Media alert

UPDATE: Thanks to John Stassek, who recorded and sent a copy, the audio file is archived here.

I’ll be interviewed by Shane Tyree on From the Right Radio Monday, 31 January 2011. The show can be heard live only, at 10:00 p.m. EST, 7:00 p.m. on the left coast (there will be no archived version). To tune in, turn your internet dial here.

Comments 33

  • It’s a date.
    Thanks for the heads up =)

  • also planning on tuning in … appreciate your message to wake those who have the courage to wake up …

    a couple of headlines I noticed yesterday

    http://www.businessinsider.com/unbelievably-yet-another-cyclone-is-forming-and-about-to-hit-australia-2011-1

    http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/01/27/5934677-heavy-rains-cause-floods-in-jeddah-saudi-arabia

    Guy, be encouraged to continue sharing your message …

  • These lyrics came to mind … too gentle for what we are facing but Guy, you do know the words to the ‘Goat Song’ and you will be on the radio

    Music: Elton John
    Lyrics: Bernie Taupin

    Guess there are times when we all
    need to share a little pain
    And ironing out the rough spots
    Is the hardest part when memories remain
    And it’s times like these when we all
    need to hear the radio
    `Cause from the lips of some old singer
    We can share the troubles we already know

    Turn them on, turn them on
    Turn on those sad songs
    When all hope is gone
    Why don’t you tune in and turn them on

    They reach into your room
    Just feel their gentle touch
    When all hope is gone
    Sad songs say so much

    If someone else is suffering enough to write it down
    When every single word makes sense
    Then it’s easier to have those songs around
    The kick inside is in the line that finally gets to you
    and it feels so good to hurt so bad
    And suffer just enough to sing the blues

    Sad songs, they say
    Sad songs, they say
    Sad songs, they say
    Sad songs, they say so much

  • Sarah, thanks. I guess that is a least part of what this blog is about – singing, writing, sad songs at the blog at the end of the universe. 🙂 🙁

  • Dear Guy and Friends,

    I have been having difficulty for much too long finding credible information on a topic. Perhaps you could help me find adequate information regarding a central question regarding the Rockefeller Foundation that I am having difficulty answering in a way which seems reasonable and sensible. The answer may shed light on saving life as we know it and ourselves. Or perhaps not. After all, as others this blog have noted, in the year of my birth the growth of absolute global human population numbers appears as a problem for the human family that we could more ably have acknowledged, addressed and overcome at that time because the human population was less than one-half its present size. What has been gained by maintaining a willful silence, formulating global gag rules and ignoring scientific evidence for the past 40 years.

    Now for the question. After the Ehrlichs did their work in the late 1960s and the Club of Rome published its work on limits to growth shortly thereafter, why did the Rockefeller Foundation shut down its research on human population growth? And along this same line, where have all the professionals with expertise in population dynamics, human ecology and biology been all this time? What about organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists, the International Union for the Scientific Study of Population, Population Connection, Sierra Club, World Resources Institute, International Conservation Union, Society for Conservation Biology, Worldwatch and Population Action International? Where have all the experts in these and many other similarly situated organizations and societies?

    Always with thanks,

    Steve

  • The lack of attention by the scientific community to population growth may have been just incidental, or driven by the biological forces that are programmed towards population growth: these forces manifest themselves in cultural norms that value children, parenthood, reduction of mortality rates and increases in life expectancy. All of these contribute to population growth, but all are counted as virtuous.

    To suggest a conspiracy requires three elements: 1) Two or more persons, 2) planning in secret (if publishing their decisions, doing so in a manner that conceals their agendas), and 3) having an ulterior motive, one that is either illegal or immoral (bearing in mind that some immoral acts or policies may not be illegal). A conspiracy by a small group of persons of low profile but with powerful and wide influence may prove impossible to uncover.

