Introduction:
The natural environment is at the base of human sustenance and progress
(Mlay, 1998). Over the last hundred years, human-kind has seen giant improvements
in its well-being. In fact, with increased life expectancy, lower infant
mortality and increased per capita consumption, the overall quality of life
has improved for both developed and under developed countries. Unfortunately,
these decades of progress have also had negative consequences. Environmental
degradation has increased alongside growing populations that have struggled
towards development. The world, despite all its progress, has seen a general
erosion of natural resources as well as increases in pollution, toxic wastes,
acid rain loss of habitats etc. It has been a race of sorts for humankind.
Progress promotes new technological improvements, which have created solutions
to old problems while creating new issues linked to pollution. The main
danger for the world, however, comes from continuing, "harmful patterns
of economic growth rather, than an increase in population per se (Mlay,
1998)."
The increases in environmental problems that have paralleled population
explosions have led some economists and demographers to connect the two
issues. The logic goes as follows: if the population increases then more
natural resources will be used to support the growing number of people.
The stripping of natural resources in turn leads to the damage of the environment
itself. This paper seeks to understand how environmental problems are connected
with population trends. While population and environmental changes are closely
interrelated, "… the linkages between the two are overstated (Mlay,
1998)." The fundamental causes for increased environmental problems
are problems that go beyond simple population dynamics. This paper sets
out to show that population growth, "… is not the only factor
affecting the rate of resource degradation, and in many cases it is undoubtedly
not the most important factor (Preston, 1996)." In order to better
understand the relationship between population trends and environment problems
this paper has been organized into five sections. The first section frames
the investigation by looking at historical issues related to the environment
in the 20th century. The second section then takes a look at how population
growth directly affects environmental quality. Afterwards, the third section
looks at developed and developing countries separately in order to find
reasons for environmental degradation other than reasons explained directly
by population growth. The fourth section takes a long look into how knowledge
can help and harm the human impact on the global environment. Finally, the
paper concludes with various solutions that aim to lessen environmental
degradation and improve the sustainability of the Earth's natural resources.
Historical Relation to the environment:
As global history demonstrates, up until the middle of the 20th century
humans had a fairly balanced coexistence with their environment (Mlay, 1998).
In was not until halfway into the 20th century concerns about the environment
began to be discussed. In order to understand the growing concern over the
environment, Pebley divided this time period into three distinct phases.
The first wave, during the 1940's and 50's, focused on issues of limited
natural resources such as inadequate food production. Later on, the second
wave of environmental concern took hold in the 60's and 70's as people began
to worry about the by-products of production and consumption. Finally, the
third wave, evolved in the 80's and continues today. It looks at global
environmental change such as climate change and acid rain. Progress ended
each wave, but also fueled the development of more environmental concerns.
For example, the preoccupation about global food production in the 40's
ended with the Green Revolution, yet the Green Revolution brought a new
set of concerns ranging from pesticide use to invasive crop varieties.
Population Growth and Environmental Quality:
Human population growth has played a role in changing environmental quality as mentioned above, but the linkages between population and the environment are not always so obvious. Or put differently, it is human activity that has altered the environment; and it is the impact on the environment caused by the number of humans that is not always clear (Preston, 1996). When looking at human activity it has been agricultural practices that have caused the greatest environmental changes. In order to provide food, a requirement for life, humans have transformed the land for cultivation. This human activity directly increases in order to compensate for growing populations. This logic makes sense. If there are more people, more food is needed. In order to increase food production humans change their environment to make it more conducive to farming. Unfortunately, the results from this activity can have negative consequences for the environment. There are two ways that agriculture can compete with a growing population. The first ways involves expansion, whereby the area of land used for farming can be increased. Environmentally this has caused deforestation as well as destruction of biodiversity. The second method used to increase the food supply is achieved simply by increasing cultivation. This activity results in environmental degradation by introducing more pesticides into the air or by using more precious water sources in order to increase crop yields.
Developed and Underdeveloped Issues:
While population growth does have an impact on the environment, we must look at the differences between developed and developing countries in order to better understand causes of environmental degradation. From 1950-1980 the population of developed world grew by 37%, while population of underdeveloped countries grew by 98% (Mlay, 1998). These different growth rates continue today, which means that the burden of dealing with growing populations will hit the countries that will have the hardest time dealing with environmental issues. The main cause of environmental crisis in developing countries has to do with widespread population more so than population increase (Mlay, 1998). Statistics on poverty say that 1.1 billion people living in developing countries are living in conditions of poverty and 630 million of those living in poverty are "extremely poor." It is this marginalization of poor that leads to environmental degradation in developing countries more so than high population growth rates. Those people who live in abject poverty struggle to survive and in doing so, they can destroy the environment with overstocking, overgrazing, over cultivation and deforestation. The well-being of the environment takes a back seat to the basic human need to survive. In the developing world, a vicious cycle of poverty and environmental degradation began with colonialism. Many economists and demographers point to colonization as the force that began resource exploitation and established a cycle of poverty in underdeveloped countries. Even more disheartening is the fact that increased affluence in a developing country is often accompanied by even more polluting and environmental degradation. This will occur until a, "… threshold level of per cpaita GDP is achieved (Preston, 1996)."
