Hello my sleepy bloggers. Hope you are all having an enjoyable summer.
In an effort to encourage some discussion, I thought I'd mentioned this article I read about environmental effects of overpopulation and over-consumption. Obviously this is a problem: more people = more stuff = toll on natural resources. Simple math.
My question is: what do you think we can do about it? The article talks of needing new models of growth, new concepts of living, possible re-haul of our global society. Since most of us are entering that phase in our life where we are starting to think about possibly having children, I want to know if this influences your thinking. Would you not have children solely as a reaction? Would you adopt instead? Do you think it's ridiculous to even consider alternative options?
While overpopulation may not seem a problem right now, one cannot deny the fact that it is forecasted to be a problem when our children are grown. Is there anything TO do?
6 comments:
Interesting topic, Adrienne. First of all, we have plenty of room on this planet - if the state of Texas had the same population per square mile as the Bronx, it could hold every single person on the planet. If you've ever flown cross country you know there's a lot of open space.
So the real issues are natural resources and the environment, no? According to the UN, worldwide forestation is the same today as it was in 1950 (the forests are growing in the US). We already produce enough food for a 50% increase in world population.
If natural resources become scarce, their price will rise, depressing demand. The market will respond and begin to offer alternatives.
As far as global warming, you might guess that I side with the thousands of scientists who strongly oppose the climate change alarmists. Global temps have not risen in 10 years and climatologists aren't expecting more warming in the next 20. Last year was cold enough to wipe out all of the warming of the last 100 years. I don't believe the atmosphere is nearly as sensitive to CO2 as Al Gore thinks. Correlation does not prove causation.
If you disagree with me, I'd hope you'd use your individual freedom to not have kids, instead of asking politicians to take away my individual freedom to have kids.
Adoption is great option to help a child that needs a loving family, but no, overpopulation is not a concern for me.
http://www.lifeissues.net/
writers/kas/kas_01overpopulation.html
Well, space is not the issue if you are thinking in terms of "how many people could fit on this piece of land" because the fact is that the amount of land needed to supply your average American, if you look at space needed to support food (especially meat), transportation, vehicles, etc, etc, it's much higher than one would think. 56% of ag land is used for meat production and over half of our water resources (per Prof. Peter Bowler, U of CA). Food is becoming more expensive as this happens....I don't think the market can find an alternative for land and water.
So yes, you are right in saying that it's not space but resources. And not just basic resources but the resources used by wealthy first-world citizens such as you and I. If basic resources were equally distributed, yes, we could support a 50% increase in population. But the fact is that they are not, and the likelihood of that happening is pretty slim. The problem is that as the population increases it is the poorest that will suffer. Where does the market come into play there?
Maybe it is not so much about reigning in our own procreation but rather figuring out how to spread to wealth to other nations. Or to poorer people within our own nations. Can we, as citizens or Christians or just as good people, figure out a way to support the whole population, rather than just continue to use more than our fair share of resources? Can we plan ahead for our children's children, not just ourselves?
As for global warming, I'm not going to go there. We agree to disagree.
p.s. I wasn't suggesting that the government should take away anyone's right to have children. I wouldn't want that, just like I don't want the government to tell me what I should or shouldn't do with my own body or who I can or cannot marry.
The main reason food prices have sky rocketed is because of horrible energy policy. Corn that could be used as food is instead converted to ethanol - a very inefficient fuel (which hurts us) and drives up food prices (hurts the poor).
The main problem for the world's poor is their lack of access to the market, not their exploitation by it. Globalization is flattening the planet and bringing millions more into the global economy - leading to better standards of living. Well, at least for countries that allow it. Look at the exploding economies of China and India as they've begun to embrace the free market.
As a wealthy nation we should (and do) give aid to the poor. However, the primary goal should be lifting them out of poverty by allowing them to create their own wealth. If all you do is redistribute wealth you keep them poor forever.
A great example is Mohammed Yunus' work to establish non-profit banks to provide micro-loans to poor entrepeneurs. These people had no access to credit through normal banks. Micro-credit organizations have lifted millions out of poverty. Yunus is a big liberal - you might like his books on poverty - Banker to the Poor and Creating a World Without Poverty - but he has some ideas even a conservative can love.
Those are good examples, John. I've heard of the microcredit programs - especially the ones geared toward women in third world countries. Very cool, and probably one of the better ways to help people overseas to work their way out of poverty.
Also I agree about the ethanol (nice idea, not working out great). There are several better fuel alternatives worth investing in.
However not everyone has the funds to invest in companies that provide microfunds or other such charities. I'm interested in personal changes that we can make in our own lives in response to over-consumption. What do you do on a daily basis (I'm speaking to everyone) in order to reduce what you use? What kind of decisions would you make in response to the overpopulation dilemma? I know that these small things may not seem as important as something like microloans but I think there is something to taking the time to look at how your life contributes to the big picture. Do these big questions impact you daily life, and if so how? If not, why not?
I'm just curious....
I do try to be a good steward, although I fall short routinely. For me, not wasting money is a bigger priority than saving resources. Is spending more money on biofuels, wind/solar power, and organic vegetables than you would using more efficient fuels and normal vegetables good stewardship? Or could that money be better spent on preventing malaria in Africa? For example, you could install solar panels on your house, but that would cost thousands more over the life of your home than using power from the grid.
So, Sarah and I have a budget and I track all of our expenditures each month because we know we'll overspend if we don't watch ourselves. It also helps us to tithe because I always know how much we are giving.
Eventually we will develop alternative energy sources that are cost effective. Until then, let's not go crazy spending billions in tax dollars to subsidize inefficient energy (like wind and biofuels) that slow our economy.
Post a Comment