  • One of Kurt Cobb’s better essays regarding the problems of complexity at http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-01-30/razor-blades-and-limits-complexity

    From his conclusion

    “The alternative to scaling the walls of complexity continuously would be to simplify society when the returns on complexity diminish or turn negative. One of the essential inputs for increased complexity is increased energy input, according to Tainter. Thus, peaks in fossil fuels may force global society to simplify. Why not recognize now that the solution to our problems may not involve higher degrees of complexity? Why not get ready ahead of time and make the transition less painful?

    I heard Tainter speak at a recent conference, and he was asked a closely linked question: Is there an historical example of a society that reduced its complexity voluntarily before it absolutely had to? He had a one-word answer: No. Will that be our answer, too?”

    My comment – yes, no will be our answer as a society. Even if we do try to simplify we will take baby steps back instead of big giant steps. We will try to create solar powered tractors rather than learn how to use donkeys. Individuals of course are reducing their complexity voluntarily, but not countries much less civilization as a whole.

  • Let’s be frank. Reducing complexity will mean the planet cannot support the number of people it now holds. Can we reduce complexity at the rate that is necessary without causing the premature death of many people? I don’t know the answer and I doubt that anyone has examined the question with the rigor it deserves.

  • “Now for the question. After the Ehrlichs did their work in the late 1960s and the Club of Rome published its work on limits to growth shortly thereafter, why did the Rockefeller Foundation shut down its research on human population growth? And along this same line, where have all the professionals with expertise in population dynamics, human ecology and biology been all this time? What about organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists, the International Union for the Scientific Study of Population, Population Connection, Sierra Club, World Resources Institute, International Conservation Union, Society for Conservation Biology, Worldwatch and Population Action International? Where have all the experts in these and many other similarly situated organizations and societies?

    Always with thanks,”

    Steve

    good focking question about the rockefeller foundation, steve. i don’t know the specifics of that situation or where precisely to look, but i can venture a guess as to a general reply, based on what i, and probably u too, know about corporate establishment institutions, perhaps especially in the u.s… the people in charge are scientifically ignorant and apparently prefer to remain so. rather than having to relinquish their dreams of acquiring endless wealth and power to scientific enlightenment, they prefer to remain in the dark, and to work to keep the public in the dark as well. they don’t want anything to spoil their party. perhaps they’re like spoiled rotten children who were indoctrinated, as we all are (except perhaps those few with very enlightened parents or other circumstances), to not question ‘authority’, to be good little obedient children and always trust and obey ‘authorities’ like parents, teachers, police, etc… so to some extent, they too are victims of a culture which stifles intellect, emotion, and spirit.

    re. the second part of your question about where are all the ‘experts’, the trained scientists in fields u mentioned and others pertaining to our now surreally advanced predicament, why have they remained for the most part so silent… several participants on this blog have taken to task other generally highly regarded professions for having many flaws/intellectual blind spots, like engineers. i suspect this applies to scientists in general as well. many undoubtedly are deeply concerned and do speak out to some extent, but they face basically the same obstacles/discouragements we all do when it comes to trying to enlighten the public and establishment. dogmatic ignorance, denial, obfuscation, delusion.

    which brings us to the meat of this post: guy’s deal with the devil. i hope i’m not being unpardonably rude or surreally crazy by referring to from the right radio (a curious name, given that mainstream corporate radio is already replete with right wing nuts like rush limbaugh…) as the devil. of course i’m speaking metaphorically. i’m simply under the impression that american right wingers, the ‘moral majority’ types, john birchers, tea partiers, authority-worshipping, pathologically puritanical and often hypocritical american ‘conservatives’… are either too damned stupid or/and?! crazy to possibly be enlightened. plus the fact that many of them are outright bigots and/or potentially dangerous… to me, they’re an unsavory audience. they provide the staunchest support for the evil, insane, and idiotic establishment.

    i fantasize writing something that at least will momentarily get a great deal of public attention focused on our predicament. i’m tentatively thinking of titling it ‘shit for brains’, in honor of our species. that’s the sort of title that can garner maximum attention when people learn it’s about them in general. unfortunately, like the vast majority/all? of my dreams/desires/musings, it almost certainly will come to nothing at all. which is probably for the best, as for my health and longevity. good luck with the interview, guy.

