It was once and ZPG was one of the first environmental organizations and one of the longest lived. That is until some industries got together and offered them and the Sierra club $100 million to drop the immigration part of the population formula (a report from PBS). This is about a cheap and controllable work force. They are tired of battling unions and paying for benefits (Boeing moved it's headquarters to Chicago because of all the engineer strikes.) Several years ago I was visiting Victoria, BC and came across a paper. It seemed all the economists were shouting with joy and the headline was "The Birth Dearth is over."

@JackPedigo "This is about a cheap and controllable work force." Thanks for confirming my thought. I first heard about ZPG yesterday searching through this site. Or maybe I had heard about it a long time ago and brushed off the whole idea as being too fatalistic, but when you hear this constant discussion of environmental destruction, mass extinction, rainforest destruction, air pollution, micro plastics and all the other toxins that are constantly being added to the environment you have to ask yourself what the root cause is, where the end could possibly be in this constant march of planetary desecration. So the root of it all IS greed. We DO have the resources to fix this. It IS possible, it's just being stymied.

Not familiar with Sierra Club issue you mentioned. Something to learn more about, for sure.

I don't like that Mr. Sanders brought up abortion in response to the issue. He should not have went there. I also believe it is EXTREMELY DISHONEST to equate population control to eugenics, as was done in this article.

@Flowerwall I agree.

@Flowerwall First off the Sierra Club had a population branch. When I first joined ZPG in 1994 the UN convention on population had just ended and we held 2 mini-conventions in Seattle along with the Sierra club on the topic. Later, the Sierra Club turned turtle on the subject after the bribe. Then as now industry had poisoned the water so much that people did not want to hear about overpopulation (at least as far as immigration goes).

I just returned from our county seat where we attended and spoke with our county council on the issue of marijuana being grown here (we are against it). On the inter-island-ferry back (1 1/2 hours) a number of us spoke about the issue around climate change and the others were searching for a common denominator. They all knew and respected my late partner and when I told them of her question to her 2nd graders, which is more important people or dirt. They looked surprised. I was able to get a consensus of limited resources and the historical competition for limited resources being a constant source of violence we they all agreed. The planet has limited resources and WE DO NOT have the resources to even provide for the 7.6 Billion + humans which is projected to reach the 10 Billion level in 2050. Wishfull thinking and a lack of awareness will not make this so. There are some who feel the Earth is made of rubber and will expand to meet all our needs no matter how many of there are. They feel the planet will support an infinite number.

@JackPedigo Of course people always, but I got started on this whole subject due to thinking about this from environmental perspective. When you think of it from human perspective it's the answer far and away absolutely positively yes!

I just briefly read a disturbing article about the government tracking environmentalists. Really I don't know this country feels like it's really lost it's core values. Absolutely crazy! When it's at that point something has to CHANGE.

@Flowerwall Something will change. In ZPG one point was we humans either do this in ways that lessen the siffering or nature will do it for us and she doesn't care about suffering. A recent NetFlix series "The Hunt" is another David Attenborough production and it shows the real world and pity is not allowed or tolerated.

Actually, this conversation (these conversations, I think, inspire some of us to do ore studying) got me to thinking and I started to make a list of where we, the US, is lacking or reducing our resource base. All the technology has made us more dependent on outside resources and a tiny example (as highlighted in the "National Geographic" is Lithium. [nationalgeographic.com]

@JackPedigo You said ANOTHER David Attenborough production, why did you say another? Did I miss the first mention?

The show you mentioned "The Hunt", I hadn't heard of prior to you mentioning it. It's had some controversy surrounding it. It's unreleased from what I've read. Not sure what to think of it. Certainly there must exist some levels of propriety that should be adhered to even in this day and age. Not saying I have fully formed an opinion on this show. It was based on a short story written in 1924. Reading that story would probably be a great starting point to understanding the show.

As far as the lithium mining, yes, I had read about it in NG magazine. I remember the pictures that accompanied it. It was a white or opalescent looking substance. The images were quite striking. The article talked about the environmental cost of mining versus use of lithium in environmentally friendly products. Are there areas of lithium concentration in the US? I don't know.

