Final Draft: Writing Project #3 - The Persuasive Research Project
How do we survive the “shrinking” of our planet?
|
Imagine a world of too many people. How can we deal with this? Can we minimize its effects? How do we take care of the future? The late Carl Sagan played an important role trying to make us understand that our planet is an insignificant Pale Blue Dot, (book) lost in a corner of the Milky Way Galaxy. The awareness, created by his book with the same title, led me to think on the Earth's land surface which is 149,000,000 km². Well, this number is not going to increase, I thought. As time goes by, more and more people are stepping into our planet which will reach about 11 billion by the year 2100. Although the planet might be able to support this number, what might happen if it is surpassed? Overpopulation is a problem that must be addressed. But, wait! There are people who are convinced that such thing will never happen. Our ingenuity, they say, it is more than able to take care of that situation. Those were the principles and questions that made me embark on this research venture, trying to appeal to a larger discussion, among ecologists/environmentalists, about the pros and cons of what seems to be travelling towards reaching the point of no return.
How many people is too many? The human population has been growing continuously since the end of the Black Death, around the year 1400. The most significant increase has been in the last 50 years, due to advances in medicine which prolong life expectancy. Humans took 150,000 years to get to the first billion. The most recent billion arrived in just 12 years. On their web page, “One Planet, How Many People? A Review of Earth’s Carrying Capacity,” UNEP Global Environmental Alert Service (GEAS) (p1), it is stated that “we are adding one million more people roughly every 4.8 days.” Overpopulation is already taking its toll on our planet and we can feel it in our everyday lives, especially in big cosmopolitan cities, where the tendency is always to aggregate a greater number of people. “You should not worry,” says Art Carden, an Associate Professor of Economics at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama. Professor Carden is of the opinion that “we can be confident that people will find newer and ever-more ingenious ways to circumvent their constraints “asteroid mining and space elevators? Cool!” Forbes, You Worry. You Shouldn't. Part 1: Overpopulation and Resource Exhaustion” Webpage (np). He went on to say that people are wasting their time worrying that there is too many people on the planet, and they are afraid that our resources will, some day, reach the end. According to him, “the late, great economist Julian Simon demonstrated (both with clear economic logic and an unassailable mountain of data), that there is a long-run tendency for standards of living to improve and for material scarcity to relax as a constraint rather than tighten.” Mainly, professor Carden, trusts human capabilities of finding ways to minimize and or solve the issue. Although I believe in the power of the human mind, I cannot help but to think that, without any more substance, this would not suffice. The fact that we can trust our intelligence to solve problems, eventually may get us into trouble. Moreover, professor Carden even says that, “if anything, we need more people, not less, because every person brings something new and unique to the world.” With these new ideas we can solve any problems we might or will face. While I agree with such statement, I still think that it is dangerous to leave the entire responsibility to our unknown future minds. I believe we would not be wasting our time if we tried to be proactive in this matter. Apart from the depletion of the ozone layer which is causing the average temperature on Earth to increase by about 0.8° Celsius since 1880, NASA News & Feature Releases, website (np), I turned my attention to the overpopulation factor, not only with its effects on global warming but also, demanding more from a planet that is already giving us an excess of its resources. There is the notion that Earth can give food for about 11 billion people, but if the tendency is for the numbers of inhabitants to rise, what then? The late Dr. Garrett James Hardin, focused his attention on the issue, in an interview which took place back in February, 1990. Dr. Hardin spoke about the carrying capacity of the planet: “if the population suddenly decreases by, say, 10 percent, many things will immediately be much better.” Overpopulation and Carrying Capacity - Video Educational Communications, Inc., 18 Feb., 2008. Because things are made worse due to the excess of population, the interviewee suggests that birthrate should be controlled, in other words, less babies per woman. Another point of interest in Dr. Hardin’s future vision, is his opinion that, right now, food for all is not the problem, but energy is. If that is so, the fact that energy is already a problem, which means that we are already hurting our planet, and we now know that global warming is a reality, (in spite of the skeptics who maintain that there is no such thing,) are we not