  • terry,

    Don’t hold back, tell us what you really think.

  • Steven

    I haven’t researched this, but I suspect that the answer you seek will reveal that population science was too closely associated with the field of eugenics, a field with hardcore support from the global elite esp in Europe and America during the first part of the 20th century. The Rockefellers were in the thick of it, and as far as I know never outright denounced eugenics. The supporters of Eugenics were forced out of popularity when Hitler came along attempting to actually implement into society those principles that folks like the Rockefellers were advocating – genetically deriving an human through genetics and controlling global population. Public outcry over eugenics forced such people to go underground, where they operate today.

    I suspect proper research would come up with a similar answer to your question.

  • The first push towards birth control was labeled eugenics. We have to be careful. Lots of people in the US liked the Nazis including Prescott Bush.
    “How Bush’s grandfather helped Hitler’s rise to power” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar
    Obama’s health care plan has just been labeled as having death panels because they offer to pay for an optional service – counseling with one’s Dr. over end of life choices. I don’t think the Rockefellers were any more into eugenics than any of the other elite of the time or now. I once heard my mother-in-law, a sweet lady, tell me how glad she was to have been to the mall and seen some white people with babies. Underneath a good part of the American public wouldn’t mind some eugenics at all (never thinking they might be on the list too). I think that issue was used to discredit the whole Limits to Growth project just as the “death panels” is used to discredit Obama’s health care plan (it is full of flaws but that is not one of them). What had to be discredited was the idea of limits to growth and any slur would do.

    Nelson Rockefeller was governor of NYS from 1959 to 1973, obviously elected multiple times.

  • Kathy

    The Rockefellers were deeply involved in Eugenics as were the Bush family, the Carnegies, the Harrimans, Ted Turner and many others. Eugenics has always been a top priority of many of these, though not always entirely visible due to public opinion.

    Eugenics did not simply include family planning as its public face is today. It was essentially a field that taught the selective breeding of humans to a desired genetic composition, the sterilisation of undesirables and the culling of the remainder of humanity in order to reach what they perceived as a desired population level. These philosophies remain very strong among the elite of the world as I understand it.

    Look up Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories, the Eugenics Record Office, the Population Council, the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry, the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Eugenics, Anthropology and Human Heredity – all with deep involvement on the part of the Rockefellers and the others. And the Rockefellers are still involved via the Rockefeller Foundation, especially David Rockefeller.

    I could go on, but you get the point….there are very powerful people in the world that are working very hard for a serious reduction in human population.

  • Glutton for punishment, or am I missing something?

  • Victor, I think you missed my point. One can discover nothing about what the elites want from their public words or actions. The Bush family is certainly in favor of eugenics, but worked actively to unravel family planning in Africa. Courting the right wing at the moment was more important. Any public use of “that’s eugenics” by any faction of TPTB against another faction is purely rhetoric for the masses. But as I pointed out, many of the people that be are in favor of eugenics as well, just not of their tribe. You will hear comments like “poor people shouldn’t have so many babies” which is usually code for I am getting worried that black and browns are going to become more numerous than whites and I don’t want that to happen. The people by and large are quite happy with eugenics by bombing Iraq, Afganistan and Pakistan, or by keeping goods out of Palestine, or by the bombing Lebanon, or by ignoring most starvation in the world (unless TPTB have a political agenda to get the people worried about starvation in one country they have their eye on), The mind controlled people in the US may hate abortion but have no problem with bombing pregnant women, or creating DU babies. TPTB appear to be able to feed fear of eugenics when they want, and mass murder as righteous war when they want.

