The World Socialist Movement has described over-populationists – those who subscribe to the dystopian predictions of Thomas Malthus and advocate drastic family planning policies – as pushing against an open door as the trend towards a decline in the numbers of people is already in process.

Lord Adair Turner, former chairman of the Financial Services Authority, said that a gentle decline in birth rates would “deliver significant benefits to human welfare”. Writing in a research paper, he argued that with the right government policy an ageing population would not pose a threat to the economy. Lord Turner, said: “The biggest reason to welcome this demographic shift is that it results from the free choice of empowered people, and in particular women.

Low birth rates and an ageing population have often been seen as a looming crisis, with economists arguing there will not be enough people to work and contribute to the future economy. This, coupled with the rising cost of pensions and health care, has made people increasingly worried about shrinking populations and smaller families. But the report, ‘Smaller Families and Ageing Populations,’ explains this is good news.

In Japan, women give birth to an average of 1.36 children, down from 2.1 in 1974. In England and Wales the figure is 1.6. By 2035, the Japanese population is set to decrease by 9.6 per cent from 125m to 113.1m people. 

The report did acknowledge that labour shortages would become an increasing problem with an ageing population. But it argued automation in the work force and migration would be key to dealing with this issue.

Population decline good news for climate, says former finance chief | The Independent

Despite increasing pledges of action from many nations, governments have not yet made plans to wind down fossil fuel production, a report, produced by the UN Environment Programme (Unep) and other researchers, found.

Fossil fuel production planned by the world’s governments “vastly exceeds” the limit needed to keep the rise in global heating to 1.5C and avoid the worst impacts of the climate crisis, the report explained.  Global production of oil and gas is on track to rise over the next two decades, with coal production projected to fall only slightly. This results in double the fossil fuel production in 2030 that is consistent with a 1.5C rise.

The gap between planned extraction of coal, oil and gas and safe limits remains as large as in 2019 when the UN first reported on the issue. 

The report also found that countries have directed more than $300bn (£217bn) of new public finance to fossil fuel activities since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, more than that provided for clean energy.

“The research is clear: global coal, oil and gas production must start declining immediately and steeply to be consistent with limiting long-term warming to 1.5C,” said Ploy Achakulwisut, at the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) and a lead author of the report. “However, governments continue to plan for and support levels of fossil fuel production that are vastly in excess of what we can safely burn.”

Inger Andersen, executive director of Unep, said: “The devastating impacts of climate change are here for all to see. At Cop26 and beyond, the world’s governments must step up, taking rapid and immediate steps to close the fossil fuel production gap and ensure a just and equitable transition.”

Detailed analysis of 15 major fossil fuel-producing nations found that the US, Canada, Australia, Saudi Arabia and China all project increases in oil and gas, while India and Russia intend to increase coal production. Only two of the countries expect oil and gas production to decline: the UK and Indonesia.

The new report analysed publicly stated plans and projections and found the production of 240% more coal, 57% more oil, and 71% more gas in 2030 than is consistent with 1.5C. Overall fossil fuel production is 45% more than consistent with even the weaker goal of 2C.

Planned fossil fuel output ‘vastly exceeds’ climate limits, says UN | Fossil fuels | The Guardian

Socialists have always stated that national interests will supersede the welfare of the world. 

 The massive expenditure for war is not a political issue for most Republican or Democratic politicians in the USA. 

While measures that cover a range of programs designed to help working people and address climate change and will cost $3.5 trillion over ten years have become contested debating points, over the same decade, the ten-year cost of $7.7 trillion for the military budget gets passed with very little criticism, despite Biden having reduced America’s military presence in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Among the many industries that are blamed for being damaging to the health of people and the planet is the food processing corporations. 

The foods we consume are a major driver of global heating, contributing similar amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere as the UK energy system. Meat and dairy are responsible for more than three-quarters of this impact. Without meaningful reductions in meat and dairy intake, there is little chance of meeting emissions reduction targets, both at national and international levels. From a climate crisis perspective, the Climate Change Committee – the body tasked with monitoring and providing advice on greenhouse gas emissions – recommends a 20% reduction in the consumption of beef, lamb, and dairy in support of the government’s target of achieving net zero emissions by 2050. However, the committee’s own report admits that this level of reduction might be too low, and an independent scientific analysis suggested that beef, lamb and pork intake would have to decline by 89%, poultry intake by 66% and dairy intake by 61% for the UK’s food emissions to be in line with limiting global heating to under 2C.