contributing to reach a point where food will be scarce? Following this rationale is the actress Alexandra Paul. She is of the opinion, like Dr. Hardin, that birth control is the solution to control the exponential growth of human population. Paul, Alexandra, TEDxTopanga speech, video, 3 Jan., 2013. We can find this comparison when Dr. Hardin’s refers that “once the population number decreases, things will get better automatically.” Therefore, a relationship with Alexandra’s ideas. I appreciate her effort in passing the message that the world needs the cooperation of all to achieve the proposed results. She is feeling alone in her beliefs and I wonder if there are many of us that feel alone as well, because we do not detect actions which might starting addressing the concern. Perhaps we do not believe it is important or, if it is, it is not going to happen in our lifetime, therefore, let the upcoming generations deal with it. Reducing the size of families to only one child, is the apparent solution for Alexandra. This, in turn, opens a wide point for discussion, as it infringes with people’s rights, who, by the way, are the stakeholders. And, although education on birth control may be a logical path to walk upon, the issue might surface, yet again, when our minds start to wonder profoundly about our rights, even with high levels of education. In agreement with this consensus is the reporter from TIMES magazine, Olivia Waxman, and that is, diminishing the population by controlling the birth rate. One of the sources the author uses is Stanford entomologist Paul Ehrlich, who argues that “it was time for a population-control movement. Without it, the world would face shortages of food, water and more.” Waxman, Olivia B., “Here’s When Americans Really Started To Panic About Overpopulation,” website TIME Magazine, July 11, 2016 (np). This article uses credited sources which launch the need for the debate on human numbers and the future of the planet. It is a timely discussion of what sort of importance should we give to the issue of overpopulation and what can we do about it, directed mostly to the elected readers of this weekly publication, all stakeholders, of course. It works on the expansion of the line of inquiry and creates room for curiosity. While at this moment we might be persuaded to think that yes, we have to control the birth rate as the formula to resolve our problems of population growth, somebody says that “This is nonsense.” Ellis, Erle C., “Overpopulation Is Not The Problem,” The New York Times, Sep. 13, 2013 (np). Erle C. Ellis, professor of geography and environmental systems clearly states that we have no problem of overpopulation and goes further to declare that “This is nonsense.” The author appeals to human ingenuity to surpass the obstacle of a growing population, mentioning that “genus Homo used social hunting strategies and tools of stone and fire, to extract more sustenance from landscapes than would otherwise be possible. And, of course, Homo sapiens went much further.” He says, however, that as the population increases to reach a higher number by 2050, (about 9 billion), it is necessary to invest in “infrastructure and conducive trade, anti-poverty and food security policies.” One of his arguments that I consider worthy of attention, simple but important, is: “Who knows what will be possible with the technologies of the future?” Dr. Erle, himself, confesses that he too believed, at one point, that the carrying capacity of the planet was at stake, in agreement with several of his colleagues. Therefore, and because of it, he needed to work very hard, trying to contradict an almost generalized idea among several of his colleagues, in which he also believed. In this manner Dr. Erle is attacking a long-held position, forcing the discussion to continue and to the “drawing table.” While he is using a language accessible to all, the message ought to be directed to their colleagues. Be as it may, I would argue that, when Dr. Erle says that it is necessary to prepare the world for the peak of the population at around 2050, it might be brought into the equation the following: a) Without that preparation the overpopulation is truly a problem. b) Once surpassed the 9 billion people, what kind of different preparation do we need? c) Would we be forced to organize several types of preparations as the population continues to grow? In this research work, we confronted different opinions with common points: d) Controlling birthrate, the formula to reverse the tendency of population growth. e) Human ingenuity, betting on human intelligence to deal with the same issue. So, we have Dr. Hardin, Actress Paul and reporter Waxman would concur on point d), while professors Cardin and Ellis agree with point e). No matter how we analyze these opposing positions, I believe it is in the best interest of humanity to be proactive, than to take one side or the other. It is the decent thing to do. Procrastinating will only add to a situation that is giving us signs which we better not ignore. Points d) and e) have one common factor: They both agree that population growth is an issue. They only have different