Check this space for occasional updates and other items of interest.
[6/2014 - Note: I've long preferred an earlier working title I had used for this article: Agriculture: The Beginning and End of Civilization]
My first full article in a year and a half, Agriculture: ending the world as we know it, is out today in the Canyon Country Zephyr. Published by Jim Stiles, The Zephyr, based in Southern Utah, has been taking independent, uncompromising stands on environmental matters for over twenty years. That makes it a good fit for this piece falling far outside the standard environmental thinking dominating the mainstream media.
The article looks at the unsustainability of agriculture and, therefore, civilization. It examines the human break from nature in the origin of agriculture ten thousand years ago and where we are headed as a result. We cannot avoid tough times ahead, though we do have options available for softening the landing. Ultimately, we need to acknowledge the obvious but fundamental point that hunting and gathering is the only human way of life we know to be sustainable.
One point I'd like to have covered more thoroughly in the article is the notion that a horticultural alternative such as large scale permaculture-based food growing could simply replace agriculture. The text of a footnote to a previous blog post (see below) adds a worthwhile clarification:
On a large enough scale, even a major improvement such as permaculture would seem to suffer from a similar problem of transforming the land excessively for human consumption. It is intended, however, to be practiced on a scale small enough -- and with ethical constraints against large populations -- that it might prove sustainable under conditions of a much smaller human population. This is not to suggest it as an "alternative" to agriculture, without which humans did quite well for most of our history. As an approach to small-scale gardening -- something practiced by many hunter-gatherers -- it makes great sense. Once we begin to depend, though, on growing food as our primary means of subsistence, upping the scale by altering large tracts of habitat, taking control of our food supply by creating and storing unnecessary surpluses, the problems start. (I am aware of nothing concrete, by the way, built into the practice of permaculture which would prevent population growth. I welcome information to the contrary.)
That said, there will surely be a transitional period, post-civilization, when permaculture and related approaches to food production will be essential to many of those shifting toward true sustainability, even prior to a full move into hunting and gathering.
Related to the note above, please also see the more recent notes following the previous post.
[Please see the updates under this post. Until a likely article on horticulture and tending the wild, they will serve as a first pass at the subject. If you have questions or comments going beyond what I've written here, feel free to email me. My thoughts are generally a few steps ahead of what I venture to post or submit for publication.]
Time for an update listing a few simple, related points which underlie my thinking today.
A much fuller version of these and other ideas will appear in a new article I've written. I'll post a link once it's published. [Update: Expect a link in August late July to the new article.]
So here's the gist...
Civilization is inherently destructive and unsustainable. A key reason for this is that civilization is founded on agriculture. Agriculture circumvents the natural processes which regulated human population numbers prior to its inception. It is the basic ecological factor which has caused our numbers to overshoot carrying capacity so enormously. Along the way, agriculture destroys topsoil and ecosystems, tearing down the web of life, our global life support system. Agriculture is therefore unsustainable.
Civilization will therefore come to an end. Because the human population is deeply into overshoot, we know that ending will involve a tremendous decline in our numbers. Converging issues such as peak oil, climate change, topsoil and groundwater depletion, and the human-caused sixth mass extinction event in Earth's history suggest this may occur not many centuries from now, but sooner. How much sooner, no one can say.
Though this signals the potential for tough times ahead, it is in the long run wonderful news. It means an end to what's killing the earth.
Hunting and gathering is the only human way of living proven sustainable. Fortunately, it is a rich, fulfilling way of life, not utopian but immune to many of the basic problems plaguing civilization and much less prone to others. It's natural for humans, the life we evolved living. Thomas Hobbes' speculation that life in a "state of nature" is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" is just wrong, a well debunked myth. Yet its endurance creates resistance to a way of life, for the long term human future, in harmony with the earth.
The reason for today's growing "rewilding" movement thus becomes clear. "Rewilding" refers to efforts to reclaim what we've lost with civilization, returning to a more natural or wild state, a state typical of hunter-gatherers past and present. (A related but distinct form of "rewilding" seeks, among other things, to return certain large predators or their proxies to areas where they are extinct.)
We see then, as well, the reason for calls for a resistance movement from writers such as Zerzan and Jensen. Every day civilization remains intact brings more destruction of the web of life. Resistance aimed at hastening civilization's fall might therefore preserve more biodiversity, more life, human and nonhuman, than a strategy of merely waiting and watching. Potential unintended consequences of such resistance actions, however, present a thorny dilemma would-be advocates. We face hard choices.
An easier and still tremendously valuable option is to do what we can through established conservation measures to protect as much habitat and biodiversity as possible, helping to preserve those things for any post-civilization future. That is the thinking behind the "organizations" page on this site.
If you're interested in this topic, see the "core ecological issues" page for relevant links.
When investigating hunter-gatherers, it's worth keeping a couple of things in mind. First, make sure you are looking at hunter-gatherers. I often see people, even prominent writers, attribute characteristics to hunter-gatherers only to find they are talking about some society which is actually agrarian or pastoral.
Second, it is crucial to understand the differences between "immediate-return" and "delayed-return" hunter-gatherers. As far as we know, the former term (roughly synonymous with "simple" hunter-gatherers) describes our ancestors' subsistence for the great bulk of human history. (See, e.g., Berman's Wandering God, 2000, p. 54; Kelly's The Foraging Spectrum, 2007, p. 304; the summary in the Knauft et al. article Violence and Sociality in Human Evolution, 1991.) Moreover, it's clear any debate on the matter becomes increasingly unreasonable as we work our way back through human existence. The first delayed-return societies may have begun to emerge during the Upper Paleolithic. Among these were also the first tribal societies, immediate-return societies having been composed of bands, not tribes.
Anthropologist Ernest S. Burch, Jr. wrote:
"In my judgment, the most definitive division of small-scale societies identified so far is not between foraging and agrarian, but between immediate-return and delayed-return societies... or nonstoring and storing societies... As Testart... put it,
Agriculturalists and storing hunter-gatherers together are neatly in opposition to nonstoring hunter-gatherers. ...
Immediate-return or 'generalized' hunter-gatherer societies are so unlike all others that, as Birdsell... once noted, it is difficult even for anthropologists who have not personally experienced one to conceive how they can exist; it is almost impossible for nonanthropologists to do so."
I've observed that only a tiny minority of rewilders and anarcho-primitivists seem truly to appreciate this distinction. Yet it makes all the difference.
A note on horticultural societies
Archaeological evidence for extensive horticulture goes back not much farther than that for agriculture. Unless new evidence emerges to change our understanding then, we must conclude for now that this kind of society, much touted by many today as a model for our long term future, has nothing remotely approaching the track record of sustainability of immediate-return hunting and gathering.
A key problem lies in the apparent inevitable population growth inherent in any surplus-producing subsistence strategy. (I describe that in an article and mention it in a note under this post.) Other questions concern the impacts of land modification, beyond the beneficial effects (as expected of the impacts of various species) of simple foraging, in the interest of human needs.
Is the attraction to an option like horticultural societies itself a product of civilization? The pull to find something more sedentary, some way by which we take more control over our food supply, separating ourselves more from local ecosystems in order to exert control over them, so living less as we evolved living, may sometimes be hard to resist for many of us who have grown up in civilization. But while horticultural methods, informed for instance by permaculture principles, will no doubt be necessary as a transitional tool post-civilization, perhaps the truth for our long term future is there before us in the only way of living to have endured for all of human history.
A note on "tending the wild"
This follows on the last note.
(Added footnote, 6/14; Added the paragraph "Some advocates...," 7/14; minor additions and edits susequently. Added footnote 3/15. Added the two paragraphs beginning with, "Finally, advocates...," 3/15. A few other small revisions... Another update is in the works but may not see the light of day if instead I get around to a cohesive article on these topics. Update 5/15: I finally have an article on this topic in the works. Update 7/14: The article-in-progress is turning into something closer to two or three articles, depending on the publication. It won't likely be finished before the end of the summer. It will probably be a substantial elaboration on the ideas below, but with the addition of discussion of the common assertion that anthropgenic fire, for purposes of ecoystem "management," transformed the landscape nearly everywhere in the world.)
