(Forgive any duplicate postings) >Six Billion of Us: Boo or Hooray? >By Donella Meadows <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >OCTOBER 8, 1999 >Months ago the United Nations decided to make an event out of the fact that >the human population meter would soon click over another billion. They >picked an arbitrary date -- October 12 -- and declared it the Day of Six >Billion. >What kind of event should this be? A day of repentance? A celebration? In a >world of soundbites, what's the right tone here? Six Billion, oh woe? Six >Billion, yippee? >My guess is that "oh woe" will rule the day. That's how we're used to >talking about ourselves. Overpopulation, population bomb, population >explosion, the population problem. Nobody is doing this population thing to >us; we are doing it to ourselves; but most of us seem to lament it. >I can surely understand why. Our numbers are scary and getting scarier. We >are growing at 78 million per year, the equivalent of a new Mexico City >every six months. Virtually all that growth is happening in places we call >"developing." >>From the point of view of the planet, we must indeed look like an explosion. > >In 1800 there were just one billion of us. We hit three billion in 1960 and >have doubled again in the blink of a planetary eye. Our fifth billionth >person is now just 12 years old; our fourth billionth is just 25. >Not only are there so many more of us, but each of us is bigger, as measured >by the energy and material we use and the pollutants and wastes we spew out. >We cover the globe with our lights and buildings and farms and roads and >planes and ships and dumps. We have eaten into the ozone layer and are >changing the climate. We're moving into the space of other species, causing >an extinction spasm greater than anything the earth has seen since the fall >of the dinosaurs. >But we are, as far as we know, the first creatures on this planet evolved >enough to realize that there is such a thing as a carrying capacity and that >there are penalties for exceeding it. Our scientists have begun to calculate >how many of us at what standard of living the earth can support. They don't >agree on an exact number, but there's clear evidence that we're already >beyond it. >Our fisheries are crashing. >A coalition of thousands of scientists says we must cut back our fossil fuel >burning by 60 to 80 percent to have any hope of stabilizing our climate. >Our farmers are not keeping up with our population; grain output per capita >has been falling since 1984. >Huge rivers -- the Colorado, Yellow, Nile, Ganges, Indus, Chao Phraya, Syr >Darya and Amu Darya -- are so drained by irrigation and cities that their >channels run dry for some or all of the year. In India, North China, >California's Central Valley and many other places, we are pumping down >groundwater at rates that cannot continue. >The World Commission on Forests says, "There has been a clear global trend >toward a massive loss of forested areas. ... Much of the forest that remains >is being progressively impoverished and all is threatened." >Two researchers at the University of British Columbia have calculated our >"ecological footprint" -- the amount of land needed to produce our resources >and absorb our wastes. They say our footprint is now 20 percent greater than >the productive land base of the planet. The only reason we can get away with >that overbig impact is there are still stocks of forest, fish, soils and >waters to draw down. >We can't go on drawing down forever, or even much longer. >We don't get a choice about that. If we don't reduce our load on the planet >voluntarily, the planet will do it for us. That will solve our population >problem. >Of course we don't have to submit to that outcome. There are signs that we >are in fact an intelligent species. Birth rates are coming down. In the >1950s the average woman bore six children; in the 1990s that number fell to >2.9. In every rich nation the fertility rate is below the replacement rate >of two children per woman. Some, such as the United States, are still >growing because of immigration and/or baby-boom cohorts moving through their >reproductive years. But if fertility holds at present levels, the population >of Europe will decline from 728 million in 1998 to 715 million in 2025. >We could, inspired by the awesome spectacle of our six billion, choose to >bring our numbers down gracefully, gradually, everywhere, over a century or >two, to around two billion, which would allow good lives for all humans and >leave plenty of room for nature as well. >The Day of Two Billion! THAT would be worth celebrating! >To get there, we need NOT regard ourselves, especially not the poor among >us, especially not the poor mothers of many children, as a cancer upon the >earth. >Quite the contrary. >What is bringing down birth rates in Thailand, in Costa Rica, in Malaysia, >is the empowerment and enrichment of poor women. Education, health care, >decent jobs, family planning programs, wherever these are generously >available, family sizes come down. >The other thing that has to come down is consumption. The number of people >is not what degrades the earth; it's the number of people times the flow of >energy and material each person commands. The ecological footprint of the >average American is 13 times that of the average Indian. The 4 million >babies born in the U.S. this year will have twice the earthly impact of the >26 million babies born in India. >If you know where to look, you can see how good lives can be lived with much >less load on the planet. Organic farmers produce high yields of healthy >foods without chemicals. "Green" architects design buildings that use less >than half the energy per square foot and are more comfortable. Drip >irrigation grows crops with higher yields using less water. Windmills and >solar collectors and fuel cells produce power without crazing the climate. >Best of all, many people are freeing themselves from the steady brainwashing >of the advertisers and deciding that they actually have enough. >Whatever the media do with the Day of Six Billion, I'd suggest that we real >folks, each of us an infinitesimal drop in that huge sea, refuse to simplify >or trivialize it, refuse to caricature each other as either the scourges or >the conquerors of the earth, refuse either to despair or to rejoice. We know >of the problems we cause each other and the millions of other creatures that >co-inhabit our finite planet. We know of the accomplishments we've pulled >off just to be able to support six billion of us, however inadequately or >inequitably. >What I hope we will have the greatness to do is to respect each other, >encourage each other, reach out to each other, commit to the vision of >everyone being able to thrive and to contribute to a diverse, sufficient, >equitable, joyful, sustainable, nature-rich world. >Everyone, however many billion that turns out to be. >-30- > Donella H. Meadows is an adjunct professor of environmental studies >at Dartmouth College. More about Donella Meadows <contributors.html>. Her >column appears each Friday in Tidepool. > http://www.tidepool.org/ >
