Peak Oil Media
Posted by Prof. Goose on July 26, 2008 - 9:00am
Topic: Policy/Politics
Tags: albert bartlett, james kunstler, paul ehrlich, peak oil media, t. boone pickens [list all tags]
Under the fold, more Kunstler (in a short telephone interview), an interview with Paul Erhlich at E&ENews, and a copy of a recently published paper of Al Bartlett's on population, climate, and the world we live in.
Part 1
Part 2
***
http://www.eenews.net/tv/rss/2008/07/24/
Society: Controversial environmental author Paul Ehrlich talks biofuels, offshore drilling, peak oil (OnPoint, 07/24/2008) OnPoint, 07/24/2008
Forty years ago, author Paul Ehrlich stirred up controversy by predicting that the world's steady population growth would cause hundreds of millions of people to starve within a decade of publication of "The Population Bomb." Though his predictions were wrong, he is often credited with having had a major influence on the environmental movement in the '60s and '70s. During today's OnPoint, Paul Ehrlich, author of the new book "The Dominant Animal" and Bing professor of population studies and professor of biological sciences at Stanford University, gives his take on today's top energy and environment issues. He also responds to critics who have accused him of using scare tactics.
***
Here's a recent article by Albert Bartlett. Like many, Al is not optimistic about the Pickens/Gore plan. You will understand his reasoning when you read the article.
Published in the Teachers Clearinghousefor Science and Society Education Newsletter
Vol. 27, No. 2, Spring 2008, Pg. 21
WHY HAVE SCIENTISTS SUCCUMBED
TO POLITICAL CORRECTNESS?
Albert A. Bartlett, University of Colorado at Boulder , 80309-0390
Albert.Bartlett@Colorado.EDU
Throughout the world, scientists are prominently involved in seeking solutions to the major global problems such as global climate change and the growing inadequacy of energy supplies. They present their writings in publications ranging from newspapers to refereed scientific journals, but with a few rare exceptions, on one point they all replace objectivity with “political correctness.”
In their writings the scientists identify the cause of the problems as being growing populations. But their recommendations for solving the problems caused by population growth almost never include the recommendation that we advocate stopping population growth. Political Correctness dictates that we do not address the current problem of overpopulation in the U.S. and the world.
We can demonstrate that the Earth is overpopulated by noting the following:
A SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH: If any fraction of the observed global warming can be attributed to the actions of humans, then this, by itself, constitutes clear and compelling evidence that the human population, living as we do, has exceeded the Carrying Capacity of the Earth, a situation that is clearly not sustainable.
As a consequence it is AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH that all proposals or efforts at the local, national or global levels to solve the problems of global warming are serious intellectual frauds if they fail to advocate that we address the fundamental cause of global warming namely overpopulation.
We can demonstrate that the U.S. is overpopulated by noting that we now (2008) import something like 60% of the petroleum that we consume, around 15% of the natural gas that we consume and about 20% of the food we eat. Because the U.S. population increases by something over 3 million per year, all of these fractions are increasing. Natural gas production in North America has peaked in spite of the drilling of hundreds of new gas wells annually. In a nutshell, the U.S. in 2008 is unsustainable.
Let’s look at two prominent examples of this political correctness. The book, “An Inconvenient Truth” (1) was published to accompany Al Gore’s wonderful film by the same name. On page 216 Gore writes; “The fundamental relationship between our civilization and the ecological system of the Earth has been utterly and radically transformed by the powerful convergence of three factors. The first is the population explosion…”
It’s clear that Gore understands the role of overpopulation in the genesis of global climate change. The last chapter in the book has the title, “So here’s what you personally can do to help solve the climate crisis.” The list of 36 things starts with “Choose energy-efficient lighting” and runs through an inventory of all of the usual suspects without ever calling for us to address overpopulation!
As a second example, in the Clearinghouse Newsletter (2) we read the statement, “Human Impacts on Climate” from the Council of the American Geophysical Union, The title recognizes the human component of climate change which we note is roughly proportional to the product of the number of people and their average per capita annual resource consumption. The last paragraph of the A.G.U. statement starts with the sentence, “With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent.” The rest of the paragraph suggests what must be done, and it’s all the standard boilerplate. “Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government.” Etc., Etc., Etc… There is no mention of addressing the overpopulation which the statement recognizes is the cause of the problems.
A few years ago I wrote an article calling the attention of the physics community to this shortcoming.(3) To my amazement, most of the letters to the editor responding to my article supported the politically correct unscientific point of view. (4), (5)
Many journalists look to the scientists for advice. The scientists won’t talk about overpopulation, so the journalists and the reading public can easily conclude that overpopulation is not a problem. As a result, we have things such as the cover story in TIME Magazine, April 9, 2007, “The Global Warming Survival Guide: 51 Things You Can Do to Make a Difference.” The list contained such useful recommendations as “Build a Skyscraper,” (No. 9, Pg. 74) but not one of the 51recommendations deals with the need to address overpopulation!
What’s one to do when scientists and political leaders demonstrate their understanding of the fact that overpopulation is the main cause of these gigantic global problems, yet the scientists’ recommendations for dealing with the problems never call for addressing overpopulation?
(1) Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth, The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It. Rodale Press, Emmaus , PA , 2006
(2) Teachers Clearinghouse for Science and Society Education Newsletter, Winter 2008, Pg. 19
(3) A.A. Bartlett, “Thoughts on Long-Term Energy Supplies: Scientists and the Silent Lie,” Physics Today, July 2004, Pgs. 53-55
(4) Letters: Physics Today, November 2004, Pgs. 12-18
(5) Letters: Physics Today, April 2006, Pgs. 12-15
Here is a 30 minute interview with Matt Simmons that I have not see on the Oil Drum
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCSTCEUJmFI&feature=PlayList&p=754648B115...
thanks for the link.
it is particularly interesting to see Simmons mentioned that his ocean energy guys have been seriously looking into the wind over the open ocean (out of the northern Maine, so it is close to the polar oceans where 3kw/m2 average wind energy density or higher is available) and the production of ammonia as fuel from the wind power. so glad to see the outlandish idea presented in this PDF may have somehow led not only SCT but also Simmons and his fellows on to something rather interesting.
Simmons mentioned ammonia, and that got me thinking... I've been reading for years about the possibility of using ammonia to replace the electrical grid, at least over long distances. I know our grid wastes a lot of power. Would an ammonia infrastructure be more efficient? Realistically, how much energy would be gained? Is it possible to retrofit our existing nuclear reactors to produce ammonia in addition to electricity? Would that be more efficient?
the question has been studied and answered a quarter of century ago, see
Green, L. Jr., 1982 "An ammonia energy vector for the hydrogen economy".
Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, pp.355-359, Vol 7, No. 4
things may have changed a bit but the big picture still holds.
It is obvious. Stage one: denial! Further, the politician who controls the money must get re-elected so he cannot tell the Catholics, Muslims, African Tribesmen, etc. etc. all around the world that their beliefs and actions are causing the problem.
Acceptance: Not to worry. Take care of yourself and your family. The economic collapse that is coming will take care of overpopulation here and around the world.
Unfortunately, everything about peak oil is starting to sound repetitive. I need a serious break from this stuff until some new data comes to light.
So what's the matter,Mamba.Did that dreadfully nonPC word,population turn you off.Got a problem there,have you?
And I gather that commercials urging us to buy new cars, houses, electronics, ski vacations and so on are still fresh to you.
Well, once you've run around and convinced everyone the ship is sinking, it's time to help people get onto lifeboats.
As Bart over at the EnergyBulletin said, now that we know we have a problem, it's time to start offering solutions.
[cue doomer saying there are no solutions]
I'm almost ashamed to reply to this with an Internet meme, but it just seems so appropriate: "In Soviet Russia, solution offers you."
Come on man, you forgot the exclamation points!
It should be read:
In Soviet Russia, solution offers YOU!!
From Paul Ehrlich vid;
"The economic system is a wholly owned subsidiary of the ecologic system"
So, hows the parent company doing? Will the subsidiary take down the parent or visa-versa?
Also his predictions were not wrong. Just the timing of them.
Paul Ehrlich is my kind of ranter.
You go dude!
Sure, someday the galaxy will run out of stars. I'd like some more concrete statements than everything is unsustainable eventually.
Albert Bartlett is right, but I'd go one step further. Various grand schemes, like Gore's and Pickens's, attempt to address a problem in isolation. Neither one appears to understand that the earth is finite, in all of its resources. All such grand schemes want to solve our problems without giving up business as usual. This includes economic growth, as well as population growth.
Will producing all our currently energy "needs" by renewables actually be achievable without harming the environment (regardless of whether that damage will be less than current energy resources)? Do Gore and Pickens propose stopping at the level of current consumption?
I have made a feeble attempt to discuss population at http://www.pickensplan.com Will probably continue to do so though it may not be pc. If you search for population growth at that site you will find few references.
Homo Consumerensis is likely to become extinct in the next few years. I hope a new species is ready to take its place.
New species? No. Lovelock suggests an older one: hot rocks. Fits the ecological niche perfectly.
I let the vid on Erlich run into the vid on McKibben. When asked about hope and effect, McKibben was quite clear that in his opinion we are beyond recovery. He's not looking a happy man. I often wonder just what image I want to project when I get into these sort of discussions.
cfm in Gray, ME
This post hits the root cause nail right on the head.
Negative human influences on the biosphere are increased by:
1) Higher and higher levels of per-capita consumption
2) Increasing numbers of people
Here is where I venture into the tar pit...what is the root cause of overpopulation?
Religion.
Two examples that have been woefully mis-used by greedy and oftentimes less intelligent people:
Genesis, Chapter 9, Verse 7:
"And as for you, be fruitful and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth and multiply in it."
Genesis 1:28
"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and
multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion
over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every
living thing that moveth upon the earth."
Lest you think I am picking on religious belief and people who hold these beliefs for the fun of it, this is not so. All my life I have been surrounded by folks who flippantly use these and similar religious doctrine snippets to justify their high on the hog, head in the sand existence. And do not forget the grim number of people who tie this illogical bow up at the other end of the rainbow by pointing to the Armageddon mythology as reason that we don't have to worry about these silly earthly matters anyway. It is a simplistic continuum of thought: God commanded us to be fruitful and multiply and have dominion over all creatures and subdue the Earth: rinse, spit, repeat, then at some magic time the four horsemen will ride in to increase everyones' misery until the messiah returns, slays the evil ones, and everyone who believes will enjoy the Kingdom of God on Earth for 1000 years (what happens after that, everyone packs up and goes to heaven?) And don't forget, humanity's troubles began when a woman dared to try to gain knowledge about the world....thus the current mindset that science and scientists and anyone who engages in structured, logical thought is not to be trusted at the least, and agents of the devil and unpatriotic enemies of the state at the worst.
This kind of thinking permeates American society. Even when religious people awaken and advocate some environmentalism, the fundamental doctrines above sabotage any real improvement. Witness the Pope telling all the Catholics that pollution is bad, war is bad, rich folks not sharing with the poor is bad, but his institution digs in its heals on the issue of birth control...though shalt not ever, ever use a condom or birth control pills or IUDs or any contraception. With this stance, all the other nice thoughts about the environment aren't worth a warm bucket of spit. Not just Catholics, but Mormons, Baptists, Islam, etc...even look at all the ancient carvings of fertility symbols and fertility gods.
Our imperative to breed profusely served us well from an evolutionary standpoint, where for millions of years (best estimate currently is ~2.5 million years), humans and their ancestral lineage lived short lives and needed to breed often to keep the species going. Since the advent of modern medicine and agriculture and high-density, easy-to exploit energy to support these, mortality has deceased, life expectancies have increases, but the urger to procreate at previously appropriate rates is difficult to change.
NO one can even begin to bring this 800-pound gorilla in open conversation..."what do you have against children, you were one yourself!"..."Would you wish you were never born?"..."If we have less people then we will miss out on God knows how many Einsteins, etc. to enrich our society and solve our problems"..."Global warming is a conspiracy by enviro-nazis who can't get real jobs and who want to stick it to rich people"..."There's global warming on Mars, Jupiter, Saturn!"..."we have enough oil for Millions of years, all this talk is a bunch of hot air"...
The Statements in quites above were all said out loud by officers of the US Military, mostly people with Master Degrees who operate highly sophisticated equipment for a living...many of the potential bringers of Armageddon are fervent believers in Armageddon. I'm afraid most of you here have only a very dim idea of the military-industrial-political-religious complex that has been driving the boat of world affairs. All the environmentalists and Peak-Oil Aware types in the world are regarded much as flies to be shooed away or swatted flat if need be.
You forgot "why don't you kill yourself," I love that one.
What we cannot talk about is the one thing that's going to ensure our species demise.
BTW, did Erhlich mention a "hydrogen economy" as something viable, or did I hear that one wrong?
Well said moonwatcher.
Thanks for having the cajones (I speak metaphorically so it still stands even if you were to be a wahini) to talk truth.
This truth has reached its zenith with this current administration where "Ideology and theology trump science".
We are so screwed up.
Moonwatcher, I like the religion aspect of your point. Very interesting.
But your concluding comment about the "environmentalists and Peak-Oil Aware types" underestimates that they are growing in numbers, and rather than be shooed away, can closely resemble the Lilliputians when the time is right. Wishful thinking? Time will tell.
The causes of the population explosion are simply man getting better at extracting resources, or producing /growing them (eg. agri) and creating what is called wealth, added value, etc.
Back in the Paleolithic, or more recent Sumeria, or in some ‘primitive’ more or less contemp. communities, when there was not enough to feed extra children, or keep alive old ppl who contributed little or nothing, these died in various ways. Cultures differ. Anyone can come up with examples, folklore.
Industrialization, which btw was incredibly slow, much slower than most suppose, did eventually hike household income, in Britain first of all...then, moving along, ww2 or post brought us to the oil age and its fantastic bonanza. In life-times that we can see, the Green revolution, that is the mechanization of agriculture (fossil fuels, fertilizers, infrastructure for watering, so called modern seeds and so on), the giving up of the slaves, rationalization and best practices, transport -rail, road and river- an explosion of trade provided, world wide, more edible stuff, even a glut at some point.
People finally ate to their hunger - yes they did, despite serious sad pockets of famine, as a % of world food they were small, of course deplorable for all that.
And so we all multiplied, had children. Many.
Children, in much of the world, represent comfort and future wealth. They are a stake for the future, if they can be kept alive beyond 6-10, as they can then work, contribute, extract more from the environment, physical or financial (jobs of one kind or another, agri, gov, finance, war...all in in the greater, expanding world) - in any case conditions were so much better, full speed ahead.
Add in simply that women who eat sparingly but enough for life, have minimal health care, and no contraception, low status, will produce many children. A stab for the future (EROEI), pride and joy, status in the community, love, a tribe to gather round.
The demographics of our population problem are such that even if governments imposed a one child per family limit our global population for the next three decades would continue to grow because the majority of humans on the planet are entering or will enter their reproductive child bearing years up ahead. So this tabu topic of population actually has to address the question of How do we increase the death rate to really be affective let alone how do we control our birth rate. In the same way that mitigating peak oil required actions 35 years ago so does the subject of population control because today we find ourselves in the situation that any real affective solutions are morally reprehensible.
"Here is where I venture into the tar pit...what is the root cause of overpopulation?
Religion."
Sorry, but that tune doesn't play very well in China or Italy now a days. (Or France or most any other country in the EU.) Maybe you should do a bit of research before you make an outlandish statement like that. In many other regions and cultures, especially the third world, most people have many children for purely economic/practical reasons not because religious beliefs saying something to the effect of, "Go forth and multiply."
.
Religion is just a subset of all forms of tribalism. Humans are a pack animal. Religions and nation-states are social structures that expand the size of the pack, but the tribal instinct remains the same. If it wasn't religion, people would be fighting over something else.
This relates to population growth because in any kind of power struggle, whether it's an election or a civil war, population is everything. The lone exception is industrialized warfare. Therefore, birthrate and surplus food all translate to more power. You can augment birthrate with an evangelical ideology to convert non-believers. I'd lump Christianity, Islam and Consumerism into that category.
The root cause of our energy problem is excess consumption (greed) by the richest nations that have already passed through their demographic transitions. Driving a Hummer 15,000 miles a year and eating 3,000 calories a day of food (mostly from a cow) that has been transported more than a thousand miles to get to the table is so wasteful compared to the average person in the developing world that it defies imagination. I do not know too many religions who espouse the consumption of massive amounts of everything (whether it is useful or not). I think if you take a look through the New Testament you will see that Jesus spent more time preaching against Money (and its corrupting effects, i.e. greed) than any other subject. One phrase comes to mind: "It is more difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle.". I seriously doubt that you would find a religion anywhere (certainly not Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc.) that would truly espouse the kind of greed and waste and energy consumption that is such a hallmark of western society today. There are PLENTY of resources on the planet for us if we were not so greedy. "Enough for our NEEDS, but not for our GREED."
I didn't say religions espouse consumption. I said some successful religions espouse expansion of membership, whether through conversion or reproduction. True Christianity is a moderating check on consumption, but it's been corrupted by philosophies like Prosperity Theology. That's definitely not a mainstream Christian interpretation, but it does explain the behavior of certain politically connected preachers. In the US, I'd say Consumerism has replaced Christianity as the dominant belief.
As for carrying capacity, sure there's enough resources in the world for 6.5 billion people at a very modest level of consumption, but with population growth we'll hit the wall soon enough. Who's to decide what's a reasonable standard of living for our needs and what the world population should be? 1 billion Americans? 2 billion Europeans? 8 billion Haitians?
Consumerism is indeed the dominant philosophy in most industrialized nations. I wouldn't say it is a religion because it does not fit the profile. And it has to stop. Now. But commercials have so ingrained the ideology to our brains that it will be very hard to quit.
I believe that humanities outstretched fingers are already hitting the wall.
In Eastern Africa there are about 13 million people in need of food badly. There are food riots all over the world.
Expect to see a lot more of this in the future.
The bad news is people will die.
The good news is population will go down.
iwylie,
I think you hit the right issue. Religion is just one of those human institutions that are caught by human faults. It doesn't matter that religion says "tho shall not kill", because people will find a justification to kill other people for not believing in such benevolent teachings. Science suffers from the exact same problem, because it doesn't matter that theories are supposed to be evaluated by data, many scientists endorse or abject to theories by their level of social/group acceptance. And the average Joe takes what he thinks to be scientific knowledge with the same rigid passion as any religion.
People jumped at me with a zealot intensity when I said this in another forum. One of them, as an example, claimed that "gravity makes a hammer fall at the same speed as a feather if you throw them from a high building, and anyone could make such experience. Therefore people did not accept blindlessly scientific facts as they where religious laws because they can test it"! Forget the knowledge of air resistance or limits of models to describe physical phenomenons, just notice the plain contradiction to common sense!
The root of any system is the human factor that drives it.
Allegedly, communism was supposed to be driven by "the common good", and that obviously did not work well (actually it did not work at all, because most of these societies became totalitarian regimes driven by the "power" factor).
A capitalist system is driven by "greed", and unfortunately that proved to be a successful system. And in the most curious twist of faith, a former communist country is the one responsible for the ultimate capitalist concept: products so cheap that you buy compulsively, and so bad that you need to replaced them almost immediately. It is a bad commercial practice to make products that last! Never noticed how old stuff lasted longer?
So, the central issue is human development, not the one measured by the luxury items, but a development of awareness. The awareness of consequences of our actions, and the knowledge to predict and understand them.
How about Free Market Capitalism with its fundamentalist dogma of everlasting Economic Growth where it is possible for all the faithful to acheive the lofty goals of individual wealth?
Just to agree with you, from a moderate religious viewpoint, in Genesis it says:
"Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it"
Notice the word 'fill'. Not 'overfill'. This planet is full, past full. We have completed our task, now we should stop before we go too far.
You ask: "...what is the root cause of overpopulation? Religion."
I could not disagree more. You might as well blame "culture" itself, for that is all religion is.
You'd just as well ask: "What is the root cause of religion?" To which the answer is "biology, sex, fecundity, and death"
In fact my question is a much better question, I would humbly suggest.
Because people are animals they have evolved to reproduce efficiently, to derive pleasure from sex, to derive pleasure from children, and all to avoid the full consequences of personal mortality.
Religion and all culture helps organize all that mad shtuping and birthing and dieing so that humble apes can experience some modicum of meaning as the are born, blossom, impregnate, become impregnated, give birth, nurture a few young and die. Our brains force us to try to make sense of this mad dash from womb to grave.
The very idea that "thinking" affects behavior is a very religious idea, and one that I would question. It is behavior that leads to thoughts... to religious ideas and to religions. And the things that lead to behaviors are the material conditions of life... the availability of resources, food, land, etc.
