As an Environmental Scientist the underlying message that has been implied throughout my studies, is to undo the damage and solve the problems that man has done and is currently doing to the environment. This message, conceived in the 1970s by modern environmentalism, is the result of the combination of a movement to resolve mankinds pollution, the legislation of new environmental policies and the establishment of non government organizations (NGO). Unfortunately, modern environmentalists also conceived the notion that economic growth is inherently bad for the environment. That economic growth leads to pollution, habitat loss, global warming, cultural homogenisation, over population, exploitation of the poor, and according to Greenpeace, war for oil. 6 Billion People An indisputable fact is humans are a part of the ecosystem. Unlike other mammals on this planet who instinctively develop a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, humans do not. The historic pattern of human development has been to move into an area, and multiply, then consume every natural resource. The only way to survive is to spread to another area. This pessimistic perception is not a new thought. Overpopulation is what I perceive as being the most detrimental environment issue, because it is the link to all other environmental problems. The more people, the more we pollution and more natural areas become developed. However, a more optimistic thought that Jack Hollander presents in his book:An Analysis of The Real Environmental Crisis is that population growth is a blessing for humankind because each new person has the potential to become another Mozart, Rembrandt, or Einstein. p14. Moreover, Hollander alludes to another reason for developing affluent nations, that rich nations provide the tools of education, which propels continuing increases in productivity and wealth. The reality is that global fertility rate now stands at 2.7, probably an all time low, and is continuing to decline throughout the world.15. Again, Hollander supports his perspective that affluence and technological innovation achieve global sustainability. Demographic data shows that higher fertility rates correlate with poverty and low fertility rates correlate with affluence.p16. Secondly, that with technological improvements, the increase of income and better health, educational and employments opportunities for women, birth control and family planning are all forces curving population growth. I believe this is an excellent choice in material when discussing the problems that are presented with overpopulation. This is the first book in my environmental career that provides an optimistic perspective on future issues facing the environment. Though I dont believe that affluent nations should have to sacrifice research and development projects, provide excessive funding, or be unfairly required to do more than developing nations with respect to global treaties. I believe a much better answer lies within global trading, ecotourism, and educating the developing nations on agriculture, city planning, civil projects, soil and natural resource conservation. Affluent nations will need resources to keep their economies booming. This provides an opportunity for developing nations to reach economic prosperity and subdue the effects that are a part of poverty. I also believe Hollander provides substantial evidence that raising poor nations out of poverty will help create environmental sustainability and reduce over population, but I dont believe the environmentalists of the affluent nations will always be willing to assist with this. The concern of the affluent nations will more likely remain in taking care of their own problems especially when faced with periods of weak economics or devastation due to disasters.
