Overpopulation
Gandhi claimed that England had to exploit the entire planet in the 20th century. In the 20th century, to achieve its standard of living, India would need more than one planet to reach the same standard of living. It was a critique of colonialism, but it has to do with the environment. The population of India is very large, far superior to the English.
And the global population of the planet is even greater. US Councillor Nina Ferodoff believes that the global population has already exceeded the threshold of sustainability. "Surely there are many people on the planet," he said in an interview on the BBC's One Planet program.
The data provided by the BBC were those provided by the organization US Census Bureau: the world population is around 6.8 billion people, a population that grows daily by 218.030 people and could reach 9 billion by 2040.
6.8 billion people are consuming, consuming energy and exploiting natural resources (and are emitting carbon dioxide through breathing). They are large numbers without analyzing the distribution of wealth.
Ferodoff is not the only one who has launched this idea. The prestigious BBC host, Sir David Attenborough, has joined the Optimum Population Trust, a group that advocates the need to reduce the population. Attenborough believes there is a need to reduce the human population. "I don't know problems that wouldn't make it easier for fewer people in the world."
Ecology
It reduces the population but how much? It is very difficult to say. Ecological equilibrium would require human beings to take their rightful place among species, no more or less. But there are two problems.
The first is that you cannot know how many human beings are suitable for ecology. It can be calculated, but always based on estimates. For example, according to one estimate, in the Pleistocene (200,000 years ago), the Iberian Peninsula housed approximately 150,000 people. Currently, the population of Spain and Portugal exceeds 51 million inhabitants. If we recognize that the population of the Pleistocene was a consequence of the ecological balance, we can use the data of the Iberian Peninsula and extrapolate the "ecological population" of the whole world. But the result would not be reliable, among other things because it is based on too many estimates and assumptions. In the Pleistocene no censuses were made and we cannot know to what extent the number 150,000 is accurate.
The second problem for knowing the optimal population of ecological balance is that ecological balance does not exist. Ecosystems are never in balance. In constant evolution. The proliferation and decline of some species, the appearance of some and the disappearance of others are constant. Due to many factors, biotopes do not always remain the same.
For example, the initial ecological state of the Neolithic is not the same as the current one, so the 'adequate' human quantity would also be different in the Neolithic and now.
However, you may not need to know the right amount. At this time the human population is very high. But it may be a problem of these centuries and, seen from the perspective of time, Earth's ecosystems will self-regulate. In short, man is not the only species that has had a large population throughout evolutionary history, and in all cases has reached its decline. Self-regulation.
In fact, in the case of humans it is possible that the regulatory factor is climate change. In any case, it will not be the only factor, but it can contribute to the decline of the human population. And if so, one might wonder if an attitude in favor of environmentalism is not an attitude in favor of climate change.
Zu idazle
Zientzia aldizkaria
