I know FoE do good things, but one thing they completely misunderstand is population. They gave a report once on why they had no strategy relating to population growth, and in that they said many stupid things.
One of these was that the current population is over-consuming the planet's resources by 20%, so curbing further population growth isn't going to stop global warming.
If the current population is too great a burden on the earth, then doesn't it follow that a larger population will be even more of a burden?
They said that the bigger focus should be getting people to reduce their consumption.
True, but they seem to assume (strangely, for an intelligent organisation) that it's impossible to do both: reduce population growth and reduce the level of consumption in the existing population.
They also don't take into account the most basic of basics, which is that a person who doesn't exist doesn't consume. What better way of cutting consumption than that?
Then they get hung up on immigration, which is nothing but distracting.
Immigration is an important issue that, however, has very little to do with the problem of global, unsustainable population.

I'm guessing that FoE want to avoid a subject that upsets and turns off a lot of people while also being likely to spark off a complex debate which distracts people from FoE's own agenda - i.e. raising funds for FoE, and campaigns that FoE wants to run. We should be more interested in: (a) why do people flinch away from population issues?, (b) how can we simplify the debate without trivialising it?, (c) how can we help people to stay interested enough to learn the truth?

It is certainly comforting to encounter a group which is not blind to the obvious issue of over population. I have quite a bit to say about this topic, and I have felt the same way, that is, bewildered that nobody (even in the media) is making any noise about it. The reason I think nobody wants to face the music on this, is because then, we will have to decide who gets to have children and who doesn't and under which circumstances. Then, what consequences are bought to bare if the guidelines are flouted? It's a can of worms no politician in their right mind wants to go near. Meanwhile guys like sex (unprotected sex feels best), and girls like, babies. So as to avoid gender-typing, some guys also like babies and some girls like sex too, but all that only contributes to the population.

Some of the problem is nature. We are partly motivated by hormones and instincts, but a lot of it may be attributable to nurture. Look at how much emphasis and effort is placed upon cultivating maternal role play in little girls. They are given baby dolls to play with and coached throughout their childhood in their potential to become a mummy. Little wonder that young girls are smitten by babies and that having one is a treasured ambition. It is also unfortunately one that is all to easily fulfilled.

My government even hands out a bonus of $5000 to anybody who has a baby.

Wow, as an FoE supporter it saddened me to discover their attitude to the population debate and as a scientist I'm amazed at the flawed logic used. If I were a politician perhaps I would understand:

www.foe.co.uk/resource/faqs/campaign_population.html

Wow, as an FoE supporter it saddened me to discover their attitude to the population debate and as a scientist I'm amazed at the flawed logic used. If I were a politician perhaps I would understand:

www.foe.co.uk/resource/faqs/campaign_population.html