I've been thinking about the intersection of two book chapters that we read as part of a course I'm taking on globalization and lifelong learning.
The first is by David Geoffrey Smith. He talks about the problems created when we approach teaching as if our students were being prepared for a "frozen future" -- in other words, they are being prepared to apply what they learned at some future date to a world that looks (essentially) just as things are now. This is a particular problem when we talk about technology skills that become outdated so quickly.
The second chapter is by Dan Beveridge. He talks about economic globalization and sustainability, which is closely related to the topic that my group is going to present in class in a couple of weeks (green/environmental movements). Like most of the articles that I'm reading about globalization and environmental issues, this chapter discusses the kinds of things that we need to do so 6 billion people can live in a sustainable way on this planet.
Here is my problem: assuming that we can reduce emissions and create technologies that make our use of resources more efficient -- so 6 billion people can live sustainably on this planet -- the population isn't going to stay at 6 billion. Animal populations are typically limited by biological and environmental factors: food sources, predators, habitat, disease, and the ability to find a mate. We humans are conquering all of these areas. We are finding ways to produce more food. We have no predators. We can live anywhere on the planet. We are making huge medical advances including fighting disease and reproductive technology.
Even if we are sustainable at 6 billion, will we be sustainable at 9, 12, or 20 billion people? This planet can't hold an infinite number of human beings and frankly, I don't want the situation to get to the point where we all squabble over the last few inches of land or mass starvation breaks out (more than it already does).
This seems to be a taboo topic. Even writing this, I am thinking about policies that could reduce the human population to 3 billion people over the next hundred years or so (through voluntary choices not to have more than 1-2 kids). It seems a bit fascist to limit reproductive rights. Who am I to tell people that they can't have 17 kids with more on the way? Who am I to countermand God's command to be fruitful and multiply? I'm not sure, but it seems to me that we've been fruitful enough.
In any case, my point is that the equation needs to be balanced:
number of people X impact/person = sustainable impact that the planet can absorb
So we need to either keep reducing the impact for each person (through reduction, technology, etc...), cap or decrease the number of people, or find additional planets to colonize (which I don't see being a realistic option for a large number of people before we would hit 20 billion people here via unrestricted reproduction).
The first is by David Geoffrey Smith. He talks about the problems created when we approach teaching as if our students were being prepared for a "frozen future" -- in other words, they are being prepared to apply what they learned at some future date to a world that looks (essentially) just as things are now. This is a particular problem when we talk about technology skills that become outdated so quickly.
The second chapter is by Dan Beveridge. He talks about economic globalization and sustainability, which is closely related to the topic that my group is going to present in class in a couple of weeks (green/environmental movements). Like most of the articles that I'm reading about globalization and environmental issues, this chapter discusses the kinds of things that we need to do so 6 billion people can live in a sustainable way on this planet.
Here is my problem: assuming that we can reduce emissions and create technologies that make our use of resources more efficient -- so 6 billion people can live sustainably on this planet -- the population isn't going to stay at 6 billion. Animal populations are typically limited by biological and environmental factors: food sources, predators, habitat, disease, and the ability to find a mate. We humans are conquering all of these areas. We are finding ways to produce more food. We have no predators. We can live anywhere on the planet. We are making huge medical advances including fighting disease and reproductive technology.
Even if we are sustainable at 6 billion, will we be sustainable at 9, 12, or 20 billion people? This planet can't hold an infinite number of human beings and frankly, I don't want the situation to get to the point where we all squabble over the last few inches of land or mass starvation breaks out (more than it already does).
This seems to be a taboo topic. Even writing this, I am thinking about policies that could reduce the human population to 3 billion people over the next hundred years or so (through voluntary choices not to have more than 1-2 kids). It seems a bit fascist to limit reproductive rights. Who am I to tell people that they can't have 17 kids with more on the way? Who am I to countermand God's command to be fruitful and multiply? I'm not sure, but it seems to me that we've been fruitful enough.
In any case, my point is that the equation needs to be balanced:
number of people X impact/person = sustainable impact that the planet can absorb
So we need to either keep reducing the impact for each person (through reduction, technology, etc...), cap or decrease the number of people, or find additional planets to colonize (which I don't see being a realistic option for a large number of people before we would hit 20 billion people here via unrestricted reproduction).
Leave a comment