At an average rate it would take about 32 years to count to 1 billion, and over 230 years
to count to 7.3 billion. There are currently 7.3 billion people living on this planet, so try putting
that number into perspective. For years the thought of the growing human population exceeding
earth’s capacity and number of resources able to sustain human life, has created this fear of
“overpopulation.” Yet history has repeatedly proved that human capabilities far exceed the
natural limits of the planet. Even as our population increases, humans have always sustained a
contributing place in the world ecological order. The hard reality is that common assumptions
about overpopulations are only misleading factors that divert attention from …show more content…
While the growing population is somewhat related to poverty
and environmental degradation, it’s definitely not the reason causing it. First, poverty is in fact a
continuously growing issue; but it has somehow managed to link the growing population as a
reason to be blamed. But as Fletcher explains it in his third world quarterly article, “The grossly
unequal division of wealth in a society of resource abundance and waste demands the ethic of
social scarcity to explain poverty.” (1210) In this sense, focus on overpopulation displaces the
actual potential cause of poverty, which in terms causes individuals to blame themselves for their
predicament rather than the political economy in which they are functioning. The United Nations
World Population Prospects’ estimate that the population will reach 9.7 billion by 2050, yet over
7 billion would be living in the poorest parts of the world, mainly underdeveloped countries with
little resources and high birth rates. So how does that make sense? Over-capacity obviously isn’t
the problem; it’s the uneven distribution of the resources and goods that’s being immensely …show more content…
The point is to solve these problems it would take institutional change, not just
simply decreasing/ending population growth because there really isn’t enough regulation for the
environment that is enforced or property rights in placed today anyways. As Fletcher explains,
“Environmental degradation first became linked with overpopulation in the 1960s with the
growth of the modern ecological movement, most notably by Paul (and Anne) Ehrlich in their
1968 book ‘The Population Bomb’, which predicted environmental collapse, human suffering
and massive starvation on a global scale as a result of future increases in human population.”
(1200) But it would have been virtually impossible to achieve the technological advancements
and development we have today without there being some effect on the environment. The last 50
years humanity has achieved a remarkable amount of prosperity and advancements in a shorter
timespan than the ever before in history. Like Lam’s says in his reply to Stan Becker, “my claim
is simply that humans did something quite remarkable: adding 4 billion people to the world
while also improving most measures of human well-being. This required hard work,
to count to 7.3 billion. There are currently 7.3 billion people living on this planet, so try putting
that number into perspective. For years the thought of the growing human population exceeding
earth’s capacity and number of resources able to sustain human life, has created this fear of
“overpopulation.” Yet history has repeatedly proved that human capabilities far exceed the
natural limits of the planet. Even as our population increases, humans have always sustained a
contributing place in the world ecological order. The hard reality is that common assumptions
about overpopulations are only misleading factors that divert attention from …show more content…
While the growing population is somewhat related to poverty
and environmental degradation, it’s definitely not the reason causing it. First, poverty is in fact a
continuously growing issue; but it has somehow managed to link the growing population as a
reason to be blamed. But as Fletcher explains it in his third world quarterly article, “The grossly
unequal division of wealth in a society of resource abundance and waste demands the ethic of
social scarcity to explain poverty.” (1210) In this sense, focus on overpopulation displaces the
actual potential cause of poverty, which in terms causes individuals to blame themselves for their
predicament rather than the political economy in which they are functioning. The United Nations
World Population Prospects’ estimate that the population will reach 9.7 billion by 2050, yet over
7 billion would be living in the poorest parts of the world, mainly underdeveloped countries with
little resources and high birth rates. So how does that make sense? Over-capacity obviously isn’t
the problem; it’s the uneven distribution of the resources and goods that’s being immensely …show more content…
The point is to solve these problems it would take institutional change, not just
simply decreasing/ending population growth because there really isn’t enough regulation for the
environment that is enforced or property rights in placed today anyways. As Fletcher explains,
“Environmental degradation first became linked with overpopulation in the 1960s with the
growth of the modern ecological movement, most notably by Paul (and Anne) Ehrlich in their
1968 book ‘The Population Bomb’, which predicted environmental collapse, human suffering
and massive starvation on a global scale as a result of future increases in human population.”
(1200) But it would have been virtually impossible to achieve the technological advancements
and development we have today without there being some effect on the environment. The last 50
years humanity has achieved a remarkable amount of prosperity and advancements in a shorter
timespan than the ever before in history. Like Lam’s says in his reply to Stan Becker, “my claim
is simply that humans did something quite remarkable: adding 4 billion people to the world
while also improving most measures of human well-being. This required hard work,