Transcript Overpopulation / Overconsumption

Overpopulation / Overconsumption
Humans have inhabited the planet for more than 150,000 years. During most
of that time their numbers have remained below two million and their impact
on the planet and other living creatures has remained well below sustainable
levels. For most of those years the lack of modern technologies ensured that
human activity could not seriously damage the planet in any major way.
Early humans lacked modern methods of birth control, and we have little
reason to think that they did much to limit the size of their families. The
major forms of population control were famine, war, disease, accidents, acts
of nature, and acts that we would now call homicide.
But since the 1800’s both human populations and the use of new
technologies have increased geometrically. Over seven billion people now
inhabit the earth, and the effect of activities by the wealthiest portions of
that population can now be detected even where people do not live.
The following pages show several consequences that have resulted from
human populations growing larger and more affluent.
Recent growth explosion of people and consumption rates
Since the 1800’s world population has surged 700%. But Wikipedia
estimates that since 1800 Gross World Product (the combined gross
product of all the nations in the world has grown from $175 billion
to $71,830 billion in 2012 U.S. dollars, a growth rate of 41,000%
Consequence 1: What are the world’s deforestation
and arid soil defoliation rates?
Tropical rainforests are being reduced by over 80,000
acres per day. If planting is delayed until erosion occurs,
these lands become permanently barren.
What are the causes of massive deforestation and arid
soil defoliation?
• Seven billion people needing lumber, wood products,
building sites and farmland.
• Overgrazing in arid climates causes permanent
desert expansion (called desertification).
• Plowing where sources of irrigation water cannot
keep up with demand also causes desert expansion.
What are the consequences of massive deforestation
and arid soil defoliation?
• Deforestation can cause topsoil loss. About half of the
world’s non-forested topsoil has been lost to erosion, salt
buildup, and other human activity.
• Flooding, such as the great flood of Thailand in 2011,
results from the water retention benefits lost when forests
are removed.
• Water reserves run dry sooner after rains. Less water for
irrigation and urban areas. This also often leads to more
forest fires.
• Burning forests adds CO2 and other pollutants to the air.
• Loss of forests slows conversion of CO2-laden air back to
normal air.
Consequence 2: Author Lester Brown says the prices
of vital food staples (grains, corn, and rice) have
doubled since 2007.
What has been causing this?
• Half of the world’s people live in 18 nations where irrigation water
sources are in rapid decline as the demand for water increases.
Harvests have either peaked or are falling in most of these nations.
• Overgrazing in arid climates has caused massive desertification.
• Poor farming methods and hillside farming has caused soil loss.
Degraded top soils reduces farming yields.
• Loss of glaciers, earlier melt-off of snow-capped mountains, and
the over-pumping of groundwater aquifers means less irrigation
water at a time when average farmland temperatures are rising
and droughts are more frequent.
• Each 1º C increase of average annual temperature reduces farm
outputs 10%.
Continued: Causes of vital food staples (grains, corn,
and rice) having doubled since 2007
• The diversion of food staples to ethanol production (32% of grain plus
large amounts of corn) has driven up prices and caused food shortages in
poor nations.
• The diversion of grain staples to meat production drives up prices of lifesustaining staples for the world’s poorest people.
• Urbanization generally occurs where farms once existed. 8,000 square
miles of farmland per year are lost to urban sprawl. The U.S. has paved a
land mass equal to the size of Georgia.
• Poor farmers are losing traditional farmlands to wealthy interests. The
World Bank estimates that 140 million acres of mostly African and Asian
farmlands have gone to such land grabs. That exceeds the amount of U.S.
cropland used for wheat or corn.
What are the consequences of food prices doubling?
• Hunger rates have recently quadrupled in poor nations.
People who were spending 30% of their incomes on food
saw prices double in just five years.
• The land grabs noted above prevent many thousands of
subsistence farmers from growing their own food.
• Malnourished children experience stunted mental and
physical development.
• Wars and insurrections are on the rise in the areas most
affected. Note that almost all of the Arab Spring uprisings
have occurred in lands where basic food staples have
doubled in price. New leaders will face the same
shortages.
