Population and Wealth
Pablo L. Peña
Warner Pacific University
ENV-100A-TF4
October 18, 2022
Population and Wealth
For this week’s paper, we’re talking about population and its relation to wealth. There
are a few things we know to be true surrounding our current environmental crisis, 1) that
the formula for human impact on the environment can be summed using this formula: Impact =
Population x Affluence x Technology, 2) that there are so many people on the planet that we’re
dealing with the issue of the population within the law of large numbers (that is, that small rates of
growth still equal huge growth outputs due to the enormity of the starting balance), and 3) that as
affluence grows birth rates drop but individual impacts increase. Any viable solution to the
problems presented to address our environmental issues must at least tangentially address
population. However, it’s not necessary to talk directly about the population when talking about
environmental solutions.
As environmental writer David Roberts points out:
“When political movements or leaders adopt population control as a central
concern ... let’s just say it never goes well. In practice, where you find concern over
“population,” you very often find racism, xenophobia, or eugenics lurking in the wings.
It’s almost always, ahem, particular populations that need reducing.”
He recounts an anecdote from the Sierra Club where a group of members, funded by
outside donors, tried to take over the national organization. Their principal policy issue involved
supporting closed border policies because allowing immigration from poorer countries would
raise their standard of living and by extension increase their environmental impact. There are
moral and ethical issues with that viewpoint though, not the least of which is the fact that the
conditions on which many immigrants are fleeing to the United States over are issues the US
helped create in the first place. It also ignores the suffering that we’d essentially be condemning
these human beings to by simply turning them away simply so we can continue to live lives that
are opulent and unsustainable without regard of the externalized costs we’re asking others to
bear.
In the end, it is a moral and ethical imperative that we take care of our fellow brethren in
need. Money is a useful tool for organizing labor and resources in a society, but economics is a
made-up human concept, not an inherent quality of life on planet Earth. Good economics and
large bank balance sheets mean very little if there’s no clean air to breathe or water to drink. If
our land is too dead to sustain the life that feeds us. Part of any solution that ensures the
sustainability of our environment has to address the impact our large population has on the
planet, but it also must not explicitly choose winners and losers based on arbitrary factors like
socioeconomics or the geographical happenstance of one’s birth. Those are follies of eugenics.
It seems that ultimately those conversations are unnecessary. It is possible to address the
issue of the population without necessarily needing to ever talk about it. Focusing on issues of
education, especially for girls, is an example of an area where we can directly address the issue,
not mention a word of population control, and lead with equity and justice in the forefront.
Simply giving girls and women education, social and economic agency, and opportunities
naturally, lead to family planning and fewer generation-over-generation births. And the best part
is the solution leads from a position that aligns not only with the goal of addressing the issue, but
also lifts all boats rather than condemns those less fortunate than us to suffer for our privilege.
References
Cunningham, W; Cunningham, M. (2020) Principles of Environmental Science: Inquiry &
Application. (Ninth Edition) McGraw Hill Education
Roberts, D. (2018, November 29). I’m an environmental journalist, but I never write about
overpopulation. Here’s why. Vox. https://www.vox.com/energy-andenvironment/
2017/9/26/16356524/the-population-question
