Grinning Planet

... much to our shagrin.

This article regarding overpopulation is an elegant presentation of the problem at hand. Couldn't ahve put it more succinctly myself.

A quick breakdown:

"...we can expect 54 million [net] additional people per year to occupy the planet. That large a number still seems pretty hard to relate to, though, so if we take it down to a per-day figure—which would be 149,000 net additional people per day... remember how shocked we were when we were told about the death toll from the December 2004 Asian tsunami—several hundred thousand people died. Yet today we're adding that many new people to the planet's population every two days."

This is not to devalue the lives of those dead of such natural disaster, nor any death caused by natural or unnatural causes. "One of our top goals as a society should be to reduce and eliminate suffering wherever and whenever possible." The problem is that there are too many people being added to the planet. If, in fact, we were to control the death rate against all possible causes, effectively immortalizing the human race, the problem would increase exponentially.

Death is the necessary control mechanism for life. In so saying, death must not be wielded by humans as a tool to this, or any, end. Humanity must realize, however, that the natural world struggles to maintain an equilibrium established across eons. Thus, nature devises means to reduce populations. Bacteria and viruses, food shortages, changes in weather patterns; all responses to an environment co-opted by humanity. Such "humane" action is met with our just dessert; robust and tenacious plagues, food shortage, and biospheric collapse.

"The earth is a "closed system," meaning that we have to recycle or store all of the wastes we produce, and... we only have one planet's worth of land and water to provide resources for agriculture, energy, and other needs."

Keep this in mind. There is only one planet. Once it's resources are spent, burnt off, or turned into plastic -- there's no place else to go. There is nothing else alive, that we know of, within the observable universe. Thus, we only have one chance to keep it going.

Think of it another way. Would you tear your house apart, sell it off, and burn it to the ground if there was no other place in which to seek refuge? Would you do these things and cast out your children and their children onto the street to die?

The rampant expanse of human life remains at the expense of the planet. How much do we currently owe the planet?

"The total impact we have on the planet, therefore, is roughly the total number of people times the average standard of living. (This basic concept is sometimes called "ecological footprint.")"

The ecological footprint of several regions of Ontario was reported recently by the Toronto Star. At 10.4 hectares per person, the ecological footprint of the average inhabitant of my region was on par with that of the average American. The surface of the earth is roughly 14.8 billion hectares -- enough to support 1.42 billion people, with an exceptional standard of living, for a single lifetime. Since there are 6.8 billion people in the world, "inside of each them... an American trying to get out" (Full Metal Jacket), the planet can support all of these dreams for a little under 12 years. Then, well, who knows?

Personally, I have tried to take strides toward reducing my ecological footprint. I ride the bus instead of driving my car, which has a 3.0 L engine, or my parents cars, 4.0 L engines each. The sad part is, the buses are virtually empty. So, I ride a bus, having a 9.0 L engine, alone. The buses would run anyway... at least I participate. I walk where I can, I will buy a bike this summer, I don't have an air conditioner, and I've reduced the amount of time I spend with the TV on. A great start, but there's no way to get others to follow suit. I cannot force belief in the growing problem at hand.

Population control must work in conjunction with resource amnagement to alleviate the stress being put on the system. To continue, as we undoubtedly will -- for a time, is bold, shining fallacy. Even with more conservative estimates of global consumption, the rate of population increase in connection with the universal desire for a higher standard of living creates the same undesirable end, a dead planet.

In this life, or the next, a change must come.