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 (Credit : jbhthescots via Flickr).
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 epidemic, 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.
Subscribe to Science Matters
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.
Post a comment
9 Comments
9:12 PM
Name ANY serious environmental problem. List the variables that are linked to the severity of the problem now and in the future. List the links from the variables to human population. ie does the size of human population effect that variable in a major way.
Roan Fleming..you are right.. and this basic refusal to advocate for the ONLY sustainable solution ( stabilizing birth rate on the planet ) is why i refuse to send another dime to Suzuki Foundation, WWF, Greenpeace…
The reality is that we DONT KNOW how to fix climate, we DONT KNOW how to feed everyone without fertilizer, we DONT KNOW how to grow enough food and fish to feed the expanding number of human mouths.
But we DO know how to do contraception.
Focus. Put your money there if you want to 'make a difference'.
8:04 PM
I'm neither 'wealthy' nor a 'conservative' but as someone who has spent her whole life one step ahead of the bulldozer it is obvious that overpopulation is the last great taboo and Mr. Suzuki does a great disservice by minimalizing it. Even in Canada anyone who lives outside the concrete cities sees the land and the other species who need it disappearing every day to serve the relentless needs of human expansion. Blaming it all on the capitalist monster is counter productive and allows society to remain stalled in that sixties chestnut of an argument that it's all about the evil west consuming too much. I've seen cougar, elk and bear territory in my back yard — in several back yards over the years — all fall to the demands of human housing. It's amusing in a bleak way to see these '10 top green things you can do' lists that don't include the most important and most individually significant action of all. How about #1, "use birth control". End your carbon footprint on a really major level!
3:28 PM
Population makes all other problems even worse. At present, with our current technology, we can support about 2 billion people with just a barely satisfactory standard of living, and even then we have to convert to a science-based politics rather than a religious-based one. At present the biggest threat to survival on the planet is not the civilized nations who consume 80 percent (this is decreasing on a year by year basis as a result of dropping standard of living, poverty spreading, and greater efficiency) but the developing world (China, India, South America, Asia) represents the greatest threat: they have virtually no regulations on pollution, disease control, etc. Any search on disease outbreak or influenza or H5N1 shows that the WHO is monitoring developing nations. China is the biggest polluter on the planet. India’s population is growing the fastest and presents a dangerous source of political instability in the region in coming decades. Population growth from the developing world is driving up the price of oil (why is your gas so expensive: too many people), steel, food (up 30% by 2015 from what it was last year). You name it, it’s increasing in scarcity and in price because there are too many people, you name it, it’s getting worse (pollution, violence, war, over crowdning, resource scaricty, energy crises) because there are too many people.
2:35 PM
Liz, of course we all need to be concerned about population growth. It's a stretch though to have us believe that wealthy capitalists would bite the hand that feeds them.
5:41 AM
there were rules to living on this living breathing entity…this planet is alive with electricity…we are electric beings in an electric universe…everything interacts ..communicates..we did not follow the rules ..we were given new rules which changed as time passed..never the truth…none were in the best interest of the planet…what was for her was for us….religions were the original governments these institutions were power/control/greed …now we are in transition..the galactic center is sending energy to us..this will create change..it already is..the powers that be do not want this change..so they attempt to stop it..control it…. the earth must survive…this is vital for the balance of the solar system…the truth of the planets needs to be told…
12:05 PM
Why state the the "wealthy" are the only individuals who should consider overpopulation as a threat when they are one group who are contributing the least to overpopulation as far as number of births?
1:54 PM
Population growth is too good for business in the current economic paradigm for the wealthy to view it as a threat. There is an underlying optimism that what we are doing can be called progress. Is this a myth or are we a species headed for the stars? Can we ignore our biological imperative to reproduce and evolve to survive?
It's pretty clear that we can't continue at the same growth rate without some changes. We need to start using and distributing resources intelligently very soon or hope for our future will perish before we can reach our next milestone.
8:25 PM
As always, beautifully written. Thank you.
3:59 PM
if the 1% weren't making the choices for the other 99% perhaps all main issues could be addressed. instead of making a joke out of the systems that are in place to protect us and more importantly THE planet.
The David Suzuki Foundation does not necessarily endorse the comments or views posted within this forum. All contributors acknowledge DSF's right to refuse publication of comments deemed to be offensive or that contravene our operating principles as a charitable organization. Please note that all comments are pre-moderated. Privacy Policy »