There are important questions as well about "tending the wild," the less transformative "land management" practices of some groups. (These practices include such actions as pruning, weeding, coppicing, burning, transplanting, sewing seeds, and irrigating.) A little digging suggests its frequency is exaggerated by many rewilders and anarcho-primitivists. One common notion is that some level of tending the wild has been universal among hunter-gatherers going far back into the Paleolithic. Another is that such practices are always a large part of the work of any hunting and gathering.
Important evidence says these notions are erroneous. Two of the oldest human societies on Earth, groups for whom we have definitive information, make the point. The Ju/’hoansi made occasional use of grass fires, but did no other land management. (See, e.g., the description in Elizabeth Marshall Thomas's book The Old Way.) Nor do we know how far back that practice went. Might it have been adopted only in the face of impacts from others?
The Hadza are but one example of hunter-gatherers who historically practiced no such land management at all. This was made clear to me in a personal communication (November, 2012) with Frank Marlowe, one of the leading anthropologists to have studied them. He added that there are in fact many other such societies. (Note that at some point we have to draw a line between common sense foraging and land management practices which go beyond basic foraging practices. At the most common sense level foraging may include, for example, limiting the plant products taken from an area over a given time.)
We have evidence of tending the wild, sometimes extensively, on the part of some North American groups , and some in other parts of the world, mostly over a time frame going back not much more than a few centuries, perhaps a few thousand years if we accept very liberal interpretations of the evidence - the same period in which agriculture and horticultural societies appeared.  With possible limited exceptions, such as certain peoples' possible (increasingly debated) use of fire, we do not have much evidence beyond that, certainly far too little to support the claims of universality some primitivists make today.
It seems clear enough the advent of full scale horticultural societies was an example of a species (homo sapiens) stepping out of the ecological niche it had previously occupied - a red flag signaling likely ecological problems. Was the same true of a move to tending the wild? It's a difficult question. I don't believe we know the time frame over which tending the wild developed or the places where it first appeared. At present, perhaps we can only speculate that the more quickly it appeared, the more clearly it would have constituted such a break.
People practiced tending the wild mostly to encourage plant growth patterns that would meet human needs. Though increasing plant and animal life of use to humans, why should we assume this promoted overall ecosystem health? Is is possible it degraded it?
Some advocates argue proper tending of the wild or other horticultural techniques (e.g., permaculture-derived) increase the richness and diversity of species in an area, that they "improve" ecosystems. They point, for instance, to evidence much of the Amazon region may be largely a human-created "food forest" (a notion some researchers believe to be an extreme exaggeration). Ask for evidence, though, that such practices somehow improved an ecosystem in comparison to how it was faring before human arrival and you'll likely get little of substance.
But let's take the advocates at their word. Are we being simplistic simply to use "more" as our measure of health? Might we need to consider, rather, something like an optimal biodiversity, an optimal mix of species, or an optimal abundance of species for an ecosystem? Does it not take some kind of grandiosity to assume we know what those are? Moreover, in areas where humans are a relatively recent arrival (e.g., the Americas) were those not present prior to human manipulation? Finally, how can we know such techniques always help rather than hurt the health of the biosphere as a whole? Though any impacts of such methods seem vastly less destructive than frank agriculture, I don't think we know enough to answer such questions with much certainty. But we do know nomadic, immediate-return foragers have lived sustainably on the earth via nothing more than hunting and gathering for as long as humans have existed. So which is the better bet? Do we really think we know better than those hunter-gatherers?
More clearly, such land management seems highly likely to have been a major factor in creating the large human populations now increasingly believed to have existed in the Western hemisphere prior to European contact. Did that not portend serious problems which would have developed had that catastrophic contact not altered the course of events? 
