With every passing moment, the earth comes closer and closer to its carrying capacity. Taking into consideration the extremely high birth rates that continue to soar in countries such as India or others in Africa, it isn't difficult for one to observe that population growth is spiraling out of control.
Simply defined, carrying capacity is the amount of life that the earth is able to sustain. Carrying capacity is determined by measuring the availability of resources for the various life forms that require them. These resources include drinking water, food, arable land, and shelter.
Hundreds of scientists have ventured to hypothesize when the earth will reach its carrying capacity, and many of their guesses have already been proven wrong. However, it is safe to say that one-day, whether that day comes tomorrow or in a hundred years, the earth will no longer be able to sustain its human population. This forces us to look towards solutions that will ensure the future for our offspring.
Population is undeniably a global problem, making it hard to put into perspective of just one country. However, that is what many countries are being forced to do, because they have the ability to exert only limited control over the population policies of it's neighbors.
One solution that many countries have begun implementing is immigration control. More developed nations, such as the US for example, have a steady population replacement rate and a steady population growth rate. However, if you take into account the population growth due to immigration, the projected overall population growth rate increases exponentially. Japan is one of many countries that have adopted stringent immigration reforms in order to combat over population, and they have found it to be quite effective.
Another solution that has been used by both China and Japan is restricting the reproduction rates of their citizens. Although this solution has received much criticism, scientists have calculated that both countries have reduced their populations by millions.
Yet another feasible solution to regulate population growth is education about over-population. Making information about contraceptives and abstinence available can lead to a decreased population. Through education, volunteers in India have helped decrease the average number of children per family from nine to six, since 1992.
Unfortunately, all of these solutions can have negative impacts. In Japan, for example, they are now facing the opposite problem of over-population: under-population. There are no longer enough young people to support the senior citizens and to fill the jobs of their industrial economy. And education about birth control and abortion violates the religious principles of many. China's laws regarding reproductive rights were so strict that they murdered many women, infants, and unborn babies, which has led to an abundance of criticm from the global community.
However, the United States must begin examining some of these methods as a means for regulating population size. At the least, it should designate funds for researching alternative solutions. The day when the earth's carrying capacity is reached is nearing, and the time for complacency has come and gone. We must find a solution for our population problem now, before it is too late.
Agreed. When one considers how much Americans comsume on a yearly basis, and then look at the projected population figures say, twenty, thirty or forty years down the road, it's frightening. With overpopulation comes pollution, faster spread of disease, and greater environmental stress (considering limited resources).
One big problem with population control, especially through a system which mirrors, say, China, is that it would be difficult to both pass into law and enforce in a country like America. On one hand, America is a very large country, and we could surely support double the current population. On the other hand.... we don't really want to see that, do we? I mean... finding a parking spot is hard enough already...!
Globally, however, much can be done to curb overpopulation. For instance.... Catholic missionaries in Africa telling the tribe that wearing a rubber is a sin? That has to stop. Birth control education is important in preventing overpopulation, and thus starvation in a region where resources are limited, as well as the spread of disease.
As you mentioned, China is taking such approaches as taxation. While that may also be a viable solution in America, I can imagine the hell that would be raised by various groups claiming that reproduction would only be a "luxury" for the rich....
And don't worry about Europe.... the birth rate in countries such as Germany is on the decline...
This is a tough issue... it's good that you're thinking about before it's "too late!"
But don't forget, there is always that one very popular method of population control: war! Think America is getting too crowded? Well, Mr. Bush has a solution for you!
I'm not taking a side here, but do you really think Africans were wearing condemns before Missionaries came? And yeah, Europe birth rates are on the decline, which is not something they are happy about because so many people are retiring and there are not enough young people to pay social security. But every transition has its downfalls, and I think that problem will work itself out over time. Unfortunately, some may suffer before that happens.
In addition to Bush's solution, there is also disease, starvation, and natural disasters, all of which are nature's way of controlling population. I agree with the poster below who says humans are not meant to be here forever. However, we need to be responsible in the meantime.
Like what you've read? Well, then here's more:
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tricia0711
Not enough time to argue your point so I did a little surfing for another view. Your claiming the answer essentially is more government control on their pops. This guy, Jeff Lindsay, is saying the opposite. That the problems with overpopulation, famine, starvation, poverty, are caused by too much government and a missuse of the resources needed to sustain life.
I think you both make good points. Check it out. http://www.jefflindsay.com/Overpop.shtml
Of course the Earth is going to eventually run out of resources. I believe that God made it that way for a reason and that we as humans are not meant to be here forever. The population growing and resources lowering just gives me more reason to think that the Lord is going to come back soon. I guess you can take a scientific approach, but don't forget that there's a religious one as well.
