"In the process," they wrote, "the rich could create brand new markets for the outputs of the new economy and speed the reduction of their own population sizes to more satisfactory and sustainable levels. While setting an example, the United States could also increase its pathetic level of international aid, and carefully target that aid on efforts that would change social and demographic conditions (e.g., increase employment and help to lower fertility rates) in developing countries."
In their Nature piece -- backed by NSF- and NICHD-funded research -- Liu and Ehrlich argue that the environment is endangered not only by an increase in the number of human beings, but by an increase in the number of human households, which, because of cultural trends, tend to proliferate even where population declines. "Thus," they argued, "declining fertility rates are necessary but not sufficient to ensure reduced anthropogenic pressure on the environment and natural landscape."
Credit them with consistency: Whether the issue is "terrorism" or the "environment," they see a threat in the proliferation of children.
In the NFS's press release about the Nature article, Liu says: "Personal freedom and social choice may come at a huge environmental cost." He suggests, in the NSF's words, that "changes in government policies such as tax incentives for sharing housing and resources could be helpful to influence personal and household decisions and actions."
In an exchange of emails, I asked Liu why it was appropriate for NICHD to fund a study of panda habitat. "Although there are pandas in the reserve," he said, "we have not studied pandas using the NICHD grant. Furthermore, panda habitat is part of the human environment." His two grants were "not redundant," he told me, "because the goals of the NICHD grant and the NSF grant are different, although the two projects are carried out in the same location. The NICHD project focuses on the interactions between human population and the environment, while the NSF project focuses on the interactions among people, panda habitat and policies."
"We are generating research results that help people understand that the choices they make -- be it how many children they have, what kind of house they live in or how densely populated their neighborhoods are -- do have an impact," said Liu.
Wonder how many voters figured this was where tax dollars would go when they elected an all-Republican government?