The new GrowthBusters podcast is now active, with three episodes available now for your enjoyment and enlightenment.

Why a GrowthBusters podcast?

Many lively discussions begin on our webinars, on my media bias analysis at www.growthbiasbusted.org, and in response to Facebook posts. And those have continued here in the office (thanks to the presence of our two student interns, Kaitlyn and Ben). So, we decided the time is right to launch an official GrowthBusters podcast.

You can listen to the first episodes right here (just below, in this post), or you can find the GrowthBusters podcast (and subscribe, for free) at iTunes, Stitcher or the Apple Podcasts app. Subscribing means you’ll automatically get new episodes when available. (You’ll also find a couple of old episodes of our Paving Paradise podcast, which I started last summer but abandoned due to lack of time.) . . .

REGISTER FOR THIS WEBINAR

Did you know our relentless pursuit of robust economic growth is liquidating the planet of vital resources much faster than it can regenerate them? We are “burning down the house to keep warm.” There is another way.

If this idea intrigues you, please join us for an enlightening conversation February 15, 2017 with Brian Czech, author of Shoveling Fuel for a Runaway Train and Supply Shock: Economic Growth at the Crossroads. Brian is president of the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy, and he’ll explain the need for, and benefits of, a steady state economy.

Brian is a conservation biologist who taught ecological economics for over a decade at Virginia Tech. He is frequently invited to speak to groups and writes for Huffington Post and the Daly News. I love his sense of humor and way with words. Registration for this webinar entitles you to participate both in the February 15 session and a more advanced followup webinar on February 22. Both webinars begin at 9 pm U.S. Eastern Time and last one hour and 15 minutes. Registrants will receive a link to view a replay of the webinar. . . .

Here’s the 5th installment of questions from our Solving Overshoot webinar. I’m sharing the questions we didn’t have time to address, and I’m including comments received from Madeleine Somerville and Paul Ehrlich, our panelists. If you missed the first few installments, start here with installment one. Your comments are welcome below. I think today’s questions are particularly important, so I’ve jumped in and offered some of my own thoughts. I look forward to reading your thoughts.

16. Chris Bystroff asked: “Paul– Will accelerated growth lead to a cataclysm, like a nuclear war or something else, sooner? And if so would it be less damaging than waiting until the population doubles again?” . . .

Here’s the 4th installment of questions from our Solving Overshoot webinar. I’m sharing the questions we did not have time to address, and including any comments I received from Madeleine Somerville and Paul Ehrlich, our panelists. If you missed the first few installments, start here with installment one. Your comments are welcome.

12. Brian Sanderson asked: “Which is easier to alter, per-capita consumption or overpopulation?
Ultimately, if nothing is done, nature will force a reduction in per-capita consumption.
On the other hand, if the question is which we as human agents will find most easy to alter, it’s population that is easier. The data are clear on this.”  But it would take something like a century to get significant shrinkage, and we likely don’t have a century. . . .

One of the three podcasts I host is called The Overpopulation Podcast, a project of World Population Balance. One episode this year featured a conversation with author Laura Carroll about making the choice to be childfree. One listener emailed this comment:

“Dear Dave, It’s not population as population is leveling off. It’s consumption, consumption, consumption.”

I’m writing about this today because this is a fairly common occurrence. That’s one of the reasons I’m hosting a free webinar this week:

Solving Overshoot: End Overpopulation or Stop Overconsumption?

I suspect most people think they know the answer to that question. I think I do. So I doubt many will attend hoping to actually find out the answer. I think most who attend will be there to make sure someone doesn’t offer the WRONG answer. Interestingly, there are differing opinions on what the correct answer is. . . .