About us

Who we are and what is our purpose

We are a United Kingdom (UK) charity (number 1060769) with the primary purpose of studying human population growth and migration and informing the general public about this subject.

We have three trustees, Dr John F . Barker, a biologist ( but also a musician), who is also our Correspondent, Mrs. Antje Barker, a technician and naturalist, and Alfred Barker, son of John and Antje, who is both a keen conservationist and a music teacher.

We assert that the most important thing  mankind needs to do  is to stop human population growth, a growth that is the underlying cause of all our problems, and then reduce that population to a size that is sustainable. And we find ourselves in good company on this matter (R1).But almost all environmental organisations either play down the importance of population growth for the future of mankind, or make no mention of it at all (R2).  That is why our work is so important.

This control of population needs to be implemented  both globally and in our own country, the UK. Now in the UK, immigration is projected to be the chief cause of future population growth, and we argue that this should therefore be curtailed. We are also concerned that immigration has been so exceptionally heavy in the last half century that this threatens  our culture – primarily a European culture – and also social cohesion.

References

 R1. The Royal Society, (UK’s premier and oldest scientific society) recently published (2009) ”The impact of population growth on tomorrows world”. This volume consists of a series of papers by  experts from different parts of the world. In the  introductory article of the volume, by R.V. Short, we read:

“World experts in a wide range of disciplines, explore the ways in which the inexorable increase in human numbers is exhausting conventional energy supplies, accelerating environmental pollution and Global Warming, and providing an increasing number of Failed States where civil unrest prevails. Few can be left in any doubt that calling a halt to future population growth in both developed and developing countries is the greatest challenge now facing the world”.l

Sir Richard Attenborough, the well known naturalist , published on April the 27th 2011 an article in the magazine The New Statesman entitled “This heaving planet”. The whole thrust of his article is that human population growth is the underlying driver of all our environmental problems; yet at the same time almost all environmental organisations  either belittle the importance of human population growth or ignore it all together.

R2.  Attenborough gos on later in his article  to write about this avoidance of talking about population growth: “Why this strange silence?” “I simply don’t understand it”.

Well, we think we do understand it and we invite you to read our article  “Companion to Key Points” which can be accessed from the second yellow box down on the Home page of our old web site:http://www.population-growth-migration.info

You can read the whole Attenborough article and some responses at:
This heaving planet

Postscript.

A response we recently had illustrates one of the problems we face, and this concerns human consumption, so much higher in the developed world than in the developing world.  This response focuses on the Attenborough article mentioned above.

We now give this response,  and our response to it.

“ josephCape”
27 April 2011 at 12:26

“Great article. I am left unconvinced, however, that population growth – per se – is a greater problem than lifestyle choice and resource use per  person

To take climate change as an example, while the consumption of US residents produces about 20 tons of CO2 annually on average, 60 poor countries have average annual CO2 emissions below 1 ton per person, and 11 countries even have annual emission below 0.1 ton per person. You would have to sacrifice about 500 unlucky people in one of those very poor countries to get the same effect as you would get from sacrificing one of us.

To put it the other way, one of those very poor countries would have to limit its population growth by 500 to get the same environmental benefit that would come from the US reigning in its expanding population by 1 or by the UK preventing a population increase of 1-and-a-bit.

There may be other ways in which we share our damaging effects on the planet somewhat more evenly (e.g. water consumption), but it is important to see where it is *population* that is the problem and where *choices about how we live* should enjoy the focus of our attention.”

 Comment from Gaia Population Watch

Even accepting for the sake of argument, the carbon dioxide data given above (we have not checked it, but the figures are on the right lines), we make the following observations.

First, consider projected population change 2010 to 2015 in the following table (data from the United Nations).
 

This data suggests that poor countries are likely to make a significant contribution to future global carbon dioxide emissions. In addition, in Less Developed Regions there are some developing countries that have a  comparatively large   growing middle class population of people that aspire to and sometimes reach More Developed Regions standards of living, with concomitant increases in consumption and increases in carbon dioxide emissions, China, with the largest population of any country in the world being the most important example.

Second, the issue contended is whether population growth per se is a greater problem than lifestyle choice and resource use per  person.

Cape only considers carbon dioxide emissions (although he admits that ”there may be other ways in which we share our damaging effects on the planet somewhat more evenly “).  And there are certainly other matters that need to be considered, for example, food supply.

While soils in developed countries have deteriorated in quality, they still, through massive application of fertilizers, give high yields. In contrast, in some  sub-Saharan and especially East African countries, food yields are poor and declining, through overgrazing, using animal dung  for cooking instead of using it as fertilizer and eliminating fallow periods in an effort to increase immediate food production, all the consequences of  continued population growth. Further, most people cannot afford to buy nitrogenous fertilizers..

N0t surprisingly, for most people in poor countries, food availability is low, which together with other factors means that  standards of living are very low, and there is  little chance of improving these standards.   The main  ‘life-style choice’ is often to move to urban areas, but then most people  become trapped in slums round cities. In developed countries In contrast,  standards of living, including food availability and quality are  very high, so there are very high levels of consumption.

One might then be tempted to draw a simple conclusion: The main task facing developed countries is to reduce consumption, while the main task for developing countries is to stop  population growth then reduce total population size.

But it is not as simple as that. Because in most developed countries, populations continue to grow significantly, the notable exception being Japan. Furthermore, the main cause of continued population growth is immigration, although in the USA high fertility rates make a big contribution to population growth. And of course, with continued increases in population sizes, total global consumption is increased. So in developed nations we also need to reduce population sizes. Now in fact, in most developed countries, population size would decrease in the absence of net immigration. So what is needed is massive reduction in net immigration.

So a more accurate conclusion would be, we think, to say that the chief underlying problam, across the world, in both developed and developing countries is continued human population growth. But at the same time, there is a need for massive reduction in per capita consumption in developed countries and in the middle classes of some developing countries.

Now in the media , the need to reduce consumption is frequently argued. On the other hand, the need to limit human population size is either denied or ignored.  Since we think that controlling population growth is just as important, or more important than reducing consumption in developed countries, there is no need for us to add our voice to the many voices almost clamouring for reduction of consumption.  Rather, we need to bring to the attention of the public and government the need to control population size.