Overpopulation of our planet has many negative connotations associated with it, defined as “the condition of having a population so dense as to cause environmental deterioration, an impaired quality of life, or a population crash” (Merriam Webster). In 1798, Thomas Malthus, an English Economist, published his theory of population, claiming that the number of inhabitants of Earth will soon outstrip the food supply, causing wars, pestilence, and famine, known as the Malthusian checks (Textbook). However, he failed to take into account the power of human intelligence, which has allowed the human race to flourish in the last 200 years and keep food production levels above population. In the late 20th century, Esther Boserup had published her own …show more content…
He says that once a population exceeds its carrying capacity, war, pestilence, and famine, known as the Malthusian checks, will lower the population to a sustainable level. On the contrary, Boserup argues that these threats will provoke people to invent new technologies to meet the demands of the growing population, which will increase the carrying capacity. The Neolithic Revolution, occurring over 10 000 years ago, follows this trend and demonstrates a population’s ability to increase their carrying capacity through agriculture and a change in their lifestyle. In the primitive days of nomadic lifestyles, people relied on hunting and gathering as the way of obtaining food, constantly moving around to areas with abundances of resources. Malthus’ theory states that once the nomads reached their carrying capacity, war, pestilence, and famine should have caused their population to go down to a supportable level. However, Boserup explains that when the nomads were pressured to produce more food, they invented agriculture, in which they domesticated plants in order to produce food surpluses, which allowed for greater populations and the foundation for urbanized communities (National …show more content…
With an ever-growing urban population, the world requires progressively larger amounts of energy to sustain a city lifestyle in which a person can drive to work, purchase food from stores, and use technology such as computers and phones. Over two thirds of the United States’ electricity is generated with the use of fossil fuels, contributing to the emissions causing global warming and degrading the environment. (UCSUSA coal) When people recognized that using coal and natural gas as ways to obtain electricity have severe negative long term impacts on the Earth, and that there is a fixed amount of these resources to be used, they began seeking alternatives to meet their energy demands. According to Malthus’ theory, wars should arise in order to obtain the last of these invaluable resources, however, it can be seen that that is not the case and people are instead trying to use different types of renewable energy. The Union of Concerned Scientists states that “we have the technologies and resources to reliably produce at least 40 percent of our electricity from renewable energy sources within the next 20 years, and 80 percent by 2050” (UCSUSA renewable energy). Humans have been able to progress towards renewable energy sources, limiting reliance on finite resources and opting for non-renewable ones, such as solar and wind energy. To help with this initiative, many state
The worldwide population is approaching 7 billion and is expected to reach 9 billion by 2050 (Baird). This projected population number is down from a once predicted 16 billion (Baird) and while some are not concerned, others are worried about any increase in population. Population growth is discussed in the articles “Too Many People?” by Vanessa Baird; “Population Control: How Can There Possibly Be Too Many of Us?” by Frank Furedi; and “The Population Bomb Revisited,” by Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich. Baird and Furedi concur that a concern for population growth has been around since mathematician Thomas Malthus, in 1798, warned that overpopulation could lead to “the collapse of society” (Furedi). Furedi claims that too much human life is being used as an excuse, by population control supporters, for the world’s current and future problems. Baird tries to discover if “the current panic over population growth is reasonable.” For Ehrlich and Ehrlich the concern over population growth is very real, and they reinforce and support their book “calling attention to the demographic element in the human predicament” (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 63). While taking different approaches to their articles, the authors offer their perspectives on population growth, population control and the environmental impacts of a growing population.
Some people believe that immigration in the 1900’s was a good thing, however, they would be wrong. The United States government should have restricted the immigrants around that time. Some reasons are the population, the taking of new jobs and lowering wages, and diseases spreading quickly. These all factored importantly into why they should not have been allowed in.
Instilling this new way of energy usage into off-grid communities will inevitably increase the state of living for those in cities and other well-populated areas. The change to renewable energy sources could drastically lower the pollutants currently being dispersed into the atmosphere by coal mines and other harmful power options, increasing the supply of renewable energy would allow us to replace carbon-intensive energy sources and significantly reduce U.S. global warming emissions. a 25 percent by 2025 national renewable electricity standard would lower power plant CO2 emissions 277 million metric tons annually by 2025—the equivalent of the annual output from 70 typical (600 MW) new coal plants (“Benefits of Renewable Energy Use”). Electricity production accounts for more than one-third of U.S. global warming emissions, with the majority generated by coal-fired power plants.