The population crisis is a big problem. The world is growing at a large rate and the way we keep destroying land, there is going to be a time where there is not enough food to feed the population. I think we will find ways of getting around this in the future. The world is not meant to exist forever anyway.
The arguments that you make are also held by the Negative Population Growth organization. They had an essay contest (I think I lost) asking for opinions on whether population growth was a problem and how lawmakers should remedy it. I said that lawmakers should remedy it by actively repealing laws. Border controls and reproduction laws don't offer anything, save more need for punative action. My suggestion was to have lawmakers repeal laws making suicide, homicide, euthenasia and drug use illegal and to yank away welfare and other social programs.
--Mike
This is a perfect example of a lie being told often enough that people believe it. Fortunately, it is one that is easily trounced. The mathematical FACT (get out your calculator, any atlas, and check out the most current statistics on world population) is that the entire population of the world - yes, the world - would fit inside the state of Texas with just over 1,000 square feet per person. Although not subscribing to the claim that the world was over-populated myself, as I have a devout belief in a sovereign God, I still tended to think the world-inside-Texas claim was some kind of urban legend. But I checked it out. Look up the land area of Texas and convert it to square feet - 5,280 squared for each square mile - and divide that number by the population of the world. And you will find that it is absolutely true. Many liberal organizations (like Negative Population Growth, Inc. - good call, Mike, although I'd watch my humor on a site like this; you never know when someone seriously troubled might be reading) make statements and support them with all kinds of pseudo-scientific data, and most people buy the whole thing hook, line and sinker. Check your sources and check the data. The fact of the matter is that people buy this lie because the number representing the population of the world sounds big, but people have no idea how big planet earth is. Don't believe me? Don't believe your calculator? Check out John Stossel's book Myths, Lies and Downright Stupidity. I wouldn't recommend the book as a whole, although he does a better job than many at debunking such nonsene. Negative Population Growth (I've seen one of their ads in Audubon magazine; I've sinced ceased subscribing) advocates "non-coercive" measures of encouraging parents to have no more than one or two children. One of these measures is to strip away all of the tax deductions and credits from families with more children. That's only "non-coercive" if you're not trying to feed, clothe, and shelter 6 of them, as my husband and I are. I won't take the time to go into it here, but John Stossel addresses some important BENEFITS of a growing population in his book as well. Check it out and jump off of this tired bandwagon.
Kim Tracey
I wouldn't go so far as to call NPG liberal. Their stances are far from it. Regardless, my suggestions weren't out of humor. I think there's far too much of a fear of death nowadays. It never made much sense to me why people would want to live so long and keep others alive so long as well.
--Mike
I have no doubt that the world's entire population could fit inside the state of Texas. I'm happy that people have taken the time to figure this out. It's a great little factual tidbit.
But I ask you to consider this: does Texas have enough resources to support six billion people? Is there enough fresh water and land there to support robust agriculture? Are there enough energy sources in Texas to satisfy the needs and wants of six billion energy hungry people? I think you will find that the answer to all of these questions is a resounding "no".
As for my tired bandwagon: the implications of the world's too large population are quite serious. Simply stated, as population grows, so do carbon dioxide emissions. And the higher our population climbs, the more resources are necessary to support life as we know it.
To see a perfect example of this we can look towards China and India. According to The End of Oil, by Paul Roberts, population is growing so fast in these two countries that the demand for electricty is growing at unchecked rates. As a result, these countries are "sidelining environmental concerns to build hundreds of cheap coal-fired plants" whose emissions will contribute to global climate change (Roberts 2005).
I have checked my sources. I have checked my data. Eleven months after writing this blog, I still stand firm in my opinion that our rapidly growing population is a global problem that needs to be addressed immediately in all countries. It is directly linked with global climate change and will play a large role in our future.
I understand that there are many sources out there that provide conflicting information. So here's where I got mine:
Miller, G. (2006). Living in the environment, 14e. Mason, OH: Brooks/Cole.
Roberts, P. (2005). The end of oil: on the edge of a perilous new world. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin
Although the methods implemented in China and Japan are working to a certain extent, these same regulations will probably not work in the United States. Afterall, these regulations are, in most ways, in violation of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Would it not be better if the government stop regulating the agriculture industry and stop buying its overproduction? This way, it will discourage the industry from overproduction and since food is a limiting factor in population, humans would reach their carrying capacity sooner. This would naturally prevent or at least slow down reproduction.