Developed countries also contribute to environmental degradation, but in
a very different way than developing countries. The reduced growth rate
in developed countries does not necessarily mean a decrease in environmental
degradation. Developed countries account for about 25% of world's population,
but consume 75% of its resources (Mlay, 1998). This occurs because per capita
consumption levels are too high. Generally speaking, developed countries
have a higher level of per capita income and are able to consume more goods
and services. In other words, the environmental problems in developed countries
are linked not to growing populations, but to consumption trends. Population
densities, more so than population growth rates are also an important factor
that affects the severity of environmental issues in developed countries.
In developed countries where there are higher population densities land
is scarcer. This increases the incentive to take care of it, because it
is a limited resource. The opposite of this trend occurs in developing regions,
such as Africa, where land is plentiful. With increased land resources people
tend to be more irresponsible with practicing sustainability.
Impact of Knowledge on the Environment:
Despite environmental degradation occurring in both the developed and developing
world, some studies argue that increasing knowledge will eliminate future
environmental problems (Ehrlich, 1998). The view holds that cleaner and
low polluting production methods will be discovered to improve environmental
quality, or at least to reduce negative impacts from production. In his
study on environment Ehrlich refutes the notion that knowledge will be the
saving grace for the future of the environment. While knowledge growth has
the potential to counter the effects of the environmental impacts of population
growth some economists are, "… skeptical as to the ability of
advances in knowledge to offset fully the adverse environmental impacts
of continued population growth and per capita consumption (Ehrlich, 1998)."
Improved knowledge can play a vital role in solving global environmental
problems. It can help reduce population size and reduce high patterns of
consumption. Yet there are several reasons why knowledge growth may not
lead to a healthier relationship with the environment (Ehrlich, 1998). To
understand how this might work one needs to understand the I=PAT equation.
According to Ehrlich, this equation states that damage to the environment
is a product, "… of population size, per capita affluence measured
by consumption and the environmental impact of technologies, cultural practices
and institutions that service consumption (Ehrlich, 1998)." Saying
that knowledge-growth will improve the environment in terms of the I=PAT
equation would mean a reduction in T that would over compensate the damages
caused by P and A. There are three reasons why manipulating the equation
as such breaks down (Ehrlich, 1998). First, not all knowledge gained necessarily
has to due with the environment. Second, the growth in knowledge may not
be beneficial to the environment in all situations. Third, even if the factors
that make up the T variable drop, it does not guarantee that it will drop
enough to reduce the damage caused to the environment.
Even if knowledge can lead towards improving the human impact on the global
environment, there are still areas that eventually will reach limits no
matter how much technology can be developed. If production inputs can be
reduced, the use of some natural resources will still be essential. One
study identifies fresh water, fertile soils, energy and biodiversity as
the most essential resources (Ehrlich, 1998). Knowledge growth can help
minimize the use of these resources in production, but these resources are
only replaceable by the earth; meaning sustainability will only go so far
as to minimize environmental degradation.
Despite the mixed environmental results that can occur form increased knowledge,
increasing our understanding about the environment as well as the human
impact on the globe is important to improving the current situation of environmental
degradation. For this to happen, five changes need to occur (Ehrlich, 1998).
First, incentives need to be created to increase knowledge relevant to the
environment. Two, the accessibility to the knowledge needs to be improved.
Three, competing disinformation needs to be eliminated. Fourth, the goals
for society need to hold more value than the goals of the individual. Finally,
fifth, the restraints that prevent the useful knowledge from being applied
need to be broken down. If these five changes can occur, knowledge growth
will have the ability to reduce the human impact on the global environment.
In other words, knowledge still plays an important role.
Solutions:
The solution towards reducing environmental degradation needs to be approached
from two fronts. First, policies need to be set up that work towards eliminating
poverty in developing countries. Eradication of poverty can occur through
training and education and increasing the developing world's accessibility
to resources. At the same time, wealthier countries need to reduce their
rates of consumption (Mlay, 1998). Large-scale resource acquisition, exploitation
and consumption are at the core of the environmental degradation not population
growth. Therefore, policy improvements should be focused on changing these
practicing rather than reducing fertility rates. More importantly, the world
has the potential to support more people in a sustainable way, but this
requires policies that foster resource sharing between the wealthy and the
poor. If a greater level of equity can be achieved environmental degradation
can begin to be reduced.
Ehrlich, Paul R., et al. (1999). "Knowledge and the Environment",
Ecological Economics v30, n2 (August 1999): 267-284.
Pebley, Anne R. (1998), "Demography and the Environment", Demography
v35, n4 (November 1998): 377-389.
Samuel H. Preston, "The Effect of Population Growth on Environmental
Quality", in Population Research and Policy Review, Vol. 15,
April 1996, pp. 95-108.
Mlay, Wilfred (1998), "Population Dynamics and the Environment ",
in Environment and sustainable development in Eastern and Southern Africa:
Some critical issues (1998): New York: St. Martin's Press; London: Macmillan
Press; in association with the Organization for Social Science Research
in Eastern and Southern Africa, 1998. pp 30-44.