Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Population and Recourse Depletion by Matthew Sluman

 Environmental Studies


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

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  

No comments: