In the article titled “The Unjust War against Population”, Jacqueline Kasun argues that that human population increase is not a problem and that there are still massive quantities of the resources we need on earth to sustain both our current population as well as future generations. Kasun criticizes the metaphor used by some advocates of population control that the earth is like a lifeboat and can only hold a certain number of humans before we run out of resources; she claims that the types and quantities of economic resources are always changing and that even if we were to run out of a particular resource, our technological capabilities would allow us to find and use a substitute. I believe that this argument is too narrowly-focused and ignores critical implications of destructive human behaviors.
It is likely that if we were to run out of a certain economic resource, such as oil, we could still survive and maintain our current quality of life by using some sort of substitute (e.g., nuclear power). However, this is a completely anthropocentric viewpoint; it fails to acknowledge the fact that human beings are not the only things of value on this planet and that there are other organisms which are affected by our actions. For instance, drilling for oil in the arctic may benefit us (at least in the short run), but the more we do it, the more damage we cause to ecosystems and the many non-human species that occupy them. Likewise, the hazardous waste that collects as a result of utilizing nuclear power is also harmful to the environment. It is egotistical to assume that the earth’s resources exist solely for our benefit and that the environment possesses no value other than the utilitarian sort.
Even if exhausting certain resources would pose no substantial immediate threats to humankind, there is plenty of evidence suggesting that our depletion of world resources and the actions we take to go about extracting/using them can have negative effects on the environment. Moreover, given that we are part of the environment, degrading it will eventually have a considerable negative impact on us as well; no matter how technologically advanced we become, we cannot remove ourselves from the larger environment.
If overconsumption was not as prevalent in industrialized countries as it currently is, and if natural resources were more evenly distributed among people around the world, population in itself may not be perceived as such a serious problem. Maybe even more important than controlling our population is changing our economic system and our way of life.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment