Yes, (Over)Population IS a Problem!
by Alan Ware, Dave Gardner, 11/15/18, MAHB/Stanford U.

20,000 scientists worldwide have now signed the World
Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice,
issued in 2017. This Second Warning comes 25 years
after the 1992 World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity
in which they called for stabilizing global population.
Since 1992, we’ve added another 2 billion passengers
to the planet while further depleting resources and
polluting the planet.

In the Second Notice the scientists caution that “We
are jeopardizing our future by not reining in our
intense but geographically and demographically uneven
material consumption and by not perceiving continued
rapid population growth as a primary driver behind
many ecological and even societal threats.” They note
that one of the main actions we can take as individuals
includes “limiting our own reproduction.”

20,000 scientists aren’t the only experts issuing
existential warnings to humanity. The Global Footprint
Network, whose Earth Overshoot Day fell on the earliest-
ever date of Aug 1, 2018, has concluded we’re consuming
the renewable resources of 1.7 Earths – a 70% overshoot.

The facts of our overshoot should cause alarm. The
20,000+ who signed the Second Warning are alarmed. The
Global Footprint Network is alarmed. The World Wildlife
Fund – which estimates that mammal, bird, amphibian, &
reptile numbers have halved since 1970 – is alarmed.
And behind the sounding of all these ecological alarm
bells lies the fact that global population has more than
doubled since 1970. And we’re still increasing human
passengers on the planet by over 220,000 per day – about
80 million per year.

It is true, as Smaje notes, that many contemporary
problems such as plastics in the ocean should be dealt
with – regardless of whether sustainable population is
achieved. But growing population and consumption are
the ultimate causes that make many current problems
worse and build ever-larger problems for the future.
A declining population would provide enormous leverage
in addressing the major problems of our age – topsoil
& groundwater depletion, species loss, deforestation,
ocean acidification, sea level rise, & climate change.
In fact, most of these problems will not be solved as
long as human population remains far above a
sustainable level.

In one critical area of concern, climate change, it’s
clear that population numbers – especially in richer,
developed countries – are critical. A 2017 study from
Lund U. in Sweden found that an individual having one
fewer child in a developed country would reduce their
carbon emissions over 7 times the level of several
other “green” actions combined: including living car-
free, avoiding airplane travel, buying green energy,
and eating a plant-based diet.

Species loss & animal population declines show that
high levels of human population do not, as Smaje
states, “lurk somewhere behind the numerous environ-
mental crises of our age.” Instead, hiding in plain
sight, human numbers expanding by an additional 80
million/year are destroying animal habitat to expand
cropland, pastureland, & cities. The UN estimates that
by 2050 we’ll have to increase food production 60%
over 2009 levels in order to meet the demands of our
swelling population. Assuming such a huge increase in
food production is even possible, the attempt will
surely mean the destruction of more farmland, creation
of more ocean dead zones, depletion of more aquifers,
& further disruption of the climate.

Smaje claims as fact that it’s what populations do
that matters most. We certainly agree that what
populations do matters, but if what we’re doing is a
problem, then the number of us doing it compounds
the problem.

And the sad fact is that we’re very stubborn about
changing what we do. We’ve so far NOT demonstrated a
willingness to consume less & reject the worship of
economic growth in the interest of stabilizing the
climate or preventing further destruction of
ecosystems. This doesn’t mean we should give up on
this solution. But it also doesn’t mean we should
ignore a solution we HAVE demonstrated a willingness
to do – choosing smaller families.

There’s evidence that for all 7.6 billion of us to
live a life we consider “decent” & “dignified,” the
level of consumption required far exceeds most of
the ecological “planetary boundaries” that many
scientists believe should not be crossed if we hope
to stick around for a while. The U. of Leeds study,
A Good Life for All Within Planetary Boundaries,
concluded that not a single nation is currently
delivering a high standard of living to their
populace while staying within all 9 planetary
boundaries. Globally, we’re currently exceeding 4 of
the 9 identified boundaries: climate change, loss of
biosphere integrity, land-system change, & altered
biogeochemical cycles like phosphorus & nitrogen runoff.

The researchers conclude that elements of a “good
life” that most of us in developed countries consider
basic such as secondary education, decent health care,
& democratic forms of governance are associated with
consumption 2-6 times greater than a sustainable level
at our current global population. The fact is, as
billions of people strive to live the “good life” they
deserve, they will consume much more. For all of us
to enjoy the basics of the “good life” without also
trashing the planet, there needs to be far fewer of
us humans on the planet.

https://mahb.stanford.edu/blog/yes-overpopulation-problem/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)