Yes, I think now I do vaguely remember coming across a ZPG book a long time ago. Have you read books on the subject? There is a movie from 2008 of the same title. Science fiction. It's portraying ZPG in a negative way. Haven't seen it. Really though it's not such a far fetched concept and the potential for humanity and the earth is mind boggling.

@Flowerwall It is Sir David Attenborough as he has made so many nature films. The Hunt is just one of many and I found it on NetFlix. I have mentioned several of his other films especially his latest "Our Planet." In the last one he has a warning during each episode.

I have had heard there is a possibility for Lithium in the great Salt Lake. But right now the one in S. America is the largest and is presently being the only mined on a large scale.

Unfortunately, Paul (and his wife Anne) Ehrlich tried to predict the future and it was way off. I got turned off from the book "Population Bomb." He did start ZPG and continues to write books but has learned from his mistakes. I have read tons of books by numerous authors and groups and was a local (Seattle) board member for 8 years. I did a lot of activities and spoke. The group put up a great kiosk at the local zoo which remained for years. Some high hitters as Bill Nye and Walter Cronkite were portrayed at the kiosk which involved videos, a counter and computer games for kids. Unfortunately, some industries got involved and bribed ZPG and a part of the Sierra Club to water down the inclusion of immigration in the discussion. ZPG is now caled "Population Connection." Thanks for asking.

@JackPedigo I had looked up the completely wrong show. The one I looked up was a thriller. I'm not familiar with David Attenborough, but I do like to watch nature related videos. When I come across one of his I will give it a look.

I am really surprised that there isn't more push of this issue of population control by the policy makers of the world. I mean this idea isn't new. China has already lived through the one child policy, why does the rest of the world not learn? I know this was not easy for many Chinese people but it DID address overpopulation. And with all that is available today it doesn't have to create hardship for people.

I will be reading into this more and more. If you come across anything that you would recommend, please post. I will look up Ehrlich.

I did read a little bit about a discussion of immigration and issues at national parks. Said that there were areas where there was a lot of damage that occurred. It's a shame. Illegal immigration is also very dangerous to the individuals involved. So there definitely are downsides to it. And I think most people agree. But the root issues fail to be solved by leaders over and over again.

@Flowerwall I’m really surprised that you don’t know about Sir David Attenborough...his programmes made by the BBC are world renowned. You will be in for a treat if you watch any of them...the camera work is amazing. He is probably the most famous naturalist in the world, and has been warning against climate change and overpopulation for decades. As far as China and the one child policy, I thought they came in for unjustified vitriol from around the world, probably because of the ruthless way they implemented it. The policy itself was needed at that time and it was effective, if they had not reduced it, millions could have starved. All responsible governments should be promoting birth control not penalising those who want an abortion by forcing them to have unwanted pregnancies, unbelievable ignorance based on religious doctrine.

@Marionville When I met my partner she told me that once the local government tried to control the population through taxes. One child you got a deduction. Two children no deductions and for every additional child you had to pay extra taxes. This is as it should be as extra people mean more expenses for the state. The idea of constantly reducing taxes and, at the same time, trying to keep up maintaining infrastructure (which is much more than roads and bridges) is crazy and it's why deficits are created.

@Flowerwall There are lots and lots of videos, books and other material on population so I don't know where to begin. Be aware this issue is controversial especially when it comes to immigration. A basic formula is I=PAT (Impact = population X Activity X technology - technology is a wild card). For population gain it is Births minus deaths. For the human population it is exponential. At the turn of the century the planet gained, net, 100 million per year. It is now down to around 85 million net per year> So in 4 years the planet has gained another US population. Here is a link to some basic ideas: Thomas Malthus. Malthus published a book in 1798 stating that populations with unlimited natural resources grow very rapidly, after which population growth decreases as resources become depleted. This accelerating pattern of increasing population size is called exponential growth.
Note the mention of one Thomas Malthus. He was the 'inspiration' for Charles Dickens "Scrooge." "Thomas Malthus. Malthus published a book in 1798 stating that populations with unlimited natural resources grow very rapidly, after which population growth decreases as resources become depleted. This accelerating pattern of increasing population size is called exponential growth."

@Marionville No, not familiar with Sir Attenborough. Thanks for going into more detail. If I come across the name I will be sure to look into the show. If he has been warning people about overpopulation why aren't people listening? I know it's not an easy problem to solve, but you never hear of it being discussed.

Right the one child policy was instituted in an unkind way, but at the same time did address a real problem. It's only been in the past five years or so the policy allowed for two children, so they are still dealing with government oversight in that manner. This should be a major issue that gets pushed and discussed until all of these preventable situations are prevented - starvation, extreme lack of basic neccessities including water and medical care. We could solve so many problems in just a few generations if people would take this seriously and act.

It doesn't have to involve abortion as a first planif management - family planning, education, birth control availability are better strategies. Abortion is not a desirable outcome of all this, imo. But hopefully things will change for the better.

@JackPedigo I have been wanting to get back to this, and now I am. That is a very striking number to think of,the number you gave, the USA population every 4 years. That is a very scary thought. Yeah, I really don't understand why there isn't a much greater sense of urgency attached to this coming from leadership. It does sound like a population bomb.

I read a little on Malthus after you posted. What comes to mind, and this sounds crude, is the charts you see with feral cat populations. Basically, yes, it's a good visualization of the impact of exponential population growth. No humans are not animals, not trying to make that comparison, just the huge numbers you get when you start with huge numbers that are reproducing.

It is positive to know population has been increasing LESS than at turn of century, but still every 4 years a new US population is just too much.

Malthus was the inspiration for Dickens?! As I understand it Dickens was a bigger scrooge than Ebenezer himself, in terms of Dicken's treatment of his own wife and children. That was a very bad day when I learned of it. It's hard to imagine people like this. Thank God for how we live now, Dickens's wife had no recourse at the time. I really empathize with Dickens wife. That poor, poor woman. Malthus on the other hand looked to be a realist trying to solve problems of epic scale.

Now I did also read a little on Ehlrich. He proposed putting chemicals in the water to decrease fertility? I have heard that conspiracy theory pedaled before, so this must be where it originates. Honestly, he loses a lot of credibility by expressing ideas of that nature. What is the point? Of course not! I haven't been able to read any more than that. I hope to read more.

@Flowerwall Business are run on a concept of growth. More people more consumers. Now they are behind massive immigration into many developed countries. It simply is another way to exploit people and get cheap and controllable labor. Business give massive amounts of money to fund things they promote and everyone is susceptible to propaganda. Population is a very difficult sell and people are too willing to ignore facts if they get in the way of their emotions and instincts. Here's a cartoon I just saw today.

It was addressed a lot up to 20 years ago. Unfortunately, the long, moneyed arm of industry got involved and steered things their way. Growth, growth and more growth.

@Flowerwall I am starting to read the latest magazine from "Free Inquiry." I got a letter posted (and another was similar to mine). The editor, Tom Flynn (who has since died) made a comment on our letters and also had his editorial about this subject. Here is a link to the magazine: [secularhumanism.org] go down to "Is Collapse Imminent." Funny item was that a researcher works for KPMG which is also where I worked for 12 years.

@JackPedigo I haven't had a chance to read the full article that was mentioned here quite yet. I will respond to this when I do.

@JackPedigo I did read the article you mentioned here. And it seems to be reiterating this very important point that something has got to give, things must change. Also, I am sorry to hear of his passing, Tom Flynn, that you mentioned. While I get the impression I would have disagreed with him on some of the specifics ways of how to go about resolving some of these issues, I do very much appreciate the work of a person who takes the time to spell out and put emphasis on a very crucial issue you feel society at large is just ignoring. It is a real loss when that voice is no longer there. Hopefully the issue itself will become more center stage, more an issue of focus. In another post here I was late in responding to, I heard a mention of Carl Sagan. Then after,  I read a quote, I hope I am not remembering this wrong now, it appears I am, it was Sagan's best friend's son, Grinspoon, but the idea of man "at the wheel of a speeding bus and we don't know how to drive" with regard to humans effecting earth's geology. And I would add, shouldn't we realize overpopulation is like the gas pedal in that scenario? Or maybe that's not the best analogy, but you get my point, it is a crucial factor for consideration in managing the earth's resources, existence of all non-human life on earth and also very importantly, minimizing human suffering that occurs due to lack of basic resources.

You mentioned a letter you had submitted. I couldn't find that so was not able to read it. Thanks for sharing the original article.

@Flowerwall Thank you for trying to understand this critical issue. At the beginning of the environmental revolution it was at the forefront of issues. Of course industry got involved and it crashed. I don't believe in massive governmental conspiracies but I do believe in industrial conspiracies. Unfortunately, the link says the letters are only available to members. Here is the letter I sent. There was another, similar one. I am also including a link I have posted numerous times. Go to 14 minutes on the TED talk.

Nicole Scott printed in Oct 2021 issue June 9, 2021
Letters Editor, Free Inquiry
nscott@centerforinquiry.org

“The Moral Imperative of Being an Overpopulation Activist” by Karen L. Shragg
Thank you for bring back to the forefront a subject that once was the major topic of the environmental movement. Drs. Paul and Anne Ehrlich understood this ‘core issue’ and the group Zero Population Growth was one of the first national groups to be created. It remained a respected and strong group until around 2000 when a new director took over. I was then on the local Seattle board and saw first-hand the direction this person wanted to take the group. It was seen money was needed to more fully promote the mission. The name was changed to population connection and the connection which included immigration, in the basic formula, was removed. Many of the existing board members left as we saw the end of the group as we knew it. Later, on a PBS production “To the Contrary,” it was said that some anonymous person/group donated $100 million to both ZPG and the Sierra Club to remove immigration. Industries often rely on a controllable and cheap source of labor so it wasn’t hard to imagine their role in this downsizing.
However, despite the diminishing role of human overpopulation, the issue is even more relevant today than ever. I continue to hear about the dangers of the ‘birth dearth’ and countries as China try to get their citizens to create even more of us. Without the ability to control our numbers in a peaceful way nature will do it for us. She cares little for her creations and the outcome has already shown how ugly and miserable it will be. I wish more people would see where we’re headed.
Jack M. Pedigo
Lopez Island, WA. 98261

[ted.com]

@JackPedigo After watching the TED video section I wonder, the economy is based on constant innovation, so does this mean specific sectors or individual companies? What exactly is happening? I should probably watch the whole TED talk to understand, but it will probably not be something I can fully understand. Basic charts work for me, but complex math in economics not at all. It sounds like everything, every company, is doomed to failure at the end of the video when he shows the final chart.

It's a good point you brought up about China. From what I understand it has been a relatively short period of time that there has been this somewhat radical shift in govt recommended family size. I think there was a video that popped up in recommendations that addressed a large population of elderly that were coming due to retire and it would put a big strain on their economic stability, but I didn't watch it, so cannot say if this is a main driver in the new national policy push. It is odd to think of just how intrusive it must feel to citizens to have this expectation put on them. With the one child policy there is a point where if you think it's helping to prevent starvation and suffering it's good, but then to have it all be changed, it is a rather difficult to imagine scenario where these outside forces are attempting to tell you what number outside of one or two. I think the ideal is just having societies that are just under, at, or only slightly above replacement level birth rates. Then no one is telling you what to do, there's no need to dictate, it all just works out.

Yes I can imagine industry being pro-immigration if there is a worker shortage. And where would so much of industry be without our immigrants, but is it sustainable? Even Obama came out and spoke on the issue. And I think he addressed it just right. Here is the link if you are interested.

Good work with the letter. It needs to be said. I do think there are some downsides to discussing the issue and there is an emotional component to it, but if societies further develop I think populations tend to fall to replacement levels. I think it may be a difficult topic to address in some societies, especially in places where women have the lowest comparable (to other places in world) rights as compared to the rights the males have. So in that sense it could become a negative and not worth pursuing even though the end result would have a positive effect. I think the main tactic should be setting appropriate goals in this manner for specific regions. I know some of this goes on, but just how centralized is the process? I think the main point is convincing key people in societies of the worth of just looking at the issue. Like everything in life a one size fits all approach would not work, but educating people, getting people on board in the process would go a long way.

@Flowerwall Thanks for the reply. Watching the whole talk will not help as it is about urban design. The important part was the exponential growth curve (which is population growth) and the need to innovate (meaning come up with new technology). Many people believe technology will save us but this part of the speech shows how that has to work (and it will only lull us into thinking there is a chance).

