The Problem Of Overpopulation: We Are Living Beyond The Planet’S Carrying Capacity

Overpopulation is an issue that many people would choose to ignore, and it's no wonder why. It is scary to think about. This idea that this seemingly perfect balance could ever come to a screeching halt. However, it is crucial that we address the issue, and more importantly, it is essential for us to discover how we plan to handle it before it is too late. Overpopulation is made possible thanks to factors like the mortality rate, industrialization, and medical advancements, and it can lead to issues associated with our land, water, energy, and other of our natural resources. There are currently 7. 4 billion people who call this planet "home, " and according to a few studies, that number could hit easily hit 11 billion by 2100. This increase, of course, is bound to create challenges for the human race considering that we are already consuming more than we are producing. “We are already living beyond the planet’s carrying capacity, ” says Jason Clay, senior vice president with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). “And we will need to provide for 30 percent more people by 2050 who consume nearly twice as much per capita. ”

There are the optimistic few, however, who believe that those estimates are inaccurate. Some would even say that the population will decrease, or, “level off. ” For example, Sanjeev Sandaal, a global strategist, thinks that the world’s overall population would eventually reach 8. 7 billion, but decline back down to 8. 0 billion by 2100. His argument for this comes from his belief in the “replacement rate” – the fertility rate a nation requires in order to maintain its current population.

Experts at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) argue that education plays a significant role when it comes to fertility rates because when countries advance their education systems, women are given a chance to participate in the economy, and this makes the idea of a large family less appealing. It is also important to note, however, that these projections are just that – projections, and should not be taken as fact. “When you project out to 2100, you’re definitely stepping onto thin ice, ” says Carl Haub, a senior demographer at the nonprofit Population Reference Bureau. In other words, anything could happen. These are all just educated guesses based on trends that have been observed so far.

However, this is not an excuse to become ignorant or lazy. Environmentalists suggest that our land, forests, fisheries, and other natural resources are in danger, no matter how fast or efficiently we can provide food or discover new technological advancements. The U. N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in Rome recently spoke out on this concern and confirmed the severity of feeding a growing population, saying that even if the population were to increase by one-third, it would require 70 percent more food. This hypothesis may sound crazy, but it is right thanks to the increase in meat that is consumed as incomes rise, resulting in a higher demand for grains to feed livestock. It is interesting to note though that many people out there would say that the Earth has been facing depletion in its resources since the 1970s, again, because the human race is consuming more than what can be replenished. “We use more resources today than the Earth can regenerate, and we are adding more people every year, ” says Global Footprint Network (GFN) President Mathis Wackernagel. So the higher the income, the higher consumption, and what better example than the United States – approximately consuming twice as much as it can replenish.

The best and most obvious solution is to reestablish the ways we are living, to consume less, but we cannot seem to do this. We keep adding onto our old ways of running things rather than rethinking it. However, thanks to Jonathan Foley, we have hope if we follow through with five simple steps: stop moving out to land that is not suitable for cultivation, push for growth on pre-existing farms, a more efficient use of fertilizers, a reduction of how much meat we are consuming, and finally, a reduction in food waste. It is hard to talk about overpopulation, however, without bringing up the needs for contraception. Many people will argue that contraception, or, “birth control, ” is a simple and effective way to reduce population growth directly. The only issue comes when the other side of the argument is considered. Conservatives, especially those affiliated with the Catholic church, strongly oppose. The push continues, and advocates for family planning argue that it gives poor women the ability to decide whether or not they want to have children. “We will build a better future for everyone by giving people the freedom and the power to build a better future for themselves and their families, ” according to billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates. The Catholic Church reaffirmed its stance on the matter in 2013, with Pope Francis saying that human life “is always sacred and inviolable, in any situation and at every stage of development… It is not ‘progressive’ to try to resolve problems by eliminating a human life. ” Catholics believe they are called to help the world’s unfortunate, but they do not think they should use population-based strategies in order to do so.

Regardless of the stance on birth control, it can be reassuring for both parties that this is not the first time that people around the world were concerned with mass population and the abundance of resources that may or may not be available. It took more than 200, 000 years for the global population to exceed 1 billion, in 1804. With the help of the Industrial Revolution overseas in England, new tools and technologies became readily available. It gave farmers the ability to work more efficiently and to produce a large amount of food. At this time, the idea that the Earth’s resources could ever become depleted was utterly ridiculous.