Actually, I think this is a conversation that needs to happen here--both
because ecologists need to be engaged in this discussion, and because a truly
ecological perspective is sorely missing from the population debate.
May I submit that, from a process-function view, that population is not the big
problem for planetary carrying capacity--rather we need to be watching
consumption and pollution, and that includes GHG emissions.
Ehrlich and Holdren and Commoner gave us I=P*A*T. As a life-long Third
Worlder, I would suggest there are real reasons why population cannot be the
wedge we use to get at carrying capacity. But at least, read Kates,
Population, Technology and the Human Environment: A Thread Through Time.
I'm sure we have a carrying capacity problem. But a sustainability frame
includes equity. Making this about population puts the problem of carrying
capacity on the shoulders of the Third World. In effect, we externalize the
problem onto "them," and can then sit back and enjoy the "fruits of Western
Civilization" for ourselves. Making this about consumption, and to some extent
about pollution, puts the problem squarely where I believe it belongs, on us.
Think about it. The world population is at 6.7 billion (and most likely to
stabilize around nine billion). America has a population of 300 million and is
said to use 30% of the world's resources. India and China have a population of
over 2.5 billion, and they want what we got--mainly because we've spent decades
telling them that what we got is what they ought to want. Hollywood ensures
that the American "way of life" be the ideal that all civilizations shoot for,
in order to show that they too are modern.
Its roosting time, folks. Anything we can possibly do about population will
have a lag time of decades. Anything we do about consumption and pollution can
have immediate impacts. The choice is ours.
And yes, innovation, though taken differently than Julian Simon meant it, is
still the answer.
Cheers,
-
Ashwani
Vasishth [email protected] (818) 677-6137
--------------------------------------------------------
Director
Institute for Sustainability
http://blogs.csun.edu/sustainability
Assistant Professor
Department of Urban Studies and Planning
http://www.csun.edu/~vasishth/
--------------------------------------------------------
At 9:29 AM -0500 12/18/08, Kevin Mueller wrote:
>I think some folks are still missing Jane's point about overpopulation. While
>I wouldn't disagree with Andy or Bill's responses regarding the validity of
>borders to overpopulation in some contexts, both of these responses ignore
>that 'overpopulation' at a sub-global scale can be alleviated by imports, etc.
>(e.g. Canada as Andy describes). Globalization is not going away soon,
>regardless if some would rather see populations and economies be sustainable
>at the local or regional level. As long as the economy is global, I think the
>most relevant scale to discuss overpopulation is at the global level (but not
>the only, especially you you are living in the third world).
>
>I have not heard or read anything which convinces me that we can't sustain our
>current growing population (globally or within the US for example) with some
>wealth and food redistribution and reasonable technological advances. For
>example, how do we know we are not underestimating the contribution of
>innovation as EhrIich did? I am NOT suggesting that there aren't costs of
>globalization (e.g. burning fossil fuel to import food to Canada), that there
>aren't regions of overpopulation currently not 'saved' by globalization (e.g.
>Africa), or that technology will save us all and we should continue business
>as usual. Anyone know of any good books or articles addressing the
>sustainability of global populations? I am especially looking for positions
>with solid backing here rather than editorials, although I know there is lots
>of gray there.
>
>Should we think about continuing this discussion in a new venue to spare those
>not as interested and not dilute the job adverts, etc?
>Perhaps a list-serve or other venue aimed explicitly at Ecology and Economics
>would be more appropriate?
>
>Kevin
