
like the desert [las vegas, dubai etc.] and in the tropics, build on
water,[bangkok, brunei] including rivers and ocean.

meanwhile, existing cities should embrace the rainforest
mentality-i.e. plant trees not lawns!!!!!!. every inch of arable land
in the city should be planted and let them grow naturally. no
cutting or trimming.Mr. politician, just do it. no if or buts.
Posted by jyanzikong
29th May 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Jack Hanna on the one word in global warming that everyone's avoiding
Over population of any kind [ranching of cattle, sheep etc.] can
contribute to global warming but that's an obvious issue and
close to impossibility to resolve, political or otherwise.

what can be done is to relocate future cities to non-arable land
like the desert [las vegas, dubai etc.] and in the tropics, build on
water,[bangkok, brunei] including rivers and ocean.

meanwhile, existing cities should embrace the rainforest
mentality-i.e. plant trees not lawns!!!!!!. every inch of arable land
in the city should be planted and let them grow naturally. no
cutting or trimming.Mr. politician, just do it. no if or buts.
Posted by jyanzikong
29th May 2010
0 Votes
+ -
The one word in global warming that everyone's avoiding-self interest.
So Jack let?s start with you and your family and friends and ho, how about the writers of this article? Perhaps we can cut the U.S. population by 100 million. After all if it?s good for the African & Asian countries then it must be good for them. Any volunteers?

Overpopulation is a term created by the rich to maintain control of the earth from the rest. Africa is the world's second-largest and second most-populous continent, after Asia. At about 30.2 million km? (11.7 million sq mi) including adjacent islands, it covers 6% of the Earth's total surface area and 20.4% of the total land area. With a billion people (as of 2009) in 61 territories, it accounts for about 14.72% of the World?s human population. [1] So where is the world?s other 85%? Why not worry about that large number? Perhaps Jack means we should sterilize the nationals in the U.S. and all European countries and not have to worry about the peoples in Africa or Asia? If the land in Africa could not sustain the population then there could not have been a steady growth over the last 100 years. When famine, poor sanitation, disease and war, and their current method of agricultural technology is factor in, it means that Africans are able to sustain themselves despite these hardships. Therefore they do not have an overpopulation issue. And since western cooperation have been pillaging their lands for its resources it means that that they have the means to elevate themselves form poverty if they were in proper control of those resources. This would be possible if western governments were not installing doctors to ensure western cooperation?s are able to rape and pillage the land at will. This is exactly what Robert Mugabe stated a few years back at the U.N and was raked over by the western controlled media for stating this truth.

Asia is the world's largest and most populous continent. It covers 8.6% of the Earth's total surface area (or 29.9% of its land area) and with approximately 4 billion people, it hosts 60% of the world's current human population. [2] During the 20th century Asia's population nearly quadrupled. Are the people of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Russia, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Japan and Hong Kong staving? Most of the people in China are not rich however the majority are not starving despite their large populations. In fact most have escaped property over the last 60 years not enter into it. China is expected to do the same despite the slave wages it workers are paid. North Korea world be better off if there was no embargo against it much like Cuba would be if the U.S. lifted its embargo over it.

If we compare population growth relative to so called global warming how much has the globe warmed relative to the increase in population? That is, has there been a one to one relationship, increasing or decreasing relationship? The truth is that temperature has not change anywhere near the rate of population growth over the last 60 years. It suggests that there is not significant relationship between pollution growth and global warming. Therefore population growth does not lead to global warming. However the sun does have a far greater affect on climate on this planet than the combined 6-9 billion of us.

Fact Jack-ass: Most people walk, ride a bike or animal than drive a car on this planet.

Fact Jack-ass: According to the U.N. , livestock (sheep, chickens, pigs and goats.) are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together. [3]

Fact Jack-ass: A significant portion of the greenhouse gases are these emissions from methane, which, in terms of its contribution to global warming, is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. [4]

[1] United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, population division),Sayre, April Pulley. (1999) Africa, Twenty-First Century Books
[2] Like herrings in a barrel The Economist. December 23, 1999.
[3] The Independent 09, 2006
[4] Jacob Silverman, Do cows pollute as much as cars?
Posted by mario@...
1st Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Don't worry. The progressive economic agenda will solve this
Our economy will continue to retract due to unsustainable debt loads and disincentives to produce, such as cap-and-trade and impending increases in taxation of income. As our economy retracts and all methods of production become more expensive or outright unaffordable, food production will inevitably decrease. Eventually, we will cease being a net exporter of food, which will cause shortages and starvation elsewhere in the world.

