Population and the Environment

ceila30's picture
Tagged:  •    •    •  

The earth will be unable to sustain life indefinitely, but many seem to ignore this extremely logical and obvious fact. In the context of overpopulation, there are two countries of main concern China and India. However, population concerns the entire globe because of its inevitable environmental impact. According to Kegley, “the right to produce children is a major[ly] unregulated freedom” (347). The concern of the planet’s carrying capacity has made population and environmental policy a central issue in world politics.

The UN has reported that the world’s population in the 1950s was between 2-3 billion; amazingly, in 50 years time the world has managed to more then double that to, according to recent UN data, around 6.4 billion and rising. Nevertheless, the determined population growth rate has, in fact, declined. In 1964, the growth rate was reported to be 2.2 percent and currently the growth rate is at 1.2 percent. The threat that population increases pose has many variables, but perhaps one of the main threats is the thought of scarcity of food among other resources. Scarce resources can undermine security and lead to military conflict. If a country needs a large amount of a particular resource and they run out or run low, what are they going to be willing to do in order to get it? This is particularly evident in the Global south because of their lack of a good economy in order to purchase the resource.

Population in the Global South causes different problems than in the Global North. This is not surprising considering that 95 percent of the total growth in population occurs in the Global South. The mere fact that the Global South contains under developed countries means that they will be unable to deal with social, economic, and the environmental problems associated with larger populations. They simply do not have the money to support AIDS/HIV (prevention or curtailment) or family planning, nor are they overly concerned with advancing women’s rights, all of which contribute to helping in the effort of lowering growth rates. The one concern in the Global North, in regards to population growth, is their inability of having a desirable replacement growth rate. Many Global North countries (ie: Germany and Japan) are not producing enough children to work, thusly not paying into pension systems and there will be fewer people to fill the voids left by an aging population.

Environmental issues caused by overpopulation affect the entire Global thusly connecting the Global South and the Global North in a battle to protect the earth. Larger populations lead to greater urbanization, which in turn leads to a strain on clean water supplies, “shelter, and sanitation and, at the same time, adding to […], smog, and epidemics as overcrowding spreads HIV and other communicable diseases more rapidly” (qtd. in Kegley 355). Probably the single most important problem of larger populations is the communicable disease factor. This is a problem for the entire globe. Throughout history disease has had the ability to bring down mighty empires and disease does not care whether one is rich or poor, although if you are rich (compared to the prosperity of the Global South) you will likely have the ability to curtail whatever disease you have, but sometimes not even money can help.

Four major International Conferences have been held on population. The first was held in Bucharest the result was a slogan that says it all, “Development is the best contraceptive” (qtd. in Kegley 360). The second conference was held in Mexico City, it was generally agreed upon, that family planning would lower growth rates. The U.S. opposed this view, saying instead that free market economies should be pursued. In 1994, another conference was held in Cairo resulting in the conclusion that population stabilization could only occur “in conjunction with efforts to promote human development and sustainable economic growth, supported by increases in multilateral aid. This conclusion was reaffirmed at the [fourth conference at the 2002 Johannesburg conference]” (Kegley 360).

An interrelated subject of concern is the world’s dependency on oil, its affects on the environment, and the political problems associated with its acquisition. Barrels of crude oil used to be fairly inexpensive, in fact, in 1990 “the average price for a barrel […] was less then $15” (Kegley 367). However, after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, prices shot up to $40 a barrel and again shot up (to over $60) after the United States invasion of Iraq. It remains clear that not only does military activity in the oil rich countries of the Middle East have a direct effect on the prices of crude oil, but so does the undeniable fact that the world is using oil faster then we are finding it.

The demand for oil is just continuing to increase not only in the Global North, but in the developing countries of the Global South as well. Therefore, those who control the oil have, almost, infinite power over those who desire the acquisition of it, which leads to geopolitical problems. Canada and the U.S. use six times as much oil as the Global South. On top of all the issues with oil raised above, there is also the overwhelming power of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). OPEC, an IGO cartel, was created to maximize profits of oil, which they have successfully done. OPEC also used oil prices as a form of coercive diplomacy in hopes of influencing the war on terrorism.

This shift in demand for oil affects the entire world. With more Global South countries acquiring oil, it puts pressure on the Global North’s ability to effectively bargain for the acquisition of it. The U.S. is highly dependent on imported oil from the volatile Middle East, receiving “nearly three-fifths of its oil [from there]” (Kegley 369). OPEC countries are in an extremely powerful bargaining potion, for example, “consider Saudi Arabia, the king pin of oil, with a fourth of the world’s proven reserves under its vast desert expanses. Then add in the reserves held by other countries in the OPEC cartel, [which, in total, accounts for three-fourths of the world reserves]. A cutoff of OPEC exports to the United States, Japan, China, or Europe would be catastrophic” (Kegley 369).

