2008 Woodie Awards
Are we out-growing our natural resources?
Matt Flanagan
Opinion Editor
Issue date: 4/21/08 Section: Opinion
Overpopulation is a large-scale issue affecting everything we know and love. No, I am not melodramatically placing a weight on a random issue and telling you to stop hiding from it and accept it (but yes, you probably don't want to hide from this one), nor am I insinuating that there is some easy, care-free solution to this problem that someone working toward a B.A. in English can squeeze out in one or two carefully-crafted sentences.
Although, that would be awesome.
Instead I'd like you to take a few assumptions in mind. I'll start this argument at the very basics.
Number one: We have one and only one planet called Earth, our home, which is a rather dear home to me and you. In no way would I imply we "jump ship" and head to Mars or the moon, as that would be ridiculous.
Number two: We need to take care of our planet in any way we can, while taking care of ourselves and each other.
Number three: I believe, somewhere down the line, there is a way to allow us to take care of ourselves, our planet, and each other. All it takes is a little intellect with an eye on the future.
There are two main schools of thought concerning the problem of over-population: in my Population sociology class, we referred to them as the "doomsters" and the "boomsters," or those who think we will eventually out-grow our natural resources, and those who think we'll develop newer resources as we grow, respectively.
Is infinite growth and development possible in a finite world? Of course it's not. The earth wouldn't be able to handle such growth. This is why we're discussing the problem in the first place.
However, I and some economic theorists believe it is possible to create more and more efficient ways of using our resources until we have an infinitesimally small amount of growth. Cato Institute economist Julian Simon theorized that even under-developed countries with little technological advancement could adopt strategies to allow growth for up to tens of billions of people.
I believe, however, that the main concern for us in this matter is how we obtain the mechanisms available to improve our technology. It appears that the majority of environmental development in most of the First World countries comes from political lobbying, which is not at all a reliable mechanism.
Our environment must be at the forefront of all issues, whether economic or political, in order to succeed in this matter. Only then will we have the sufficient sources and ability to improve our technologies. And if we continue to improve our state of life, we will continue to improve our chances of surviving on what little we will then need.
Although, that would be awesome.
Instead I'd like you to take a few assumptions in mind. I'll start this argument at the very basics.
Number one: We have one and only one planet called Earth, our home, which is a rather dear home to me and you. In no way would I imply we "jump ship" and head to Mars or the moon, as that would be ridiculous.
Number two: We need to take care of our planet in any way we can, while taking care of ourselves and each other.
Number three: I believe, somewhere down the line, there is a way to allow us to take care of ourselves, our planet, and each other. All it takes is a little intellect with an eye on the future.
There are two main schools of thought concerning the problem of over-population: in my Population sociology class, we referred to them as the "doomsters" and the "boomsters," or those who think we will eventually out-grow our natural resources, and those who think we'll develop newer resources as we grow, respectively.
Is infinite growth and development possible in a finite world? Of course it's not. The earth wouldn't be able to handle such growth. This is why we're discussing the problem in the first place.
However, I and some economic theorists believe it is possible to create more and more efficient ways of using our resources until we have an infinitesimally small amount of growth. Cato Institute economist Julian Simon theorized that even under-developed countries with little technological advancement could adopt strategies to allow growth for up to tens of billions of people.
I believe, however, that the main concern for us in this matter is how we obtain the mechanisms available to improve our technology. It appears that the majority of environmental development in most of the First World countries comes from political lobbying, which is not at all a reliable mechanism.
Our environment must be at the forefront of all issues, whether economic or political, in order to succeed in this matter. Only then will we have the sufficient sources and ability to improve our technologies. And if we continue to improve our state of life, we will continue to improve our chances of surviving on what little we will then need.
Be the first to comment on this story