The Population Dilemma

The Population Dilemma Demographers predict that in five years the world population will reach seven billion, and in twenty years it will reach eight billion, in 2054 nine billion, and by the year 2200 it is projected to reach ten billion. Population increase has thus far followed the exponential growth model, although experts predict that population will taper off, along with resources, industrial output and food, thus corresponding to the logistic growth model.

The population will decline and stabilize due to the carrying capacity, that is, the maximum population size that a given environment can sustain. There is the environmental resistance that stabilizes any given population at its carrying capacity. The factors that contribute to environmental resistance are space, food, partners (of the opposite sex), shelter, water, and prevalence of disease. Whilst ecological challenge does set restriction on population growth, right through the 20th century the human populace increased at a high exponential rate, which indicates that the annual population percentage growth increased every year, maxing out in the 1960s at 2.1 percent. [1] If this growth rate continues, the global population would double in size in the next 33 years.

Continuing rise in human population, according to the experts, is not a problem and in fact may be good for economic growth. The factors contributing to the population growth in recent years are technological innovations, increased agricultural and industrial output, better health care, declining death rates and lower infant mortality rates. Births have clearly overtaken deaths, which surely could signify advancement. Many economists are of the view that if new resources are found to replace depleted resources, resource depletion due to population increase is not a problem. According to the writer Richman, human beings are not laid back with regard to their environment hence the concept of carrying capacity does not apply to human beings. People will create resources when there are no resources.

In divergence from Richman, other environmental scientists argue that increasing population growth will have disastrous outcomes for the environment in addition to the human wellbeing. They assert that not all resources can be substituted and that a vast majority of resources is not produced by human beings but is created by nature.

According to them, the most crucial resource is the land for habitation. There is a limited amount of land on our planet. After a definite point of overcrowding, the quality of human life could be badly disturbed. Actually, if we consider various countries, we can connect large population increase to poor and mainly illiterate countries. While Thomas Malthus and his “neo­Malthusian” followers have made dire predictions regarding future population explosions, the advance of technology has time and again alleviated any strain on resources. In reality, global food production has grown faster than has human population, which is a unflattering comment on the world’s most affluent society, since it signifies that the world’s pervasive undernourishment and deaths from starvation are

man­made failures, mainly due to wealth disparity and terribly flawed and corrupt economic systems, and not at all a challenge of population figures.

The function of various factors in shaping environmental degradation was described by the IPAT equation3. It expresses the multiplicative role of population (P), affluence (A) and technology (T) to environmental impact (I). Environmental impact (I) can be stated in terms of resource diminution or waste accretion; population (P) refers to the magnitude of the human population; affluence (A) refers to the degree of expenditure by that group; and technology (T) indicates the means used to attain resources and convert them into useful goods and wastes. The IPAT formula is I = P x A x T. Over and above these three factors, we can insert another factor – x S (Sensitivity), underscoring how sensitive a unique environment is to human pressures. The IPATS model not only makes it easier for us to appreciate the effect population has on the environment but also establishes that population is only one of a number of factors impacting our environment.

So how can the human population be stabilized in some countries? Though many European countries deem their birth rates too low, yet some third world countries consider their birth rates too high and are working reduce it. Population, at present, has effectively become stable around the world, and the main instrument responsible has been education. The global population of more than 6.3 billion encompasses more than 200 countries, with China having a population of 1.3 billion, India 1.1 billion, the US 287 million and Indonesia with 217 million and a population density of 2,639 per square mile! [2] Population is spread disproportionately in the world, with maximum concentrations in temperate, sub tropic and tropical regions and low concentrations in extreme­climatic regionss such as deserts, rainforests and tundra.

The population dilemma should be considered with two aspects in mind­ food and space.

Though the earth has plentiful food resources to provide for every man, woman and child yet due to deficiency in coordinated collaboration, joint effort, dearth of appropriate ideology and proper planning, the world is currently divided into numerous confrontationist groups and subgroups.

Notes: 1. Scott Brennan & Jay Withgott, Environment: The Science Behind the Stories, p.

199.

2. USAID Bangladesh: Population and Health. http://www.usaid.gov/bd/pop.html

3. Commoner, Barry. “The Environmental Cost of Economic Growth.” in Population, Resources and the Environment. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office Pp. 339­63, 1972.