Here's an interesting question... is there such a thing as "overpopulation"?
Earth Day is as good a time as any to reflect on some environmental ethics. Clearly there are many ethical implications of how we treat the environment and there's lots of debates to be had here.... but I'm particularly interested in the very concept of overpopulation. What does this mean, precisely? I assume something like, "a state of affairs where the human population of the earth exceeds the earth's sustainable resource to support said population." But then, of course, I'd have to ask: How can we possibly know when that number threshold has been reached?
10 comments:
Yes. There is such a thing as over-population and it would most likely be the point at which our natural resources are being extinguished exponentially and our renewable resources have no way of successfully powering society, or where there is not enough land for animals to graze and be raised and enough land to plant agriculture for the food necessary to live.
One can look at this with a scientific approach. An ecosystem is stable if it oscillates with populations of predators and prey around a central point. It can become overdamped or underdamped if one of these become larger and larger. Over time, this ecosystem becomes unstable.
Now, look at the earth. We humans are growing at such an exponential rate that one would assume then that we will at some point cause this ecosystem to become unstable, and thus, end all life as we know it on the planet.
When we look through history, humans have never reached that point of "overpopulation." Why? Diseases, droughts, etc. The ecosystem has kept itself stable by returning our "overpopulation" back to a neutral point. However, with the advent of technology and modern medicine, it seems that we have defeated Mother Nature and will likely become unstable in the future. However, technology cannot save us. I believe that Mother Nature will let loose a fury that will bring us back to stability. It is the way the world works.
Although somewhat dark, i would have to agree with jorge on this topic. Technology has become the means by which we defeat the means by which nature keeps us in control. If you look at the events of Hurricane Katrina now, and the same situation 100 yrs ealrier we would expect that the death toll in New Orleans would have been much higher because of a lack of warning. Our medicines become less potent as viruses adapt and become stronger - but more medicines are invented. Every day research comes out to improve the human condition and lengthen our lives.
There may come a point where we either throw the world so off balance we cannot delay our own fall. However along with that technological development we change the products we use to power our lives. Gas prices are so outrageous that it is only a matter of time before gas is a thing of the past. But when will it be that beef is so expensive that we can no longer feed ourselves, because there is someone else willing to pay more for it.
I prefer this economic argument over that of the balance of nature. Economic terms such as "tragedy of the commons" provide a better framework for what we're dealing with here. Mankind will never run out of food. It will run out of cheap food and the point at which it becomes economically impossible to feed oneself, let alone sustain civilization, is at least one critical point we should mark as an indicator, if not the indicator, of "overpopulation". It seems that the original question is one that bear ontological weight; however, it just seems that the word doesn't lend itself to that sort of discussion.
I really wonder about the concept of overpopulation. I personally ascribe to the technocratic theory, which says that if we are smart and responsible, technology should always be able to help us sustain more people. On the other hand, I also realize that the Earth may be reaching a point where our population will force us into problems. As we get more people, certain countries or societies might feel the need to minimize the number of people crowding what little land we have left. At the same time, I still don't think that's overpopulating the Earth because we can find ways to support more people. Now, that doesn't always mean we will necessarily develop that technology or means to help others, so we must dedicate our efforts to helping developing nations to support their populations. But ultimately, I don't think we can say we have passed the tipping point of population; we just need to realize that as the population grows exponentially, we must stay one step ahead in preparing the resources to handle everyone. Who knows, maybe we will eventually feel the need to travel elsewhere, but that is the subject of another discussion.
i think there is such a thing as over population but probably no ethical way to address the issue. i think it is fair to say a country, planet, etc is over populated when the number of people becomes so high that there are not enough resources to spread evenly amongst the population that allows everyone to live at the hightest level possible. this is tough to explain but what im trying to say is for example if a group had $100 and the maximum standard of living could be achieved with $25, then a population of 5 would be make that group over populated because the maximum amount of good for each individual in the group would drop. that is a really extreme crazy example but maybe that gets what im trying to say out there.
I think in the case of overpopulation it should be left to survival of the fittest within existing laws. What I mean by this is to let the people see who survives, not have governments decide who dies and who lives. People should still have to follow laws though. I feel that the problem will fix itself as it does in nature. When a certain animal over-populates than either some of them starve, or some kind of disease shows up and reduces the number back to an acceptable level. I think it would be the same with humans, yes medical professionals would try to stop it, but they can't cure everything.
Over population is a real thing and will happen one day unless one of two things happens, first if there are major wars, disease or famine happen which decreases the rate of growth of population to a sustainable amount or the second option we invent technology to either transport us to other planets to live off their resources, or technology to increase food production/acre. As humans we have a responsibility to ensure the ecosystem remains sustainable for all life, not just humans.
Over population, out sexual drive is in place to allow for fornication and reproduction of the species. People have children not to ensure that the species lives on but in order to have a child for the sake of having a child. Having a family is great but the need for everyone to have a family is diminishing. Asking the question is it worse to not have a child or to have a child and maybe this child starve because someday the world may not have enough food to survive?
I think the question of overpopulation itself is unfounded. The argument typically states that at the current human level of reproduction, soon the earth's resources will not be able to sustain everyone. Mass hunger and violence will ensue and chaos will reign.
Arguments similar to this have been made since the early 1700's when such thinking was also popular. Since that time, the world population has grown exponentially and we are still sustaining ourselves. New sources of oil, wood, water, etc are being discovered every year. Even the argument that we will run out of oil soon seems false simply based on the fact that scientists were saying in the 1950's that our oil resources would be depleted by the year 2000--and yet we still find more.
I believe that the earth does and will sustain whatever population the people produce. The fact that world hunger and poverty exist is not due to overpopulation in and of itself, but rather on the poor economic policies of world governemtns and overall underdevelopment in 3rd world countries.
Post a Comment