The public health case for reducing meat consumption is similarly strong – tens of thousands of avoidable deaths from cardiovascular diseases and cancers have been linked to red and processed meat consumption in the UK. Yet, despite this public and environmental health emergency, policymakers appear unwilling to take meaningful steps that would help create a healthier, more sustainable food system. Recommended targets and policies continue to be woefully inadequate. The actual recommendation of the Eatwell Guide is even more misleading. Its target value of 70g a day would mean having a serving of red and processed meat five times a week would be totally fine, much in contrast to the current scientific understanding. A comprehensive review of the scientific literature on healthy eating suggested limiting red and processed meat intake to below one serving a week (14g a day), five times below the current recommendation. Updating national dietary guidelines to reflect the latest scientific evidence would therefore be a critical first step for reducing the 30,000 annual deaths associated with red and processed meat consumption in the UK.

Intensive industrial-style livestock farming has featured in numerous criticisms of the global food system. At least eight types of bird flu, all of which can kill humans, are circulating around the world’s factory farms – and they could be worse than Covid-19.

 Scientific evidence from the £150bn-a-year poultry and livestock industries shows that stressful, crowded conditions of factory farming drive the emergence and spread of many infectious diseases, and act as an “epidemiological bridge” between wildlife and human infections. UN bodies, academics and epidemiologists recognise the link between the emergence of highly pathogenic avian influenza viruses and increasingly intensive poultry farming.

Rob Wallace, an American virologist argues that the new strains of flu emerging are adapting to industrial poultry production. With more than 20 billion chickens and nearly 700 million pigs being farmed at any one time, Wallace says the chances of new flu strains and variants emerging and spilling over to humans are high.

 Sam Sheppard, a biologist at Bath University, says overuse of antibiotics, overcrowding and the genetic similarity between animals provide ideal conditions for many bacteria, viruses and other pathogens to merge, mutate, spread and then jump into humans.

Marius Gilbert, an epidemiologist at the Université Libre de Bruxelles in Belgium, and others have shown how bird flu is linked to the rapid intensification of poultry farming, which is now making bird flu viruses more dangerous.

Michael Greger, author of the book Bird Flu: A Virus of Our Own Hatching, argues that there have been three eras of human disease: first, when we started to domesticate animals about 10,000 years ago and were infected with their diseases, such as measles and chickenpox; then in the 18th and 19th centuries, when the Industrial Revolution led to epidemics of diabetes, obesity, heart disease and cancer; and now, because of the agricultural intensification that is leading to zoonotic, or animal-borne, diseases such as bird flu, salmonella, Mers, Nipah and Covid-19.

“In evolutionary terms, rearing poultry, cattle and pigs in high-intensity, crowded, confined, entirely unnatural conditions may be the most profound alteration of the human-animal relationship in 10,000 years,” he says “We are seeing an unprecedented explosion in outbreaks of new bird flu viruses, which historically have presented the greatest pandemic risk and certainly have the potential to be worse than Covid.”

Since African Swine Fever (ASF) was confirmed in the Americas more than two months ago, the deadly pig disease is now on six continents. The virus is an almost certain death sentence for pigs. The US pork industry – worth $23bn (£17bn) a year – is in a panic, Latin America is on alert, and pork producers in the Dominican Republic and Haiti are haunted by memories of the US-funded eradication of their entire pork population when ASF last hit more than 40 years ago.

Enough chewing the fat, UK politicians: we must stop eating so much red meat | Marco Springmann | The Guardian

Factory farms of disease: how industrial chicken production is breeding the next pandemic | Global health | The Guardian

The US has a silent pig pandemic on its doorstep once again | African Swine Fever | The Guardian

South Korea ranks third in highest annual working hours and as of 2015 it was third in workplace deaths among member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 

Over 40 percent of all workers are considered “irregular workers,”  many of these irregular workers labor in the gig economy, being beholden to tech giants’ apps.

With an economy and society dominated by corporate conglomerates known as chaebol, South Korean people face increasingly bleak prospects. 

The top 10 percent of earners claimed 45 percent of total income in 2016.

 Real estate speculation has led to a housing crisis, and privatization in education and health care are expanding disparities.

On October 20, at least half a million workers in South Korea — from across the construction, transportation, service, and other sectors — are expected to walk off their jobs in a one-day general strike. 

The strike will also be accompanied by mass demonstrations in urban centers and rural farmlands, culminating in a national all-people’s mobilization in January 2022.

 The Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU), the country’s largest labor union umbrella with 1.1 million members, is organizing these mobilizations in a broad-based front with South Korea’s urban poor and farmers. The KCTU said its members from Seoul, the surrounding Gyeonggi Province and the city of Incheon, west of Seoul, will gather in the capital to hold a massive rally.

The three major goals are the abolition of nonregular workers, a full revision of the Labor Standards Act; job security for workers in industries in transition; and increased government support for housing, education, medical care and transportation.

“We have continuously called upon the government to resolve labour issues for workers who suffered the most from Covid-19, but the government tried to muzzle us without giving an answer,” the KCTU said, accusing the government of attempting to restrict freedom of assembly guaranteed by the Constitution.

 Foodbank’s annual Hunger Report, released on Wednesday as part of Anti-Poverty Week, suggests the number of people going hungry in Australia has increased since the coronavirus welfare supplement and job keeper payments were withdrawn.

An estimated 1.2 million children in Australia went hungry in the past year, while one in six adults also faced severe food insecurity, the new report says.

It found 17% of respondents could be “categorised as being severely food insecure”, meaning they have “multiple disruptions to their eating patterns and are forced to reduce their food intake”.

“These individuals and families are often forced to eat smaller meals to make the food last longer or skip meals altogether,” the report said.

Brianna Casey, the chief executive of Foodbank Australia, said incomes levels and the cost of living were a big part of the problem.

“Whether you’re struggling in unemployment or underemployment, or the structural supports we have in Australia are not meeting your needs, we know income levels are contributing to food insecurity in Australia,” she said.

The report found one in three people who were struggling to meet their food needs were “new to this situation”.

More than 1m children in Australia went hungry in past year, report suggests | Australia news | The Guardian

The  latest US Bureau of Labor Statistics report showing that a record 2.9 percent of the workforce quit their jobs in August, which is equivalent to 4.3 million resignations.

If such a high rate of resignations were occurring at a time when jobs were plentiful, it might be seen as a sign of a booming economy where workers have their pick of offers. But the same labor report showed that job openings have also declined.

 A new Harris Poll of people with employment found that more than half of workers want to leave their jobs. Many cite uncaring employers and a lack of scheduling flexibility as reasons for wanting to quit. In other words, millions of American workers have simply had enough.

Jack Kelly, senior contributor to Forbes.com, a pro-corporate news outlet, has defined the trend as, “a sort of workers’ revolution and uprising against bad bosses and tone-deaf companies that refuse to pay well and take advantage of their staff.”  Kelly goes on to say, “The quitters are making a powerful, positive and self-affirming statement saying that they won’t take the abusive behavior any longer.”

There is now also a growing willingness by unionized workers to go on strike.  Actual strikes or calls for such are coming so thick and fast that former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich has dubbed the situation “an unofficial general strike.”

Workers are flexing their power and corporate America is worried.

Union representation remains extremely low across the United States—the result of decades of concerted corporate-led efforts to undermine the bargaining power of workers. Today only about 12 percent of workers are in a union.

Workers have more leverage when acting as a collective bargaining unit than as individuals. Take Nabisco workers who went on strike in five states this summer. Mondelez International, Nabisco’s parent company, saw record profits during the pandemic with surging sales of its snack foods. So flush was the company with cash that it compensated its CEO with a whopping $16.8 million annual pay and spent $1.5 billion on stock buybacks earlier this year. Meanwhile, the average worker salary was an appallingly low $31,000 a year. Many Nabisco jobs were sent across the border to Mexico, where the company was able to further drive down labor costs.

After weeks on the picket line, striking Nabisco workers, represented by the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union, returned to work having won modest retroactive raises of 2.25 percent, $5,000 bonuses and increased employer contributions to their retirement plans. The company, which reported a 12 percent increase in revenue earlier this year, can well afford this and more.

Another example of how union organizing made a concrete difference to working conditions is a new contract that 7,000 drug store workers at Rite Aid and CVS stores in Los Angeles just ratified. The United Food and Commercial Workers Local 770 negotiated a nearly 10 percent pay raise for workers as well as improved benefits and safety standards.

 Business groups are lobbying Democrats to weaken pro-labor measures. 

Why Record Numbers of Workers Are Quitting and Striking (pressenza.com)

 British households will be £1,000 worse off next year from a cost of living squeeze created by rising energy prices and shortages of workers and supplies caused by Covid and Brexit, the thinktank Resolution Foundation said. 

It warned that higher levels of inflation would weigh down workers’ earnings next year, contributing to a hit to the average household income in Britain at a time when the government is cutting benefits and raising taxes. Average household disposable income, after adjusting for inflation, would be about 2% lower by the end of 2022.

“Higher inflation reduces the amount of goods and services that households are able to afford, eroding the real value of incomes,” the Foundation explained.

 On top of the inflation, many households would also have to reckon with cuts to universal credit, while workers and businesses must budget for planned national insurance tax increases.

 A “cost of living crunch” was brewing from the combined impact of inflation, tax rises and cuts, the thinktank said: “Together with a £13bn raid on household incomes from increases in NICs [National Insurance contributions], and sharp cuts to universal credit, there will be major headwinds to families’ spending power in the coming months.”

British households will be £1,000 worse off next year, thinktank warns | Household bills | The Guardian

The statistics keep on coming showing the increasing disparity of wealth accumulated by the mega-rich at a time when most people are experiencing increased hardship due to the Covid pandemic. 

A new report released by Americans for Tax Fairness  (ATF) and the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) reveal the 70% surge of wealth among America’s richest individuals since March of 2020 has resulted in approximately 130 new billionaires.

There are now 745 people with “10-figure bank accounts” compared to the 614 that existed when the pandemic first hit.

Those 745 billionaires now hold $5 trillion in collective wealth, having added $2.1 trillion since Covid-19 struck.

The $5 trillion in collective wealth, which the groups note is “two-thirds more than the $3 trillion in wealth held by the bottom 50% of U.S. households.”

The new analysis notes, explains that most of these huge billionaires’ gains will go untaxed under current rules and will disappear entirely for tax purposes when they’re passed onto the next generation. 

 Good news for billionaires but over the past 19 months almost 89 million Americans have lost jobs, over 44.9 million have been sickened by the virus, and over 724,000 have died from it. 

ATF executive director Frank Clemente, said, “This growth of billionaire wealth is unfathomable, immoral, and indefensible in good times let alone during a pandemic when so many have struggled with unemployment, illness, and death.” 

‘Indefensible’: US Billionaires Became $2.1 Trillion Richer in 19 Months of Pandemic (commondreams.org)

How long will it be before all those critical voices understand that it is not the tax rules that are at fault but capitalism itself? 

 According to the report jointly released by Food Price for Nutrition, Tufts University and the World Food Program the burden of diseases is increasing worldwide due to lack of healthy food. Many people are deprived of nutritious food due to unaffordable food. 300 million people, or 40 percent of the world’s population, do not have enough money to eat nutritious food. A report released by Oxfam on the Hunger Virus Multiplex expressed concern about the global problem of hunger, with around 11 people dying of starvation every minute worldwide.

The report estimates the price of a meal plate in 168 countries and found that the cheapest original dish costs 0. 0.71.  This dish does not include the cost of cooking.  However, this plate does not meet the nutritional needs of the diet.  If protein-rich red meat is included in this plate, its price will increase by 0 1.03.  Similarly, the price of this plate will increase by 1. 1.07 when chicken is included and by 30 1.30 if fish is included.

The report says the international poverty line standard is 1. 1.90 per day but poor families cannot afford to spend that much on meals.  In a quarter of countries where food is not very cheap, the price of a cheap plate is about 6 percent or more of the average daily income.  Eating cooked food increases the price by 20 percent.  If meat is included in the diet, the price increases by 10 percent.  In such a situation, people do not have the ability to buy healthy food.

A recent report by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that “The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2021” estimates that 81.1 million people will face starvation in 2020.  In other words, every tenth person in the world is hungry. 

 Another report jointly released on July 12 by the FAO, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the UN World Food Program and the World Health Organization explains 3 billion people worldwide are deprived of food due to inflation, poverty and unavailability of healthy food, economic inequality.  The report says that the problem of malnutrition among five-year-olds in Africa and Asia has become very serious. More than half of the world’s hunger victims live in Asia. 

 India is ranked 101st in the recently released Global Hunger Index for 116 countries. Pakistan 92nd, Bangladesh 76th and Nepal equal 76th.