Finally, advocates of these land management practices often set up an argument which, on examination, seems a straw man. First they assert that all hunter-gatherers tended the wild and so contributed to the health of the land. They then contrast this erroneous observation with a made-up notion of immediate-return hunter-gatherers who, if they didn’t tend the wild, would be pure “takers” who, failing to "give back to the land," would therefore damage its health.
Though the flaws in their argument are no doubt unintentional, it's important to bring them to light. All species, living as they evolved living, interact within ecosystems, contributing to their health. Just as our primate cousins need not engage in pruning, weeding, coppicing, or burning for their subsistence to have beneficial effects on their habitat, neither must human hunter-gatherers apply such practices for their foraging and other behaviors to have similarly positive impacts. As a result of a few million years of evolution, a “giving back to the land” is built into pure hunting and gathering, the same “giving back” seen with other species. It’s when the purposeful, planned manipulation starts, attempting to bend the land to our will and so putting a wide and fundamental gap between ourselves and other species, that we have to question whether its impacts are necessarily positive.
Does the assumption of a universal practice of tending the wild reflect some primitivists' submission to the same urge toward human exceptionalism we see among most others in civilization?
But just so I'm not misunderstood, I stand by what I've said before: I suspect gardening informed by permaculture principles, tending the wild, and other related practices can play useful roles as transitional tools in the move away from civilization. They have value for both survival and, quite possibly, rudimentary levels of ecosystem restoration.
There are more questions than answers. Few seem willing to address them. Yet they raise obvious, serious concerns. While we need not unthinkingly reject tending the wild on the basis of unanswered questions, neither should we shy away from those questions.
There are, as well, concerns about horticulture and tending the wild I haven't touched on here. I may pull together something more thorough in the future.
For a view similar to my own, see this 2003 essay by Kevin Tucker:
Readers, if you think any of the concerns I've listed above are unwarranted, please let me know where you see a flaw in my thinking. I'd like to hear from you!
 Though some of these groups may be referred to as "hunter-gatherers," that classification may at times be applied too loosely. And few, it seems clear, were immediate-return hunter-gatherers. As would be expected of any group practicing substantial horticulture, they were typically more sedentary. (By definition, any significant "tending the wild" or any form of horticulture would appear to reflect delayed-return systems and world views as these practices involve active manipulations of the land with substantial time delays in future returns expressly in mind.)
 I've been frustrated in tracking down references cited by some authors (e.g., Anderson, Turner...) in support of earlier use of tending the wild (or even evidence of tending the wild 10k years ago). So far, none of the references I've been able to check has in fact provided such evidence. I'll provide more detail as I check further.
 In proposing long term solutions, some observe that certain of these societies as well as some more intensively horticultural societies used social norms to restrict population growth. But social norms change much more easily than built-in subsistence methods. They could not be counted on to remain in place in perpetuity. Nor could we expect all societies to implement them.
An recent opinion piece by anthropologist Donald Attwood in the Montreal Gazette created a good opportunity for a letter to the editor. I tried an understated approach, nudging a general readership to begin thinking about the corner we've painted ourselves into via agriculture. It's what John Zerzan calls the "demon engine of civilization." Here's the letter (or read it at the Gazette):
I share Donald Attwood's concern that children not go hungry. But as an environmental writer, I suggest his argument ignores a fundamental ecological principle: Population follows food supply. This is the base mechanism that kept human population size within carrying capacity for most of our history. It works well for all species on Earth, regulating fertility rates with no particular suffering.
Ten thousand years ago, with the adoption of agriculture, we began to circumvent this natural process, slowly clearing land and tearing down the web of life (spurring the sixth mass-extinction event in Earth's history) to produce an ever-increasing global food supply. More recently we added fossil fuels to the equation, inflating the food supply even more. The result of these developments has been an explosion of human numbers of over 130,000 percent.
Other layers of influences do come into play as well, which is why many countries now have lower fertility rates. Social factors such as the education of women and the widespread availability of family planning options do appear to correlate with reductions in fertility rates. If we want to encourage lower fertility rates in sub-Saharan Africa, we should focus on those factors. This does not mean forgoing food aid. But we must begin to confront how we have short-circuited nature's normal mechanism for population regulation. Short term, the best suggestion seems to be one of tying food aid to increases in family-planning options (and media strategies encouraging their use) as well as increased education for women.
