Tuesday, March 04, 2008
To save the world, have fewer children
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
Robert F. Boyd
Boyd is a former professor at Marquette University in Milwaukee and is a science writer living in Daleville.
The evolution of life on this planet took millions of years to reach a state of diversity and relative species harmony. Undisturbed, life in nature's various ecosystems, whether they be desert, ocean or tropical forest, can thrive and remain in a relatively stable biological balance.
We now know, or should know, that all life is intimately connected. There are hundreds of examples where species survival, including our own, is dependent on the presence of unrelated species. Where would we be without the antibiotics we derive from fungi? The drugs from plants to treat maladies such as cancer? The foods we eat without the bees that pollinate?
Fires, floods and minor volcanic eruptions periodically disrupt ecosystems and some species are adversely affected. Eventually those ecosystems recover even if it takes thousands of years. However five massive extinctions did occur between 65 million and 400 million years ago. They were caused by asteroids or volcanic eruptions that induced sudden climate change. The available evidence suggests the number of species lost to extinction ranged from 16 to 70 percent of all plant and/or animal species present during these events. In the past few generations species extinction has been accelerating at an alarming rate. Calculations based on prior species loss suggest that 50 percent of the world's flora and fauna could be extinct within 100 years. But this time the cause of species extinction is we humans.
Water pollution and overfishing have reduced some populations of fish to near extinction. Those that are present can't be eaten because the level of mercury, generated from coal-burning power plants, is so high. Yet plans are being made to build more coal-burning power plants. The fundamental cause of this again is overpopulation.
Urban sprawl is destructive to forests, plants and animal habitat. Yet no government agency is willing to control it. Third World countries try to raise their standard of living by clear-cutting enormous tracts of forest land for fuel and farmland. Again, this happens because there are too many people for the land to support with our current level of technology.
Oil, our main energy source, will be insufficient to sustain us in the next 50 to 100 years, but no one has suggested we conserve. Government talks about alternative sources (biofuels) that either require more energy to produce or sources (wind, atomic energy) that are not nearly sufficient to replace fossil fuels. Again, too many people for the level of technology available.
Global warming is affecting our environment: rise in sea levels, coral reefs destroyed, emerging diseases, species lost, disastrous weather changes. The suggested solution is capping CO2 levels or sequestering it underground, but so far it's all talk and no action. Some suggest planting more trees, which require CO2 to grow and reproduce, but one-third of the planet's forests have been cut down and not replaced.
Yes, many of these problems could be solved or at least alleviated through advances in technology, conservation or common-sense politics.
The one solution that has been ignored and could be the planet's salvation is population control. Virtually no article addressing the planet's problems has suggested this solution. After all, aren't we the ones who are most responsible for the planet's ill health? Are we incapable of controlling ourselves or the greed of industry? Haven't we added ourselves to the list of causes of catastrophic climate change and ecosystem collapse?
What good is technology to solve these problems if at the end of the day we are literally up to our elbows in people? The beauty of this planet is in the grandeur of its mountains, streams, forests, and the plant and animal species that inhabit them.
What kind of world will we have if we are crowded together like a colony of rats? Are we no better than the planet's "lower" animals? If not, we too may suffer the fate of overpopulation, famine and possibly extinction.
Are we willing to sacrifice our environment for the pleasure of another development, Wal-Mart, condo, church or bank?
It is time to make population control a priority. It is time to reject those religious ideologues who continue to preach "Go ye forth and multiply" and who reject any type of family planning.
What we need is another Enlightenment. The first one, in which human reason was considered superior to superstition and myth, seems to have been ignored.
