Are we too efficient?
2015/01/01 Galarraga Aiestaran, Ana - Elhuyar Zientzia Iturria: Elhuyar aldizkaria
Given the expansion and growth it has experienced since its birth, it is not possible to deny the success of our species. It has been able to adapt to all habitats and has demonstrated an enormous capacity to exploit local resources and condition the environment. Thus, it has transformed the planet more than any other living being.
However, the disproportionate growth and exploitation of resources have produced significant negative effects such as biodiversity loss, climate change, wars and migration to resources (energy, water, food), poverty and discrimination...
To address this situation, in addition to the measures taken by individuals and local officials, international institutions have launched important projects such as the Millennium Development Goals, the World Conference on Human Rights, the Convention on Biodiversity, Agenda 21 and the Kyoto Protocol.
All of them, by their good intention, have not fulfilled their goals. Among the causes of failure, most experts highlight two. On the one hand, the lack of commitment of certain countries and, on the other, the fact that the litigation sought to resolve were not related to each other. As a result, projects have fallen short.
For the researcher of the University of Hawaii, Camilo Mora, however, among the reasons why it has failed there is one that practically no one mentions, moreover, for Mora the main reason is the refusal to propose solutions to the population to take measures. He leads the Camilo Mora Laboratory to investigate the relationship between human activity and biodiversity and exposes his opinion in an article recently published in the journal Ecology and Society (Revisiting the environmental and socioeconomic effects or population growth: a fundamental but fadding issue in moder scientific, public and political clcires).
They are not just the words of an expert; data from international organizations and independent researchers confirm what Mora said. As the number of threatened species increases, our species continues to grow. Moreover, in recent decades the pace of growth has accelerated: We have gone from 1 billion in 1800 to 7 billion and, according to estimates by the United Nations (UN), in 2050 we will reach 9.600-12.3 billion with a probability of 80%. Resources, on the other hand, are limited and are not shared equally among all, proof of this is that currently more than 1 billion people suffer extreme poverty and hunger.
Continuous growth
In their previous predictions, experts agreed that the population would reach about 9 billion in this century, when it would stabilize. Now the UN forecast has overturned the previous calculations. In fact, it has announced a 70% probability of not stabilizing the population in this century.
The UN expects the largest growth to occur in Africa as it expects to quadruple its population (from the current 1 billion to 4 billion). Expect fewer changes in other parts of the world. Asia, for example, currently has 4.4 billion inhabitants and expects that once reached 5 billion in 2050, the population will begin to lose. North America, Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean will continue with less than 1 billion inhabitants each.
In view of this, Mora believes that the concern for overpopulation is, in general, too “fuzzy” and that the institutions do not give it enough importance. For example, he reported in the article that the Intergovernmental Organization for Climate Change (IPCC) barely mentions aspects such as population growth or family planning. The authorities also do not consider overpopulation and family planning when proposing measures to improve the health and well-being of the population.
According to Mora, “overpopulation is very likely to be off the scientific agenda, partly because people know little about the issue and don’t have much interest.” It also provides data showing that interest has been reduced: In the United States, in 1992, 68% of the population considered that population growth was an urgent problem, in 2000 only 8%, and in recent polls it does not even appear. “Unfortunately, the limited interest of the people brings with it a limited political initiative,” says Mora. Proof of this is that the percentage of international subsidies for family planning has decreased from 55% to 5% between 1995 and 2005.
On the one hand, the lack of interest in the issue and the decrease in subsidies to family planning projects, and on the other hand, the growth of the population in developing countries, make Mora not believe that the world population stabilizes spontaneously. He also warns that population growth is not limited to developing countries: he points out that more than one candidate who ran in the US presidential elections had between 5 and 7 children. “This shows that the problem is not just that of developing countries, but that the root causes are not just poverty and lack of education.”
In fact, it has been shown in many places that as the educational level rises and, above all, as girls' schooling is achieved, the age of their first pregnancy increases and the birth rate decreases. For Mora, however, this is not enough to limit population growth, and proof of this is the tendency of wealthy American politicians. Mora believes that religion can influence it: In the United States, since the 1970s, confidence in science has declined, especially among those who come to church frequently. Added to this is nationalism, which seems to fear that, with few children, the country will lose its military and technological capacity. Therefore, the reasons why population growth is dismissed are deeper than expected and difficult to change.