12,000 years ago, the discovery of agriculture triggered such a change in society and the way in which people lived that we now call this important era in time the “Neolithic Revolution.” Traditional hunter-gatherer lifestyles were cast away in favor of more permanent settlements and a reliable food supply. Agriculture helped form cities and civilizations, and because crops and animals could now be farmed to meet growing demand, populations skyrocketed from around five million people 10,000 years ago, to more the more than seven billion people that walk this earth today.1
In, The Population Bomb by, Paul R Ehrlich, he explains the problem of population increase, and how there are people everywhere! The feeling of feeling over populated. He talks about how if there are more people then there is more food that needs to be produced then ate. He explains on the rich people becoming wealthier and the poor are going to be even poorer and there is going to be a starvation. Population is doubling every year and how our energy is turning into
Over two hundred years ago, Thomas Malthus proposed the theory that world starvation is directly linked with the population living on earth. He argued that the world’s population would increase at a faster rate than compared to the rate of the food production. This imbalance would in turn lead to mass starvation for there would not be enough food to feed all the mouths of the world. Malthus acknowledged that food is necessary for human existence; therefore, in order to eliminate world hunger population and food production must be kept at an equal balance.
Thomas Malthus believed that the food supply only increased arithmetically, whereas the population increased geometrically. He felt that due to this, the population would have to be kept in check by things called negative checks, decreasing the birth rate, and positive checks, increasing the death rate. He also believed that the only way out of this vicious cycle was for people, purposefully decrease their crude birth rate. On the other hand, Boserup believed the food supply increased with demand, a process she called agricultural intensification. She believed that if more food was needed, more food would be farmed by intensifying the use of arable land, such as by putting more land into cultivation and using better cultivation methods. An example of this is a farmer not using part of his land because it does not have a supply of water, but the farmer then putting in an irrigation canal when he goes hungry because he does not have enough food for his kids. In conclusion, the fundamental difference between Malthus and Boserup in their approach to population issues is that Malthus believed that food supply could not adapt to a rapid increase in a population, whereas Boserup thought it
The blessing and curse of the Agricultural Revolution is advocated with its augmentation and dissemination. Taking the stipulative definition of “blessing” and “curse” from the original premise, one can only superimpose the layman’s terms of “negative” and “positive”. Upon examination of the two classifications within the Neolithic Period and ancient Mesopotamian civilization one can confirm the premise. Therefore, the agriculture revolution was a blessing and a curse for humanity. Human society began to emerge in the Neolithic Period or the New Stone Age. This new age began around 9,000 B.C.E. by the development of agriculture in the region surrounding the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and what is commonly referred to as “The Fertile Crescent” located in West Asia.1 The very development of agriculture had benefited humans by no longer having to move about in search of wild game and plants. Unencumbered by nomadic life humans found little need to limit family size and possessions and settled in a single location for many years. One negative aspect of this settling is that the population increased so much so that wild food sources were no longer sufficient to support large groups. Forced to survive by any means necessary they discovered using seeds of the most productive plants and clearing weeds enhanced their yield.2 This also lead humans to develop a wider array of tools far superior to the tools previously used in the Paleolithic Period or Old Stone Age. The spread of the Agricultural Revolution in the Neolithic Period also cultivated positive aspects by creating connections with other cultures and societies. Through these connections they exchanged knowledge, goods, and ideas on herding and farming.3 Another major positive aspec...
It is a known fact that the world population is increasing without bound; however, there is a debate if this increase is a good thing or if it will prove catastrophic. The article “The Tragedy of the Commons” by Garrett Hardin discusses how the ever-increasing world population will exhaust the world of its natural resources, and eliminate human’s capability of survival. On the other side of the argument is Julian L. Simon who wrote “More People, Greater Wealth, More Resources, Healthier Environment.” This article proposes the theory that with an increase in population, human’s quality of life is amplified. One particular issue that they both mention and have drastically different views on is the future of agriculture and human’s ability to sustain it.
The year is 2200. The world is going through a fossil fuel shortage. Oil reserves are almost completely consumed and it is becoming impossible to find new fossil fuel sources. Not prepared for this event to occur, The United States, has no alternative options. As a result of the oil shortage, the standard of living deteriorates. Heat in homes, supermarkets full of food, and transportation, all basic necessities taken for granted, will be depleted because fossil fuels are used to power almost everything. The key to the prevention of this future is renewable energy. Unfortunately the support for the use of renewable energy is weak and ineffective. Unless the US puts forth effort to research and promote the use of renewable energy to consumers, conversion from fossil fuels to renewable energy will no longer be an option.
Since the beginning of mankind, we have reached many great achievements. We have developed many technologies and theories to solve and explain many of our questions and to improve human life. Through our years of evolution, we have severely increased our own survivability. This has been a great achievement for us, but in the recent decade, overpopulation is becoming a great issue. In the recent years, the rapid increase in population growth has troubled many in the field of political sciences. Scientists like Ehrlich have calculated and expected our population to grow even faster if we do not act upon the increasing rate of population growth. The birth rate of our planet is increasing exponentially, meaning that the birth rate has surpassed the death rate and that the rate of growth will only increase if left alone. The politics of population is a debate that involves both the fields of sciences and moral and ethical considerations. Science may provide an insight of
Establishing an adequate supply of food is historically one of the fundamental challenges facing mankind. The modern food infrastructure employed by contemporary society is rooted in the creation and innovation of food production. Its effective utilization decreases the level of societal labor contribution required and discourages food shortage trepidation amongst individuals. It is hard to fathom given the current status of our society massive agricultural-industrial complex that the hunter-gatherer organization of society dominated for more than 99 percent of our existence (Fagan 2007: 126). The hunter-gatherer population was characterized by their primary subsistence method, which involved the direct procurement of edible plants and animals from the wild. The primary methods employed were foraging and hunting, which were conducted without any significant recourse to the domestication of either food source (Fagan 2007: 129). Food production is presumed to have emerged approximately 12,000 years ago as a system of “deliberate cultivation of cereal grasses, edible root plants, and animal domestication” (Fagan 2007: 126). The pronounced change from hunting and gathering to agriculture and domestication can be simplistically designated the Agricultural or Neolithic Revolution (Pringle 1998). The catalytic developments of the Neolithic Revolution mark a major turning point in the history of humankind. The resulting animal and plant domestication established the foundation on which modern civilization was built.
One of the problems facing our world is population. It began about ten thousand years ago when the humans settled and began farming. The farming provides more food for the people thus making the population grow. Now we are about 6 billion in population and in a few years we will be around 10 to 11 billion. Therefore, our population will almost double in size. This means that we will need more food to support us. A study in 1986 by Peter Vitonesk, a Stanford biologist, showed that the humans are already consuming about 38.8 of what is possible for us to eat. Thus, if the population keeps increasing, the percentage will increase also, making us closer and closer to the biophysical limits. By studying the earth's capacity, Dr. Cornell, another biologist, believes that we are already crowded for this would. He believes that our world can only support two million people. Not only this, but population can cause complicated problems to the countries with very high population. These countries will need more schools to educate its people, they will need more hospitals and public health to take care of their people, and they will need more water and more soil for farming to feed all the people. In order to solve the population growth problem, the people should be educated. Once the people are educated they will be aware of the problems they ca...
The world that we live into today affords us the expectation that the flip a switch will turn the lights on. As populations increase and developing nations undergo dramatic economic growth, this energy demand will only continue to grow. The International Energy Agency (IEA) believes that “the world’s energy needs could be 50% higher in 2030 than they are today” (ElBaradei). Given this projected growth, it is necessary for world leaders must take action to secure the energy supply. Meaning that world leaders need to start seriously considering an alternative to non-renewable energy sources. “In 2012, the United States generated about 4,054 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity. About 68% of the electricity generated was from fossil fuel (coal, natural gas, and petroleum), with 37% attributed from coal” (U.S. Energy Information Administration). The fossil fuels that are used to supply over half of our country’s energy are in finite supply and are increasing in price to astronomical heights.
Using fossil fuels such as coal and oil is inefficient, dangerous, and otherwise a process that is known to eventually fail as a long lasting energy source. Yet, there is hope for the future of energy, this new hope has many shapes and forms, but requires a chance to be fully implemented in our everyday life. Such energy sources like solar energy, wind energy, geothermal energy, and hydro power are the key to our future. These energy sources are proven to be long lasting, safe, more reliable, and the next innovation. In short, all Americans should switch to renewable energy, resulting in a safer and more efficient world.