Slightly longer term, we need to take a hard look at the problem of large-scale agriculture. It won't be easy; agriculture is the very foundation of civilization. But it has pushed us into gross overshoot of human carrying capacity with the threat of a massive population crash looming in the future.
John C. Feeney
It is, in many ways, the key topic facing humanity. I doubt mainstream society will voluntarily confront it in any serious way, but there's value in people coming to consider the core problems which make civilization an unsustainable trap. It's essential knowledge for those interested in rewilding.
[Revised on 8/30/10, 9/9/10, 9/20/13]
Lately it appears more people are beginning to consider the problem of human population size as it relates to carrying capacity. Nevertheless, misunderstanding abounds. Since my focus is elsewhere right now, and I have no plan to write on this topic for publication in the near future, I offer a few thoughts here. This is merely a quick sketch with much detail, some points of logic, and additional convincing evidence omitted. I may flesh it out sometime in the future.
Have we exceeded the earth's carrying capacity for humans? Many observers conclude there is no way to answer the question with any confidence. I believe their view stems from an assumption which fails to hold up to analysis. It is the common notion that, through human ingenuity, we've regularly been able through the course of history to increase carrying capacity.
This idea stems in part from the correct observation that the advent of agriculture and our later use of fossil fuels were central among those developments which allowed us to grow the human population as enormously as we have. It does not follow, however, that these developments increased carrying capacity.
The error here is in failing to account properly for overshoot. It is well established that animal populations sometimes overshoot or grow beyond carrying capacity. It is simple enough to demonstrate this has happened with the human population. Agriculture and fossil fuels have not increased carrying capacity; they have merely led to our overshooting it, our numbers supported entirely by what William Catton calls "phantom carrying capacity." It is not carrying capacity at all, and is only temporary. 
This is especially easy to see with regard to fossil fuel depletion. Fossil fuels are a finite resource. Relying on them, therefore, to support global food production can only be temporary.
But there are some less widely recognized observations which also support my point. (Recall here the definition of overshoot referenced above.) First, agriculture as we know it has always been unsustainable. It has brought with it soil erosion and an inevitable depletion of soil nutrients at rates far faster than their natural rates of renewal. This is comparable to our depletion of finite resources such as oil. It may have taken ten thousand years for us to see this, but that is barely an eye blink in human history.  
Second, consider that none of the processes which have allowed our numbers to explode has come without progressive cost to the web of life. We know well enough about the environmental impacts of extracting and burning fossil fuels. Less discussed is the cost of agriculture to other species. Cultivation agriculture means the elimination of all life from a piece of land, turning it then exclusively to human use via one or a few crops.   Multiply this by over a billion hectares and we see clearly how agriculture has been the primary driver of the Sixth Mass Extinction of species in Earth's history, the direct destruction of Earth's life support systems. Indeed, it is well accepted that this extinction event began (or entered a new, accelerated phase) upon the human transition to agriculture.
Third, in all species population follows food supply. Natural limits on food supply hold population sizes within appropriate limits. (Under normal circumstances, this works, by the way, with no particular suffering.) But by adopting agriculture we circumvent this normal process, thereby inevitably growing our numbers far beyond carrying capacity.
This point is often misunderstood, perhaps because it has seldom been thoroughly explained. Additionally, many people have trouble accepting (a) that humans are subject to the same natural processes as other species, and (b) that those processes worked perfectly well for us for nearly all of human history prior to civilization's stepping in and interfering. 
Not only have we not increased carrying capacity, we have decreased it. It's simple ecology. We depend on the web of life for our own survival. When a species consumes resources faster than they are renewed, degrading the habitat on which it depends, it erodes carrying capacity.