Americans might finally start loosing weight. But the rest of the world will lose a lot more.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
1st Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Jack Hanna on the one word in global warming that everyone's avoiding
As many of you pointed out, overpopulation is a very difficult challenge. Just how do you get people to have less babies? I agree that woman's rights is a big factor, but here's another idea...require the use of contraceptive implants as a prerequisite to accepting financial aid (welfare, foreign aid, etc). This way it's still a choice. And it's reversable. I suspect the solution will be more considerably complex than this, but free contraception to the people having the most babies should certainly help.

gary
Posted by gdstark13
1st Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Over population: that is the issue.
There are too many people for the available resources. It is primarily a regional problem. But it is happening in regions all over. If the local environment cannot support the local population something will correct it. Some of the people may move away. Some one may develop more resources. In many cases the result is that people die. From disease, or starvation, or a bullet. They will die.

The hard fact, really hard fact, is that aid to the worst areas is often diverted and as a result wasted. Either that or it is too far gone to save.

At some point in time we will need to implement disaster procedures, like triage. Evaluate the situation; defer the minor injuries; help the ones that can be saved; let the others go. Say a prayer, shed a tear, then get up the next morning and do it all over again.

The world will go on. The question is how much damage will we do before it takes its revenge?
Posted by lars626
1st Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Jack Hanna on the one word in global warming that everyone's avoiding
@sstevens2006:
Other than with the corruption charges, you are a part of the problem rather than a part of the solution.
Posted by jonniebgood
3rd Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Jack Hanna on the one word in global warming that everyone's avoiding
Finally, someone who is willing to touch the third rail in the global warming discussion. Years ago Malthus predicted the population would exceed the earth's capacity to feed people. In the interval we've improved crops, the ways they're grown, delivery to market, etc. We've also drawn closer to exhausting our aquifers and poluting ourselves to death. A small minority on the planet live at least relatively well; the vast majority get by; another minority slowly die of starvation.

We will continue to improve our crops, though biological enhancement brings with it potential dangers that may not become evident for generations. But I don't see -- now there have always been people like me -- how we will have enough potable water for the 8 billion that will soon inhabit the planet. Nor do I see how we will provide adequate medical care to a population that size. We can't do it now with only 6 billion.

Limiting the population is one thing we can do, a violation of human rights, irreligious, or whatever it may be to some people. It's a start, but I won't be holding my breath until enough people commit to it to make it happen.

In the US our congress can't secure our southern border, legislate a fair way to deal with illegal aliens, or balance the budget. From C-SPAN I see that it can't even find a reasonable and just way to deal with the financial crisis produced by banking and Wall Street machinations. The prospect of the congress attempting to deal with an explosive issue like population control is more than frightening.
Posted by brambeus
10th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Jack Hanna on the one word in global warming that everyone's avoiding
The underlying equation of 'overpopulation' is:

(Amount of Resources) creating air
pollution.

We have been getting along pretty much by trying to increase
resources. But limits exist. Something in that equation will have
to change --- we can either try to change rationally, or leave it up to
the next random war / famine / disease..

Our economic systems are geared to growth. A company is often
measured (irrationally) by the 2nd derivative of the increase in
profits, rather than the profits itself.

Do we only respond to disasters? Or do we try to plan ?
Posted by mihondo
30th Dec 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Jack Hanna on the one word in global warming that everyone's avoiding
mihondo,
Thank you for creating a platform for a real discussion, which, unfortunately, is so difficult to do on these comment formats. Most comments are just pronouncements that do nothing to further a real discussion.

Your post does not guarantee that a real discussion will take place, however. But I'll bite just to see what happens.

As for the increasing resources, our economic system is based on the faulty assumption that if something gets expensive enough that an alternative will rise up to take its place since more expensive alternatives become more affordable. Problem is that in the ecological world, things don't always work that way. You can't replace food with going to more movies, for instance. We can do things more efficiently, however, which has much the same effect as switching out. For instance, folks can eat more grains instead of feeding that grain to livestock, which is much less efficient way to use that grain. This is not always a very popular direction, but one way to go.

As far as decreasing the number of individuals, folks above are correct in terms of the impact of birth control and education for reducing rates. McGrew is also correct in terms of fundamentalist regimes not accepting either one of these. I suspect that most governments can acceptably promote this dual strategy successfully, and the business community could also do its part in this endeavor. And, yes, I include the US as a country which could do more than it does, although it will not be without lots of controversy.

Decreasing what one consumes is a challenge, in the same way that decreasing the population birth rates. Actually China's forced population control worked very well indeed, John, if you look at their birth rate, especially when compared to countries like India. Similarly, China's people only consume 1/5 of US per capita energy consumption. Most of us don't like the totalitarian approach, and I still hold out for education and voluntary embracing of a future which we cut. back on our individual consumption. This requires a lot of civil discussion and democratic processes which are currently in disuse and battered from all sides. It's time to begin these discussions in our communities.
Posted by klassman6
2nd Jan 2011
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!