Lester R Brown, Full Planet, Empty Plates, WW Norton & Co., New York, 2012. Free download
http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/book_files/wotebook.pdf
As food prices spike, people revolt. Incidents of civil or societal unrest in
North Africa and the Middle East (shown in red) show a strong correlation
between food price spikes and societal instability.
Consequence 3: What pollutants get dumped into
our air, land, and waters; what damage do they do;
and what population-related factors cause this?
Some chemicals that have been dumped
into our air, land, and waters include:
– CFCs cause depletion of the ozone layer.
– Mercury causes madness, loss of body functions and horrific deaths.
– Cadmium causes decalcification and kidney damage.
– Lead poisoning affects brain functioning.
– DDT kills wildlife, is a carcinogen at low doses, and can kill people in large
doses.
– Phthalates from plastics cause reduced sperm counts and malformed sex
organs.
– Nation-wide findings of CR 6 in well water leads to stomach cancer
– New pesticides have threatened the survivability of bees, monarch butterflies
and other valued species.
– Nitric and sulfur oxides in smoke damage plant life. They contribute to acid
rain, which kills trees and lake wildlife.
– CO2 and other greenhouse gases causes water acidification and climate
change.
Population-related factors that cause
air and water pollution:
• Burning fossil fuels by the millions of tons
• Burning anything laced with (or painted with)
chemicals. Garbage (land fill) burning or seepage.
• Improper toxic waste disposal (especially in poor
nations) and other chemical discharges, such as Freon
leakage form refrigeration units.
• Farming chemicals. Farming runoff
• Vehicle coolant and lubricants pollute roadway runoff
• Boat waste cast offs and bilge emissions
What are the consequences of dumping
pollutants into our air, land, and waters?
• Smog laced with chemicals and cancer- causing
carcinogens in densely populated areas and
developing-nation cities causes asthma, allergies,
cancer, and lung disease.
• Water pollution, especially near land runoff areas, can have many
toxic effects. In poor nations unsafe drinking water kills millions of
children.
• Scientists have measured steady world-wide increases of several
greenhouse gasses. They suspect these gasses are the cause of
many current climate aberrations and water acidification. If their
worst-case predictions hold true, the effects will be substantial and
difficult to reverse.
Consequence 4: By what percentages have
breeding stocks of the world’s most frequently
eaten wild fish been depleted and why?
Between 70 and 90 %, depending on the
popularity of the fish and other factors.
When the stocks of one popular fish species
collapse, the fish industry begins exploiting
another species.
What is causing depletion of the breeding
stocks of the world’s most frequently
eaten wild fish?
• The global fishing fleet is 2-3 times larger than what the oceans can
support, and it uses highly efficient methods that leave few
breeding fish for replenishment. Only 10% of the normal number of
large fish (tuna, swordfish, marlin, cod, halibut, and flounder)
remain in the sea (Journal Nature).
• There is no place left in the world where man can legally fish that is
not being exploited.
• The use of drag-netting and other activities damage breading
habitats, such as reefs and estuaries.
• Water pollution, especially near land runoff areas, causes dead
zones near the mouths of many large rivers.
Consequence 5: What percentage of the world’s reefs
are classed as dead or near to fatally degraded, and
what population-related factors have caused this?
Over 1/3, including much of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef
Causes:
• Overfishing, which allows reef-destroying starfish,
algae’s, and other damaging species to spread without
natural enemies
• Acidity due to excess CO2 absorption
• Abnormally high water temperatures
• Drag-netting, dynamiting, and other physical insults
• Water pollution, especially near land runoff areas
Reef damage due to human activity
Consequence 6: What is the species extinction rate?
Why does this matter? What population-related
factors cause this?
Every 20 minutes, the world adds over 3,000 human lives but
loses one or more species of animal or plant life - at least
27,000 species per year. (Source: PBS). At the present rates,
as many as 20% of the world's 7-15 million species could
become extinct in the next 30 years.
Causes:
• Habitat destruction
• Pesticides and pollutants
• Overhunting
• Climate change
• Non-native species introduction
Why does it Matter?
• Many species serve a vital function in balance of nature, e.g.,
controlling the spread of pest species
• Many species have unique genes that can be used to improve
the strains of valuable plants and animals or unique
properties used by the pharmaceutical industry.
• Some species are valued for their beauty or other features.
Are we also vulnerable to these factors? In what ways do the
same factors that kill other species also damage our species?
• The disappearance of species may be like the canary in the
coal mine – a warning of growing toxicity.
• We may depend on the services provided by lost species in
ways we do not appreciate.
Other Consequences of overpopulation:
• Pressure to expand, flee or emigrate, but no frontier lands left to
accommodate settlers or refugees.
• Cities of over 20,000,000 people, most of them living in slums or
favelas. Poor cities with >10 million people have serious problems
with water, waste disposal, transportation, disease control, crime,
housing, and the quality of life for most people. When cities double
in size, the problems more than double.
• Competing claims for land, water, and fish resources that can lead
to war and threats of war
• Waste disposal problems where land appropriate for landfills
becomes further from the cities and harder to obtain
• Non-renewable resource depletion, e.g. fuels, metals, and minerals.
As these commodities grow scarcer, they become more expensive
and they will eventually become unavailable for future generations.
Negative Consequences: Can falling birthrates
cause any negative consequences?
Having a lower ratio of working adults to retired people will
make the burdens of elder care fall on a smaller number of
worker/taxpayers (a concern referred to as “rising dependency
ratio.”)
How serious is this problem?
• Falling birthrates could help to resolve more menacing
population problems. Nations that need more working-age
people can relieve the pressures on overpopulated nations by
inviting foreign guest workers to fill their workplace shortages.
• However, nations with falling populations must first find jobs
for their own young people.
How serious are the problems related
to falling birthrates? (continued)
• In Italy and Spain, where birthrates have recently plummeted,
over 20% of the people are unemployed and 50% of recently
graduated young people can’t find work. Lack of work
opportunity may explain why this generation of young adults
is having fewer children.
• The world has no frontier lands left to settle refugees. But
refugees can be trained to take care of elderly people and do
other jobs in affluent nations.
• Calling for people to have more children in an overpopulated
world resembles calling for war to stimulate a stagnated
economy. In both cases, the proposed solution has worse
consequences than the problem being addressed.
What is the current world population?
What is the forecast for population growth?
• The current population exceeds 7 billion.
• Estimates range from 8 - 10 billion by 2050, peaking at from 911 billion after that. U.N. demographic projections show the
world population growing to 9.3 billion by 2050 or 290,000
new people per day.
• The birthrates that raised the world population from 6-7
billion in just 13 years would lead to 10 billion by 2050.)
However, the CIA World Factbook shows birthrates falling
recently, enough to slow down, but not reverse, the worldwide growth trend.
Lester R Brown, Full Planet, Empty Plates, WW Norton & Co., New York, 2012. (Note that projections made by
different informed groups vary, but even the most optimistic projections forecast an increase >12% by 2050.)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2054.html
What will be the consequence if the
population grows that much?
With even the best-case estimate, the consequence is
acceleration and intensification of all the problems listed
above.
Stanford University studies concluded that current human
activities are unsustainable. When the study was made
several years ago, it concluded that human byproducts
and emissions already exceeded the natural regeneration
and cleansing capacity of the air and water by 40%. The
study estimated the maximum population that would
allow for damage reversal and long-term sustainability,
and it projected a population growth barrier that would
be hard to exceed.
What maximum population did the study say
would allow for damage reversal and long-term
sustainability?
Two billion modestly affluent people could live with
replenishable fishing and without climate change,
massive species extinctions, reef destruction, increased
desertification, etc.
Any greater number will have a significant impact on the
environment. We are experiencing many consequences of
overpopulation and overproduction, and even best-case
projections predict worsening problems. The actions we
take can lessen the damage, but on our present course
we will not be able to totally undo that damage in the
foreseeable future.
