Population control is always a contentious issue for a huge variety of reasons and, as a result, is something many of us are wary of discussing at all, with the horror stories we’ve heard from countries that have implemented population control policies lurking in the backs of our minds.
However, any attempt to formulate a global strategy to mitigate mankind’s impact on the environment is essentially incomplete without placing the question of our ever increasing global population within its scope. Put simply; the more people on earth, the greater the strain on the finite resources at our disposal.
The Problem of Food Production
Take, for instance, a trio of the most basic resources that humans (and pretty much every other form of life on the planet) depend on for survival; space, food and water. The best part of half of Earth’s surface (40%) is used for agricultural food production, with more being cleared for this purpose (at a huge environmental cost) all the time. On top of that, around 70% of all human water usage is accounted for by agriculture. We are quickly running out of arable land and that we can use for food production. And that’s without even thinking about fossil fuels reserves. But does this mean population control is the answer?
A booming population certainly isn’t going to cut demand for any of these finite resources and, to make matters worse, the agricultural practices that are currently used to ensure yields high enough to meet demand contribute massively to global warming. This fact, in of itself, could potentially cause a self perpetuating cycle of starvation as world hunger demands bigger agricultural yields, which increase global warming and may lead to weather extremes which, ironically, would destroy crops.
Some studies have predicted that by the midway point of this current century the world’s population will come to exceed 10 billion people, causing many commentators to conclude that promoting a change in attitudes towards the issue of birth control around the world may be a more effective way of saving the environment than almost any other course of action. However, whilst it could potentially be highly effective, it’s also a highly impractical solution…
Cultural Considerations
A huge number of people around the world, for reasons ranging from economic considerations, to political and religious beliefs, cannot get access to, or are unwilling to use birth control. In addition, several figures with a huge level of influence have taken a stance against various forms of birth control, from the Pope, who promotes the Catholic view on contraception, to former president George Bush, whose administration withdrew U.S funding from all foreign organizations giving women the option to have an abortion. Clearly the complex ideological issues behind such stances make the likelihood of world wide support for enforced population control seem very low.
The vast majority (98% according to some figures) of the population growth in question is coming in poorer countries. Indeed, in many more developed Western nations populations are actually falling due to demographic transition. However, these countries are not helping to redress the imbalance between rocketing demand and the resources available. In fact, they exacerbate it due to the high consumption lifestyles enjoyed in these countries. The U.S.A, for example, is home to about 4% of the world’s population, yet consumes roughly 25% of the world’s resources.
Possible Ways Forward
This simple fact seems to suggest that, for all the reports and analysis into the subject, the morally problematic question of somehow imposing some level of control over the global population is, on a fundamental level, secondary to how resources are distributed and used. The evidence from 1st world countries demonstrates that a stable population is often a by-product of prosperity. It would seem then, that by focusing on how sustainable practices, such as organic farming, can be used to bring food stability and relative wealth to as many nations as possible, the environmental problems caused by a larger population will be checked naturally, without the need for forced intervention.
Steve Waller writes about a vast range of environmental issues on his blog, GreenSteve, from how to shop sustainably, to how to stay warm without wasting heat.
Incoming search terms:
More Partners
Is Population Control Really Necessary for a Greener Planet?
Population control is always a contentious issue for a huge variety of reasons and, as a result, is something many of us are wary of discussing at all, with the horror stories we’ve heard from countries that have implemented population control policies lurking in the backs of our minds.
However, any attempt to formulate a global strategy to mitigate mankind’s impact on the environment is essentially incomplete without placing the question of our ever increasing global population within its scope. Put simply; the more people on earth, the greater the strain on the finite resources at our disposal.
The Problem of Food Production
Take, for instance, a trio of the most basic resources that humans (and pretty much every other form of life on the planet) depend on for survival; space, food and water. The best part of half of Earth’s surface (40%) is used for agricultural food production, with more being cleared for this purpose (at a huge environmental cost) all the time. On top of that, around 70% of all human water usage is accounted for by agriculture. We are quickly running out of arable land and that we can use for food production. And that’s without even thinking about fossil fuels reserves. But does this mean population control is the answer?
A booming population certainly isn’t going to cut demand for any of these finite resources and, to make matters worse, the agricultural practices that are currently used to ensure yields high enough to meet demand contribute massively to global warming. This fact, in of itself, could potentially cause a self perpetuating cycle of starvation as world hunger demands bigger agricultural yields, which increase global warming and may lead to weather extremes which, ironically, would destroy crops.
Some studies have predicted that by the midway point of this current century the world’s population will come to exceed 10 billion people, causing many commentators to conclude that promoting a change in attitudes towards the issue of birth control around the world may be a more effective way of saving the environment than almost any other course of action. However, whilst it could potentially be highly effective, it’s also a highly impractical solution…
Cultural Considerations
A huge number of people around the world, for reasons ranging from economic considerations, to political and religious beliefs, cannot get access to, or are unwilling to use birth control. In addition, several figures with a huge level of influence have taken a stance against various forms of birth control, from the Pope, who promotes the Catholic view on contraception, to former president George Bush, whose administration withdrew U.S funding from all foreign organizations giving women the option to have an abortion. Clearly the complex ideological issues behind such stances make the likelihood of world wide support for enforced population control seem very low.
The vast majority (98% according to some figures) of the population growth in question is coming in poorer countries. Indeed, in many more developed Western nations populations are actually falling due to demographic transition. However, these countries are not helping to redress the imbalance between rocketing demand and the resources available. In fact, they exacerbate it due to the high consumption lifestyles enjoyed in these countries. The U.S.A, for example, is home to about 4% of the world’s population, yet consumes roughly 25% of the world’s resources.
Possible Ways Forward
This simple fact seems to suggest that, for all the reports and analysis into the subject, the morally problematic question of somehow imposing some level of control over the global population is, on a fundamental level, secondary to how resources are distributed and used. The evidence from 1st world countries demonstrates that a stable population is often a by-product of prosperity. It would seem then, that by focusing on how sustainable practices, such as organic farming, can be used to bring food stability and relative wealth to as many nations as possible, the environmental problems caused by a larger population will be checked naturally, without the need for forced intervention.
Steve Waller writes about a vast range of environmental issues on his blog, GreenSteve, from how to shop sustainably, to how to stay warm without wasting heat.
Incoming search terms: