"The one process ongoing … that will take millions of years to correct is the loss of genetic and species diversity by the destruction of natural habitats. This is the folly our descendents are least likely to forgive us." - E.O. Wilson.
Babies are cute, but save for the occasional hormonal maternal urge, I've never had a desire to bear my own children. In fact, if I ever do decide to raise a family, I'm going to adopt. UNICEF estimates the number of orphans worldwide at approximately 210 million - the least I can do is provide a home to at least two of them. While I understand and respect the desire of many prospective mothers to go through the pregnancy process and "create life" with their partners, we must also be conscious of the millions of children born each day who will not have families, and collectively consider the detrimental effects that this steady population growth has on the environment.
A recent article in The Oregonian draws attention to overpopulation and discusses the unfair burden large families put on the world's common resources. It got me thinking more about the root of our environmental problems: too many people. Conversations about conserving land, water, air and Earth's ecosystems ought to revolve more around the runaway population growth. This is, after all, the heart of the problem, and confronting it is the first step to preventing further damage.
With mounting population densities putting a strain on natural resources and leading to the advance of deserts and the rise in sea level, I have to wonder: Do we really need more babies?
The world population is increasing at a net rate of 2.8 people per second, while we are simultaneously losing 1.6 acres of wildlands per second, according to World Overpopulation Awareness. The organization blames humans for the alteration of the chemistry, biology and physical structure of the Earth's land and water. Evidence of the human footprint can be found in all regions of the world, from estuaries in the tropics, where half of the mangrove forests have been lost to coastal development and conversion to aquaculture, to the vast oceans, where nearly 70 percent of the world's major marine fish stocks are either overfished or being fished at their biological limit.
Yet, despite the high number of environmental issues related to population growth in the developing world, we cannot ignore the role those of us in industrialized countries play in resource consumption. Human-related threats such as land development, wildfires, invasive species and pesticides are all contributing to environmental damages.
According to an excerpt from the Worldwatch Institute, population growth has driven people in the United States to settle in flood-prone valleys and on unstable hills, where they are more vulnerable to natural disasters. The world is running out of space to harbor the nearly 6.7 billion people, and as a result, half of the world's wetlands were lost in the last century and nearly 9 percent of the world's trees species are now at risk of extinction due to extreme deforestation. The Brazilian Amazon, for example, has recently experienced steep rise in deforestation and, according to the Discovery Channel online news source, 4,600 square miles of forest from Brazil's Amazonian states were lost to deforestation between August 2007 and July 2008.
So how do we attain population sustainability and subsequently begin to slow the depletion of Earth's resources? This month, scientists, scholars, writers, activists, politicians and other prominent public figures will gather for the Global Population Speak Out to discuss the worldwide ecological dilemma. While there is no single solution, there are some considerations that ought to be addressed in the face of this issue.
First of all, we need stronger support for family planning and we must advocate for smaller, more sustainable families. Also, schools should veer away from abstinence-only methods of educating young people and instead concentrate on promoting condom use and other forms of birth control. This could reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies. Finally, effective population control should involve encouraging adoption by improving access and acceptability. According to projected figures on adoption.com, the cost of adopting a child can range anywhere from $11,325 to $23,275, depending upon the agency and the country the adopter is looking at. In addition, unfair restrictions put on potential adopted families, such as the Arkansas unmarried-couple adoption ban, should be reassessed and done away with.
Many deem overpopulation a "taboo subject" or "the elephant in the room" when it comes to discussing environmental issues. However, every day it becomes increasingly necessary to break down this taboo and talk about ways we can work toward a more sustainable population.
Be the first to comment on this article!