Over Population Essay, Research Paper
The Enviromnetal Degradation as a Result of Overpopulation 1Introduction There are simply too many people on our planet, and the population is not showing any signs ofslowing down(see Figure 1). It is having disastrous effects on our environment. There are too manyimplications and interrelationships to discuss in this paper, but the three substances that our earthconsists of: land, water and air, are being destroyed. Our forests are being cut down at an alarmingrate, bearing enormous impacts on the health of earth. Our oceans and seas are being polluted andoverfished. Our atmosphere is injected with increasing amounts of carbon dioxide, which hurts theentire planet. All of these problems can be traced to our vast, rapidly expanding population, which hasstressed our world far too greatly.Our Population In 1994, the world population was 5 602 800 000. This population had a doubling time of onlyforty-one years (De Blij and Muller, 1994, p.527). The massive amount of people has had highlydestructive impacts on the earth s environment. These impacts occur on two levels: global and local. Onthe global level, there is the accumulation of green house gases that deplete the ozone layer, theextinction of species, and a global food shortage. On the local level, there is erosion of soils (andthe loss of vegetation), the depletion of water supply, and toxification of the air and water. The earthis dynamic though, all of these aspects are interrelated, and no one impact is completely isolated. Allof these destructive elements can be traced to our enormous population. As the population increases, sodo all of the economic, social, and technological impacts. The concept of momentum of population growth is one that must be considered. It states thatareas with traditionally high fertility rates will have a very young structure age. Thus, a decrease inthe fertility rate will still result in a greater absolute number of births, 2as there are more potential mothers. Populations are very slow in adjusting to decreases in fertilityrates. This is especially frightening when considering that South Asia has a population of 1 204 600000 (and a doubling time of thirty two years), Subsaharan Africa has 528 000 000 (doubling time: thirtyone years), and North Africa/Southwest Asia has 448 100 000 (doubling time: twenty seven years) (De Blijand Muller, 1994, p. 529-531)and all of these areas have traditionally high fertility rates. Although third world countries do have a far larger population than industrialized nations, andthe trend is constantly increasing, their populations should not bear the responsibility for our population-enduced degrading environment. The impact we make on the biosphere is sometimes expressedmathematically by ecological economists as I = PAT. I being impact, P population, A affluence(consumption) , and T technology (environmentally bad technology)(Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 1990, p.24).Concern regarding population increases often focuses on the third world, since it is there that growth isexponential. Yet, it is necessary to recognize that people are by no means equal or identical in theirconsumption, and thus their impact on the environment (see Map 2). 3Our Forests The sky is held up by the trees. If the forest disappears the sky, which is the roof of the worldcollapses. Nature and man perish together. – Amerindian legend Forests are a precious link in the life systems of our planet. They are a part of these vitalecosystem services without which earth would not have been habitable by the human species in the firstplace and would certainly have become inhabitable again. Forests have crucial roles in the carbon,nitrogen, and oxygen cycles that nourish and sustain life on earth. They protect the watersheds thatsupport farming and influence climate and rainfall(Lindahl-Kiessling, 1994, p.167). They save the soilfrom erosion and are home to thousands of species, and forest peoples whose lives depend on them. Theyare also a source for industrial and medical purposes. In developing countries, much deforestation is for both local purposes and for export. The UNFPA(United Nations Fund for Population Activities) said in it s 1990 report that population growth may havebeen responsible for as much as eighty percent of the forest land cleared between 1971 and 1986 to makeroom for agriculture, cattle ranching, houses, roads and industries(Ramphal, 1992, p.55). It is estimated that in that period nearly sixty million hectares of forest were converted to farmland and asimilar amount of forest was put to non-agricultural uses. This is equivalent to the mass of twelvehundred square metres of forest added to the population(Ramphal, 1992, p. 57). Quite often, areas of forest were cleared in such a way (ex.: slash and burn) that they willnever grow back. After a forest area has been converted to grazing lands or intensive farming, the soilwill