ways to address it. Is the birth control the answer to the problem? Or is human ingenuity? The latter has yet another implication which seems to be of importance. Our advancement in technology is in an accelerated mode and it seems that it is not reversible. Unemployment in 2015 was estimated to stand at 197.1 million and in 2016 is forecasted to rise by about 2.3 million to reach 199.4 million, as stated by the International Labor Organization, on their webpage “Global unemployment projected to rise in both 2016 and 2017,” 19 January 2016 (np). The situation is being felt almost every day with the galloping findings and results we are made aware of. This thirst for a technological world is hurting the work force, as machines take over the jobs that humans used to do. This is the moment to address the situation because 100 years by universe standards is a hiccup. Moreover, convincing people to reduce our consumption habits, as Dr. Hardin suggested, may help, but it is a band aid solution because: f) Changing mentalities and traditions has been a challenging and timely process with ups and downs along the way. g) Technological development will have a contrary action towards achieving those results, because it is always moving forward. There is no turning back. Even if we are successful in passing the message and really change the way we think about this issue, the exponential growth of the population and the substitution of humans by machines will continue to be a weight on our shoulders, especially, when the world exceeds the barrier of the 11 billion people, not to mention the problem of inequality, which will be proportional to population growth. Finally, there is no doubt in my mind that we need to address the issue, if we wish to legate a fair and healthy planet to generations to come. Like I said before, it is the decent thing to do. If we register opposing views on this subject, it is because the discussion must continue, eliminating as many uncertainties as possible, but never forgetting that, if we search for the truth, we must, in any event, doubt. Yes! It is a simple research. However, it appears to be needed because, as Albert Einstein said: “If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it? And I add, hence, the kairotic moment of the issue. Works cited Carden, Art, YOU WORRY. YOU SHOULDN’T. PART 1: OVERPOPULATION AND RESOURCE EXHAUSTION, Forbes Magazine, JUN 15, 2012, http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2011/10/27/overpopulation-isnt-the-problem-its-too-few-babies/#307ccf55eaec (np). Carlowicz, Michael, webpage, Global Temperatures, 1885-1894, NASA Earth Observatory, http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php (np) Ellis, Erle C., webpage, OVERPOPULATION IS NOT THE PROBLEM, The New York Times, Sep. 13, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/14/opinion/overpopulation-is-not-the-problem.html (np) Hardin, Garrett James, video, OVERPOPULATION AND CARRYING CAPACITY, Video Educational Communications, Inc., 18 Feb., 2008 International Labour Organization, webpage, Global unemployment projected to rise in both 2016 and 2017, http://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/newsroom/news/WCMS_443500/lang--en/index.htm (np) One Planet, How Many People? webpage, the UNEP Global Environmental Alert Service (GEAS), 2012, http://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/newsroom/news/WCMS_443500/lang--en/index.htm (p1) Paul, Alexandra, video OVERPOPULATION FACTS - THE PROBLEM NO ONE WILL DISCUSS, TEDxTopanga, 3 Jan., 2013 Sagan, Carl, Blue Dot, 1994 (book) TIME Magazine, webpage, Here’s When Americans Really Started To Panic About Overpopulation, Waxman, Olivia B., July 11, 2016, http://time.com/4388565/zero-population-growth-world-population-day-2016/ (np). |
AN - Due to limitation on this platform, the lay out presented it's not what I proposed to do.
First Draft: Writing Project #3 - The Persuasive Research Project
How do we survive the “shrinking” of our planet?
|
Imagine a world of too many people. How can we deal with this? Can we minimize its effects? How do we take care of the future? The late Carl Sagan played an important role trying to make us understand that our planet is an insignificant Pale Blue Dot, (book) lost in a corner of the Milky Way Galaxy. The awareness, created by his book with the same title, led me to think on the Earth's land surface which is 149,000,000 km². Well, this number is not going to increase, I thought. As time goes by, more and more people are stepping into our planet which will reach about 11 billion by the year 2100. Although the planet might be able to support this number, what might happen if this number is surpassed? Overpopulation is a problem that must be addressed. But, wait! There are people who are convinced that such thing will never happen. Our ingenuity, they say, it is more than able to take care of that situation. Those were the principles and questions that made me embark on this research venture, trying to appeal to a larger discussion, among ecologists/environmentalists, about the pros and cons of what seems to be travelling towards reaching the point of no return.
