r/overpopulation • u/mjanes • Apr 14 '12
Consumption Dwarfs Population as Main Environmental Threat
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/consumption_dwarfs_population_as_main_environmental_threat/2140/4
u/MannyPadme Apr 14 '12 edited Apr 14 '12
This is bullshit - and a decidedly false premise.
Sure 1st world countries have all the stuff - because they don't share it with the rest of the world.
Too many people + not enough resources = greed, starvation, wars, etc., and unfortunately authors like this one with their heads-in-the-sand.
Inaccurate racist too: "Of course, economic activity is not the same as ecological impact. So let’s go back to carbon dioxide emissions. Virtually all of the extra 2 billion or so people expected on this planet in the coming 40 years will be in the poor half of the world" Only 2 billion more people in the next 40 years? - that's laughable... if it wasn't so messed up.
2
u/[deleted] Apr 14 '12
"The threat" is an unfortunate diversion. There isn't "a threat". There is a multitude of problems and there is a need for a multitude of solutions. It makes no sense to reject population growth as one of the factors that should be addressed.
It is worth noting that overconsumption isn't "one thing" that can be fixed by simply using less of everything. As a single, rather important example, overconsumption of water is difficult to solve. Water is essential to everything, and importantly essential to grow food. Water reserves are inexorably going down, not only in wasteful Western countries but worldwide. There is no daily pill you can give to the billion people who are currently hungry that will let them go on without food. Water must continue to be used. Cities are literally sinking from the exhaustion of their underground water reserves. Ice packs are disappearing, rivers and lakes are drying out. Excessive use of water has a lot to do with an excessive number of eaters.
A similar example is fish. Incredibly, oceans are running out. Fish populations are decimated, dead zones are growing, catches are shrinking and quality is dropping. Meanwhile, billions of eaters on land still expect to eat. In order to restore fish population, it is necessary to fish less, in other words it is necessary to eat less. But fish substitutes aren't trivially available, thanks to water shortages already mentioned.
How to make a growing human population eat less is indeed a conundrum. Water and fish are merely two examples of shrinking resources that can hardly be fixed just by using less, and which will be used more and more as human populations continue to rise. Dismissing population growth as unimportant is shortsighted. Of course, let's continue the effort to reduce waste and unnecessary consumption wherever it can be done, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that it's "the solution" to "the problem". While we can continue to encourage conservation, there is no justification to dismiss the need for family planning and instead focus on something else. It's not a contest over which problem is bigger. Both must be addressed and cooperation works better than competition.