Lakhasly

Each week, about 1.6 million people are added to the world’s population. As a result, the
number of people on the earth is projected to increase from 6.7 to 9.3 billion or more between
2008 and 2050, with most of this growth occurring in the world’s developing countries (Figure
6-1). This raises an important question: Can the world provide an adequate standard of living
for a projected 2.6 billion more people by 2050 without causing widespread environmental
damage? There is disagreement over the answer to this question.
According to one view, the planet already has too many people collectively degrading the
earth’s natural capital. To some analysts, the problem is the sheer number of people in
developing countries with 82% of the world’s population. To others, it is high per capita
resource consumption rates in developed countries—and to an increasing extent in rapidly
developing countries such as China and India—that magnify the environmental impact, or
ecological footprint, of each person (Figure 1-10, p. 15).
Many argue that both population growth and resource consumption per person are important
causes of the environmental problems we face (Concept 1-5A, p. 17). Another view is that
technological advances have allowed us to overcome the environmental resistance that all
populations face (Figure 5-11, p. 111) and to increase the earth’s carrying capacity for our
species. Some analysts argue there is no reason we cannot continue doing so, and they believe
that the planet can support billions more people. They also see a growing population as our
most valuable resource for solving environmental and other problems and for stimulating
economic growth by increasing the number of consumers. As a result, they see no need to
control the world’s population growth. Some people view any form of population regulation as
a violation of their religious or moral beliefs. Others see it as an intrusion into their privacy and
their freedom to have as many children as they want. These people also would argue against
any form of population control.
Proponents of slowing and eventually stopping population growth have a different
view. They point out that we are not providing the basic necessities for about one of
every five people—a total of some 1.4 billion. They ask how we will be able to do so
for the projected 2.6 billion more people by 2050.
They also warn of two serious consequences we will face if we do not sharply lower
birth rates. First, death rates may increase because of declining health and
environmental conditions in some areas, as is already happening in parts of Africa.
Second, resource use and environmental degradation may intensify as more
consumers increase their already large ecological footprints in developed countries
and in rapidly developing countries, such as China and India (Figure 1-10, p. 15). This
could increase environmental stresses such as infectious disease, biodiversity losses,
water shortages, traffic congestion, pollution of the seas, and climate change.
This debate over interactions among population growth, economic growth, politics,
and moral beliefs is one of the most important and controversial issues in
environmentalscience