A POSITION PAPER ON POPULATION AND ITS IMPACT ON EARTH

The world is constantly changing and one has never remained constant. As a resilient and adaptive
species, humans have continuously evolved and grown in numbers. We have colonized every part of the
world, utilizing its resources and bringing about several changes. Out of all these changes, demographic
change is one of the most critical issues that need to be addressed because of its great influence on the
economic, environmental, and social aspects of the world. As our numbers continue to grow, the quantities
of resources we have to consume and the quantities of waste we produce subsequently increase. It is natural,
then, that as world population continue to grow, the limits of global resources such as clean water, fertile
land, forests, and fisheries would become more apparent. After all, the Earth is only one planet and its level
of resources is not infinite. For a very long time, people have been consuming resources faster than they
can replace it. On the context of two BBC documentaries entitled ‘Don’t Panic: The Truth about
Population’ and ‘The World in 2050: The Real Future of Earth’ which, overall, attempt to address the
global influences of population and technology, respectively, I would be talking about how taking an
optimistic and lateral approach similar to that of the documentary is no longer enough to encourage active
consciousness regarding global issues such as overpopulation. In addition, I would be positioning myself
on the affirmative that population consumption and environmental degradation are closely interrelated on
the basis of unsustainable patterns of human irresponsibility and not simply because of lack of technological
advances or family planning.

In the new BBC programme Don’t Panic: The Truth about Population, a statistician named Hans
Rosling made clever use of interactive 3D infographics to assuage the common fears and misconceptions
about population growth. According to Rosling, these fears about overpopulation is fueled by the lack of
knowledge regarding the present demographic in several parts of the world. Instead, the truth is that we are
in a period Rosling called “peak child” and that population growth is actually slowing down. According to
his demographers, the number of children born each year equals the number of adults that die, and so
population will stabilize and will not increase anymore even by the end of the century. This is because the
world has drastically changed from a global fertility rate of 5 children per woman to now only having 2.5
children per family. In fact, the dichotomy between rich societies prevalent in first world countries and the
poor families in third world counties is no longer wide, if not nonexistent. On another note, Rosling has
stated that population growth is to a large extent the result of rapidly increasing life expectancy. Despite
being credible to a certain degree, this message is actually lacking of several important concerns such as
the rapidly diminishing resource situation worldwide and the strong possibility of another financial collapse
that would only worsen population distribution and composition. With that, the “large investments” Rosling
believes essential would not be capable of dealing with the prevalent issues of poverty and illiteracy.

Moreover, throughout the entire programme, Rosling employed an excessive optimistic outlook
that exposes his belief on the idea that humans follow the same behavioral pattern for years. Rosling has
shaped his statements without considering the unpredictability of humans which, in the first place, is the
root cause of uncontrolled population growth and ecological damage. I am concerned by how the
information given by Rosling disguises the actual reality with a non-realistic future. The statistics presented
left out a crucial variability that cannot be quantitatively measured, such as how long can Earth hold until
the natural processes Rosling claims will happen would take reins on solving overpopulation. In this
documentary, I have noticed that there was almost no allusion to the current state of Nature wherein animals
and plants are decreasing at an alarming rate, while many are now extinct. With 7 billion and a supposed 3
billion more about to come in the next 40 years, the problem lies with unsustainability. All these people
would naturally result to an increase in environmental and resource consumption, notwithstanding the spike
in carbon dioxide emissions. And so, I feel that the solution presented is much too simplistic for a complex
topic like overpopulation. I think it’s important that the world panics because it is only when we panic do
we try to stop the situation from getting worse. Population overshoot is not an issue that appeared within
the past couple of decades, but its origins come from the prehistoric time and extend to the very present
day. It is imperative that we understand its reality and its consequences, as well as our important role as one
of the leading species on Earth.

On the other hand, the future of Earth is manifested on the BBC Documentary The World in 2050
whose extension centralizes on the future of urbanization and how it can fuel the future. In the documentary,
the CEO of Joint Bioenergy institute Jay Keasling gives a dissertation regarding the current strain on the
planet brought by overpopulation and whether or not we, as brilliant species, are able to “engineer” our way
out of this global crisis. In Keasling’s narrative, the world is occupied by billions of cars and this increasing
amount of vehicles means that we have also increased our carbon footprint – a footprint that is not only
congesting our atmosphere but also permanently affecting our climate in such a way that we can never
recover. With that, one vision Keasling and his coworkers assume will happen is that there will be a viable
energy source that would be “more efficient than photosynthesis” and would be more capable of sustaining
the questionable future. They have suggested the use of alternative fuels that would replace the potentially
harmful ones. This being said, the documentary focused on the method of searching for alternatives through
technological advances when in fact, technology cannot outrun growth. The rapid and perpetual growth of
population makes their solution incompatible with solving climate change and environmental degradation.
It is important to note that despite the availability of many alternative sources of energy, they would not
even be considered if it is against the profit-based mindset of several government and corporations and so,
I believe that Keasling and the other scientists have chosen to neglect the concept of capitalism and the
political control aspect of using the energy that they speak of. If new technology is expensive, there will be
an increasing trend to be part of that technological fast lane as a citizen’s right. As equipment and facilities
become more and more technologically advanced, there’s no saying that everyone would benefit because
of the cost. Moreover, the Earth would certainly not benefit because they are the cost of manufacturing such
facilities. On the other hand, if a new technology becomes cheap and thus universally available, it could
lead to an escalation of the population in the developing world, and thus even place greater pressure on the
world’s resources. In fact, technology contributed to overpopulation in the first place, and so, the problem
is not the lack of advancement, but the method of consuming these products.

The real problem is that populations has tripled in terms of growth rate while available lands and
resources, on the other hand, are quickly diminishing. The Earth can only produce a limited amount of
water and food, which is falling short of the current needs. Most of the environmental damage being seen
in the last fifty odd years is due to the increasing number of irresponsible human activities. We are cutting
down forests, hunting wildlife, causing pollution, and giving birth to myriad of problems that only serve to
trigger the lifespan shortening of Earth. Where are we going to put 10 billion people by 2050? Where would
water, food, and lands come from when the entire population is barely meeting standard supply and
demand? I am arguing then that the previously mentioned scientific documentaries, though informative and
optimistic, fails to acknowledge the need for immediate action regarding overpopulation. In conclusion, I
believe that resolving overpopulation needs to start by encouraging a global consciousness among every
living individual. Instead of theoretical statistics and graphs that fails to augment human nature, we must
integrate the world’s reality in shaping our attitudes and perspective towards the status quo of production
and consumption.