How many people is too many? The human population has been growing continuously since the end of the Black Death, around the year 1400. The most significant increase has been in the last 50 years, due to advances in medicine which prolong life expectancy. Humans took 150,000 years to get to the first billion. The most recent billion arrived in just 12 years. On their web page, “One Planet, How Many People? A Review of Earth’s Carrying Capacity” the UNEP Global Environmental Alert Service (GEAS) (p1), it is stated that “we are adding one million more people roughly every 4.8 days.” Overpopulation is already taking its toll on our planet and we can feel it in our everyday lives, especially in big cosmopolitan cities, where the tendency is always to aggregate a greater number of people. “You should not worry,” says Art Carden, an Associate Professor of Economics at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama. Professor Carden is of the opinion that “we can be confident that people will find newer and ever-more ingenious ways to circumvent their constraints (asteroid mining and space elevators? Cool!).” (Webpage “Forbes,” You Worry. You Shouldn't. Part 1: Overpopulation and Resource Exhaustion (np). He went on to say that people are wasting their time worrying that there is too many people on the planet, and they are afraid that our resources will, some day, reach the end. According to him, “the late, great economist Julian Simon demonstrated (both with clear economic logic and an unassailable mountain of data), that there is a long-run tendency for standards of living to improve and for material scarcity to relax as a constraint rather than tighten.” Mainly, professor Carden, trusts human capabilities of finding ways to minimize and or solve the issue. Although I believe in the power of the human mind, I cannot help but to think that, without any more substance, this would not suffice. The fact that we can trust our intelligence to solve problems, eventually may get us into trouble. Moreover, professor Carden even says that, if anything, we need more people, not less, because every person brings something new and unique to the world. With these new ideas we can solve any problems we might or will face. While I agree with such statement, I still think that it is dangerous to leave the entire responsibility to our unknown minds. I believe we would not be wasting our time if we tried to be proactive in this matter. Apart from the depletion of the ozone layer which is causing the average temperature on Earth to increase by about 0.8° Celsius since 1880, “NASA News & Feature Releaseswww.youtube.com/watch?v=MyD4xRQo05s,” website (np), I turned my attention to the overpopulation factor, not only with its effects on global warming but also, demanding more from a planet that is already giving us an excess of its resources. There is the notion that Earth can give food for about 11 billion people, but if the tendency is for the numbers of inhabitants to rise, what then? The late Dr. Garrett James Hardin, directed his attention to the issue, in an interview which took place back in February, 1990. Dr. Hardin spoke about the carrying capacity of the planet: “if the population suddenly decreases by, say, 10 percent, many things will immediately be much better.” (“YouTube,” Overpopulation and Carrying Capacity - Video Educational Communications, Inc., 18 Feb., 2008). Because things are made worse due to the excess of population, the interviewee suggests that birthrate should be controlled, in other words, less babies per woman. Another point of interest in Dr. Hardin’s future vision, is his opinion that, right now, food for all is not the problem, but energy is. If that is so, the fact that energy is already a problem, which means that we are already hurting our planet, and we now know that global warming is a reality, (in spite of the skeptics who maintain that there is no such thing,) are we not contributing to reach a point where food will be scarce? Following this rationale is the actress Alexandra Paul. She is of the opinion, like Dr. Hardin, that birth control is the solution to control the exponential growth of human population, (Paul, Alexandra, TEDxTopanga speech, video, 3 Jan., 2013.) We can find this comparison when Dr. Hardin’s refers that once the population number decreases, things will get better automatically. Therefore, a relationship with Alexandra’s ideas. I appreciate her effort in passing the message that the world needs the cooperation of all to achieve the proposed results. She is feeling alone in her beliefs and I wonder if there are many of us that feel alone as well, because we do not detect actions which might starting addressing the concern. Perhaps we do not believe it is important or, if it is, it is not going to happen in our time, therefore, let the next generations deal with it. Reducing the size of families to only one child, is the apparent solution for Alexandra. This, in turn, opens a wide point for discussion, as it infringes with people’s rights. And, although education on birth control may be a logical path to walk upon, the issue might surface, yet again, when our minds start to wonder profoundly about our rights, even with high levels of education. In agreement with this consensus is the reporter from TIMES magazine, Olivia Waxman, and that is diminishing the population by controlling the birth rate. One of the sources the author uses is Stanford entomologist Paul Ehrlich, who argues that “it was time for a population-control movement. Without it, the world would face shortages of food, water and more.” “TIME Magazine,” Here’s When Americans Really Started To Panic About Overpopulation, Waxman, Olivia B., July 11, 2016 (np). This article uses credited sources which launch the need for the debate on human numbers and the future of the planet. It is a timely discussion of what sort of