At present, there are many different types of energy alternatives. Probably the most common are renewable forms of energy, for instance, solar, wind, biomass, hydrogen, and natural gas. “Renewable energy from replaceable sources also has the advantage of doing relatively little damage to the environment” (Kegley 371). However, there will continue to be pressure to disregard these for fear of bankrupting the members of the OPEC community. Perhaps the growing fear of global warming will counteract that particular issue. “Among known technologies, nuclear energy has often been championed as the leading alternative to fossil fuel dependence […]” (Kegley 370). However, the many accidents that have occurred have deterred many from putting much effort or resources into their programs. Or in even more extreme cases like Germany, have completely stopped their program altogether. Among the environmental concerns of using nuclear energy is the security concern of the continued proliferation of nuclear weapons, especially in countries that do not currently have nuclear weapons.

Kegley, Charles W. World Politics: Trend and Transformation. 11th ed. United States: Thomson Wadsworth, 2007.

The simplest solution is for people to stop having children, but usually they're too selfish not to.

(if you can't see the fnords they won't eat you)

ceila30's picture
Member of the Progressive U Alumni Association

The whole idea of controlling population by reducing thee amount of children we have is such an abhorrant thought to so many people...sad really. Children should be a privilege, not a right, kinda like a driver's license. However, the problem with that, is who is put in charge of choosing who can and cannot have children and is that even the right thing to do? I know that I would not have been picked to have children when I did, but I am an excellent mom now, so how would we choose? It's such a touchy subject with so many. Hmmmmm...wonder if it'll ever be solved.

Ceila
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ceila30
http://www.progressiveu.org/160156-facing-same-sex-marriage

This idea of choosing who can have children is already in place in China. The result of their one child policy has been the deaths of an uncounted number of female children, resulting in a disproportionate number of males in the population. It has also resulted in forced sterilization of women, and imprisionment of both male and female members of families. This of course means that the children are wards of the state and endure severe hardships in orphanages. Not a good situation all the way around

Bones

Taking responsibility for your actions will enrich your life.

It is not a right nor is it a privilege. It is called LIFE. I always have to wonder what kind of disturb personality would suggest we form some kind of "group" to decide who can and cannot be parents. Actually I guess we already have that but it is only a committee of one, and that is God.

Liberal Progressive Watch
http://notalib.wordpress.com

Why not have a commitee who decides who gets to live? We could evaluate people according to how much they contribute to the economy and their environmental impact. if they don't make the cut they get cut! We can start with all the people in third world countries that are already starving to death --their situation is pretty bleak and not likely to get better, so that's one problem easily out of the way. We're focused on preserving QUALITY while reducing QUANTITY, so we need to get rid of them anyhow. Then we'll start on the other end. We'll get rid of all these liberal celebrities with their private jets and whatnot, starting with Barbara Streisand. Studies show that liberals tend to give less to charity while earning about 3% more than conservatives on average, so we can axe them off. While heterosexuals tend to reproduce more, homosexuals on average earn more money and live more comfortably, equating to consuming more --so they gotta go. After that we'll make lifestyle changes. Art and sculpture are just use of economic resources (the murder of trees) for leisure, so we'll outlaw those. Pro sports? Gotta go. No more of those stupid iPods, either. You know, this is getting to detailed and difficult, so how about this: if you're not Amish, Puritan, or Bedouin you gotta go.

chillbill's picture

It is a phenomena more aptly termed 'the law of the jungle' or 'survival of the fittest.' All issues of scarcity of resources have been dealt with by this mechanism for all of time. I have every reason to suspect they always will be.

Malthus, upon seeing the population growth made possible by the early stages of the industrial revolution, theorized mass starvation at less than 1/6th of present population levels. He was wrong then, just as Kegley, Charles W. is wrong now.

We can now make ANY land arable. At this point only the more easily tillable acreage is used for food production to support the present 6 billion humans. The limit of how many our present technology could support is closer to 25 Billion. Presently however Global population growth is leveling off, and we may never exceed 9 Billion. If efforts to educate and raise the economic level of the worlds poor pick-up speed, as they have in recent decades, peak population may even be significantly less since birth rate, education, and poverty are so clearly linked.

There is every reason to believe that our technical abilities will continue to improve at an accelerating pace. Unfortunately our political leadership is almost equally certain to make many poor choices as we advance. Let's hope and or pray that those mistakes are historically insignificant to the larger trends.

This is a nice resource by John McCarthy with many links that support many of these assertions:
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/

If you doubt anything I have written, and cannot find it there I'll happily provide my source(s).

