Striding Toward Sustainability

Zhihan Chen

As many esteemed scientific studies have concluded, the United States, along with worldwide civilizations, has been growing at a rapid rate, having already achieved overpopulation in its strictest sense-an area too densely populated for its available resources and environment capacity. This steady growth, which has accelerated in the last fifty years, is further exacerbated by the U.S.'s "inordinately high use of resources," particularly its "profligate consumption (of natural resources) and waste emission." Basing my viewpoint on scientific studies executed, I believe in the consensus that 150 - 200 million is the best, sustainable population for the United States instead of the present 300 million.

A pioneer move toward zero or negative population growth and sustainability would be "comparable in scale to only two other changes: the Agricultural Revolution ...and the Industrial Revolution of the past two centuries," declared William D. Ruckelshaus in 1989. "This [revolution] will have to be a fully conscious operation, guided by the best foresight that science can provide. The undertaking will be absolutely unique in humanity's stay on the Earth," Ruckelshaus concludes.

In fact, it is wisest to progress with this movement, as it seems inevitable that our environmental issues will be resolved, whether through our own choice or in unpleasant ways such as warfare, genocide, starvation, disease epidemics, etc. As elucidated in Jared Diamond's apocalyptic novel Collapse, twelve contemporary problems are cited as serious enough to possibly propel our civilization to collapse, as many previous empires have fallen. Four of these deal with destruction or losses of natural resources, three involve ceilings on natural resources, three consist of harmful things produced or moved, and the final two are concerned with population issues- incredibly high rates of growth and the people's impact on the environment. "Our world society is presently on a non-sustainable course, and any of our twelve problems of non-sustainability that we have just summarized would suffice to limit our lifestyle within the next several decades" (Diamond).

Indeed, slowing population growth will yield far-reaching consequences. Currently, the world's six billion people consume resources and generate waste, with each citizen in the U.S. consuming 32 times more resources and emitting 32 times more waste, than do inhabitants of the Third World (Plate 35). Therefore, a smaller, more environmentally conscious population can significantly restrain our currently extravagant expenditures and waste emissions.

In addition, sacrifices should also be made in the controversial area of immigration. Negative Population Growth suggests a strict reduction in illegal immigration, which makes up about one half of the yearly population growth, through the implementation of more rigid measures and penalties. Once the US has achieved successful population policies, it can direct its attention to informing other countries about the dangers of overpopulating a world with limited resources and a definite carrying capacity

Thus, if we care about the earth, its future, our children and grandchildren, we will adopt various novel lifestyles and change our traditional paradigms. Simple things to help save the Earth include buying an energy-efficient car, recycling bottles and cans, voting wisely in elections (keeping in mind that perpetual growth is not always a prudent course). Harder changes involved in a more frugal lifestyle consist of having two children, supporting higher priced fossil energy (in order to promote fuel efficiency and renewable energy), helping others out of poverty, caring well for your land, opposing unfair and oppressive systems, and running for elections (Donnella Meadows).

If these guidelines can be followed by first a household, community, county, and state, the U.S. can steadily but surely navigate this noble revolution, which reveals a nation's love for, insight and concern about its people, its environment, other countries' citizens, and the Earth. Using principles of systems thinking and self-restraint, we will be able to stop this rush forward into growth, slow down, enjoy the small wonders of life, and in the process, preserve our beloved world in pristine conditions for thousands of years to come.

---

Bryan Jackson

I do not believe the United States can sustain its current population of 300 million in the long run; 200 million is a more accurate representation of what our country can sustain. Our current population overburdens our environment and our economic and social structures. 300 million and growing positions our country in a population crisis - we simply cannot maintain a healthy environment and an adequate standard of living with a population of that size. In fact, we urgently need a negative rate of population growth until we reach a sustainable level.

As our population has increased – from 200 million to 300 million in less than 40 years – our country has put overwhelming strain on its natural resources. With the drastic increases in population and the resultant urban sprawl, we have been depleting our country?s water and energy supplies, and instead adding to global warming and increased greenhouse gas emissions.