Religions do nothing but put a belated stamp on what we are and what we do. If you would change Man, change the circumstances of his life and his religion will follow rapidly behind. Religion is but the tail on the dog of the human condition.
Witness for example the disappearance of Christianity in Europe. It can happen in a moment, as the world changes. In contrast, fighting religion directly, as if this religious idea or that matters for people's behavior seems extremely foolish. Religions express underlying realities... they rarely determine them.
Basic error in logic demonstrated by very low birthrates in more developed OECD countries, essentially inversely proportional to subscription to religion (eg. higher in USA than in Britain, Netherlands etc.)
Essentially, the key factor to reducing birth rates is to improve economic conditions, very little else aside from genocide had proven effective. Catholic laedership's and US fundamentalist christain's stupid clinging to an ancient "moral" tenant, eg. no birth control, is merely salt into the world's wounds. Reprehensible, and a negative factor, but of little significance alongside economic conditions.
Oh come on, there is no error in logic involved. My claim in no way contradicts the fact that economic conditions lead people to make choices that may run counter to their reproductive success and reproductive fitness.
The Catholic church provides a justification for people's preferences... it does not create them. As you say, when economic conditions change (Italy!) the Catholic church's admonitions are powerless.
Economics and material circumstances matter.... religion takes forms that suit people's preferences.
I respectfully disagree that the root cause of overpopulation is religion.
Look at the forces that are driving overpopulation today: industrialism, consumerism, advertising, factory farms, industrial agriculture, destruction of communities, etc. These are all secular forces which transcend religions; they were and are as common in the atheistic Soviet Union and modern China as in the United States and Europe. Sure, Genesis 1:28 may have had a marginal effect, but it was written when population was perhaps 1% of current population.
Religion today has been co-opted by secularism. In fact, Christianity was co-opted by secular society after Constantine and the council of Nicaea. Periodically there have been protests against this: the Desert Fathers, the Anabaptists, and others who all protested against the secularism of the church in different ways. Similar protests have erupted in other religions. So far they have failed. Periodically also people revolt against secularism in other ways and you have fundamentalism of all stripes. But most fundamentalists have rejected secularism in irregular and uninformed ways (rejecting birth control, but accepting war and consumerism).
So yes, religion can be held responsible for overpopulation. But religion is not the root cause. Secular forces are the root cause, with religion an accessory after the fact. If religion returned to its roots, say to a Jesus who rejected war and materialism and said "blessed are the poor" and "love your enemies," it could be a force against the powers driving overpopulation and destruction of the earth.
Keith
Keith I think you're correct. Religion is at best a smokescreen or at worst a handmaiden for global corporatism rather than a player.
Several years ago at the behest of a close friend I attended a large Christain Church service. I didn't detect much religious expression there however. It was more like a large burlesque production and in between acts we would sing hopelessly trite, repetitive lyrics from one of three large monitors above the stage. The big sermon was about "proper tithing". The pastor related the touching story of the "man who discovered that the more he tithed the wealthier he became". There was no mention about "the meek shall inherit the earth"?
One look at the parking lot crammed with large late model SUV's should proclaim that this is the Chruch Of Conspicous Consumption. What pragmatic Pastor, with his eye on the bottom line, would extort his parishioners to consider birth-contol or criticize consumption?
On the other hand, Les Knight, the founder (pastor) of VHEMT - the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement - is religious in his soft-spoken dedication to the principle that humans might be gently persuaded to halt reproduction on a fast dying planet. Although there is no place of meeting and no dues other than voluntary contributions there is a well-developed web-site: http://www.vhemt.org/ VHEMT's slogan "Live Long And Die Out"
For the truly misanthropic there is the Church of Euthanasia, with it's four pillars of abortion,suicide,sodomy and cannibalism. Their web-site has a guide for "butchering a human carcass" that includes a recipe for barbeque sauce.
Can the notion that a net increase of 350,000 additional people on the planet every day become a main-stream issue? Maybe and perhaps not as far into the future as people might think. With over a billion visits The Oil Drum has become almost main-stream and the fact that it is openly discussing over-population as an issue should be an encouraging sign. Will it take the spectre of Peak Oil and Climate Change wreaking disasters far and wide to wake up the general population?
Probably! But in the meantime I think there are a lot of people doing what they can to prepare for that day.
Joe