Overpopulation: The Elephant in the Room

On October 31, 2011, the global population boomed and hit the all-time high of 7 billion people. Some people see this milestone as a great accomplishment of humankind, but I feel it is a step in the wrong direction. Since 1915, the world’s population has quadrupled, increasing by 5.2 billion. The Earth is a closed system. Continued growth of the human population is unsustainable because of this. As our population rises, it grows closer to reaching the earth’s carrying capacity. Increasing populations negatively impact both the human race and the environment it depends upon. Although this affirmation is supported by a vast wealth of scientific evidence, it has serious moral implications. Most notably, it has been argued that limiting population growth infringes upon human rights. A counter argument is presented which demonstrates that not limiting population growth causes greater infringement upon human rights. By adopting an ecocentric viewpoint, I assert that population growth must be limited. I support my argument by providing first evidence that population growth is negatively impacting both the environment and human kind and second refuting the stances against limiting population growth.

Ecocentrism, the view that all human and nonhuman beings have the same intrinsic value, needs to be considered in the argument to restrict human population. If we take the view of ecocentrism, then overpopulation would not be an issue. Room needs to be left for other species on Earth to flourish and we cannot allow our growing numbers to increase the pollution on earth. In addition, ecocentrism emphasizes the need for a balance of nature and a pyramid of chains dependent on the cooperation of all its parts. The exponential growth of the human species, only one species in the enormous web, offsets the natural balance at the expense of all.

When the mindset of the population is in the interest of the whole community rather than the individual, it is clear the population must be controlled. There is a distinction between being a consumer and a citizen and whether the consumer’s preferences are consistent with the citizen’s judgments. The community or citizen perspective, which ecocentrism emphasizes, dictates that the community and future generations are more important than an individual’s interests to repeatedly reproduce. This is especially true when considering a land ethic of the community involving not only the people on the planet but also the soil, waters, plants and animals. We need to consistently take this framework to ensure that the planet continues in a sustainable manner. This includes limiting the human population for the benefit of the community and future communities. Based on ecocentric beliefs, the impact of overpopulation on the earth on all species must be taken into account.
As the global population increases, urbanization and overcrowding also increase. Climate change has been directly linked to urbanization and is a major problem facing our environment.­ Carbon dioxide emissions can increase by more than 25% due to urbanization. This is a problem as over half of the world’s population currently lives in cities and this number is expected to increase to 70% by 2050, according to the World Health Organization. Thus, urbanization and overpopulation directly affect carbon dioxide levels and global warming. Focus has been on reducing our carbon footprint and developing greener technology to combat global warming, yet overpopulating the Earth and increased urbanization is only adding to the number of consumers and polluters. There is little doubt that carbon dioxide emissions have lead to an increase of the greenhouse effect, which affects average temperatures, ocean levels, and makes the oceans more acidic as well as other detrimental environmental changes.

Increased urbanization will also lead to increased overcrowding. Overcrowding from overpopulation leads to the transmission of disease epidemics such as malaria or cholera. A densely packed human population is where these diseases emerge because they require nearby victims who have not had time to develop resistance. Despite having new technology to fight off certain diseases, newly evolved strains can emerge and spread before vaccinations can be developed. Instances such as swine flu and severe acute respiratory disorder are mild examples of this.

Overcrowding also puts an increased strain on the education system. As family sizes increase, the strain becomes greater and greater. Children in larger families have been found to do worse in school because there is less communication with parents about school, lower education expectations by parents, less money saved for a higher education for them and fewer educational materials. Education is key to understanding the threat of overpopulation. More people with less education would lead to a misunderstanding of the world’s problem of overpopulation and the problems it causes, and so a vicious cycle of more people ensues.
As the population has increased the need for resources has increased. The rapid exploitation of natural resources has increased with the population. Increasing the demand for environmental resources, renewable or nonrenewable, damages the environment. Natural resources are not only important for human economic needs but are a necessary part of life for other species. For example, when fresh water is depleted and desire for lumber causes deforestation, many nonhuman species will suffer habitat destruction and fragmentation.