Our ever increasing population sprawl has decreased the land available for other species, and is causing the extinction of hundreds of species each year. We?ve suffocated much of our farmland and wildlife habitat. We are losing our green space, as well as destroying the diversity that is necessary to a vital, healthy environment. Our environment cannot survive the strain.

With the likely potential of increasing another 100 million in the next 30 years, our country will require even more land, water, and energy. The more we grow, the more imported oil and infrastructure we require - roads, bridges, power plants, and buildings- causing damage to our environment. We have finite resources and as we continue to grow our resources will not be able to meet the needs of our ever-expanding population. The harm we?ve done to the environment through population, ozone depletion, and waste is becoming irreparable. Initially the damage to our natural resources may have been restricted to limited areas such as tropical environments. Not any more.

NPG Population Essay Scholarship Contest (page 2)Bryan Jackson

Along with the shortage of natural resources, our country?s social and economic structures will suffer if we attempt to sustain a population of 300 million or more; similarly our quality of life will decrease. The financial costs of keeping up with the current population growth with increased infrastructure and sufficient building – houses, schools, hospitals, etc. – will overwhelm our economy. The increased housing costs will be unreachable by many. The ever increasing costs for Social Security and Medicare will also overwhelm our economic system. In the next 25 years our senior population (65 or older) may account for 20% of our total population. Younger workers could potentially face outrageous federal income tax increases to support our increasingly aging population.

We could curb the population explosion by a couple of proposed solutions; apparently the majority of our current population agrees that we need to take steps to give our country a future that protects our quality of life for future generations. We must take firm steps – now – to adopt sensible measures to reverse our population growth to avoid condemning future generations to life in an unbearably overcrowded country. Two of the measures I believe would be successful would be a drastic decrease in immigration, and a reduction in our country?s fertility rates.

One of the root causes of our out-of-control population explosion is our current immigration crisis. Our country?s population is being increased by over one million immigrants each year, with about one third of this consisting of illegal immigration. It is estimated that about half of the last 100 million Americans are immigrants and their children; and as a result public opinion is increasingly anti-immigration. The drastic increase in immigrants – particularly illegal immigrants – has placed a massive strain on our economic and social systems. An end to illegal immigration, and the drastic reduction of legal immigration, would help us make dramatic strides towards a smaller population and would alleviate the strain on our economy and our natural resources.
NPG Population Essay Scholarship Contest (page 3)Bryan Jackson

Another measure would consist of encouraging couples to have not more than two children. Although fertility is currently one of the least important sources of population growth, it is a matter of concern. Fertility in our country has not been regulated, but we need to encourage families to stop at two children – to increase understanding that high fertility has negative social consequences.

Recent surveys have shown that the ever-growing population crises can and will wipe out many of our recent environmental advances. I share a concern with NPG about the unsustainable level of population growth – and I would suggest that 200 million is a sustainable population instead of the current 300 million.


* The source of information for this essay has been the press releases, articles, and journals found at www.npg.org.

Bryan Jackson

---

Nicholas Murray

Overpopulation has long been a concern of environmentalists and social advocates, and as the United States passes 300 million people, these concerns will soon become a reality if left unchecked. Overpopulation affects every aspect of life, from air pollution to what foods a person can buy. When too many people inhabit a country, the quality of life for the citizens begins to suffer. With an excessively large population, jobs would be hard to find and basic necessities of life such as food, water and shelter would be in short supply. While this is currently not the case in the United States, it is not unreasonable to extrapolate that from our current population, such conditions could exist if our population continues to grow.

A population of 200 to 250 million people would be ultimately suitable for the United States. With this lowered population, demand for food, oil, and other resources would be eased, causing prices to drop. Jobs would be plentiful and the economy would be efficient and productive. Another major benefit of a significantly reduced population would be the reduced environmental impact. Less people in the United States would reduce our energy and resource consumption. There is a limited amount of fossil fuels available for our use and when those reserves are exhausted society will have to use alternative energy sources to meet its power needs. Every person in the United States produces pollution, directly and indirectly, and the amount of pollution is related to the amount of people living in the country.

