September
17th
  7:00:59 AM

Overpopulation fears betray an ignorance of human history

Wow, the New York Times really has come over to the dark side. Last week I reported on an article from the grey lady about the German efforts to arrest its population decline that shows that the problem for so many countries isn’t a population explosion, but a population implosion (albeit in slow motion).  Now, an op-ed from that same newspaper from Erle C Ellis (Associate Professor of Geography and Environmental Systems, University of Maryland) has made the claim that overpopulation in relation to the environment is a myth! That must have caused some raised eyebrows in NYTimes heartland (if they weren’t still raised from seeing Vladimir Putin in their paper a few days ago!)

Ellis starts with the oft-repeated claim that:

“we are undermining the very life support systems that sustain us. Like bacteria in a petri dish, our exploding numbers are reaching the limits of a finite planet, with dire consequences. Disaster looms as humans exceed the earth’s natural carrying capacity.”

But as Ellis states, this is “nonsense”. Why? Because, unlike the rest of the animal kingdom, humans do not just passively dwell in their environment, we shape our environment.

“Yet these claims demonstrate a profound misunderstanding of the ecology of human systems. The conditions that sustain humanity are not natural and never have been. Since prehistory, human populations have used technologies and engineered ecosystems to sustain populations well beyond the capabilities of unaltered ‘natural’ ecosystems.”

Humans are special. Each baby born is not just another mouth to feed from the Earth’s ever-limited resources, he or she is also a potential inventor, scientist, innovator that will help the rest of humanity to adapt, survive and grow. We can this throughout our long history:

“Even before the last ice age had ended, thousands of years before agriculture, hunter-gatherer societies were well established across the earth and depended increasingly on sophisticated technological strategies to sustain growing populations in landscapes long ago transformed by their ancestors.

The planet’s carrying capacity for prehistoric human hunter-gatherers was probably no more than 100 million. But without their Paleolithic technologies and ways of life, the number would be far less — perhaps a few tens of millions. The rise of agriculture enabled even greater population growth requiring ever more intensive land-use practices to gain more sustenance from the same old land. At their peak, those agricultural systems might have sustained as many as three billion people in poverty on near-vegetarian diets.”

So where did all this nonsense come from? Well, Malthus has a lot to do with it of course. But according to Ellis, it is essentially the problem of treating humanity as another set of data that you can plug into a biological or physical model. The trouble is, the study of human population necessarily deals with humans:

“...I discovered the agricultural economist Ester Boserup, the antidote to the demographer and economist Thomas Malthus and his theory that population growth tends to outrun the food supply. Her theories of population growth as a driver of land productivity explained the data I was gathering in ways that Malthus could never do.

The science of human sustenance is inherently a social science. Neither physics nor chemistry nor even biology is adequate to understand how it has been possible for one species to reshape both its own future and the destiny of an entire planet. This is the science of the Anthropocene. The idea that humans must live within the natural environmental limits of our planet denies the realities of our entire history, and most likely the future.”

Exactly! How could Malthus be right when since he was writing the Earth sustains many billions more people at a better lifestyle than he could dream of? And as for Paul E...no I promised I wouldn’t mention him again.  To suggest that we are just about hitting carrying capacity seems to be blind to historical progress.  Turning back to the analogy that started his piece, Ellis comments:

“Who knows what will be possible with the technologies of the future? The important message from these rough numbers should be clear. There really is no such thing as a human carrying capacity. We are nothing at all like bacteria in a petri dish.”

Or, to answer an eminent TV personality, we are nothing at all like a plague. To conclude, while we are the ones who make it possible for this planet to feed billions of people to a degree impossible even 100 years ago, we are also the ones that mean that today people go hungry. Not because there are too many of us, but because we fight, are greedy and cannot efficiently share resources:

“There is no environmental reason for people to go hungry now or in the future. There is no need to use any more land to sustain humanity — increasing land productivity using existing technologies can boost global supplies and even leave more land for nature — a goal that is both more popular and more possible than ever. The only limits to creating a planet that future generations will be proud of are our imaginations and our social systems.”

