Overpopulation: Reasons and Consequences
“Unlike plagues of the dark ages or contemporary diseases we do not understand, the modern plague of overpopulation is soluble by means we have discovered and with resources we posses. What is lacking is not sufficient knowledge of the solution but universal consciousness of the gravity of the problem and education of the billions who are its victim.” -Martin Luther King, Jr., 1929-1968
What ever happened to the phrase, “the more the merrier”? In a word: Overpopulation. Environmentalists have long been concerned about overpopulation due to the devastating effects an excessively high human population poses to our biosphere – the Earth’s life-support system. Alarmingly, the Earth’s population is expected to grow from 6 billion people to 9 billion in as little as 50 years (Pimentel). Our rapid growth rate has serious effects for all of us. The continued degradation and exploitation of our natural resources, higher birth-rates and lower death-rates courtesy of advances in modern medicine, and cultural variables such as the North-American way of life have all contributed to exponentially worsening the situation. How is it possible to deal with such a problem? Can a pragmatic solution be implemented in order to slow, halt, or even reverse the growth of human civilization? It is my belief that through the course of limited [non-coercive] government intervention, improved educational discourse, and localized individual action that we can, in fact, address and potentially correct the problem.
Every day the global population increases by over 200,000 people (Pimentel). The population of the alone has doubled to 270 million during the past 60 years – at the current growth rate the population is expected to double again to 570 million in another 75 years (Pimentel). Globally, the world’s population has doubled in the last 40 years. A tiny fraction – only 7 percent – of the world’s population lives in countries where population is not growing (McKibben). If fertility rates remain at current levels, the population will reach the absurd figure of 296 billion in just 150 years (McKibben). Further, “the average life expectancy is 61, up from 40 in just 50 years. The number of people aged 65 and older make up 10-15% of the world population today and is expected to increase to 20-30% by 2050” (McKibben).
But what kind of effects does this rapid growth have on us in concrete terms? Unfortunately, this increase will eventually lead to many restrictions on certain freedoms we take for granted such as “the freedom to travel and commute to work quickly and efficiently, freedom to visit and enjoy natural areas, freedom to select desired foods and freedom to be effectively represented by government” (Pimentel). When taking into account the resources that are going to be available in the year 2100, the optimal world population would be approximately 2 billion people with a standard of living at about half of what the American way of life was in the 1990’s – or, about the standard level of the average European (Pimentel).
Increases in human demand for natural resources, namely water, has caused the rapid depletion of water tables worldwide (Barlow). Cities are growing at an alarming rate and pollution is constantly on the rise. Over 800 million people worldwide suffer from malnutrition – this number is in great danger of rising significantly as farmlands suffer from soil erosion and desertification. (WHO: http://www.who.int/en/) Poor people are becoming poorer due to fierce competition for resources – civil unrest often occurs when rapid population growth combines with environmental scarcity. It is also important to note that the richest 20 percent of humanity consumes 86 percent of all goods and services, while the poorest fifth consumes just 1.3 percent (Barlow).
The world’s coral reefs are dying and our oceans are over-fished (Barlow). Humanity is rapidly altering the Earth’s atmosphere and climate. Wild habitats that shelter endangered plants and animals are constantly being destroyed for human needs. Lastly, overcrowding aides in the rapid spreading of disease – lack of education about reproductive health is certainly a factor in the recent epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV/AIDS.
It is my opinion that in order to attack this problem, we must take a three-pronged approach consisting of non-coercive government intervention, improvement in the educational discourse surrounding the issue, and localized, individually-based action.
First and foremost, the government (and here I refer to the government, as I am working within an American framework) must work to alter laws that promote population expansion. This can be accomplished in many ways. The first is the elimination of tax breaks for children. Tax breaks encourage population growth by artificially reducing the cost of having children. In the same vein, welfare subsidies that increase with family size should be eliminated as well.
Whether or not we are in agreement regarding the implementation of the procedure, abortion prevents millions of unwanted births each year, and is such a widely used form of birth control that it must be kept legal, accessible, and affordable forever. (People who cringe at the thought of a dead fetus should take a moment to consider the millions of children who die from hunger each year.) Government should take the necessary steps to ensure that all women who wish to receive an abortion are granted the opportunity. In addition to providing reproductive choice at home, governments of developed nations should also aid developing nations with funds designated for family-planning and reproductive education. Educating and empowering women to make their own decisions about their reproductive health is a key component in fixing this problem.
With regards to the , in particular, a shift in economic policy is also required, despite the overwhelming difficulty of this task. Cost of housing and a rising GNP should not be the primary economic indicators. If we hold fast to this idea that it is beneficial to the economy to pave more land and consume more resources, then we really have little incentive to slow population growth. In other words, capitalism is not a foolproof system – it contains numerous physical limitations.
In conjunction with government intervention, educational solutions must be sought as well. Children need to be educated as early as fifth or sixth grade about the dangers of overpopulation and excessive consumption. Sexual education classes should incorporate units about overpopulation as well as units on disease and contraception. In addition, history and social science courses should not refer to the surging population problem as “progress”, “human expansion”, or any other benign euphemism. Recycling and conservation should be taught as units in science classes. Students should be taught that overpopulation is, in fact, a serious issue that needs to be addressed.
Lastly, there are many things that can be undertaken at the individual level that can greatly affect the population crisis for the better. For starter’s, couples can voluntarily limit the amount of “natural” children they have to two or less. This, of course, does not count adopted children, which couples should be encouraged to take into their homes through governmental incentive (such as tax breaks) and/or the lessening of red tape surrounding the adoption process. It also helps if women delay child-bearing until their 30’s so as to effectively space out the generational gaps.
As individuals, we should all recycle as much as possible and discuss energy and food costs in terms of the actual resources involved in their production (not just in terms of their monetary cost). We should do our part to conserve energy wherever possible, whether it be cultivating certain foods at home, purchasing a hybrid gas-electric car, or buying energy-saving appliances. We should all take the time to learn about the causes, dangers, and effects of overpopulation on our world and spread awareness through our network of family and peers. We can support politicians who believe in and want to work for a stabilized population and a decreased reliance on fossil fuels. We can donate money to organizations dedicated to the promotion of these values such as the Sierrans for US Population Stabilization (http://www.susps.org/) or the WorldWatch Institute (http://www.worldwatch.org/).
Had we decided to deal with the challenges of overpopulation decades ago, we might have a far better world to live in today. Alternately, if the millions of people who have made efforts over the last decades to work for solutions to the overpopulation crisis had not done so, our situation would now be much worse. As with many environmental issues, there is a large grey area that encompasses the space between the best and worst case scenarios. Where mankind eventually lands within that region depends on what we do today, and what we hope to do tomorrow. Through government intervention, changes in educational discourse, and individual action, we can definitely combat this problem in a profound way.
Works Cited:
- 1. Barlow, Maude. The Impact of Globalization. (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Water/Impact_Globaliz_BG.html)
2.McKibben, Bill. “A Special Moment in History.” Atlantic Monthly, May 1998. (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98may/special1.htm)
3. Pimentel, David. “World Bank Population Growth Rate” (http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/english/modules/social/pgr/) 4. 4. Pimentel, David. “Will Limits of the Earth’s Resources Control Human Numbers?” (http://www.ecofuture.org/pop/reports.html#pimentel2)
5. The World Health Organization Official Website: http://www.who.int/en/
