I'll take this opportunity of the final blog post (unless I decide to continue it, of course!) to go over what I've discussed on here, and to see whether the original question of whether population growth contributes to environmental degradation has been answered.
I used evidence from the past to show how humans have had effects on their environment even thousands of years ago and significant effects at that. I would definitely call altering greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere and contributing to mass megafaunal extinction significant, especially for such a small number. Logically it's clear that if that long ago we managed to alter the Earth system, then now – with so many more of us and so much more energy-intense and polluting activity – we must still be affecting our environment, if not a lot more. Still, I looked at some more recent empirical evidence about water use and biodiversity loss and there's no doubt that the data back up the logic.
A lot of people still challenge the idea that population growth is bad for the environment so I wanted to investigate the arguments against it and look at some of the more interesting ones (i.e. not just the ones plainly refuting the idea, not that I think you'd find that many serious ones from the environmental science community).
Firstly the argument that we can't blame population growth when really it is consumers who are the problem: too many consumers, not too many people. While this may be true, I argued that many of the population growth over the next decades is set to take place in the 'developing' world and so is most of the economic growth. Putting two and two together means a lot more consumers. However, then I found literature on the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) which says that actually as societies get wealthier it is actually better for the environment! BUT, there is a catch: only past a certain level of income. Up to that 'threshold' getting wealthier is actually worse for the environment (as you pollute more than before but haven't started developing clean energy). Sadly, most of the world lives in 'poverty' and so would be going through the stage of polluting a lot until one day (maybe, far into the future) we would reach that stage where the entire world is past that income threshold. (Climate change is a global phenomenon remember so it doesn't help if only half of the population is wealthy enough to pollute less.) Who knows what damage might have taken place by then?
That same question could also be asked about the fact that population growth is slowing and population should peak before 2100, although I do think this is a fair argument against panicking and is the one I most agree with. It makes the situation less worse knowing that we're not still on the exponential trajectory, but like I said who knows what could happen before then. The world was a very different place 100 years ago and could be in 100 years time. (I realise 100 years isn't massive in terms of the Earth's existence but never before has there been such pollution and alteration of the wilderness.)
Finally there was the interesting point that when population growth slows, there is an ageing of the population which could in fact be worse for energy consumption due to the sorts of lives that elderly people live. I hadn't thought about it like that before so I was glad to have found that literature. However, the alternative really isn't an option is it? Telling people to keep having more children to avoid the population ageing while in the meantime the population is growing and growing.
I also introduced some examples of policies aimed at population management. This was just to show how dealing with population growth's effect is not straightforward. Even if you've established that it's bad for the environment (which is hard enough), how do you go about dealing with it? Lots of people refuse to talk about it precisely because of some sinister past attempts at controlling population. I think not having a dialogue is even more dangerous though.
Many say the solution isn't population growth management but that our lifestyles need to change. I completely agree, but I just can't see how we are going to change our capitalist, consumerist society. It is engrained in generations. It is a lot harder to ask people to give up driving cars, or buy less 'stuff' than to improve women's education, make contraception available for those who do not wish to have children. Things like this improve people's lives, even regardless as to whether or not it is better for the environment.
The purpose of this blog was to investigate whether excess population growth is an issue. I think it is clear that it is; that is does cause environmental degradation. However, I have discovered it is definitely not a clear-cut relationship, and there are many factors affecting the Earth system. I want to stress that I am not predicting that famines, and world wars, and the end of the human race will come of it. I am sure that we could survive with many more people without destroying the Earth or ourselves (although maybe if I continue the blog this is something I could look into more closely), it just depends on what one thinks qualifies as 'destroying the Earth'. It depends on whether we should have the right as human beings to alter the planet beyond recognition just to satisfy our own needs and desires. I suppose really it goes back to the question of whether nature is there for our use and our control, or whether we are simply part of it.
