Overpopulation
"The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970's the world will undergo famines-hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate, although many lives could be saved through dramatic programs to "stretch" the carrying capacity of the earth by increasing food production. But these programs will only provide a stay of execution unless they are accompanied by determined and successful efforts at population control." These words, from Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich's book The Population Bomb, predicted a grim future for the world of 1968 when the book was published. Today, the debate rages on about how much life our planet can hold. With world population estimates currently around 5.5 billion, and a projected population of over 10 billion by 2100, the question of resource scarcity is raised. Will there be enough resources to support the exploding population of our planet? Also, is it true that population growth is necessary for economic prosperity, or is it responsible for problems such as hunger and poverty? One of the first things that need to be considered in t
Carnell, Brian, "Food," http://www.overpopulation.com/scarce_food.html Nardo, Don Population. United States of America, Lucent Books, Inc., c1991, pp. 1-92. he population debate is the issue of "carrying capacity." Many different people define carrying capacity in many different ways, and in this lies a major problem. Basic ecology textbooks define carrying capacity as the number of individuals in a population that the resources of a particular habitat can support. Others define it as the point at which the birth rate is equal to the death rate, while still others define is as the average size of a population that is neither increasing or decreasing. It seems as though the real question in the overpopulation debate has to be "Is there a problem with overpopulation, or will there be one in the future?" Through my research I have found the answer to be an emphatic NO. The world's population has increased exponentially over the past 5,000 years, and without any real approach to that supposed "carrying capacity." Although life expectancy is zooming upward at an accelerating pace, the sun still rises and sets every morning and evening. This is not likely to change. However, if at some point conditions change on earth, and that carrying capacity is reached, we must be prepared to deal with that situation. For example, copper has been used for thousands of years for a variety of uses. The amount of copper taken from mines has increased over the last few thousand years, yet copper-based products are cheaper today that at any other time in history. If it were true that the more a natural resource is used the scarcer it becomes, this should not be the case. As the price of copper increases due to scarcity, we will invariably find new sources of copper, find ways to reuse existing copper, or develop alternatives. Essentially, Simon is postulating that people do not buy resources, they buy services. They couldn't care less if a satellite that uses no copper at all has replaced the copper wire telephone systems. This helps to ex
Some common words found in the essay are:
Population Bomb, United Nations, Essentially Simon, Julian Simon, Julian Simon's, , Books Inc, carrying capacity, life expectancy, Population Current, united america, Environment July/August, Macmillan Publishing, infant mortality, natural resources, population bomb, population united america, death rate, population united, define carrying, average life expectancy, dr paul, define carrying capacity, expectancy developed nations, life expectancy developed,
Approximate Word count = 1382
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
