Read and reflect on a Article...
Answers
Answered by
1
A few years ago while doing research for a debate on China's population policies, I came
across some startling information. One of the sources I found claimed that by the year 2020,
Earth's population would be so great that each individual would have, on average, only one
square foot of living space. Images of crowded streets in third world or Asian countries I'd seen
in magazines flashed through my mind; that was what all the world would look like. Life would
be lived amongst crowds, reduced to a battle: fighting for space, fighting for food, and fighting
for clean air and water. Population grows exponentially, but will we face such a situation? Some
assert that the Earth has almost reached its carrying capacity, but with controlled growth,
sustainable use of natural resources, and effective allocation of these resources, humanity just
might make it.
Two hundred and five years ago in his essay entitled, "An Essay on the Principle of
Population" Thomas Malthus explored future implications of a large population. According to
Malthus, if the human population was allowed to increase unchecked, it would eventually exceed
available resources, reaching a "crashing point". The question this raises is how large is too
large? Paul Erlich, author of "The Population Bomb," estimates population doubling time at
approximately 37 years. The current population is just over 6 billion, and if Erlich is correct, the
world population in 2040 will be approximately 12 billion. Does the earth and human
infrastructure have the capacity to sustain such a population?
While efficiently and fairly allocating natural resources may temporarily alleviate
problems associated with a large population, a growing population cannot be perpetually
sustained within a finite system. Humans must reach some balance, some equilibrium in growth:
it must be curbed. Some may say that this is not necessary, that with our knowledge and
technology, we will be able to manipulate the future and allow growth to continue unabated. I
however, tend to agree with Garrett Hardin on this point. As he asserts in his piece, “The
Tragedy of the Commons," "Most people who anguish over the population problem are trying to
find a way to avoid the evils of overpopulation without relinquishing any of the privileges they
now enjoy ... but the solution they seek cannot be found. The population problem cannot be
solved in a technical way." The very values and beliefs encouraging growth must be changed.
To decrease population growth, governments should stop subsidizing larger families.
Beyond that, I think that government regulation should not play a role in reducing population.
Regulations can change the way one acts, but they cannot change the way one thinks. The
government should instead fund education campaigns, empowering women and instilling
positive values in children, which would hopefully be adopted by subsequent generations. Efforts
should also be made to improve the use of resources. Incentives should be offered to encourage
recycling, conservation, and sustainable agriculture, and regulations should attempt to control
unnecessary destruction of natural habitats, depletion of soil fertility, and pollution. The
government should also take on the responsibility of establishing fair and effective distribution
systems.
Humans can no longer afford to be selfish: we must think of other individuals now, and in
the future. We must achieve equilibrium, we must achieve sustainability. This is a finite world
we inhabit, we are provided with finite resources. We must use them wisely and unselfishly
across some startling information. One of the sources I found claimed that by the year 2020,
Earth's population would be so great that each individual would have, on average, only one
square foot of living space. Images of crowded streets in third world or Asian countries I'd seen
in magazines flashed through my mind; that was what all the world would look like. Life would
be lived amongst crowds, reduced to a battle: fighting for space, fighting for food, and fighting
for clean air and water. Population grows exponentially, but will we face such a situation? Some
assert that the Earth has almost reached its carrying capacity, but with controlled growth,
sustainable use of natural resources, and effective allocation of these resources, humanity just
might make it.
Two hundred and five years ago in his essay entitled, "An Essay on the Principle of
Population" Thomas Malthus explored future implications of a large population. According to
Malthus, if the human population was allowed to increase unchecked, it would eventually exceed
available resources, reaching a "crashing point". The question this raises is how large is too
large? Paul Erlich, author of "The Population Bomb," estimates population doubling time at
approximately 37 years. The current population is just over 6 billion, and if Erlich is correct, the
world population in 2040 will be approximately 12 billion. Does the earth and human
infrastructure have the capacity to sustain such a population?
While efficiently and fairly allocating natural resources may temporarily alleviate
problems associated with a large population, a growing population cannot be perpetually
sustained within a finite system. Humans must reach some balance, some equilibrium in growth:
it must be curbed. Some may say that this is not necessary, that with our knowledge and
technology, we will be able to manipulate the future and allow growth to continue unabated. I
however, tend to agree with Garrett Hardin on this point. As he asserts in his piece, “The
Tragedy of the Commons," "Most people who anguish over the population problem are trying to
find a way to avoid the evils of overpopulation without relinquishing any of the privileges they
now enjoy ... but the solution they seek cannot be found. The population problem cannot be
solved in a technical way." The very values and beliefs encouraging growth must be changed.
To decrease population growth, governments should stop subsidizing larger families.
Beyond that, I think that government regulation should not play a role in reducing population.
Regulations can change the way one acts, but they cannot change the way one thinks. The
government should instead fund education campaigns, empowering women and instilling
positive values in children, which would hopefully be adopted by subsequent generations. Efforts
should also be made to improve the use of resources. Incentives should be offered to encourage
recycling, conservation, and sustainable agriculture, and regulations should attempt to control
unnecessary destruction of natural habitats, depletion of soil fertility, and pollution. The
government should also take on the responsibility of establishing fair and effective distribution
systems.
Humans can no longer afford to be selfish: we must think of other individuals now, and in
the future. We must achieve equilibrium, we must achieve sustainability. This is a finite world
we inhabit, we are provided with finite resources. We must use them wisely and unselfishly
Similar questions