What's the biggest challenge in the world? Climate change? Economic disparity? Species extinction? A Western billionaire -- maybe a member of the one per cent the Occupy protesters are talking about -- will likely say population growth. A lot of well-off people in North America and Europe would agree. But is it true?
It's worth considering, especially in light of the fact that, somewhere in the world, the seven billionth person was just born. In my lifetime, the human population has more than tripled. (I know I'm guilty of contributing to the boom.) But is overpopulation really the problem it's being made out to be? And if so, what can we do about it?
First, supporting more people on a finite planet with finite resources is a serious challenge. But in a world where hunger and obesity are both epidemics, reproduction rates can't be the main problem. And when we look at issues that are often blamed on overpopulation, we see that overconsumption by the most privileged is a greater factor in rampant environmental destruction and resource depletion.
I once asked the great ecologist E.O. Wilson how many people the planet could sustain indefinitely. He responded, "If you want to live like North Americans, 200 million." North Americans, Europeans, Japanese, and Australians, who make up 20 per cent of the world's population, are consuming more than 80 per cent of the world's resources. We are the major predators and despoilers of the planet, and so we blame the problem on overpopulation. Keep in mind, though, that most environmental devastation is not directly caused by individuals or households, but by corporations driven more by profits than human needs.
The nonprofit organization Global Footprint Network calculated the area of land and water the world's human population needs to produce the resources it consumes and to absorb carbon dioxide emissions. If it takes a year or less for nature to regenerate the amount we use in a year, that's sustainable. But they found it takes 1.5 years to replace what we take in a year. That means we are using up our basic biological capital rather than living on the interest, and this has been going on since the 1980s.
As people in developing countries demand more of the bounty and products we take for granted, environmental impacts are bound to increase. The best way to confront these problems is to reduce waste and consumption, find cleaner energy sources, and support other countries in finding ways to develop that are more sustainable than the ways we've employed -- to learn from our mistakes. Stabilizing or bringing down population growth will help, but research shows it's not the biggest factor. A United Nations report, The State of World Population 2011, concludes that even zero population growth won't have a huge impact on global warming.
But, just as it's absurd to rely on economies based on constant growth on a finite planet, it can't be sustainable to have a human population that continues to increase exponentially. So, is there any good news? Well, population growth is coming down. According to the UN report, the average number of children per woman has gone from six to 2.5 over the past 60 years. Research shows the best way to stabilize and reduce population growth is through greater protection and respect for women's rights, better access to birth control, widespread education about sex and reproduction, and redistribution of wealth.
But wealthy conservatives who overwhelmingly identify population growth as the biggest problem are often the same people who oppose measures that may slow the rate of growth. This has been especially true in the U.S., where corporate honchos and the politicians who support them fight against environmental protection and against sex education and better access to birth control, not to mention redistribution of wealth.
Population, environmental, and social-justice issues are inextricably linked. Giving women more rights over their own bodies, providing equal opportunity for them to participate in society, and making education and contraception widely available will help stabilize population growth and create numerous other benefits. Reducing economic disparity -- between rich and poor individuals and nations -- will lead to better allocation of resources. But it also shows that confronting serious environmental problems will take more than just slowing population growth.
Dr. David Suzuki is a scientist, broadcaster, author, and co-founder of the David Suzuki Foundation. Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation editorial and communications specialist Ian Hanington.
Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.
M. Sanjayan: A Letter to #7,000,000,000
Glen Pearson: World's Population Is a Growing Crisis
Rolf Schuttenhelm: UN Says World's Seven Billionth Human Will be Born Today
Ian Goldin: What do 7 Billion People Mean for our Global Future?
7 billion people fuel concern over world resources
More than 7 Billion People are on Earth
Are 7 Billion People A Problem?
Making Sense of 7 Billion People
Seven Billion People & Women's Rights: What Is the Connection?
Which I take to be only one of a few hundred or hundred thousand things that ought to be taken into consideratÂion by persons who don't have the alleged bad conscience Mr. Suzuki has ("I know I'm guilty of contributiÂng to the boom," he says).
But seriously, isn't David Suzuki opposed to this out-of-conÂtrol phenomenonÂ? I'm sure he is, so why is he talking pablum here? I'm not suggesting he go on a hunger strike, just that he say where he stands, because here he doesn't seem willing even to get near it. But why?
A method I would like to suggest would be to incorporate environment studies into a previously mandatory course in high schools, such as geography. It wouldn't have to be a big change; in fact, we could simply dedicate a week or two to learning about emvironmental topics or issues. This will raise more awareness and more concern over these topics.
I feel that our worries are misdirected and that if our worries were towards more appropriate issues, then the increase in population would not be a big deal.
I see you're a big fan of the Duggars, huh?
Our strength is our weakness. Tuna becomes extinct? We'll just go to the next species, our mortality only exists due to accident; sickness/illness; and natural death.
Ask any other species on the planet, that's not what happens to them. Eventually the planet will make us check out population.
With all due respect, there are plenty of "infinite" resources on this planet. For example, the Canadian forestry industry has had plans in place for decades that allow for complete re-forestation before an area is cut again, the car manufacturers are making headway on vehicle designs that will rely on infinite resources (hydrogen) and there are plenty of other examples, such as alternative power models, etc. Human resourcefulnes will meet the challenges the future has in store for us - there's no doubt about it.
Why take the risk that human scientific knowledge will win this battle? Why not hedge your bets?
I bought a 2007 Prius in December 2006 because I drive over 30,000 miles per year. This car has saved me a reliable $2,400 per year in gas for the last five years and the maintenance costs are less than I was paying for my beloved BMW 318ti.
About every two years, Progress Energy replaces the meter on my house because they think it is defective. We have a 3500 SF home with the energy consumption of one 1200 SF. It can be done quite easily using only passive solar. Not to mention the savings on our energy bill.
There is not one piece of furniture in my home--except mattresses--which was purchased new, yet my neighbors swear it should be a House Beautiful shoot. Who knew what my Mom called "Grandma's crap" would reveal itself as excellent Colonial Revival 18th century reproduction furniture from the turn of the 20th century. These pieces are now genuine antiques and absolutely gorgeous.
Wal Mart still sells re-usable grocery bags for $1 which can easily carry 4 bottles of Pepsi without breaking. I haven't used plastic bags in years.
We simply need to adopt an "if it's not broke, don't replace it. If it is broke, try to fix it." mentality.
Where is the correlation to these? It's cheaper to eat cheap fattening foods in developed nations, and last i checked fat people were still reproducing. It's an interesting article and i enjoyed it, i just think that statement was probably best edited out before you posted.