Executive Summary
The following report was prepared as a brief overview on the
various factors involved in overpopulation, the definition of overpopulation,
and the process of solving it. The report will primarily serve as the factual
basis for a related video project. As such, the report consists mostly of
facts and arguments that can be used to persuade a viewing audience. Since the
video will be no longer than 20 minutes, the research is not all-inclusive but rather
attempts to touch on the most important facets of the issue.
The report flows through these main facets so as to identify
their interconnectivity to each other and other major world problems, illustrating
the level to which overpopulation is a contributing factor in many other
problems. Some examples as to the consequences of not controlling population
are also provided where relevant. While this report is openly biased, it still
attempts to address as many common counter-arguments to different
overpopulation factors as possible. These features of the report should make
it a well-rounded resource on the topic of overpopulation.
Introduction
Overpopulation is a difficult problem to solve. Some people
just cannot stop reproducing, and others will not even admit there is a
problem. Controlling population growth, like addressing many problems, is a three
phase solution. The first phase is to make people aware of and believe in the
problem. The second is to empower them with the tools they need to fix the
problem. The third and most important phase is fixing the problem and then realizing
results.
Only the first phase of controlling human population is within
the scope of this particular project. The second phase, while essential to the
overall solution’s success, has many implicit cultural and ideological
boundaries to gap. As such, this phase is best achieved through providing
birth control resources and information to educational institutions, medical
clinics, family groups, and even religious organizations—wherever different
cultures turn to for help. Similarly, the third phase is only fulfilled at the
individual and familial level. People must actively engage in practices and planning
to keep pregnancies and births under control, despite their natural human
desires for sex.
The success of the first phase of controlling population
growth is dependent on its ability to persuade people. The most effective
strategy for this particular topic may be to appeal to the audience’s emotions
using guilt, showing them the present and future consequences of unrestrained
reproduction. Statistics of trends over time and other factual data will back
up the emotional appeal for what should be an undisputable argument. However,
there exists at the heart of the argument a common sense “connect the dots”
attitude, which insinuates that many of the conclusions are obvious given
enough thought.
As well as giving a more detailed definition of overpopulation,
this report will also cover the following factors in the argument for
population control.
- Exponential population growth
- Fallacies of the need for large families
- Intrinsic fallacies of growth as a measure of success
- The relationship of consumption with population
- Environmental concerns (e.g. global warming, habitat
destruction)
- Effects of competition for dwindling resources
- The undeniable fact that humans can only survive on Earth
(at present)
In simplest terms, overpopulation is a condition that occurs
when a population’s resource requirements exceed capacity. While this
ecological truth holds for all organisms, there are additional dimensions to
human overpopulation. Being the dominant intelligence on Earth, humans are
able to quickly adapt their resource needs to exploit any and all available
resources. However, like any dumb animal, this is often done with no concern
for the sustainability of the resource, its effect on other organisms and the
environment, and even other humans. While humankind’s greatest strength is its
ability to learn and adapt, its inability to balance the resultant ravenous consumption
is a plague on the Earth and its inhabitants.
Human overpopulation is difficult to define—many have tried
and failed. The problem is that, unlike any other organism, humans continually
invent new methods of harvesting resources (e.g. desalination, irrigation, and
multi-story buildings), increasing resource capacities and thus supporting more
population. Some would argue that this ability makes humans resilient to
overpopulation. But nothing can continue to grow without end (with the
possible exception of the universe)—there has to be a cap somewhere. That cap
is most likely not in humans running out of resources, but in Earth becoming
uninhabitable. However, the point at which the planet becomes uninhabitable is
naturally open to vastly differing opinions. For example, if one were to ask a
member of an endangered species at what point the planet will be uninhabitable
(and assuming they could reply), they would probably tell you that time has
come and gone.
|
|
|
Figure 1. World Human Population
1750-2050[1]
|
Anyone that has a basic knowledge of algebra can understand
the concept of exponential growth: the more you have, the more you will have
and in less the time. If a couple has two children and those two children each
have two children, then in only three generations, the population has increased
by six people. However, having only one or two children is sustainable, as
after the third or fourth generation, the oldest generation expires.
The problem of exponential growth in populations is only a
factor when couples bear more than a sustainable number of offspring (i.e. more
than two). The magic number of sustainable offspring per couple (or woman) is actually
about 2.2 for a population (to account for child deaths). But considering
people cannot have fractions of children, bearing three and especially more
than three offspring is a major contributing factor to population growth. The
effect of lifespan increases on population growth is negligible compared to
birth rates.
In all nations, the chief reason behind population growth
(barring immigration) is the continued prevalence of larger than sustainable
family sizes. In many developing and undeveloped regions, this is due simply
because the people do not know any better. Women lack importance and proper
education, relegating them to child bearing and homemaking only. Meanwhile,
information on birth control and overpopulation, and the availability of
contraceptives is scarce. One of the most indisputable facts of overpopulation
is that developing a nation towards first world standards is the best cure for
it.
Yet, in developed nations, some couples still feel the need
or unrestraint to have more than two children. In the United States, 20% of
households with children have three or more children while only 1.5% have more
than four children. However, these households account for about 30% and 4%
respectively of the overall number of children[2]. Using
very general estimations, these households will account for about 13 to 15
million in surplus (unsustainable) population.
