The Issue of Human Population Growth, Kitty Genovese

Paper
Course Code:
Level of Study:
Name of Student:
Name of Lecturer:
Date:
Discussion of Question 1
The issue of human population growth has continued being a thorn in the flesh for many of the world’s governments and global bodies. Most have argued that the increase in population is likely to result in degradation of the basic quality of life. Ever since the start of the nineteenth century, the global human population has undergone an almost exponential increase. As the population continues to grow, there have been proponents as well as opponents of its impacts on the planet. Two leading researchers, Paul Ehrlich and Julian Simon debated over the same, to the extent of each placing bets. Simon was of the opinion that the world would be a better place with a larger population while Ehrlich was of an opposite view. He opined that the quality of life would only grow worse with the increase in population. This paper critically analyzes the argument posed by these two, to try and identify which one is more relevant to the present and future understanding of the issues surrounding population growth.
Mankind has got an unexpected resilience. In one way or another, the human race has just managed to find solutions to the problems they encounter on a daily basis, quite to the extent that there is absolutely nothing that tends to put them down. For example, in the early years, when the earth was too cold for human life, man managed to make fire to keep him warm. When distances became too long, man, as well, managed to make locomotives. Still, he managed to make machines, so as to make work easier. The most creative and innovative aspect of human beings usually arises in the face of trouble.
They will most likely to things to improve their quality of life. This is in essence; the argument brought forward by Julian Simon (Christianity Today, 1994).He believes that population growth will come along with ingenious ways that mankind will handle himself to deal with it. He is an ardent believer in the adage that necessity is the mother of invention. Similarly therefore, he believes that population increase will make life to only get better, and not the other way round.
Simon’s argument gets some support from Pearce (2009), who believes that the main threat to the environment doesn't emanate from population growth but overconsumption. The insatiable thirst of people, especially from the developed world, is what has brought about the destruction of the environment. The most affluent portion of the human population, from the most affluent nations, is the ones who cause the greatest havoc to the planet. Such an opinion acquits population growth of any negativity on the environment. Looking at his view. However, there is still the underlining issue of population. If there would have been a lesser number of people on the planet, then the effects of the overconsumption by the affluent in society wouldn't have been felt. After all, such a class existed in the medieval times, and their impact on the environment was never heard of.
It is the argument of Ehrlich . However, that holds more water. He firmly believes that the rapid population increase is some form of a time bomb, waiting for the ideal moment to explode. He thinks the population growth experienced on the planet over the past two centuries has been more than the planet itself could comfortably handle. As a result, the expected population growth in the future would be a recipe for more and more problems for this planet. These issues would be multipronged and multidimensional, from the environment to the social existence as well.
Ehrlich's school of thought offers a view into the most profound idea associated with population increase; pressure on resources. It should be remembered that the growth in population doesn't match the increase in resources. It is more like a case of an independent and a fixed variable, where the planet is the later (Christianity Today, 1994).As people multiply, the planet doesn't. It remains the same, with the same resources and size. As a result, what the planet could provide for a few individuals gets shared among multitudes. The most obvious outcome of this is that there will scramble for the limited available resources at one time.
Environmental degradation soon ensues. People will start cutting down trees so as to find places to settle and more raw materials for their use. Natural resources would get overexploited, and rivers would dry up, if not heavily polluted. The planet would bleed to death in the process. The ecological balance would, however, be uneven. The largest consumers in the world do not necessarily suffer the severe effects of population growth and pollution. On the contrary, the regions undergoing the population explosion are the ones that will suffer most. This is strikingly similar to the effects of global warming. Therefore, the largest producers and consumers, who are also the biggest polluters, won’t bear the brunt of pollution and environmental degradation.
In conclusion, population growth is bound to bring about more challenges than benefits. The planet's carrying capacity is continually being stretched by the unabated increase in the population. In the analysis of the arguments put forth by Ehrlich and Simon, the former’s views carry much weight and are mo...