    OTOH TPTB like having an excess of poor people so that there is unemployment and they can pay lower and lower wages – which is why they let people south of the US border in while pretending to keep them out. They WANT them in, just want them scared, which is why the gov’t cracks down on the borders and does raids but does little to the people who hire them. In other words they don’t know what they want. They hate poor people and absolutely depend on them. After all how can you be at the top of the pile if there is no pile.

    The trashing of Limits of Growth by TPTB had nothing to do with their fear of the public being against eugenics but their fear of their ponzi scheme crashing. They used the fear of eugenics (which they approved of) to move forward their agenda of growth. IMHO of course.

  • came across this video this morning …

    Kathy sets it up perfectly “One can discover nothing about what the elites want from their public words or actions.”

    the youtube video is titled
    “Spoof on US State Departments Position on Egypt”

  • The image of “Walking into the Lion’s Den”, comes to mind. I sure wouldn’t do it, but, from what I know of Guy’s fondness for stirring the pot, I imagine he’s going to enjoy himself. No better place to rile things up than on right wing radio. The person with the real problem tonight is the one who controls the button to cut the power to guy’s mic. I can almost picture him, desperately wanting to but not being allowed to. Thanks to Guy, that guy is going to go through hell tonight!

  • Thanks Sarah, the video does a good job of translating Hillary’s speech:)

  • Sarah, excellent…. 😉

  • Looks like the crops that weren’t totally damaged in the last round of flooding are gonna get hit again with Cyclone Yasi. I presume coal mines will stay shut down.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/01/3126405.htm?section=justin
    Residents urged to flee monster cyclone

    Entire suburbs in three north Queensland cities will be evacuated today as Cyclone Yasi powers towards the coast, bringing destructive winds, torrential rain, and massive storm surges.

    Yasi is expected to be packing winds of up to 280 kilometres per hour when it makes landfall as a category four system somewhere between Cairns and Innisfail at around midnight (AEST) on Wednesday.

  • Looks like a right wingnut tea-bagger outfit. Have fun trying to explain logical thinking to these folks… for instance something complicated like exponential growth cannot happen on a finite planet. lol

  • my bad… god show, good host (amazing on a right wing station).

  • That was good. Aimed at a somewhat different audience from this blog, but the opportunity to proselytize lies outside preaching to he choir.

  • Dear Guy and Friends,

    Please accept my thanks for the suggestions of places to look for credible information regarding the perpetration of so remarkable a silence as has been engendered within the human community during the past 40 years. That a colossal challenge like the skyrocketing growth of absolute global human population numbers could have been ignored for so long leads me to wonder how the denial of such an obvious thing could ever have been accomplished.

    While I do not want of impose upon the good will of the members of NBL community, there is one other related matter that calls out once again for your assistance.

    Nowhere can I find meaningful discussion regarding either the false promise of demographic transition theory or human population dynamics. Do you know of such conversations?

    The hysterical silence we notice now here regarding the unsustainable consumption, production and propagation activities of the human population is nothing like THE SILENCE to follow, I suppose. That is the most profound disappointment. A much greater, more deafening silence could be in the offing.

    Somehow assuring a good enough future for the children has been ‘forgotten’ in a mad dash to have it all (and end it all) by self-proclaimed masters of the universe in my not-so-great generation, the ones whose moral philosophy is neatly summed up in the shibboleth, “Greed IS Good”.

    Sincerely,

    Steve

    Steven Earl Salmony
    AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
    established 2001
    Chapel Hill, NC
    http://sustainabilityscience.org/content.html?contentid=1176
    http://sustaianbilitysoutheast.org/

  • Very good and thoughtful show. I did not expect it to go that well. I think you must have done some good, and given them all something to think about.

    I was able to capture the audio, but I don’t know how to include it here so I’ll email it to Guy and let him decide what to do with it.