The thing most fail to understand China is the size of the US with 4+ times our population (and with a smaller area to grow crops). Imagine how that would work here? The problem with all our economic systems is they are based on constant growth. That is an impossibility on a finite planet (I have said Earth is not made of rubber and will expand to meet our needs - it will not). There have been many economic advocates that promote a true sustainable economy but, so far, the 'cornucopian' economists have the tradition and money and won't go along.

I hate fox news but this is a clip from another outlet. Obama was aware of the problems with overpopulation and immigration. An open border policy is totally insane and would destroy the country and everyone (including immigrants) living in it. In fact 2/3 of our population growth is directly or indirectly (births from immigrants within the 1st generation). That means some 2 million per annum. Obama also, under the radar, deported more illegal immigrants than any other president. I think his mentioned of unsustainable is sugar coating the impact. He does not want to reflect badly on a fellow Democrat. I am also sure he has talked with Biden so a lot of things are hidden so as not to upset the extreme liberals. Also there is a myth of cheap work. All immigrants need just what we need, sustenance, housing, decent jobs, education and on. In the end we all pay for this. People say they want to help others but also they do the work Americans (or Germans, French name your country it's all the same) won't do. I ask so one wants to help people but also exploit them!?

While in ZPG it was said, a lot, that we either pay attention and create a system of reducing the population to a sustainable level nature will do it for us and it will not be pretty. Societies fall to replacement level (and often crash altogether - there are numerous examples of that in the past. Look up the history of Easter Island. It has been shown people resorted to cannibalism). The fall of Rome was because too many 'citizens' from outside Italy came in for jobs and a decent livelihood that the government couldn't keep up with all the competing demands. Sound familiar.

Remember, education is a resource and, as such is limited. I have also come to associate a large diversity with polarization, which is rampant in this country.

@JackPedigo Yes I do get what you are saying with regard to technology and the need to innovate. Although I think there are many, many new technology based innovations we will see come down the pipeline as time passes, and probably relatively quickly, but that is only a temporary fix, just as is said in video. I remember watching something about soil, it may have been here or a video with something Bill Gates related, but the idea being studying the soil all over the world and technology used in the process. Of course working at improving the soil is a next step and could go a long, long way to making a huge impact on the natural world.

"China is the size of the US" I didn't know this. I guess I always assumed China was much bigger. Yes, I do understand the constant growth model is a problem. Naturally, there will always be some variations in numbers of people in the world. And then inevitable situations like natural disaster, disease and even war wipe out huge numbers of people. But here in the US to constantly grow, grow, grow and reach the population size of China? It's too big. I can't imagine 4x current size. And how many Americans would even think it's a good idea?

Yes migrants are coming in and doing work that Americans, or Germans or French don't want to do and to an extent it works out, beneficial on both ends, but there has to be some limits. In some places I am sure migrants and their communities are flourishing in other places the quality of life is not good and this is where there is a responsibility to draw a line and solve problems before proceeding further. At least that's how I see it.

Yes I agree fighting for resources is not a position people should have to be in. It brings out the worst in people and huge amounts of suffering. I think this said it well from the article "we squandered our windfall, making as many humans as we could instead of so arranging things that a smaller number might live bountifully." This is why there needs to be a focus back on "driving the bus" and doing so responsibly. It's how humans are impacting their environment and the completely human centered side of it too. We need to keep this larger purpose in mind and ask if the institutions running the show are getting us there.

Opportunities for education are limited. And change will not happen overnight. To the issue of polarization, yes, agreed. I can't help but think our country is going to move further in the direction of restructuring and redifining itself over time to deal with it.

@Flowerwall People naturally assume China is bigger as it is a part of the Asian continent which includes Russia. Russia is, by far the largest country with half our population.

Again, it's not about people but the system that supports all (including non0humans of the bio-diversity which is shrinking due to too many humans. We are quickly becoming a monopolistic species). Again, my late partner's (an immigrant) who asked her 2nd graders what is more important people or dirt? As long as we continue to increase our population (immigrants make up 2/3 of our growth) we will never reduce our carbon footprint.