As the population increases, the need for food does as well. This has directly contributed to an increase in nitrogen runoff. A dramatic increase in the amounts of nitrogen runoff into streams and waterways has been seen in the past 50 years. This runoff is created mainly by human activities, primarily by agricultural activity, which is in response to the demand for more food. Each year, the human species consumes roughly 1.5 times what the planet can sustainably produce.The excess nitrogen causes a lack of oxygen and a dead zone for aquatic life. One example of an increasing dead zone is off the coast of Louisiana and Texas, with a dead zone the size of New Jersey. Studies have found that when nitrogen levels double, species richness declines by 25%. With increasing human population and the need to feed all these people efficiently, the use of fertilizers containing nitrogen on agricultural practices has become essential. As demands on food increase and more nitrogen is needed, the problem will only increase, thus creating larger dead zones and a significant loss of species diversity. As a whole, the depletion of resources is having a significant and detrimental impact upon the environmental diversity and is not sustainable.

The depletion of resources harms people as well. With food, water and oil shortages, suffering and starvation occurs for the people who don’t have access to them. This is already seen in some developing countries such as India. Poverty stems from overpopulation, as there are not enough resources to go around for all. The amount we consume will only increase more and more as the population does. As Aldo Leopold said, “Ecology knows of no density relationship that holds for indefinitely wide limits.” It is evident that we are on a path of destruction.

Although many people acknowledge that overpopulation is occurring, few people are willing to try out possible solutions. This may be because they don’t see the issue as urgent or they see any possible solutions as morally wrong. I disagree, and see it as morally wrong to encourage continued population growth and so encouraging damages to the environment, other species and future generations who will incur a lower standard of living with fewer resources.

A popular objection to methods used to reduce human population growth is that people’s freedom to reproduce is being infringed upon. Advocates of this idea think that limiting the number of children a family has is going against their individual rights of choice. Abortion, contraception and sterilization have, in their minds, not made the world better and go against the parents’ “God-given right to procreate”. Also, most religious organizations see the threat of overpopulation as a myth and an excuse to promote “sinful actions” such as abortion.
The major problem with the religious objections is that they are based on faith not fact. It is difficult to argue against an emotional faith-based idea. While the infringement of the rights of individual choice concerning the number of children they wish to have is true, individual rights must be rationed when our biospheric life support system is threatened, as it is with overpopulation. Nature does not recognize human rights.

Focusing attention on the powerful, rich countries rather than the powerless poor countries clouds possible solutions to overpopulation. Increasing overconsumption by the richest proportion of people on the planet, which only makes up 7% of the population, is more important when combating environmental problems, according some. Small portions of the world’s population use the largest proportion of resources and create the most greenhouse gas emissions. In this perspective, they are arguing that overpopulation is not as immediate an issue as overconsumption by the developed countries.

Although currently developed countries do contribute more to environmental problems than developing countries, I still see overpopulation as the number one issue when looking towards the future. Poor countries are referred to as “developing” countries because they aspire to be developed; consumers with the same standard of living as their developed counterparts. In the future, if these developed countries achieve their goal of equivalence in high standard of living, the planet will be a disaster. Just because developed countries over consume, it does not discount overpopulation as an immediate threat.

The capitalistic economic argument discredits overpopulation as a threat. They propose that humans create change in response to the environment, and instinctively find new resources when old ones become scarce or expensive. The hidden hand arguments that population growth declines and reverses with increasing wealth. And so it does. But can everyone be wealthy?

This laissez-faire objection is naïve. It works in theory, if people are not greedy and if there is not an asymmetrical imbalance of power at play. All we need to do is look around us today to see the problems with capitalistic economic arguments. The division of wealth is extremely lopsided across the world and will remain so under the present economic conditions. The Occupy Wall street movement has recognized this problem. The hidden hand must be revealed for a “slate of hand” idea with no basis to reality.

Overpopulation of the human species is a major problem to the environment and humans themselves. It is a necessity for the future health and sustainability of the planet that we stop the cancer-like increase of people. While environmental organizations and governments focus on global warming and reducing individual's’ carbon footprint, the issue of introducing too many additional consumers into the picture is avoided. Politicians skirt the issue because it is too morally conflicting to discuss. There are many good options out there such as family planning, but few are willing to take them seriously. Objections to overpopulation have short-term validity, yet none are acknowledging the long-term trend of overpopulation. Failure to act is immoral. Unless humans reduce the human population it will be done through inhumane means, namely violence, epidemics and starvation. There won’t be room for the Elephant in the room shortly.