Letters to the Editor
-
re: anonymous/overpopulation
Bravo to you, Anonymous, for talking about overpopulation, that old elephant in the living room that everyone chooses to ignore.
A few points to add: If everyone on the planet chose to have two children w/ their partner from this moment on, we wouldn't immediately stabilize the population at six billion because their is a "lag effect." That is, the base of the population pyramid is mostly young children who haven't had their two kids yet. The best case scenario that I have come across is that the world's population will stabilize at 16 billion. Considering that the world's food output per capita peaked in the late 1970's (re: we produce more food now globally than in the late 1970's, but because there are so many more humans, we have less per person if it was distributed evenly amongst us.) That is a sobering thought, oh fellow reader who has a full stomach and a computer in front of them.
I often hear this argument: If all the world's people were standing together in a group, they would all fit into Rhode Island, so what's the problem? This is how I respond: OK, if you have a 2,000 square foot home, and you now have 5 people living in it, you have room for 995 more people (with each person getting 2 square feet.) Can you imagine what your quality of life would be?
This artical touches on many important issues, but the bottom line is this: If we overburden our limited physical environment with our ever growing masses (10,000 humans are adder per hour after birth/deaths), then the poverty and famine of today will pale in comparison to what awaits us.
For everyone on the planet to live the lifestyle of today's United States, we would need six planets. Ain't gonna happen, folks.