  • Steve

    Interesting links. I viewed the presentation by Hopfenberg and was intrigued by his assumption on the relationship between food supply and population. I also took a quick glance at your site as well. Some very interesting sources listed there. I hope to dig deeper into those over time.

    My interest represents a different cut through the Critical Sectors you pose, one that has a dearth of credible research behind it at this point – that of the relationship between human population and technology.

    A couple of major assumptions of mine at work here:

    1) To reduce death rates, we employ increased technology over time
    2) To increase food production, we employ increasing technology
    3) As the population grows as a result of 1) and 2) above, technology is driven further.
    4) As technology grows, cities grow. Cities are the engines of technology. They contain the centres of learning, hold the information gained through research and development, maintain the factories producing technology, and provide support services of many kinds for the maintenance of the technology base (food and water storage and distribution, medical services, building construction and services, entertainment services, and many others that those directly involved in technology production must have in order to live and continue producing technology.
    5) Large populations are required to sustain modern technology for the reasons given above
    6) As population grows, more technology is delivered to advance not only the food supply, but also improve the ability to deliver water, medical support, and protection (from the elements, from disease and pests, from each other). As all these are improved through technology, the artificial carrying capacity of the world in raised and populations grow further, spurring more technology.
    7) Technology is a form of complexity. Complexity exists in other forms as well, for example, in the form of human governance and economies. As populations grow, cities multiply, nations arise, regional associations arise, global relations arise. So the hunter/gatherer tribe with its relatively simple structure (technology, governance and economies), evolves to highly complex global inter-relationships.

    These assumptions lead me to conclude, hypothetically of course, that humans drive technology in order to ensure the survival of the species and to prosper. An advance in technology is translated into more food, more access to water, more and better medical care, more and better housing, more human specialties, more complex governance, more complex economies – indeed, population growth spurs complexity.

    And more important and relevant to our current human predicament (the impending Collapse of Modern Civilisation) of the above conclusion, is its startling corollary – a dramatic reduction in human population will lead to a dramatic reduction in complexity, and therefore, supportable technology.

    Which means, in effect, without wishing to state the obvious, the collapse of human population levels via the collapse of modern civilisation will entail a corresponding and rapid collapse of modern technology (due to the destruction of the most vulnerable part of modern civilisation – the city) driving humanity back to its roots (no pun intended) as hunter/gatherers.

    Only this time, the resulting human population will not have the original richness of the earth to forage, but instead be met with decreasing levels of biodiversity, a reduction in the availability of fresh water, decreasing arable soils – driven by the excesses of the previous population levels and the continuing advancing of climate instability through global warming.

    I would like to see more research done to verify (or not) the above assumptions. For if they be true, we may face a far worse fate than the collapse to a simpler way of life.

  • Dear Victor,

    I believe you deeply understand my point of view and also that I can see well enough what you are communicating. I agree with you regarding virtually everything you report and hope to helpful to you by encouraging attention be given to topics you are pointing out regarding human population and technology.

    The stony silence regarding the unsustainability of the human overpopulation of Earth is deafening, while the false hope of population stabilization soon has been broadcast everywhere as if such an attractive thing had the support of sound science. It appears to me that Demographic Transition Theory is ideologically-driven, logically contrived, politically convenient, economically expedient, religiously tolerable, culturally prescribed, preternatural thought. Demographic Transition Theory is not only not adequately supported by science, the best available, heretofore unchallenged, scientific research directly contradicts Demographic Transition Theory. How could the perpetration of so pervasive a silence with respect to science, as has been engendered within the human community regarding the skyrocketing growth of absolute global human population numbers, ever have been accomplished?

    Speaking out loudly, clearly and often for the sake of at least trying to assure a good enough future for the children has somehow been eschewed…. somehow become lost in space-time, I suppose.

    Perhaps necessary behavioral changes toward voluntary contraception, simplicity, common sense, sharing, sustainable lifestyles and right-sized enterprises are in the offing.