What growth barrier did the Stanford
study say would be hard to exceed?
Our earth’s environment could probably not long support
more than 13 billion people. Death rates would probably
keep population growth rates in check beyond that point.
We can build more
high rises, but high
density areas can
thrive only where
low density areas
are available for
food production
and to offset the
human impacts.
Which is more responsible for the problems listed above:
the expansion of affluence and consumerism
or expanding levels of population growth?
• The problem stems from a world having more people while at the same
time more people have greater affluence.
• The greater the rates of affluence and consumption; the greater the toll
on resources and pollution. One man with a private jet, luxury boat and
three large homes to heat and cool can consume more fuel than a small
village.
• 80% of the world’s income goes to less than 15% of the people. The gap
between the world’s rich and poor widened fivefold between 1870 and
1990. Wealthy nations import much of what we consume, but most of the
people in poor nations receive no benefit from local resources sold abroad.
Should we worry more about expanding affluence or
expanding levels of population growth?
• Since 1800, the population has increased about 700%, but consumption
has increased 43,000%, and it continues growing faster than population.
Having both more and wealthier people is unsustainable. If we don’t want
more poverty, the answer is fewer people.
• Richer people have the greatest impact per capita. The U.S. is a major
offender. With 4.6% of the world’s people, the U.S consumes 29% of the
world’s resources – a rate 75 times greater than those who live at
subsistence level. We cause far more sustainability problems than people
living at subsistence level.
• Yet birthrates are highest in the poorest nations, so they are driving the
overpopulation problem. More than 95% of population growth during the
next 40 years is predicted to occur in the developing nations. This
expansion causes species extinctions and regional environmental damage
due to poor sanitation, deforestation, over-farming, etc.
How is modern technology causing the problem?
More vehicles,
buildings, and
roads require
more resources
for operation,
construction,
heating, etc.
And they
produce more
land, air, and
water pollution.
How is modern technology causing the problem?
• Chemical byproducts and discards create
biohazards.
• Advanced fishing technologies lead to
overfishing.
• High tech mining, tree cutting, hauling and
manufacturing, speed the rate of overconsumption.
• Even the orbital sphere around the Earth is now
littered with hazardous junk.
How can modern technology contribute to solutions?
• New technologies can reduce pollution when
burning fuels (e.g., catalytic converter, better fuel
efficiency)
• Better technologies reduce spoilage. Insect
infestation and spoilage result in the loss of up to
20% of all foods during shipment and storage.
• Recycling technologies can reduce waste.
• Better medicines and foods keep people more
healthy and productive.
Didn’t the Green Revolution (GR) improve farming
output?
What were the successes and failures of the GR?
In the short term the GR produced dramatic (up to threefold) increases in food production, but over the long term
several problems have occurred:
• Huge increases in population growth that followed the
GR made more people dependent on the continued
growth of benefits from GR technologies.
• Instead, we are now seeing 13% declines in output per
hectare from many GR farms due to salting, water
shortage, soil damage, and the high cost and overuse
of fertilizers, pesticides and other required GR
investments.
Will genetically-modified foods cause similar
production gains?
• Genetically-modified food technologies have not been well
accepted, but they may help to increase yields in some cases.
• Other new food growing technologies offer some hope of reducing
the pressures on fish stocks and getting more food from our
declining available arable farmlands. This can help to compensate
for losses due to overfishing and land being taken out of cultivation.
• Food production responds more to income growth than human
need. The wealthiest 20% consume about half of the world’s food
output. While 800 million people suffer from undernourishment
problems, the affluent people discard large quantities of highquality foods.
• Growing meat requires far more farmland than just growing
vegetables. To feed more people, we might need to devote less
land to meat and ethanol production.
We seldom hear much about overpopulation.
The combined effect of overpopulation and
overindulgence of material products is probably the
world’s most pressing problem. Yet , except where
Republicans and anti-abortion groups complained
about support for family planning, the issue was
never mentioned by either party in the presidential
contest.
Many people are concerned about climate change,
but climate change is just one of several serious
problems caused by overpopulation and
overconsumption.
