The Population Explosion: Why We Should Care and What We Should Do About It
The degradation of our environment has been linked to the expansion of our human population. However, Ehrlich and Ehrlich have pointed out that the dramatic increase in recent years of our population is not the only issue surrounding environmental degradation. Summarized in the formula I=PAT, where I is the environmental impact, A represents affluence and consumption of goods, and T stands for the effects surrounding technology such as energy consumption and creation, we can do basic calculations of our overall impact to the planet. In light of this knowledge, it soon becomes apparent that not every country consumes the same amount of resources, or uses the same amount of energy. Therefore, there is a difference between the largest population that our planet is able to sustain versus the optimal population. More people can be supported if they choose to give up unnecessary aspects of their lifestyles. At the current rates of growth, many people believe our planet will eventually be unable to support the demands of the people. In order to control our population, which in turn may address some of the other issues surrounding environmental degradation, birth rates need to be reduced. This goal is met through improvements in health care and sanitation, education and economic opportunities for both men and women, the control of important resources, and the implementation of a fair and responsible government. In short, the human population plays a key role in the degradation of our environment. The overconsumption of resources and energy and a large population growth rate will soon irreversibly degrade the earth.
Six billion people. This is a staggering number that is only going to increase in the near future. Yet, in light of the fact that no one knows for sure how many more people our planet can support, our population continues in its exponential growth. These figures are unimaginable, just as picturing over six million dollars sitting in front of you on a table (or several tables). This may be why many people cannot begin to comprehend the overall effect of so many people on one planet. What keeps coming to mind is the fact that for every person we add, we have to cut out some other organism or plant to make room for that person. Sharing resources and habitat with other life forms is also an essential component for our planet’s survival. Therefore, for the sake of everyone’s well being, wouldn’t we at least want to try and alter our growth rate and our rate of consumption?
Both education and access to technology have allowed Canadians, Americans, and many others to experience the freedom of living a very different life from those in less developed countries. When it comes down to the debate of who harms the environment more, the lesser developed countries often become the scapegoat because they have higher populations and population growth rates. In the eyes of society, more people mean more problems. However, this is not a fair accusation. Those areas may have more people, and therefore may require more resources, but we must also consider the over-consumption of energy and resources of developed countries. Developed countries have a higher per capita consumption than lesser developed countries. Vehicles, factories, shopping malls, and food production all demand energy. To get that energy we have been burning immense amounts of fossil fuels. Lesser developed countries use energy as well, but they use it to meet their basic needs, not to enjoy a good lifestyle. If blame is to be placed for our current situation, it should be accepted equally by all parties.
Instead of placing blame, however, it would be more logical to look towards rectifying the problem of overpopulation, which in turn is causing environmental degradation. Actually dealing with an issue is harder than pointing fingers and implying it’s not our problem so we don’t have to fix it, but ignoring this responsibility will only make the situation worse in the future. We all share one planet, and therefore we all share the responsibility of looking after it.
If developed countries were to go into lesser developed countries and provide some basic education and technology, population growth rates would decline. In less developed countries, families are often required to be large so that the labour force is present to provide the means for survival. Education leads to the discovery of technology, which in turn leads to the creation of machines that would reduce the need for so many people. Of a greater importance would be to educate the women. In most cases, though obviously not all, women are the ones to raise the families. Raising families involves passing on knowledge so that those individuals in the next generation can improve their living standard and support their own families. As a result of inequality, many women are not allowed the privilege of being educated, so their placement in their country or society remains the same, as does their families.
Though this selection shares the view of a population biologist, it also brings into focus many of the economic struggles that countries are facing. Inefficiency of resource production, unemployment, and improper distribution of resources are prominent issues in today’s societies. Comparing various countries in terms of their energy usage, and then looking to a global scale to predict the amount needed in future years was a good eye opener as to how much we consume. It also highlighted how much damage or degradation we can do to our environment by trying to meet this demand. In the end, a large population may not be beneficial to the well-being of our planet, but that doesn’t mean we can’t find economical and environmental ways of dealing with it.
Easton T. Classic edition sources: environmental studies. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2009. pp. 183-8.