    Sincerely,

    Steve

  • Guy, you have my respect and admiration for tirelessly bringing your important message to us. You are able to condense the issue into words that give clarity.

    One idea from the interview that was helpful to me was that gaining skill for moving through collapse is a gift we give to each other.

    You said in the interview, as has been said here on your blog, once we see we can’t un-see … I am struggling with the vision …

  • Culture presents us with much that is real and also less that is illusory. From a psychological standpoint, because humans are shaped early and pervasively by cultural transmissions in our perception of reality, it is an evolutionary challenge for humankind to see the world as it is. Since the eighteenth century human beings in our culture have sought to find the actual causes of things, to figure out how things really work and to gain knowledge of what the world in which we live is truly like.

    Not only do we seek to establish what is real about the physical world, we also strive to gain knowledge of what is real about the self and society. Of course, to the social scientists falls the task of uncovering the misperceptions of individuals as well as of peoples within the world’s socio-cultural aggregates.

    I am a psychologist. When a psychologist thinks a patient is suffering from a mental illness, that is an evidence-based clinical judgment. However, general standards of normalcy are not clinical judgments, but matters of socio-cultural norms and conventions that are full of correctly perceived aspects of reality as well as some misperceptions of reality. Deeply disturbed mental patients distort reality drastically. By contrast, social organizations like nation-states as well as cultures appear not to misperceive reality so sharply, yet distortions of what peoples perceive do remain. A term of art in psychology is useful here, folie a deux. The term means that two people share an identical distortion of reality. This understanding leads to other terms, folie a deux cent million for a social order or folie a deux billion for a culture. These terms refer to a misperception of reality commonly held by many people of a social order or cultural matrix. One way to define the highest standard of what is “normal” for the individual and for people in cultures could be looked at in terms of what is free of illusion, what is in scientific fact real.

    People can and do choose to confuse ideological idiocy with science, contrived logic with reason, self-interested thinking with common sense. Science regarding the activities of the human population is often ignored when ignorance of the world as it is serves to support a social status quo or buttress religious dogma. I would like to submit to you that on occasions such as these, conscious or unconscious thinking in the service of a status quo leads to distortions and perversions of science.

    In these early years of Century XXI humanity could be confronted with formidable, human-driven global challenges, ones already dimly visible on the far horizon. It is inconceivable that the human community can respond ably to whatever challenges present themselves in the years just ahead if we choose not to so much as acknowledge, much less adequately address, that certain adamantly maintained cultural transmissions regarding global consumption, production and propagation activities of the human species now overspreading the Earth may have mesmerized many experts into thinking that the humankind is somehow not an integral part of the natural world and ultimately not subject to biophysical limits to growth that are ultimately imposed on living things by a planet with the size, finite make-up and frangible ecology of Earth.

    Leaders and followers alike in the family of humanity can do better and I trust we will choose soon enough necessary behavioral change rather than the maintenance of a morally disengaged and patently unsustainable socioeconomic status quo. Socioeconomic thought is feeble, fundamentally flawed, and often untrue. Such thinking has much to do with what is economically expedient, socially suitable, politically convenient, religiously tolerable and culturally prescribed. This woefully inadequate form of thought has little to do with intellectual honesty, moral courage and an appreciation of the practical requirements of biophysical reality. What is often called socioeconomic thinking is a kind of thinking that cannot lead the human community to meaningfully embrace sustainable lifestyles, to sensibly protect biodiversity and to recognize the necessity for preserving Earth and its environs.

  • PostSteven Earl Salmony

    Dear Andy, Katie Elmore, Joe Bish, Maria Luisa Cohen, George Mobus, Bill Ryerson, Mark Meritt, Dave Gardner, John Feeney, Yugi Ishiguro, Paul Ehrlich, Jack Alpert, Jeff McKee and Other Friends of GPSO,

    How are we to begin moving in a new direction, much less achieve sustainability, if experts willfully refuse speak out about key factors necessary to gaining an understanding of the global predicament? It appears to me that very few are willing to talk about either human population dynamics or the unscientific foundation of demographic transition theory. The former appears to explain why human population numbers have been skyrocketing in our time and the latter could be misleading us by giving rise to a false promise that human population growth is somehow about to come to end soon.