Three main factors are causing our population to rise: increased birth rates, longer life spans and increased immigration. Since we can't ethically reduce people's life spans, we must adjust the other two factors to control our population.

The total fertility rate in the United States is currently 2.09, meaning that an average of 2.09 children is born to a woman over her lifetime. If this number could be reduced to 1.5, over the next 50 years, the population of the United States would decrease drastically. Improved education, family planning, and other incentives can help reduce the fertility rate.

Immigration is another cause of a higher population in America. Over one million people immigrate to the United States every year, many of them illegally. When people illegally live in America they do not pay taxes nor do they contribute to the local economy because a majority of their income is sent back to their relatives in their home country. If we can reduce immigration rates greatly, we can hinder this massive addition to our population. Legal immigration rates could be capped at a certain level allowing only a certain number of new immigrants every year. Illegal immigration could be more strongly monitored and the laws strictly imposed to accomplish these reduced immigration rates.

Without firm action in the coming decades our country, and the world, will suffer the backlash from gross overpopulation. Steps need to be taken to reduce our country's population to a more stable and sustainable level. All of the world's efforts to reduce greenhouse gases and cut emissions will be completely negated if we cannot find a feasible method to lower our population. Overpopulation is the most critical threat facing our world in the coming century and needs to be dealt with accordingly and quickly if we wish to dodge this potential crisis.

---

Carolyn Taylor

When I turned four years old, my dad bought me a tank with four guppy fish and a ceramic castle. I used to pull a chair all the way from the den, down the hall, and into my little pink room just to sit and watch them dip in and out of the drawbridge. Before long eight new guppy fish appeared, along with three tadpoles and a crawdad I had caught from the creek. Precocious as I was, I marched into my parents's bedroom and declared that we needed to get the guppies fixed.

As I look back on that day, I realize that if a four-year-old can look into a glass tank and grasp that there are simply too many organisms producing too much waste and consuming too much oxygen to be sustainable, competent adults should be able to make similar inferences from a trip to New York City or even their local Wal-Mart.

Whereas the world population is growing at an alarming rate, no nation's population increase poses as much of a threat as that of the United States. Clearly, seeing as much of U.S. consumption depends on imported resources and foreign energy reserves, we are consuming more than our land can efficiently provide. Thus, most activists and progressive thinkers have latched onto the green lifestyle and sustainable development plans while the critical population issue is disregarded or overlooked completely. Also, despite the fact that overpopulation is an essential obstacle to overcome in environmental restoration and is widely recognized as such by theorists and academics, there is little or no mention of the issue in green movements across the country. Without the recognition of overpopulation as a danger to both humanity and the ecosystem, ecological movements are useless. In other words, if the population of the United States reaches 500 million, there won't be enough to go around, no matter how much we reduce, reuse, and recycle.

I don't seek to discount the importance of environmental and resource conservation, but rather to emphasize the fact that population awareness is greatly underrepresented in contemporary social and political movements. With the U.S. population well over 300 million and counting, a consensus population goal should be set and worked towards.

Ideally, the United States' population would be a sustainable 200 million or less. Researchers agree that the US population as it was in the 40's and early 50's would be a realistic goal, both sustainable and optimal for domestic economy; however, the implementation of a plan is difficult without any steps to climb.

In my opinion, strong organizations that can both educate the public and influence policy are essential assets for population awareness. In many cases (such as the opposition of neo free-trade sanctions in Québec) ralliers have been able to call the attention of the state and media by simply congregating. Activism is proven to implement social change, whereas apathetic supporters yield few results.

In conclusion, it takes more than simply the recognition of the problem to reverse the damage. When I was four, I wanted to get my fish fixed. Now, I want to adopt. In the end, individuals are responsible for carrying out the change that they want to see in the world. Overpopulation threatens the security of the United States not only for our children and our children's children, but for our own generation as well.