The reasoning for large families in the developed world is
mainly based on religious issues, stating primarily that any form of
contraception is a sin as it destroys life. Lack of education, poverty, and
rural lifestyles are also causes of continued large families. Many people even
cite their desire for more children as coming from their own childhood in a
large family. However, none of these reasons is based on logical thinking. In
modernized societies, there is no practical need for children as additional manual
labor to support the family group. Thus, the concept of a large family is
merely a vestigial tradition.
One further belief in support of large families and
continued population growth is one of racial, cultural, or religious
supremacy. The idea is that one race’s population must continue to grow in
order to stay competitive with other races. While people naturally feel
strongly about their national or cultural heritage and the need to preserve it,
this population supremacy belief goes about it in a destructive and ignorant
way. The best and most responsible method of closing the racial population
disparity is to allow other races to become upward mobile thus limiting their
reproduction. But to assert that one race’s population should increase only so
that race can influence or control other races is still mainly a racist
viewpoint.
As stated earlier, nothing can continue to grow infinitely.
But most people equate the growth of something as an indication that it is
successful. For example, businesses are always trying to grow by having more
employees, more locations, and above all else more profits. If a business
stagnates, even if they continue to produce quality products, they are seen as
failing. So the implied question is that if human populations do not continue
to grow, does that mean humanity is failing?
The problem of growth as a measure of success is that it
measures quantity, not quality. The Earth could support 12 billion people but
at lowered living conditions for the majority. Or the Earth could support
about 2 billion people at United States or European standards of living[3].
Thus, if people want their children to have a better life, then they must have
fewer children.
One argument for growth as success is that more people equate
to more competition and thus more innovation. The opposition to this argument
is that the quality of education can increase for more people if there are
fewer people, which would also motivate technological innovation. Though, it
is difficult to predict which path would ultimately be more beneficial in the
long run.
The amount of resources humans use is measured by the
population count multiplied by the amount the individual consumes. Because
population and consumption are so closely related, a useful way to look at
overpopulation is by the amount of resources a population consumes (Figure 2).
|
|
|
Figure 2. 2001 World
Fuel Consumption with Nation Size
Relative to Amount Consumed[4]
|
From this map, it is easy to see that the United States is
by far the biggest consumer of fuels used for electricity, heating, and
transportation. However, U.S. consumption is magnified by the fact that it is
only the third most populace country. The two most populace countries, China
and India, respectively consume 6 and 20 times less fuel per capita than the
United States. The most densely populated country, Bangladesh, consumes 63
times less fuel per capita. In fact, out of the top 50 most populated
countries, only one country consumes more fuel per capita than the U.S.:
Canada[5]. (However,
this is primarily due to their need for year-round heating.) As the biggest
consumers, first world countries actually have the largest negative impact on
the environment and the depletion of natural resources.
As developed countries continue to grow and already
overcrowded countries continue to develop, the environment continues to be exploited
and possibly irreversibly destroyed to fulfill increased resource needs. Many
staples of human growth and existence have a profound effect on the
environment. Burning fossil fuels for transportation and electricity releases
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which, among other ailments, is the cause
of global warming. More people also need more homes, which are often carved
out of existing habitats for wildlife. Many products and even homes are made
of wood, which is also harvested from wildlife habitats and is the planet’s
chief recycler of CO2. Humans are exploiting the planet’s resources
like never before due to overpopulation.
As a sign the environment is starting to collapse under the
weight of human consumption and negligence, several areas around the world are
experiencing disastrous weather and climate changes. In China, 1,400 sq. mi.
of over-farmed grassland are lost to the surrounding deserts annually[6].
In the United States, most people are starting to realize abnormal weather
patterns over recent years[7]. Not
to mention, the polar ice caps continue to melt at an ever-increasing rate. Stabilizing
the world’s population and especially the consumerist first world population
will go a long way towards neutralizing the planet’s ailments.
As the environment continues to fail and fossil fuels become
depleted, more people will have to vie for fewer resources. This would have
the most profound affect on undeveloped and overpopulated regions with
inadequate resource reserves. Though, global economic stresses from fuel
availability will affect even the most developed and self-sustaining countries.
Even now, there are clear examples to resource competition.
For example, fishermen would have caused many species of fish and crab to be
already extinct if it were not for government set quotas. However, the
increased demand and number of fishermen has seen quotas get increasingly
smaller to where these fishermen can barely break even[8].
These dynamics of resource availability will permeate a number of resource
extraction industries as they near depletion.
As far as is known, Earth is the only planet where humans
can exist. Unless science and technology can develop planetary terraforming,
faster than light travel, or suspended animation travel, humanity is bound to
only one planet (or the bleak possibility of space habitation). If humans
manage to overburden Earth beyond repair, there might not be any second
chances.
Conclusion
As has been shown, there are a number of different facets to
overpopulation and population control interconnected with still more world
problems such as global warming and species loss. The problem of
overpopulation is so enveloping that some factors like immigration could not
even be touched upon in the course of this report. Though some alternative
viewpoints to issues were presented, there are still more arguments attempting
to debunk overpopulation as myth. Where most of those arguments fail is their
base in religion and illogical thinking. To the best of its ability, this
report has strived to present only arguments based in logic as fact.
Unfortunately, humans have a profound propensity for
changing the planet in negative, sometimes irreversible, ways. Yet
fortunately, humans also have the ability to negate their impact by curbing
population growth and innovating solutions. However, the point at which most
humans (particularly those in developed countries) decide to help rescue the
planet will probably coincide with a cataclysmic environmental disaster. If
humans cannot embrace preemptive restraint, it is certain that all world
governments will eventually enforce restraint for them.
Works Cited