"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
--Andre Gide

Member of the Progressive U Alumni Association

If efforts to educate and raise the economic level of the worlds poor pick-up speed, as they have in recent decades, peak population may even be significantly less since birth rate, education, and poverty are so clearly linked.

The correlation between education and birth rate only works in some cultures. Particularly these seem to be located in the Global North. For example, take a look at the population explosion in Egypt. Yet they have had a very determined policy of educating their population and for almost 50 years which included encouraging people to go to college for free. And the rest of the Middle East is following much the same pattern.

And the USA population was not exactly ignorant at the time of the baby boom when families were regularly popping out 5 kids.

Birth rate is more closely tied to culture and economics. The particular economics are the economics of future expectations. If people believe the future holds better times, it causes them to start families now.

All of this is explained better in my Mother's book:

Population Pressure and Cultural Adjustment

or if you want to learn more about the original topic of this blog you could read this book by my Mother:

Population and Environment

Or if you actually want to do something about this issue you could join the non-profit political lobbying organization which my Mother founded and I believe still serves on the Board of Directors:

Population-Environment Balance

We can now make ANY land arable.

Of course we can! We just need to throw huge amounts of energy, water and other scarce and expensive resources at it.

For example the Sahara is advancing at several miles per year. A lot of this is caused by humans allowing their goats to strip away the vegetation. To reverse this all you need lots and lots of water. Water is not exactly abundant in that area but with enough energy you could desalinate vast amounts of sea water.

And then you could start with Antarctica which is probably the largest piece of untilled land in existence. I'm curious to see how you plan to go about making this land arable. Maybe you envision a huge greenhouse bubble and a giant hair dryer?

Dr Malthus was wrong because he failed to see the advances in technology and the massive increases in energy production resulting from cheap energy. But his economics of scarcity have been working right along in a fairly steady manner. Without massive intervention and aid which has been provided around the world mainly by us, we would have seen much more starvation in Africa and Asia. Last summer when gasoline hit $4 per gallon and we started to turn food into fuel on a massive scale we saw food riots around the world. I think that is pretty good indicator that we are running up against the limits of technological and energy driven increases in food production.

chillbill's picture

"Last summer when gasoline hit $4 per gallon and we started to turn food into fuel on a massive scale we saw food riots around the world. I think that is pretty good indicator that we are running up against the limits of technological and energy driven increases in food production."

Actually it would be more accurate to say that the current politically approved methods were near their limits. We can easily build enough nuclear desalination plants to plant every desert in the world, and even run those big hair dryers you mentioned in Antarctica (though HID lighting would also be required in polar regions. ;-)

I like what your mothers has to say in her book, at least as far as the synopsis on Amazon. I also agree with most of what You have said with the exception that energy and water are not at all scarce, merely expensive to a degree.

Our current economic system is based on scarcity. That system has become more obsolete every year since the industrial revolution began. The problem is not producing more than enough goods for everyone, we can do that. The problem is regulating demand to allow the productive POTENTIAL of the worlds people to be harnessed, or perhaps freed is a better word.

Don't ask me how.

"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
--Andre Gide

Member of the Progressive U Alumni Association

Our current economic system is based on scarcity. That system has become more obsolete every year since the industrial revolution began. The problem is not producing more than enough goods for everyone, we can do that. The problem is regulating demand to allow the productive POTENTIAL of the worlds people to be harnessed, or perhaps freed is a better word.

I'm curious about your views about the alternative economic systems. I'm rather confused about your statement above. I agree with the first couple of sentences but you lose me on the rest. If we can already produce "more than enough goods for everyone", why do we need to unleash and harness even more "productive POTENTIAL"? And what does that have to do with regulating demand? Frankly it sounds like nonsense but maybe it won't if you elaborate.

Certainly some factors of production are not scarce. The world is a-wash in cheap unskilled labor. Across the world, the going equilibrium rate for this labor is about $1 per day and it would be lower except the marginal utility of starving in leisure is slightly higher at below $1 then working like a slave and almost starving. Even at $1 per day, the world's labor force is vastly under-employed.

But other factors of production like raw materials and energy remain scarce and even when they could be abundant are made artificially scarce by people who see greater marginal utility in not having a huge pit mine or a nuclear reactor in the backyard. This scarcity indeed is part of what drives our economic system. It is the supply side of the equation.

And I agree that with modern manufacturing and cheap nuclear power, we could cheaply produce more of any particular (or all) widgets then the world population could possible consume. And we could do this without making much of a dent in the huge over-supply of cheap labor. But what will drive investment in this manufacturing capacity if not profits? And with most of the world being filled with unskilled and unneeded labor that has no income to buy these widgets at a profitable price, why would anyone make the investment? This is the demand side of the equation. There is a great deal of latent demand for more stuff but the people with these demands have nothing to offer in return. And because there is already plenty of capacity to provide the goods and services demanded by the wealthier people in the world it is hard to imagine what they possibly could provide.