I hope that people read Ellis’ piece carefully. Because if people take his message onboard, then they are less likely to consider China’s population policies as a necessary solution to "overpopulation".



to make a comment, click here

This article is published by Marcus Roberts and MercatorNet.com under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it or translate it free of charge with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. If you teach at a university we ask that your department make a donation. Commercial media must contact us for permission and fees. Some articles on this site are published under different terms.


 
about this blog | Bookmark and Share

Search this blog

 Subscribe to Demography is Destiny
rss RSS feed of posts

 Recent Posts
Are we ready for the “grey tsunami”?
22 Apr 2014
Iran leads Muslim countries in fertility decline
20 Apr 2014
Russia: Growing and More Assertive
14 Apr 2014
Japan’s Shrinking Role in the World
8 Apr 2014
Why you shouldn’t take alarmist population predictions seriously
6 Apr 2014

 MercatorNet blogs
Style and culture: Tiger Print
Family social policy: Family Edge
US political scene: Sheila Liaugminas
News about bioethics: BioEdge
From the editors: Conniptions

 Archive
Apr 2014 | Mar 2014 | Feb 2014 | Jan 2014 | more >>

 From MercatorNet's home page

Could we choose to dialogue?
17 Apr 2014
"Anti-choice", "pro-abortion" -- let's stop the name calling and talk about principles.

Disparate bedfellows: same-sex marriage and human rights
17 Apr 2014
The claim that same-sex marriage is a basic human right finds no support in international human rights declarations.

Philippines population control law gets judicial green light
16 Apr 2014
A so-called reproductive health law is “not unconstitutional” says the Supreme Court. But the new contraceptive era could easily become…

Do you want CNN or ESPN with that burger?
15 Apr 2014
Why can't I talk with you in a restaurant? Why do I have to talk to the TV?

3 reasons not to trust the new climate report
15 Apr 2014
The latest report on climate change needs to be taken with a pinch of salt.


 Tags
Deaths, food production, Population Centre, Demographic Summit, infant mortality, Mining, Fertility, Vladimir Putin, forced sterilisation, Philippines, Elderly care, pensions, population bomb, Marriage, Ireland, Melinda Gates, immigration reform, Manny Pacquiao, French-Canadians, Paelstine, March for Life, anti-humanism, Jersey, baby names, obesity, Technology, society, Economy, Zimbabwe, grandchildren, subsidy, economic crisis, Iran, baby boomers, GDP, Jonathan Sacks, population control, workforce shortage, Chinese New Year, Greece, robotics, birth order, Bollywood, United Kingdom, sterilisation, Falkland Islands, birthrate, migration, Ethiopia, demographic growth, Muslims, American politics, fertility rate, BRICs, population projections, young adults, Ban Ki-moon, growing population, economy, videos, religion, Population Matters, baby, The Onion, Egypt, Age, Oxfam, development, Adoption, Hong Kong, Sterialisation, superbugs, overpopulation fiction, Down syndrome, food wastage, European Union, Romania, one-child policy, population aging, Vietnam, Sir David Attenborough, enterprise, Children, Migration, investment, Islam, Disney, Korea, Human Resources, euthanasia, minorities, Birth Defects, Gore, volunteering, Switzerland, Older Mothers, Population Association of America, Muslim World, gonorrhea, Save the Children,
Follow MercatorNet
Facebook
Twitter
Newsletters
Sections and Blogs
Harambee
PopCorn
Conjugality
Careful!
Family Edge
Sheila Reports
Reading Matters
Demography Is Destiny
Bioedge
Conniptions (the editorial)
Connecting
Information
our ideals
our People
Mercator who?
partner sites
audited accounts
donate
New Media Foundation
Suite 212
75 Archer Street
Chatswood NSW 2067
Australia

editor@mercatornet.com
+61 2 9007 1187

© New Media Foundation 2014 | powered by Encyclomedia | designed by Elleston