Consequences of excess
To combat skepticism with overpopulation, Mora has highlighted its consequences, from unemployment to ecological loss. For example, 640 million jobs worldwide will be missing in the next decade, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Public debt will also be a problem. As for welfare, there is no doubt that the rapid growth of the population only hurts: it favours the extension of infectious diseases, increases the number of sex workers, favors migrations, generates social imbalances... On the other hand, the exhaustion of resources will also have dramatic consequences.
In addition to these aspects that directly affect people, Mora has also mentioned two issues that affect other living beings: the ecological catastrophe, directly related to resource depletion and climate change. One sentence perfectly summarizes Mora's opinion: “The definitive solution not only implies a smaller ecological footprint, but also a smaller footprint or footprint”. That is, we must also reduce those that leave marks.
He recently published his latest report, the fifth, the Intergovernmental Organization for Climate Change (IPCC). For the preparation of the report, independent international experts have analyzed more than 30,000 investigations whose effects are clear: man directly influences climate change and if not stopped, the damage will be serious, widespread and irreversible, both in people and ecosystems.
Among the numerous data that have led to this conclusion, the speakers have clarified that the majority of those affected have not been the main cause of climate change. In fact, until recently the population of non-industrialized countries is suffering the most serious consequences of climate change.
In addition to collecting data and drawing conclusions, the IPCC has issued recommendations to curb climate change. Objective: To reach a temperature of 2°C higher than that of the beginning of industrialization in the 21st century. At the end of the 20th century. This would mean a 40-70% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and 100% by 2100. To achieve this, they say that the measures must be of all levels, that is, from local to global, and of two types, that seek to adapt to the situation and that aim to reduce emissions.
However, the recommendations do not mention the need to stop population growth. Therefore, for those who share Mora's vision, it is highly likely that the IPCC's recommendations are not enough to address climate change.
Have less solution?
But, given all the above, is it realistic to ask for measures to limit the population? Ibon Galarraga, deputy director of the BC3 for climate change research, is in negative. While recognizing that overpopulation is one of the main factors affecting climate change, the possibility of implementing population reduction policies generates many doubts: “It doesn’t seem realistic to me and it’s also ethically not acceptable either. What should we do: ask people in developing countries to have one child, like China? Or do we have to tell Africans not to invest in health? XIX. Since the 20th century, we know from the hand of Malthus that population growth can be a development problem, but all the policies implemented to date to curb this growth have failed.”
Moreover, according to a study recently published in the journal PNAS, reducing the population is not an effective solution to solve environmental problems. This study, published by researchers at the University of Adelaide (Human population reduction is not a quick fix for environmental problems), highlights five types of human damage to the environment: soil transformation through agriculture, forestry and urbanism; hunting and fishing; introduction of alien species; pollution and climate change. To all of them is added the interaction between them.
They say that the pressure on the environment would be reduced if the population is smaller and they consider critical analysis to stabilize the population size essential. Researchers believe that the most appropriate measure cannot be said, as it depends on technological and sociological advances, but, like Mora, they believe that overpopulation has been affected and that the measures proposed so far have failed.
Thus, the size of the population in the year 2100 has been calculated according to the different circumstances. For example, the implementation of a single-parent policy worldwide would mean that in 2100 the population would be similar to the current one, maintaining the trend of mortality. And if in the middle of the century there was a catastrophe and in 5 years there were 2 billion dead, the population at the end of the century would be 8.5 billion.
That is, neither extreme family planning nor a catastrophe would be effective in reducing the population. Therefore, it has been concluded that it is more appropriate to take other measures for the benefit of the environment. These include minimizing the ecological footprint through technological and social innovations, designing clear pathways to protect ecosystems and species, reducing consumption and treating population size as a long-term issue.
However, they warn that all this should not be an excuse not to try to reduce fertility: “This way millions of deaths can be avoided in the middle of the century and, probably, Homo sapiens will stay with a more habitable planet.”