In summary, there is excess unneeded labor and as a result labor is poorly compensated. Because the labor is poorly compensated, it has little money to buy stuff (widgets). Nobody is willing to invest in production capacity that would provide widgets to these excess laborers because they have no money to buy these widgets profitably. Because of modern manufacturing which substitutes capital and energy for human labor, even if this capacity was built and operated at a loss, it would only put a tiny fraction of the excess labor force to work.

Being trained in classical supply and demand capitalism style economics, maybe I am guilty of some "inside the box" thinking. I truly am interested in what you offer as an alternative to our "obsolete" system. I hope you are not offering socialism or communism because they are not the answer. While they look pretty good on paper, there seems to be something about human nature that causes them to fail in practice.

I see a huge need for a new system because the problem of excess labor is going to get MUCH worse. Partly it will be population growth and that will be bad but the much greater problem will be obsolescence of human labor. I spelled out my thinking on that subject in this blog:

Welcome to the Brave New World of Robots

I think my blog above speaks directly to your point about the industrial revolution and then takes the same line of thinking forwards into the future.

chillbill's picture

I cannot say (because I don't know) exactly how our present economic system should be modified to regulate demand for optimized production, and distribute the benefits thereof, but I can provide some musings, ruminations, and idle speculation toward that end.

I share your dismissal of communist and socialist economics. The most brilliant economic observation to date is 'laissez faire' in my opinion. Not only are free markets more efficient, but the right to direct your own possessions and labors by your own preference is perhaps the most basic component of freedom itself.

Reading the comments of your robot blog I saw that you made this comment which shows that we are thinking along the same lines to a degree:
"I think we need to plan for vast obsolesence of humans as economic factors of production. It may take a whole new economic model to accomodate this situation."
http://www.progressiveu.org/185551-welcome-to-the-brave-new-world-of-rob...
Taken even further the robot and nanobot future could be very bleak. This article 'Why the future doesn't need us' by Bill Joy chief scientist at Sun Micro systems is a great read along those same lines.

The problem of excess unskilled labor which that blog dwells on is eliminated by the basic fact that all of those laborers are also consumers. As our economy has become more efficient and allowed one man to do the work of many, most notably in agriculture, unemployment has not soared as some predicted it would. Rather more wealth created demand for more goods and especially services that never existed before. There is no technical or economic reason that cannot be duplicated on a global scale. The free market is creative when allowed to be.

Most of the poverty in our world has been politically created and extended. The poorest areas are the ones where capital cannot be safely invested without fear of violence, or government confiscation. Political stability and respect for property rights could cure most of the poverty on this planet quickly with the help of our present technology.

"what will drive investment in this manufacturing capacity if not profits?"

The quest for profits(greed), in the form of new markets, is a more reliable part of human motivation than charity when it comes to lifting the poor out of poverty.

"most of the world being filled with unskilled and unneeded labor that has no income to buy these widgets at a profitable price"

If it were only widgets this might be true. Most labor in advanced economies produces no widgets at all. It provides services in greater variety than could be imagined only a generation ago.

The problem of over production has replaced insect and weather driven famine in creating boom/bust cycles since the industrial revolution. Our current recession is just the latest in a string of oscillations in demand.

The federal reserve was created as exactly the type economic reform I am referring to. To a large extent the Fed has improved the situation by regulating the money supply through credit cost. If it could be better insulated from political influence it might even have a greater positive impact.

The present crisis does illustrate some of the flaws in the Federal reserve system of manipulating credit markets to provide economic control. Specifically the disconnect when there is a 'credit freeze' (shortage of willing lenders) at the same time the Fed is holding interest rates artificially low. A free market would react to a credit crunch by raising interest rates until lenders were motivated to lend by greed. A second flaw is the government subsidy of banks created by lending at near zero percent to private institutions that can turn around and lend this 'free money' at interest for an unearned profit.

The idea of increasing government spending to stimulate demand is not entirely without merit. If that spending is non-productive, like most of the recent 'stimulus bill' projects, then much of the effect is wasted. It would be better if the spending creates infrastructure with lasting economic benefit such as highways, power plants, or even education and job training. Putting money in peoples pockets creates demand, but does not help future production. For example if the $800 Billion had been pledged to build 100+ nuclear power plants to create fresh water, and generate power for electric and hydrogen cars we would have done a great deal more to solve global warming, and create a sustained economic recovery than anything in the current bill.

"The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool."
- William Shakespeare

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.