    Joe Bish

    Steve, I believe we have already started in a new direction; however, only blood, sweat and tears will suffice to reach the destination. And, we may fail anyway. Isn’t life grand?

    Steven Earl Salmony

    What of hope, Joe? Are we or the children any better off by us choosing the ‘courage’ to do nothing, to say nothing, and as Paul Ehrlich mentioned recently, stand by while “the world goes to hell in a handbasket”?

    It appears to me, in full agreement with you, that we have some hard work ahead of us that most reasonably and sensibly begins, I suppose, with “taking the measure” of the human-induced global predicament that looms ominously before us. We need to more adequately understand what is happening “on our watch” with regard to human overpopulation of the Earth if we are to have so much as hope of responding ably to whatever challenges are presented to us. As you put it so well, “And, we may fail anyway?” Well, yes. So what? Is the fear of failure any basis for not speaking truth to power, not taking responsible action, not doing what is within our power? Yes, we may fail. Or not!

    GPSO -2011 has as its goal that people speak out about real issues regarding the human overpopulation of Earth. That is how I understand our mission.

    As you know, my pledge this year is to bring attention to what appears to me as the preternatural (not scientific) foundation of the theory of demographic transition. In GPSO ’09 and ’10, I tried unsuccessfully to bring attention to what appears to me as the best available scientific evidence of human population dynamics.

    Joe, let me directly state what I see at the moment with the hope you and others in the GPSO community will assist me. After all, we are talking about the effort, however fitful and tentative it may be, to begin doing something that is somehow right…….something that assists us toward a sustainable population in a sustainable world; that actually helps us protect life as we know it in the process; that “stewards” the Earth as a fit place for human habitation going forward; that ably responds to the practical requirements of what could somehow be real about our planetary home for the sake of at least making a good faith effort to keep the children’s future safe. Lest the children’s future be stolen by thieves of the highest order.

    How are we to meaningfully move in a new direction, as is our intention, much less achieve sustainability, if people refuse to speak out about key factors necessary to gaining an understanding of the human-induced global predicament looming ominously before humanity now here? It appears to me that not nearly enough people are speaking out about either human population dynamics or the unscientific foundation of demographic transition theory. The former is assiduously ignored, even though it appears to explain why human population numbers have been skyrocketing in our time; and the latter is relentlessly broadcast during my lifetime, even though the theory of demographic transition could be misleading all of us by giving rise to a false promise that human population growth is somehow about to come benignly to an end in mid-century. The silence with regard to science as well as the broadcasts of ideologically driven, logically contrived, politically convenient, economically expedient, religiously tolerable, socially agreeable, culturally prescribed, preternatural thought are forces with which we have to reckon, I suppose.

    With hope for and faith in the effort to preserve a good enough future for children everywhere,

    Steve

    GPSO 2011 Video Blog Update, Day 2, 02.02.2011 | Global Population Speak Out
    http://www.populationspeakout.org
    Global Population Speak Out is an international community of ecologists, scholars and concerned citizens who SPEAK OUT for a sustainable population and a sustainable world. Join us.
    16 hours ago

  • Thanks for the kind words everybody! I try to be fair in an un-fair world on my show. I welcome ideas for future shows, including more interview time with Guy. Understand it is hard to break down old ideas, that said, what ever I do on the show has to be easy to digest for the masses. I don’t think there is a lot of time to inform/educate everyone, but we have to try. Thank you so much Guy for the interview and I really hope we can do it again…maybe a little more on the “What should we already be doing” front. Cheers all, Shane Tyree
    shane_ftr@yaoo.com