The Earth is undoubtedly wealthy in resources. It has sustained billions of creatures for billions of years, all the while allowing natural selection to weed out excess populations. However, in recent history, humans have changed this process through tremendous growth and innovation. With the human population quickly approaching seven billion, there is no doubt that we will be placing much more stress on our global systems. Yet, even with the obvious facts of strain on our environment and resources, the debate is still up in the air about whether population growth will equal prosperity or disaster.
On the pros side, many would suggest that more people means more ideas and innovation to help us flourish. They would also argue that greater populations mean greater output and productivity. Many of these thoughts fall into the Cornucopian Thesis, which states that as technology advances, human innovation will enable us to make new resources to replace diminished ones. But besides the arguments of potential physical gains, many people who support or accept population growth do so on the grounds of human rights. Trying to limit human population would largely depend on limiting birth rates in countries around the world; particularly in developing nations. The ideas of sterilization infringe many human rights policies, and the ideologies of family planning found here in North America are not necessarily shared around the world. Furthermore, we have seen the effects of plans such as the one child policy in places like China, and know that it often leads to the killing of thousands of infants. Developed nations make up less than 1/15th of the worlds populations, yet they use ½ of all the earths resources. The moral question is, how can we limit birth rates world wide to ensure sustainability, using our policies, when most of the wasteful resource depletion can be tied back to us?
Taking into consideration all that a larger population has to offer, I still believe that there are limits to growth that can not be ignored. As seen on CNN’s Crossfire debate and “The Nature of things” many analysts argue that there are natural laws that can not be ignored, regardless of scientific innovations. Analysts such as Nick Eberstadt speak on the growing demand for resources as our population increases. It is a known fact that we are depleting resources such as fossil fuels at such a rapid pace, that it is only a short matter of time before we run out. Our careless chase for food supply in oceans has in many cases turned what used to be a renewable resource, fish, into endangered species. Even with the global population just over 6 billion, we see widespread famine and poverty due to unavailable resources such as food and fresh water. This also brings up the issue of water supply. As of 2008, the supply of fresh water is still unable to adequately meet global needs. People who would suggest that this supply is well suited for 3 billion more people have no idea what negative side effects are sure to follow. First off, if we approach the issue from a humanitarian perspective, we could equally distribute the freshwater supplies world wide. However, as the population increases, we would just be left with inadequate water supplies for everyone, eventually bringing world famine. Scientific attempts to feed more mouths through the use of pesticides has also proven to be devastating, such as the use of DDT. The scientific outlook that we can simply manipulate the earth to our growingly abusive behavior is merely preposterous. Ignoring factual concerns such as resource depletion and exceeding carrying capacity is societies attempt to sweep the dirt under the rug.
Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich would say that science, in a way, has betrayed man kind. It would have us believe that we are somewhat invincible, able to carry on forever on this planet’s limited resources, even while our population grows rapidly. The boundaries of natural laws have always been challenged by science in order to give humans some sort of advantage. When it comes to resources however, there is bound to be an obvious breaking point. As expressed in CNN’s Crossfire, much of the rapid population growth is found developing nations. This is due to many reasons, but there are four general underlying factors which play a great part in the issue. First off, we must take a look at the current system of government. A democracy is a necessary do support positive growth, and allow for social freedoms. Secondly, government must support and provide education for its people. Education is a basic element which can be used to combat poverty and improve societies. Ensuring that everyone maintains a positive contribution to our global communities means providing them with the means to do so. If education is not made available, we can not expect change. Women’s rights are also a major area of concern in many developing nations. Here in North America, we have seen tremendous increases in the percent of women in the workforce. This has a major impact on birth rates, as women now tend to have less kids so that they can work, or simply because they have the freedom to do so. In impoverished countries where women do not have these rights, they are often forced to stay home and work to obtain food for their families. In many circumstances, having more children is a way families get more help, more hands to work. This however, comes at a cost, because although many hands make light work, many hands means more mouths to feed. The issues of women’s rights can be tied back to education, as birth control and family planning are often never taught, and in many cases, not the woman’s choice. Last but not least would be adequate health care. In areas where child mortality rates are high, families are often seen having many children in the hopes that some will survive to support the family. Health care is also the key to a stable society, in which people can focus on innovations and growth rather than staying alive, or coping with constant illness.
All of the above four factors were discussed by Nick Eberstadt during the Crossfire debate, and most logical people would agree with the theories general message. In the film, “The Nature of Things”, we begin to see where we as humans stand in the natural order of things. Before we move on and try to invent ways to mask our problems, we must solve the underlying factors that that cause them. We cannot prevent the inevitable; for the world in which we live is indeed bountiful, but has its limits. The very point at which our population exceeds these limits is not yet known, so our population continues to grow under the optimistic eyes of economists. It is my opinion that we must not only think of what a larger population can do for us, as it would also amplify our problems. We must also concentrate on the potential of our current populations if the right factors are in place. The word sustainability is defined as ensuring that we meet the present needs of society, while ensuring that the needs of future generations are not jeopardized. This means not only being effective, but also being efficient. The day that we as a society become efficient rather than only effective, and realize that there are limits, will be the day we can ensure a sustainable future for generations to come.
(Demographic issues and concerns obviously involve much more than the topic above. The different stages of transition (i.e. post transition) are other up-and-coming concerns for our society, especially in the developed world. these issues, regarding their economic factors will be discussed at a further date, and ofcourse, please post your comments!)