The damage we have done to the biosphere and the web of life has temporarily allowed us to grow our numbers but has reduced carrying capacity. This may be hard to believe when we consider that for nearly all of human history, prior to exploding into the billions, our numbers never exceeded more than a few million. It underscores the shocking degree by which we've overshot carrying capacity.
No, there is no clear evidence we have ever increased carrying capacity.  Rather, basic principles of ecology reveal we have managed only to overshoot it by an incredible margin.
For some underlying fundamentals of carrying capacity please see the article Six Steps to "Getting" the Global Ecological Crisis.
 For much more see Catton's classic text, Overshoot.
 For more detail see Agriculture: Unsustainable Resource Depletion Began 10,000 Years Ago by soil scientist Peter Salonius.
 Note the interacting nature of factors involved in overshoot. For instance, also putting fossil fuel use in the category of "phantom carrying capacity" is it's direct link to life-threatening climate change.
 For an illuminating description of this process see Lierre Kieth's The Vegetarian Myth.
 On a large enough scale, even a major improvement such as permaculture-based horticulture would seem to suffer from a similar problem of transforming the land excessively for human consumption. It is intended, however, to be practiced on a scale small enough -- and with ethical constraints against large populations -- that it might prove sustainable under conditions of a much smaller human population. This is not to suggest it as an "alternative" to agriculture, without which humans did quite well for most of our history. As an approach to small-scale gardening -- something practiced by many hunter-gatherers -- it makes great sense. Once we begin to depend, though, on growing food as our primary means of subsistence, upping the scale by altering large tracts of habitat, taking control of our food supply by creating and storing unnecessary surpluses, the problems start. (I am aware of nothing concrete, by the way, built into the practice of permaculture which would prevent population growth. I welcome information to the contrary.)
That said, there will surely be a transitional period, post-civilization, when permaculture and related approaches to food production will be essential to many of those shifting toward true sustainability, even prior to a full move into hunting and gathering.
[For more recent thoughts on horticulture, see the updates under this post.]
 References include Daniel Quinn's books Ishmael and The Story of B, this slide presentation and the journal articles available on Russ Hopfenberg's site, and this video featuring Quinn and conservation biologist Alan Thornhill fielding questions on the issue.
 Among the only arguable exceptions might be a few very limited, very early developments such as our learning to control fire (which may go back a million years or more) and the use of certain tools. Yet even these technologies may not strictly qualify as exceptions as they likely directly or indirectly did cause slight damage to ecosystems. (Recall the definition of carrying capacity referenced above.) Of course this was essentially imperceptible compared to what came later.
Once I moved about like the wind. Now I surrender to you and that is all. -- Geronimo
This is a photo (slightly cropped to fit) of the last band of aboriginal people in North America to fight and resist the takeover of their landbase by the United States government. Numbering about 39 men, women, and children, this band of Apaches including Naiche, son of Cochise (on horseback) and Geronimo (standing in front of Naiche), evaded capture by a quarter of the US army and three thousand Mexican troops, finally turning themselves in, ending a key chapter in human history.
The ending of lifeways apart from civilization among the aboriginal peoples of North America happened in about the same way it has happened worldwide. Central among proximate causes has been the growth of the population of those of us in civilization. The root cause has been civilization itself.
The people in the photo are standing on a spot in what is today southern Arizona. Twenty years after the photo was taken, my grandmother took a teaching job in a small town not far from that spot. She lived into the late 1980s. Indeed, it wasn't long ago that people still lived freely, as had their ancestors, in ways foreign to agriculture-based industrial civilization, right here where we in the United States live today.  
Likewise, relative to the whole of human history, it has been only in the last instant that not everyone has lived in small bands, foraging and hunting for food, attuned to rather than trying to separate themselves from nature. 
Today as we puzzle over where we went wrong ecologically and socially, and scramble to find some way to fix things (prevented by those in power from taking meaningful action), we forget that for 3 million years we had many variations on a basic system which worked, made for fulfilling lives, and was sustainable.
I expect to focus much more on this topic in future writing.
For some insightful references see the section on core ecological issues and the relevant books in the book section. For an engaging source on the events surrounding the photo above, try David Roberts' Once They Moved Like the Wind.