importance should we give to the issue of overpopulation and what can we do about it, directed mostly to the elected readers of this weekly publication. It works on the expansion of the line of inquiry and creates room for curiosity. While at this moment we might be convinced that yes, we have to control the birth rate as a formula to resolve our problems of population growth, somebody says that “This is nonsense.” “The New York Times,” Overpopulation Is Not The Problem, Ellis, Erle C., Sep. 13, 2013 (np). Erle C. Ellis, professor of geography and environmental systems clearly states that we have no problem of overpopulation and goes further to declare that “This is nonsense.” The author appeals to human ingenuity to surpass the obstacle of a growing population, mentioning that “genus Homo used social hunting strategies and tools of stone and fire, to extract more sustenance from landscapes than would otherwise be possible. And, of course, Homo sapiens went much further. He says, however, that as the population will reach a higher number by 2050, (about 9 billion), it is necessary to invest in “infrastructure and conducive trade, anti-poverty and food security policies.” One of his arguments that I consider worthy of attention, simple but important, is: “Who knows what will be possible with the technologies of the future?” Dr. Erle, himself, confesses that he too believed, at one point that the carrying capacity of the planet was at stake, in agreement with several of his colleagues. Therefore, and because of it, he needed to work very hard, trying to contradict an almost generalized idea among several of his colleagues, in which he also believed. In this manner Dr. Erle is attacking a long-held position, forcing the discussion to continue and to the “drawing table.” While he is using a language accessible to all, the message ought to be directed to their colleagues. I would argue that, when Dr. Erle says that it is necessary to prepare the world for the peak of the population at around 2050, it might be brought into the equation the following: a) Without that preparation the overpopulation is truly a problem. b) Once surpassed the 9 billion people, what kind of different preparation do we need? c) Would we be forced to organize several types of preparations as the population continues to grow? In this simple research work, we confronted different opinions with common points: d) Controlling birthrate, the formula to reverse the tendency of population growth. e) Human ingenuity, betting on human intelligence to deal with the same issue. So, we have Dr. Hardin, Actress Paul and reporter Waxman would concur on point d), while professors Cardin and Ellis agree with point e). No matter how we analyze these opposing opinions, I believe it is in the best interest of humanity to be proactive than take one or the other side. It is the decent thing to do. Procrastinating will only add to a situation that is giving us signs which we better not ignore. Points d) and e) have one common factor: They both agree that population growth is an issue. They only have different ways to address it. Is the birth control the answer to the problem? Or is human ingenuity? The latter has yet another implication which seems to be of importance. Our advancement in technology is in an accelerated mode and it seems that it is not reversible. Unemployment in 2015 was estimated to stand at 197.1 million and in 2016 is forecast to rise by about 2.3 million to reach 199.4 million, as stated by the International Labour Organization, on their webpage “Global unemployment projected to rise in both 2016 and 2017” (np). The situation is being felt almost every day with the galloping findings and results we are made aware of. This thirst for a technological world is hurting the work force, as machines take over the jobs that humans used to do. This is the moment to address the situation because 100 years by universe standards is a hiccup. Moreover, convincing people to reduce our consumption habits, as Dr. Hardin mentions, may help, but it is a band aid solution because: f) Changing mentalities and traditions has been a challenging and timely process with ups and downs along the way. g) Technological development will have a contrary action towards achieving those results because it is always moving forward. There is no turning back. Even if we are successful in passing the message and really change the way we think about this issue, the exponential growth of the population and the substitution of humans by machines will continue to be a weight on our shoulders, especially, when the world exceeds the barrier of the 11 billion people, not to mention the problem of inequality, which will be proportional to population growth. A simple research, no doubt. However, it appears to be needed because, as Albert Einstein said: “If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it? Works cited Carden, Art, “YOU WORRY. YOU SHOULDN’T. PART 1: OVERPOPULATION AND RESOURCE EXHAUSTION,” Forbes Magazine, JUN 15, 2012 (np). Carlowicz, Michael, webpage, Global Temperatures, 1885-1894, NASA Earth Observatory, (np) Ellis, Erle C., webpage, OVERPOPULATION IS NOT THE PROBLEM, The New York Times, Sep. 13, 2013 Hardin, Garrett James, video, OVERPOPULATION AND CARRYING CAPACITY, Video Educational Communications, Inc., 18 Feb., 2008 International Labour Organization, webpage, Global unemployment projected to rise in both 2016 and 2017 One Planet, How Many People? webpage, the UNEP Global Environmental Alert Service (GEAS), 2012 (p1) Paul, Alexandra, video OVERPOPULATION FACTS - THE PROBLEM NO ONE WILL DISCUSS, TEDxTopanga, 3 Jan., 2013 Sagan, Carl, Blue Dot, 1994 (book) TIME Magazine, webpage, Here’s When Americans Really Started To Panic About Overpopulation, Waxman, Olivia B., July 11, 2016 (np). |
AN - Due to limitation on this platform, the lay out presented it's not what I propose to do.