- The disturbing fact is, technology is not helping produce more food, and we are not now feeding the entire world population of humans. The Green Revolution expanded food production for 20 years, beginning in the 1950s, faster than population growth.
But, as noted in Tracking the Trends, "Despite assumptions that such trends in food production will continue, however, the Green Revolution appears to have been a one time gain. Since the mid to late 1980s, grain yields per acre and production per person have generally declined. (Grain is a key indicator because it forms the basis of the human diet, whether directly as bread or rice, or as feed for beef, pork or poultry.) Little additional acreage has been put in production, because the best land has already been exploited, and worldwide applications of fertilizer have also declined from peak levels because of diminishing returns."
- Easter Island is an excellent experiment in human overpopulation. What happened there could easily happen on a global scale. As noted in Population and the Environment, "Perhaps the most dramatic and best-documented example of overpopulation destroying a local environment, and the culture dependent upon it, is Easter Island. This small island in the South Pacific, now known primarily for its enormous carved stone figures, was settled around 500 A.D. by Polynesian seafarers. Their culture flourished for several hundred years due to plentiful resources, including dense forests and abundant wildlife.
"But population growth caused the culture to exceed the island's carrying capacity by about 1500 A.D. The result was deforestation, exhaustion of the soil, and extinction of most species. By the time European explorers arrived in the early eighteenth century, the island was completely barren, and the culture had collapsed. The remaining people - reduced by some two thirds from peak levels - were engaged in constant warfare over the few remaining resources, and practiced cannibalism."
- The issue of poverty causing a population increase is hotly debated. There is probably little doubt that a constantly growing population may cause poverty, but the other side of the coin is likely true, too. Perhaps a kind of negative biofeedback is working here. It seems that in areas of increasing poverty, children become of economic value. Although it means more mouths to feed, more children among the poverty-stricken provide essential labor in a society where increasingly more effort is required to accumulate the essential needs of food, water, caring for other children, caring for the adults when sick, and collecting firewood.
- This one is entirely up to you, but my personal opinion is yes, we do have a population problem. A surprising number of Americans are living in absolute poverty, are malnourished, and just as was discussed in answer three, above, these families tend to have the higher birth rates. Also, those of us who do enjoy a high standard of living cannot maintain this level forever. We are using natural resources far in excess of their replenishment, even when such resources are renewable. The statistics in the article, Does the US Have a Population Problem speak for themselves.
- In times not so far past, miners would carry a canary into a mine to test for toxic air. If poisonous air was present, the bird would become distressed, or even die, long before the miner was affected. In the same manner, frogs are our miner=s canaries. Frog lungs are inefficient, so the highly permeable skin is largely responsible for the absorption of oxygen and excretion of carbon dioxide. Being so permeable, frog skin can absorb many environmental pollutants. It is also sensitive to ultraviolet light. If frogs are dying all over the world, then there must be something seriously wrong with the general environment all over the world.
- Robust Paths recommends: "Specifically to be undertaken, and this preferably on the basis of global consensus, is the large-scale abandonment of the developmental pattern set, up to now, by the industrialised nations. However, developing countries can be expected, understandably, to resist such a reorientation (that is to say, restriction) of their developmental options. Unless of course the industrialised countries were prepared, by way of innovative mechanisms, to institute a world-wide redistribution, at their expense, of opportunities for development. The only hope is that developing countries might be convinced to endorse a program of development which aims at ultimate equity and fairness with regard to living conditions, health and quality of life, and opportunities for advancement everywhere on earth."
In deciding whether or not Robust Path's recommendations will be adopted or not depends on a key sentence in the above quote. They believe that the only hope for humanity is for the developed nations to voluntarily, at their expense, fairly and evenly redistribute the opportunities for a high standard of living. Will those wealthy nations do this? The answer is almost certain to be no, they will not voluntarily do it. However, such nations, of which the United States is one, may be forced to it by deteriorating environmental conditions stemming mostly from human over population.