The article states that human's may have entered a zone where the carrying capacity of humans on Earth will be reached. The article summarizes this by comparing two examples: U.N. calculations as well as finding the median of 65 "estimate bounds" regarding carrying capacity. The median for high and low projections is very close to projections made by the U.N. These ranges of human population by 2050 are 7.7 billion to 12.5 billion. The large gap found in this estimates prompt the author to note that the prediction of human population is extremely difficult given the fact that unforeseeable events may occur which may have significant effects on the population.
The second-half of this article presents the reader with methods on estimating the carrying capacity through mathematic calculations. One simple formula that stood out to me was the following: food supply/individual food requirement. This formula helps determine whether or not a human population is sustainable in respect to the amount of food available. The same formula applies to water supply. Overall, it seems that predicting carrying capacity is incredibly difficult due to the fact that in most predictions, limiting factors are left out from calculations which may provide inconsistent data when compared to other studies.
All in all, this article is succinct yet thorough. I will undoubtly use this peer-reviewed article to provide evidence in my research paper when analyzing research methods as well as comparing predictions made by different resources. This research paper doesn't provide predictions, but rather presents how information is gathered and starting points for themes to explore in my research paper.
Population Growth and Earth's Human Carrying Capacity (1995). Web. 25 Feb. 2010.
Population Growth and Climate Change
In this article, the author is quick to show his opinion on population growth and it's correlation to climate change. The author cites many sources, so it is clear that his opinion is derived from extensive research.
"...1.5 million people need food and somewhere to live. This amounts to a huge new city each week, somewhere, which destroys wildlife habitats and augments world fossil fuel consumption. Every person born adds to greenhouse gas emissions, and escaping poverty is impossible without these emissions increasing."
The author is quick to highlight the how disastrous population growth is to the climate change. Though his example of a huge new city each week is a bit drastic, his point is made - though not to strongest I believe.
However, the point of the article is not to explain the damages population growth causes, but rather present a solution: contraception. The more I read about contraception being a major contributor to reaching a dynamic equilibrium in the human population, the more I become convinced.
"The Optimum Population Trust calculates that "each new UK birth will be responsible for 160 times more greenhouse gas emissions . . . than a new birth in Ethiopia."
The previous quote provides more evidence to the notion that climate change isn't because of such a large population, but rather the demand of the populations in developed or developing nations. This statement, however, seems to retract his initial criticism that highlighted population growth as the major contributor to climate change.
Nonetheless, he makes the point that contraception needs to become available to all women around the world and in the right way. Individual nations, their doctors, and religions must endorse contraceptions not just as a way to control the population growth, but rather to help reduce future CO2 emissions. They should not be forced upon women or couples, but rather inform them of how having a fertility rate of 2.0 helps better the planet for future generations to come.
Guillebaud, John. "Population Growth and Climate Change." (2008). BMJ. 28 July 2008. Web. 25 Feb. 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment