Increasing Population + Limited Resources = Ecological Catastrophe

Hans Rosling on population growth

Few things are as worrisome for the future of humanity as the ongoing degradation of the natural environment.  With a globe circumscribed by the annihilating forces of space, we possess a certain limitation on our resources.  No matter our ingenuity, there comes a point when our possession of basic resources will no longer suffice to meet our needs.  This problem is exacerbated not only by a massive overpopulation problem but by continuing growth of the population on top of the currently unsustainable number of human beings.  There is no simple solution to this inevitable crisis.  But some solutions are definitely more humane and farsighted than others.

Many thinkers encourage us not to worry about environmental concerns because nature has its methods of culling out the population when necessary.  This is definitely true.  If we do nothing, the planet will continue, even if our species does not.  It is unlikely, even in the worst case scenario, that the species would be obliterated.  After the expected plagues, wars, and famines, it is likely that a shattered few will remain.  And though the germ of humanity will persevere this will be a minimal survival since the highest things that our species has developed are not retained within the memory of our DNA.  The more important accomplishments of the last few thousand years of human culture possess a light grip on existence and were a major catastrophe (or series of them) to assault our kind then we may lose things like literature, democratic government, art, and justice. These things, the fruits of high civilization, will be lost to survivors and 'human nature' will be reduced to something like a least common denominator of the aggressive and competitive annexations of the meager remaining resources. 

It would be superior by far if more dignified and humane measures could be preserved with the more enlightened version of human nature.  The latter can be accomplished if we make conscious efforts to preserve our resources and limit our population.  This is a formidable challenge but one that our most sagacious leaders will take upon themselves if they are to lead us towards a sustainable future.  Sadly, too many leaders are content to be the mouthpieces of interests vested in the continuing growth of unrealistically large markets and appetites for consumption.

Things We Can Do

Fruitful changes towards environmental sustainability must occur on both the societal and personal level.  But you, the individual, can directly influence the larger scale changes by making active changes in your own behavior.  By binding our forces, we can definitely encourage the shift towards a greater awareness of dire ecological issues that must be faced by our governments.  If each of us participates in the education of ourselves and those we influence, then we can expect larger scale changes within a generation or two which, though late, may still be effective towards the preservation of our delicate ecologies.

• Read some books (below).  By better educating yourself on the issues you can become a better advocate for these causes.

• Write your state and federal representatives to let them know that you'd like them to take environmental issues more seriously (I can tell you from a summer working on Capitol Hill that many still do not).

• Take care of your car.  By properly maintaining your vehicle and getting the longest life possible from it, you will help to reduce emissions.  I've seen a lot of hippies whose hearts are in the right place and yet they drive vehicles that belch black smoke because their engines haven't been maintained.  When you do need to obtain a new car, consider the ingenious new hybrid vehicles or otherwise focus on the fuel economy of your new vehicle.

• Drive less.  It's surprising how much less you can drive if you thoughtfully plan the errands you'll need to make during the course of the week.

Books

Paul Ehrlich is among the best scholars in the field of environmental policy.  His many books are good guides to better understand the issues at hand.  He and his wife, Anne, put out a very prescient book recently called One With Nineveh.  Read more about it at Amazon.com.

The Ehrlichs put together another book a short time ago called Betrayal of Science and Reason.  Again, their appreciation for the politics of environmental conservation helps to put these issues in the proper perspective.  As anyone familiar with the science of ecology is well aware, there is little question about the depth of our current crisis, rather the manipulation of this information (so reminiscent of 1984) is what leads the public to put it off as a primary concern.  Ultra-conservative spin doctors have a way of minimizing these issues which is utterly bizarre.  It's as if a person with a massive brain tumor mocks the importance of cancer, decrying it as little more than a theory that's gone too far.  I have never been able to understand why environmental conservation is not a point of pride for the right.  Perhaps it is yet another testament that true political conservatism has been commandeered by something akin to an industrial-military complex and reshaped to their purposes.  I find studying the political interpretations of environmental issues to be fascinating because their discussion exhibits the mechanisms of denial and repression working on a social level.

To get an 'inventory' of global resources, you can read Something New Under the Sun.  This is a fascinating book that objectively catalogs our various resources and gives emphasis where things are especially scarce (such as nutrient-rich topsoil).