 During much of their history, and certainly at the time of the photo, the Apache were not strictly hunter-gatherers. Owing to their roots, however, their surrender is an appropriate symbol for the loss of a way of life based not on agriculture, attuned to the natural world.
 While Geronimo's surrender marked the official end of the "Apache wars," reports suggest remnant bands of Apaches continued to live freely in the mountains of Mexico for years afterward.
 The period since the dawn of agriculture 10 thousand years ago to the present represents about one third of one percent of human history.
This article was published today at the Green Room. It examines the taboo currently suppressing open, public discussion of human overpopulation. It introduces the Global Population Speak Out, a project designed to weaken the taboo.
One point I'd like to have made more strongly is that the taboo is especially visible in the failure of major environmental organizations to speak up about overpopulation. They need to be pushed until they do. Otherwise, they have no chance of playing a major role in solving the global ecological crisis.
From the GPSO blog:
A seldom discussed, tragic consequence of human population growth is the loss of tribal cultures and peoples. It is the loss, as well, of ways of life which persisted for nearly all of human history until our population exploded in the last fraction of one percent of our time on Earth.
If anyone participating in GPSO wants to to speak out on one of the most underreported consequences of the growth of the human population, this would be a good choice.
An excellent source of information is the site of Survival International.
I would add that Survival International seems to say little about the obvious, fundamental link between population growth and the loss of tribal peoples. I suspect it's a sign of how powerful the taboo against mention of overpopulation has been. I hope they'll feel freer in the future to talk about it. It's hard to imagine any hope for tribal cultures if the rest of the world's population grows much bigger.
Here's the word from George Plumb, President of Vermonters for a Sustainable Population:
In conjunction with the the GPSO the weekly community newspaper of the state capitol of Montpelier, Vermont has proposed doing an eight page supplement on population. I think this will be pretty ground breaking. How many newspapers in the country have devoted a supplement to population? The only problem is Vermonters for a Sustainable Population, of which I am the president, needs to come up with $3,000 to help pay for the xtra costs. Unfortunately we have no major donors cpable of this kind of financial support in our thrity member organization. If anyone knows of a potential source I would really appreciate your ideas.
That would be a first wouldn't it? So if you know any source to help with funding please let me know and I'll forward your message to George, or go here to contact George directly.
Good news! I’m pleased to follow this post with confirmation that, as a part of GPSO, The Bridge, the weekly community newspaper of Montpelier Vermont referred to above, will host a forum on population in the third week of February. They will then devote their March 19 issue to the same topic.
This is great news. Just as publications sometimes devote extra resources to important issues such as climate change, they need to do so with regard to population. After all, it is in many ways the central environmental issue.
Perhaps before long the the largest newspapers will follow The Bridge’s lead.
Here's the supplement in the Bridge.
A recent issue of Science contains a short piece on GPSO. If you're registered there, you'll find it here. It's in the "Random Samples" section of the October 31 issue, Volume 322, Issue 5902. From the piece:
At a time when some developed nations are paying citizens to bolster flagging birth-rates (Science, 30 June 2006, p. 1894), a grass-roots group of scientists and environmentalists is calling for a new push to limit human numbers.
Overpopulation is threatening life as we know it on the planet, say members of a movement called Global Population Speak Out (http://gpso.wordpress.com/), which aims to persuade at least 50 “respected voices” to “speak out in some way” about the problem for a month next year.
GPSO is bringing scientific voices worldwide to bear on the population issue. It's great to have the opportunity to alert a large portion of the scientific community to what we're doing.
The GPSO letter (see the prior entry here) is now going out and we are receiving pledges. Note that you do not have to receive the GPSO letter to participate. Please go here, read the directions, and send in your pledge! Chances are you might fit in some way into one of the official categories of invitees. But that is not a necessity; we cannot cover every reasonable category. We will make every effort to document whatever action you take to speak out. So just pledge!
Be a part of this historic event. Send your pledge to GlobalPopulationSpeakOut [at] gmail [dot] com