In a world of increasing population, but low birthrates and fertility, who should reproduce? Should we set a limit or even stop producing all together? What is the answer to our problem? In this essay, I will give you two points of view on the situation, as well as my own.
According to http://www.vhemt.org/demography.htm, “Birth rates have dropped to nearly half of what they were in 1950: from an average of 5 offspring to 2.6. Our growth rate has also fallen significantly. Annual population increase likewise has improved from a high of 87 million in 1989 to around 74 million in 2005. Although couples are creating fewer of us, there are more couples creating those new people, which makes more of us. For example, China has one of the lowest birth rates in the world, and yet their natural increase is 10 million per year. This serves as an ominous warning. If cutting fertility rates in half hasn't stopped our increase, what will it take? How much better can we expect birth rates to get? Many regions have reached a plateau and aren't likely to go any lower unless conditions change. Campaigns to improve birth rates have succeeded somewhat and are worthy of additional support. "Stop at two" may have been a radical proclamation when Zero Population Growth* was founded in 1968, but it was barely adequate even then. So-called replacement level fertility of 2.1 offspring per couple wouldn't bring about true zero population growth until the middle of this century, due to momentum. Today the message is only slightly revised: "Consider having none or one, and be sure to stop after two." The notion that producing two descendants simply replaces a couple and creates no increased impact is specious. We aren't salmon - we don't spawn and die. Most of us will be around to see our progeny beget, and those begotten beget to boot. When a couple of us "replaces" ourselves, our environmental impact doubles - assuming our offsprings' lifestyles are as environmentally friendly as ours, and that they won't reproduce themselves. The "stop at two" message actually encourages reproduction by "qualified" couples. Although a wanted child is better than unwanted, intelligent (whatever that is) better than stupid, and well-cared-for better than neglected, each of us in the over-industrialized world has a huge impact on Nature, regardless of these factors. For example, in terms of energy consumption, when a North American couple stops at two it's about the same as an average East Indian couple stopping at 60, or an Ethiopian couple stopping at more than 600. Two is better than four, and one is twice as good as two, but to purposely set out to create even one more of us today is the moral equivalent of selling berths on a sinking ship. Regardless of how many progeny we have or haven't produced, rather than stop at two, we must stop at once.” A very good point with a lot to ponder, but are there other things that contribute to the problem?
According to Moses and Brown, "Although humans are highly unusual organisms in many respects, most characteristics of human physiology are predictable from scaling relationships observed in other mammals, particularly primates. For example, human metabolic rate can be predicted by allometric equations... the metabolic rate of a 60-kilogram human is 120 watts or 2500 calories per day. However, humans differ from other organisms in their social organization and ecology. The exploitation of supplemental energy sources has fueled 10 000 years of exponential human population growth (Cipolla 1972), the development of modern industrial–technological societies, and the rise of Homo sapiens to become the dominant species on earth, with major impacts on global biodiversity, biogeochemical cycles and climate (Vitousek et al. 1986, 1997). Biological metabolism is a small fraction of the total energy consumed by modern humans who utilize vast distribution networks to extract and deliver oil, gas, coal, electricity and other resources. Per capita consumption of this extra-metabolic energy varies from a few hundred watts in the poorest nations, to many thousands of watts in more industrial countries, which rely predominantly on fossil fuels (World Resources Institute 2000). The per capita energyconsumption rate in the United States is 11 000 W (World Resources Institute 2000) which is approximately 100 times the rate of biological metabolism and... is the estimated rate of energy consumption of a 30,000-kg primate." How’s that for something to think about? The energy consumption in the US alone is the same as the energy consumption of a 66,138.68 pound primate.
I have mixed feelings about the whole issue. On one hand, I feel that no one should be told whether they should be allowed or not allowed to have babies. There are already people who are unable to have children, which kind of helps with the problem. But on the other hand, I think it’s a huge issue that needs at least a happy medium solution. Maybe if they made adoption a little easier, people might go that route before having some of their own… that might help a bit. I also believe that if the world continues on the same path it’s traveling on now, that we will run out of natural resources and eventually trash the planet, causing Mother Nature to revolt and probably kill us all and start over from scratch. One thing I strongly believe is that things are meant to happen a certain way, and nothing we do can stop it. If we are meant to over populate, then we are. If we are meant to fix the problem, then we will. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what happens.
So, who should reproduce? And what is the ultimate answer to this world wide problem?
Picture- http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/Movies/historic/HumanRep1947.jpg
Opinion 1- http://www.vhemt.org/demography.htm
Opinion 2- Moses and Brown (2003). Allometry of human fertility and energy use. Ecology Letters 6: 295-300.
Opinion 3- Self (jennifer.green_1985@yahoo.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment