Abstract
The global population
is 7 billion and expanding at. At the current rate that the population of
humans is increasing there will be over 9 billion coexisting on our planet on
our planet by 2050. This fact purposes sustainability concerns for every
natural recourse from food and sustainable energy, to land use and waste. This
article address some of the current issues related to the population crisis,
and attempts to purpose methods of mitigation that mankind might continue to
thrive on this small globe.
At some point during the 18 century
Thomas Malthus purposed that the growth of the population would over whelm the
earths food supply and ability to sustain human life (Malthus,2014 p.1). His
views are supported by Paul Ehrlich in his 2012 article entitled Nature. Ehrlich claims that our current
model of sustainability is a “recipe for national disaster, and it is global
suicide” (Ehrlich,2014 p.1). In 1984 China addressed its own population density
crisis by imposing a one child policy on all of its urban population and the
same on its rural population unless the first born child was female. In which
case, the family was offered a second chance amongst the present population to
rear a male.
China’s methodology of sustainment
purposes new sustainable issues for their populous, such as, there are not
enough females in the nation to support the growing population of males in the
country. The result is risky sexual practices amongst the bachelor populous,
and there are not enough people in the younger generation to support the aging population
in the near future. In addition
abortion and the murder of female infants pose horrific humans rights issues
(Environment, 2014 p. 198-200).
On the surface it appears that Malthus
and Ehrlich are correct. The growth of the human population is growing at an
out of control rate, and the earth’s ability to sustain life as we know it is
impossible. What can we do about it?
Should we take the value of human life into our own hands and determine
the human value by the quality of one’s life? Is family planning and abortion
truly the answer to this conundrum? Perhaps we should start offering suicide
pills to the elderly and call it death with dignity. Maybe we should
exterminate any child at birth that shows any sign of defect. Maybe we should
line up every indigent third world demographic and shoot them. Instead of mass
graves perhaps using their bodies to fertilize our gardens would be the best
use for them.
The above reprehensible statement is unconscionable,
but is more or less is what is being purposed by scientists and economists in
the dooms day prophecies of Environment
The Science Behind the Stories. The book claims that family planning is
working to help mitigate the population crisis.
The truth is that the earth is full of
untapped renewable recourses and untouched lands throughout the earth are
plentiful. It boils down to perspective and creativity. Yes we do have to take
some new approaches and rethink agriculture waste and energy, but it can be
done and we can have fun doing it.
The proposal is basic and simple. First the greatest and most
abundant source of energy and power in our world is the sun. It is not
renewable it is a constant, and reliable. For our survival we must harness its power
completely. For by it we can evaporate our oceans and create aqueducts in
remote locations and turn desert lands into inhabitable oases. Using solar
energy we can create hydroponic farm houses in those remote locations. We can
create ecosystems and fish farms that feed the vegetation that produces our
crops. The inhabitants of the earth in which we consider uneducated and indigent
can farm those lands and through that production become educated and gain adequate
health, but we must all work together as a team. By it we can feed all of the
nations of the world. Conceder the cost of development, and consider the cost of
human loss if not. By this method we can create great cities and commerce. No
family should ever have to choose abortion over love.
Science is doing much to create new
methods of harnessing the earth’s resources (Listverse, 2009, p.1). It is
conceivable to think that we can control and create our own atmospheric
pressure and create new energy through it. We can build gigantic solar panels
and create storm systems from which we can contain the energy those storms
create. We can harness tidal power and wave power, and with the synergy of
participating nations we can do it in a manor not only respectable to our
environment but in ways that produce the optimum for all living organisms to
thrive.
Farfetched the reader says? No not only
is it possible, it is our right, our obligation, responsibility, duty and God
given privilege. If it were not for pride and greed our scientist would see this
through and put these tactics into motion. As a race we are so consumed with
our own profits we refuse to see what is staring right in front of us.
As a Race we are easily succumbed by
the path of least resistance, it easy to blame shift and point fingers. So, let’s
kill off all those who, in our finite estimation, bring little or no value. We
do things like kill off all of the buffalo and salmon and ruin the sacred lives
of those indigenous people and creatures that we value less. In the name of
progress and industrialism we destroy land air and water. It is our job to
build it, protect it and manage it by God’s first commission to Adam. Tend the
garden observe and name the creatures.
Is it any different now, than any other
time in history? Have we truly advanced and evolved? We often see in in the
wake of our aftermath the destruction of our choices and spend countless
generations trying to repair the damage in vain.
Many people are quick to point out
man’s faults they are ever armed and prepared with statistics and offer us
motivation through fear of a dooms day event. Men like Malthus and Ehrlich
offer up problems without solutions. Yes our environment is changing. But the
human mind is resilient and capable of adapting to changing environmental
challenges and population increase. Killing off our future generations and
reducing the sage population with all the wisdom they have to share is not the
answer. I will let the reader decide is human life, the lives of other
organisms, and the health of the environment intrinsic value or instrumental
value. Is one really separate from the other? And who is the reader to decide,
who is man to determine the value of anything he does not fully understand? Did
we create it did we establish the foundations of the universe and the earth and
all of its inhabitants. Can we create life? Perhaps we should allow the creator
to determine value and through true reverence support the maker in his
endeavors and do as he has ask us to do by taking responsibility and care for
that which is weaker than ourselves and in that perhaps the world will prosper
in peace.
Works Cited
Ehrlich,
Paul Dr. (2012). The
“Sustainability” Paradox–Interview with Paul Ehrlich, Retrieved 2014 http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/07/10/the-sustainability-paradox/
Laposata
Matthew, Withgott Jay. (2014).
Environment The Science Behind The Story. Pearson Education
Inc. 208-2011 Glenview Illinois.
Malthus
Thomas, (2014). Thomas Robert Malthus. Wikipedia,
Retrieved 2014 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus
No comments:
Post a Comment