only sustain it for a few years. Then the land is left lifeless. The increasing demand for fuel wood as populations expand is another important factor leading todeforestation. In most developing areas, wood is the primary source of fuel. In many of these areas,the demand for fuel wood is rising at about the rate of population growth, and ahead of the destructioncommitted by loggers (see Figure 2) 4(Hardaway, 1994, p.201). People are spreading out further and further to reach fresh forested areas to meet their fuel needs. It should also be noted that when wood is unavailable, animal dung is burned forfuel. This diverts a great value of nutrition from the soil. Developed countries deplete their forests at a rate that is just as alarming, and are a greatsource of the demand for wood from developing countries. The primary use of this wood is for industrialpurposes, i.e. the construction of goods and capital goods. Again, the consumption of individuals hereis far greater than those in the third world, so their impacts are not much different overall. The reduction of forest land possesses two main environmental dangers. Forests are great naturalrepositories of carbon. Trees breathe in carbon dioxide and store it, acting as carbon reservoirs. Assuch, they are invaluable agents in keeping the level of carbon in the atmosphere stable. As forestsare destroyed worldwide, especially by burning, carbon dioxide is released into the air, adding to thestock of greenhouse gases that are now warming our planet and changing its climate. The adverse of thisnegative effect of forest loss on climate is the positive role of forests in regulating the atmosphereand climate through their life-support services(see Tables 1 and 2)(Ramphal, 1992, 69). Forest land is also the world s main storehouse of species, the plants , animals, birds, andinsects with which earth has been blessed. Tropical forests expand roughly between ten degrees North andsouth of the equator. In a small portion of the earth lies nearly half of earth s biological species,many endemic. The rapid rate of deforestation is erasing our bio-diversity. Desertification is closely related with deforestation. Again, forests are quite often cleared inan especially destructive manner, rendering them lifeless. This eventually leaves the land barren.Agricultural pressures are the other prime population-enduced source of 5 desertification. Increasing populations in developing countries drive people into drier and drierregions to farm. Attempting to farm in areas that are already poor or unsuitable may damage the soils irreparably. Another indirect cause is as population increases in these villages, sodoes the number of goats, which are a source of meat and milk. The goats (which multiply rapidly aswell) are left to roam the countryside, and erode the soils greatly while doing so(Lourdes, 1994,p.376)(see Map 1). Our forests are invaluable resource to all. Not just for the wood, but as they maintain life onearth. They are continuing to be destroyed at a rate that will not permit their return when humanity realizes its errors. Our forests are perhaps the most threatened aspect of earth as a result ofpopulation growth, and the one that we can least afford to lose. 6Our Oceans Roll on, thou deep and dark blue Ocean — roll! Ten thousand fleets sweep over thee in vain; Man marks the earth with ruin – his control Stops with the shore. – from Childe Harold, by Byron In the early 1990 s, the state of the world s fisheries made headlines. Many coastal areas ofNorth America have tried to limit their catches, or halt them all together. It has been recognized thatfurther harvesting could destroy a valuable food resource and aquatic bio-diversity. Our populationgrowth has begun to out pace that of the aquatic life. These steps against vast ocean harvesting are reversing the trend of recent decades. A globalseafood harvest of twenty two million tons in 1950 increased to one hundred million tons in 1989(seeFigure 3)(Brown, 1994, p. 82). For the average person, seafood consumption doubled. All of this did notoccur without consequences. The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization concluded that seventeen of the world s major fishingregions are currently harvested at or beyond their capacity, and nine are in a state of decline(Ramphal,1992, p. 35). A lack of proper management will only lead to further. As the thought of a future globalfood shortage looms, overfishing could become especially destructive. Whereas overfishing is a direct method of humanity and overpopulation depleting fish stocksworldwide, pollution is an indirect way. The Aral Sea between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan yielded fortythousand tons of seafood in 1960(Brown and Kane, 1994, p. 94). The river that fed it was diverted forirrigation. The sea became increasingly salty, and is now biologically dead. Approximately one third ofthe world population lives within
326