In the United States, each new child born will obliterate the equivalent of 22 acres of potential wildlife habitat and will add 9,441 metric tons of CO2 emissions to our atmosphere. As our population goes through the roof, those of other species are in steep decline: at present, an average of three species goes extinct per hour.
It is impossible to discuss human population growth without being told that Western levels of consumption are the real problem. And of course, in developing countries, each additional human has a much lesser impact on resource depletion, energy use, and global concerns like climate change.
But while our levels of consumption in the West are clearly unsustainable, who among us would willingly commit to levels like those of an African villager, whose global environmental impact is about 1/20th that of the average American? If we are willing to address only the consumption side of the equation, we commit humans the world over to living in abject poverty--for the simple reason that we live on a finite planet. For each new human born, the rest of us must make do with an ever-dwindling slice of the pie.
It is estimated that if we do, as predicted, reach 9 billion people by the year 2050, we will need six planets to support all of us at U.S. levels of consumption. Even if the current gross inequality of global consumption levels persists--with the vast majority of the world living in poverty--we'll need at least two planets to support our numbers by 2030.
So yes, consumption matters--but in total, it is always and inevitably a product of total population.
On local and regional levels, the environmental impacts of population growth in the developing world are devastating. In Central America, growing populations survive by clearing forest for livestock and subsistence agriculture on land of ever-diminishing productivity. In sub-Saharan Africa, as well as parts of Asia and South America, rapid population growth has fueled a burgeoning bushmeat trade and the decimation of populations of primates, wild cats, foxes, turtles, and other rare and endangered animals. In developing regions the world over, growing populations place a strain on the quality and quantity of drinking water, on the availability of land for agriculture and wildlife habitat, and on the availability of the mental and spiritual space necessary for creativity and well-being to flourish in humans and other creatures.
In the current climate, the domestic economic reasons for supporting family planning may be the most compelling. As they eliminate funding for Title X, House Republicans should be informed that every dollar spent today on family planning saves four dollars next year (you can let them know at Population Connection's website). On an international scale, the argument is equally compelling: to provide family planning to the 215 million women in developing countries who want to avoid a pregnancy would cost less than $4 billion a year.
But while our levels of consumption in the West are clearly unsustainable, who among us would willingly commit to levels like those of an African villager, whose global environmental impact is about 1/20th that of the average American? If we are willing to address only the consumption side of the equation, we commit humans the world over to living in abject poverty--for the simple reason that we live on a finite planet. For each new human born, the rest of us must make do with an ever-dwindling slice of the pie.
It is estimated that if we do, as predicted, reach 9 billion people by the year 2050, we will need six planets to support all of us at U.S. levels of consumption. Even if the current gross inequality of global consumption levels persists--with the vast majority of the world living in poverty--we'll need at least two planets to support our numbers by 2030.
So yes, consumption matters--but in total, it is always and inevitably a product of total population.
On local and regional levels, the environmental impacts of population growth in the developing world are devastating. In Central America, growing populations survive by clearing forest for livestock and subsistence agriculture on land of ever-diminishing productivity. In sub-Saharan Africa, as well as parts of Asia and South America, rapid population growth has fueled a burgeoning bushmeat trade and the decimation of populations of primates, wild cats, foxes, turtles, and other rare and endangered animals. In developing regions the world over, growing populations place a strain on the quality and quantity of drinking water, on the availability of land for agriculture and wildlife habitat, and on the availability of the mental and spiritual space necessary for creativity and well-being to flourish in humans and other creatures.
In the current climate, the domestic economic reasons for supporting family planning may be the most compelling. As they eliminate funding for Title X, House Republicans should be informed that every dollar spent today on family planning saves four dollars next year (you can let them know at Population Connection's website). On an international scale, the argument is equally compelling: to provide family planning to the 215 million women in developing countries who want to avoid a pregnancy would cost less than $4 billion a year.
And surely among the simplest and most obvious reasons for prioritizing human population growth as a policy concern are the humanitarian ones.
Twenty percent of the projected growth in human population until the year 2050 is attributable to unmet need--that is, to babies born unplanned and unwanted to women and families who lack access to birth control. Addressing this low-hanging fruit should be an utmost international development priority simply for humanitarian reasons; the environmental benefits will be an enormous helping of icing on this cake of improved human well-being.
So today, go out, have fun, dress up your dogs and your kids, and enjoy the beauty that still remains in this world.
And let's do everything possible to ensure that this world remains beautiful for the kiddies and puppies, the butterflies and bears, by not adding any more kiddies (or puppies) than we have to.