Given the urgency of the problem, why does it
get such low priority?
• Perhaps we view overpopulation as a third-world problem, or
we feel that there is nothing we can do about it.
• Economists call for more consumption to stimulate job
growth. No one wants to give up an affordable vacation flight
to cut pollution.
• Recent books say that low rates of reproduction should be
avoided do to the need for young workers to drive innovation
and generate income to support the social safety nets.
• Many people who distrust the west also distrust the motives
of family planning initiatives.
• We need more airtime and support from the educational
establishment to counter these influences and raise the
issue’s priority.
Can Catholic nations achieve population control?
What Nations have the best and worst records?
Spain, Italy, Poland,
Russia, Portugal and
Japan have the world’s
lowest birthrates. Much
of Europe has low
birthrates, as do Canada,
China, and Australia.
More than half of these
nations are democracies
with Catholic majorities.
Even some Muslim
nations have active family
planning programs. The
highest birthrates are
shown in darkest blue.
What Nations have the best and worst records?
• The U.S has the world’s third largest population, which is
projected to reach 422 million by 2050. With four new
immigrants entering the U.S. per minute, our population is
growing mostly due to immigration.
• Yemen, Palestine, Afghanistan, and most of Africa have the
worst records. In those nations the population doubles
every decade. Their biggest problems seem to relate to
poverty and the lack of family planning education and
services. Religious resistance to family planning does exist,
but ignorance, indifference by public leaders, and lack of
access to family planning probably inhibits family planning
more than anything else.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2054.html
What can concerned people do to help reduce the
potentially catastrophic problems of overpopulation
and overconsumption?
• Consume less. We now spend 90% of GDP on consumer goods. U.S. homes
have doubled in space per occupant, and we buy more cars, electronic
devices (e.g. TVs), etc.
• Spend more on things to reduce fuel consumption and environmental
damage.
• Travel more modestly: According to the NY Times, traveling round-trip
from Chicago to Frankfurt generates as much CO2 per passenger as the
average family car produces in a year.
• Have small families and encourage others to do so.
• Pick a favorite family planning NGO for contributions.
• Recommend Life on the Brink, Philip Cafaro and Eileen Crist (Editors), or
World on the Edge (free PDF download) or Full Planet, Empty Plates (both
by Lester R. Brown) to your book club.
Political recommendations will appear on the following pages.
What is the political Climate?
On the negative side, six Republican candidates in the 2011
Presidential Primary had 34 children among them (not counting
Michele Bachmann’s 23 foster children, which I applaud).
What does that suggest about their enthusiasm for family planning?
Family planning does not appear to be their highest priority.
What is the Mexico City Policy?
This refers to Ronald Reagan’s announced withdrawal of support for
international agencies that provide any form of support for abortions. This
resulted in the U.S. condemning more family planning NGO’s than it
supported and a substantial reduction of U.S. dollar support for family
planning. It remains difficult to get support for any form of international
family-planning programs through Congress.
The U.S government may be hostile to family
planning. What about the American people?
On the positive side, many Americans do favor family
planning. According to Kenneth Weiss in a March 2,
2013 article in the Los Angeles Times, “Nearly twothirds of American voters believe human population
growth is driving other animal species to extinction and
that, if the situation gets worse, society has a moral
obligation to fix the problem.” 50% of those surveyed
think the world’s population is currently growing too
fast.
What we can do politically?
• Request candidates to talk more about population issues. Ask for
schools to discuss it.
• Ask our candidates to support family planning services both at
home and abroad through the U.N. or through NGOs.
• In place of personal consumerism, support more social spending on
things like day care, education, psychological services,
rehabilitation, etc.
• Support carbon, fuel, and excise taxes and use the money to build
better systems for high-speed, fuel-efficient mass transit.
• Support subsidies to green technologies. Get government to stop
subsidizing industries we should shrink, such as fishing, logging,
livestock grazing (on public lands), fossil fuel production and use,
luxury transportation.
http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/book_files/wotebook.pdf