The Silent Crisis
The great majority of people around the world never ask, " Is the world overpopulated?" They don't know what it might mean to them, any more than members of an endangered species rapidly losing habitat to human encroachment can comprehend the cause of their predicament.
That the is over six billion, that it might double in this century, means little to most Americans. Few know the , of their nation, or of the state where they reside. They don't know why they should. No authority has ever told them it was important to know those numbers, except to say that, in general, the more people the better. No one has ever told them that, unless people only replace themselves, unless couples on average have no more than two children, population will grow ever faster, compounding like money in the bank to unimaginably large numbers. If the U.S. population grows due to immigration, however rapidly, that has—until very recently—been regarded as beneficial as well.
Most Americans don't know that today's human numbers are a very recent phenomenon—that as recently as 1930, in their grandparents' youth, world population was barely two billion, and U.S. population was less than half of what it is today. People and institutions have not adjusted to the sweeping new challenge of accelerating growth in human numbers.
Infinite growth is an impossibility in a world of finite resources. As economist Kenneth Boulding declared, "Anyone who believes can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist."
Human numbers and activity have become quite literally a geologic force, manifesting themselves through , which is already having harmful effects. High mountain glaciers and snowfields are no longer reliable sources of spring river flows, so that water for agriculture does not arrive at the time and in the quantities most needed. In Arctic regions, structures built atop permafrost are collapsing. Polar ice is melting, releasing freshwater flows that may alter the great ocean circulations, changing climates, temperatures, and agricultural production over vast areas. Environmental problems are almost always of our own making.
Science and technology enthusiasts, particularly if they are long on blind faith and short on understanding of fundamental limits, tend to be complacent—to shrug and say, "They'll think of something" to fix . But overpopulation is already doing irreparable harm, in particular by driving the continuing extinction of other species. The largest die-off since the extinction of the dinosaurs is now in progress, all of it human—caused. and extinctions go hand in hand: it is estimated that more than five hundred species have gone extinct in the United States alone in the last two centuries. More than one thousand are currently listed as threatened or endangered.4 The principal cause is "loss of habitat," a euphemism for human encroachment.
Sadly, all of us living in the "real world," including leaders in politics, business, and industry are inclined to ignore, rationalize, deny, or simply postpone action as long as possible—this despite widespread knowledge that changes wrought by overpopulation will likely have an irreversible negative impact. But they realize that reducing population and consumption to sustainable levels will require massive economic and social restructuring throughout society.5
The American public is not demanding government action to achieve reduced consumption, greater efficiency in energy use, or reductions in population. The media sometimes present conservation in a favorable light, but the idea of gradually reducing the U.S. population seldom receives attention, unless it is presented as a threat to the economy. Almost never do the media portray reduction in human numbers as a beneficial step away from the impossibility of endless population growth.6
As population and consumption grow, stocks of nonrenewable resources dwindle. Obviously this cannot continue. Since change is inevitable, the public should be informed of the possible benefits of a gradual transition to long-term sustainability.7 The benefits of achieving a significantly smaller U.S. population might include:, the short-term remedy is to reduce consumption, particularly forms of consumption that have especially harmful effects. To reduce impact in the long term, to achieve an environment that can be sustainable far into the future, reducing consumption is not enough. It is also necessary to reduce population to sustainable levels. A sustainable economy is defined as one that provides for present needs without jeopardizing its ability to supply generations far into the future in much the same way.3
Reduced demand for .
More direct democracy.
A cleaner, healthier environment with fewer costly environmental problems.
Less congestion, crowding, and sprawl.
More stable communities and institutions.
More set-asides of natural areas for wildlife habitat and recreation.
Fewer costly military interventions overseas to secure access to foreign resources.