Richard Leakey takes population bull by the horns

Richard Leakey, famed anthropologist and son of famed anthropologist Louis Leakey:

... said this, in response to:
"Give me an example or two of conservation issues that really trouble you."
"Look at the fish stocks. We've basically cleaned out the sea, in relation to commercial species and numbers that would make them commercially viable. In inland waterways we've poisoned them with mercury and other things to the point where we can't eat them. There's that. I think we're setting up for a fall with our constant use of antibiotics and antiviral medicines for plants and animals. Sooner or later something's going to get a resistance and you could wipe out the chickens of the world. Or you could wipe our wheat or rice. Then you're not talking about the United States, you're talking about the globe with six or seven billion people. This has implications."

And he said this, in response to:
Al Gore's film had a policy objective at the end, capping carbon dioxide emissions. If you were to do a similar film for conservation efforts, what would your policy objective be?
"It's hard to say because the film isn't written, but waste is an important aspect people can address, wasting of resources. I think also smaller families to address population. I think population size is something we've got to address and I think people have got to be persuaded this is a serious issue. I know this is long-term but people somehow have got to be made to realize - and I doubt I can do it but I've got to take a shot at it - that this really is a crisis. We have had mega-extinctions before, where 70 to 80 percent of the population has disappeared, and there's no reason to suppose we're not into another one. We're not far away from that number today. We're losing species in numbers that simply aren't sustainable."

Great questions from Eric Berger, great (startling plain and stark) answers from Leakey.

As one might expect, many of the comments attack the messenger and the message. My least favorite (and most noticeable) is the one that accuses Leakey of being racist: "So unfortunately I'm afraid the subtext of Dr. Leakey's remarks about population is "There are too many black and brown people being born." But, nah, he wouldn't think anything like that would he? I mean look at that face! Could that be the face of a closeted racist? I mean it's the face of...of an... old...white...Establishment... dude...but...but..."

This is both unfair and uninformed, and as another commenter astutely noted, this is partly about resource management. We, the U.S., the "First World" are overpopulated because we use resources far over what we need. It's a different kind of resources... in the overpopolated Third World, what's being overused are things like firewood, water, native species (bushmeat in Africa, medicinal animal parts in China), land (poor management practices requiring continuing destruction of forests for agriculture), and health (look at China's environmental problems).

If there weren't so many people consuming so much now, our current problems would be a lot less dire. And I don't use that word erroneously or inadvisably.