| Revision as of 10:28, 1 August 2002 edit-- April (talk | contribs)3,263 editsm rephrase - both sides agree on this point← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:40, 1 August 2002 edit undoSara Parks Ricker (talk | contribs)195 edits toning down bias; punctuation; clarity, additionsNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| '''Overpopulation''' |
'''Overpopulation''' came to be seen by many in the Twentieth Century as a critical global issue. Many scientific models have suggested that there are already too many people living on the Earth for the Earth to sustain. Other studies suggest that the current population levels of over six billion may be supported by current resources, or that the population may even grow to ten billion and still be within the Earth's capacity to support. However, some argue that these ideas are based on strong assumptions that the systems of our world will continue to function in the ways to which human society is accustomed. In other words, such assumptions are not allowing for large-scale catastrophes such as global ] or ]. | ||
| It's certainly true that the world's current agricultural production is amply sufficient to feed everyone living on the Earth today, but this is only possible because of immense investments of ] and ], and is also due to relatively benign climate trends in the important food-producing areas such as the ] and ] of the United States. Even so, economic and political realities of our world are preventing much of this food from reaching those who most desperately need it. | It's certainly true that the world's current agricultural production is amply sufficient to feed everyone living on the Earth today, but this is only possible because of immense investments of ] and ], and is also due to relatively benign climate trends in the important food-producing areas such as the ] and ] of the United States. Even so, economic and political realities of our world are preventing much of this food from reaching those who most desperately need it. | ||
| Many critics hold that, in the absence of other measures, simply feeding the world's population well would only make matters much worse, |
Many critics hold that, in the absence of other measures, simply feeding the world's population well would only make matters much worse, causing the population to quickly balloon to absolutely unsustainable levels, and resulting in mass ], disease and other human misery on a scale unimaginable even today. | ||
| However, others contend that within a generation after the standard of living and life expectancy starts increasing, family sizes start dropping in what is termed the ]. In support they point to the contention that every estimate of maximum global population since the 1960s, when the "population explosion" became a worry, has been significantly lower than the previous estimates. Among those holding this view are the ecologist Paul Colinvaux, who writes on the topic in <cite>Why Big Fierce Animals are Rare</cite>, and <cite>The Fates of Nations</cite>. | However, others contend that within a generation after the standard of living and life expectancy starts increasing, family sizes start dropping in what is termed the ]. In support they point to the contention that every estimate of maximum global population since the 1960s, when the "population explosion" became a worry, has been significantly lower than the previous estimates. Among those holding this view are the ecologist Paul Colinvaux, who writes on the topic in <cite>Why Big Fierce Animals are Rare</cite>, and <cite>The Fates of Nations</cite>. | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| In either case, it is often held that the most productive approach is to provide a combination of help targeted towards population control and self-sufficiency. One of the most important measures to be taken in this effort is the empowerment of women educationally, economically, politically, and in the family. The value of this philosophy has been substantially borne out in cases where great strides have been taken to this goal: where women's status has dramatically improved, there has generally been a drastic reduction in the birthrate to more sustainable levels. Other measures include effective ] programs, local ] systems, ] methods and supplies, ], and measures to protect the local ]. | In either case, it is often held that the most productive approach is to provide a combination of help targeted towards population control and self-sufficiency. One of the most important measures to be taken in this effort is the empowerment of women educationally, economically, politically, and in the family. The value of this philosophy has been substantially borne out in cases where great strides have been taken to this goal: where women's status has dramatically improved, there has generally been a drastic reduction in the birthrate to more sustainable levels. Other measures include effective ] programs, local ] systems, ] methods and supplies, ], and measures to protect the local ]. | ||
| Some approach overpopulation with a "survival-of-the-fittest," "laissez-faire" attitude, arguing that if the Earth's ecosystem becomes overtaxed, it will naturally regulate itself. In this mode of thought, disease or starvation are "natural" means of lessening population. | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | History has amply demonstrated that when population pressures become too great, the results may, indeed, include ], ], ], and ] devastation. | ||
Revision as of 10:40, 1 August 2002
Overpopulation came to be seen by many in the Twentieth Century as a critical global issue. Many scientific models have suggested that there are already too many people living on the Earth for the Earth to sustain. Other studies suggest that the current population levels of over six billion may be supported by current resources, or that the population may even grow to ten billion and still be within the Earth's capacity to support. However, some argue that these ideas are based on strong assumptions that the systems of our world will continue to function in the ways to which human society is accustomed. In other words, such assumptions are not allowing for large-scale catastrophes such as global drought or global warming.
It's certainly true that the world's current agricultural production is amply sufficient to feed everyone living on the Earth today, but this is only possible because of immense investments of petrochemicals and petroleum energy, and is also due to relatively benign climate trends in the important food-producing areas such as the Grain Belt and Great Plains of the United States. Even so, economic and political realities of our world are preventing much of this food from reaching those who most desperately need it.
Many critics hold that, in the absence of other measures, simply feeding the world's population well would only make matters much worse, causing the population to quickly balloon to absolutely unsustainable levels, and resulting in mass famine, disease and other human misery on a scale unimaginable even today.
However, others contend that within a generation after the standard of living and life expectancy starts increasing, family sizes start dropping in what is termed the demographic transition. In support they point to the contention that every estimate of maximum global population since the 1960s, when the "population explosion" became a worry, has been significantly lower than the previous estimates. Among those holding this view are the ecologist Paul Colinvaux, who writes on the topic in Why Big Fierce Animals are Rare, and The Fates of Nations.
In either case, it is often held that the most productive approach is to provide a combination of help targeted towards population control and self-sufficiency. One of the most important measures to be taken in this effort is the empowerment of women educationally, economically, politically, and in the family. The value of this philosophy has been substantially borne out in cases where great strides have been taken to this goal: where women's status has dramatically improved, there has generally been a drastic reduction in the birthrate to more sustainable levels. Other measures include effective family planning programs, local renewable energy systems, sustainable agriculture methods and supplies, reforestation, and measures to protect the local environment.
Some approach overpopulation with a "survival-of-the-fittest," "laissez-faire" attitude, arguing that if the Earth's ecosystem becomes overtaxed, it will naturally regulate itself. In this mode of thought, disease or starvation are "natural" means of lessening population.
History has amply demonstrated that when population pressures become too great, the results may, indeed, include war, famine, epidemic disease, and environmental devastation.