Our world would already be past what ecologists call the carrying capacity for the human species IF everyone had the same ecological footprint as the average American. This means that if all six billion (plus) people on the planet currently had same standard of living as a US Citizen, our world would literally have no wild spaces whatsoever, as every inch of land would need to be converted to produce food, energy, and resources for humanity.
For example, the United States uses almost 30% of the world’s entire paper supply each year. At 300 million, it contains less than 5% of the world’s population. Clearly, that is out of balance. If everyone on the planet consumed as many paper products (from printer paper to toilet paper) we would truly have a crisis due to amount of lumber that would be required. The same is true for oil, meat, and other resources.
Technology might fix some of this. Economists are correct: more efficient processes and resource substitutes are definitely part of the answer. Yet, as natural scientists point out, there are real-world limits as well that can not easily be tweaked. There is only so much wild space left on the planet to preserve the millions of non-domesticated species. Of course, it could converted to farmland to feed humanity, and will be, if push comes to shove! The Real Question: is that the best use of that land or our intellect? Likewise, there are only so many more tons of mineral resources still ‘virgin’ within the ground. Someday, we'll pass a moment (and perhaps we already have for some resources) where there is less coal, oil, gold, or titanium underground than already being used on the planet surface. Afterward, the remaining amount will continue to shrink (and grow ever more expensive on the free market). Eventually, firms will begin to mine garbage heaps as these will contain high concentrations of needed materials that are idle. Although this might be considered reductio ad absurdum, our planet has only so many carbon atoms on the planet, etc. Resources are truly finite on planet Earth.
I wish I had a simple solution. I do not. Mass poverty within Africa, South America, and Asia has been the main force preventing ecological disaster for the past 30 years as half the planet has survived with only the bare essentials; however, this is not an ethical or viable long-term solution. China and India, each with a billion (plus) citizen, have finally embraced capitalism, resulting in millions of more people joining a new middle class each year. More and more people wanting bigger slices from a finite resource pie.
People do not like to give up current standards of living; yet, some logical compromises will be needed before the end of the 21st century. A better way to live is needed. Peace, prosperity, and sustainability are all part of the equation. Until a balance is found which allows the vast majority of people on the planet to have a pleasant lifestyle without exceeding the planet's carrying capacity, their will remain continuous political instability and the very real risk that that global ecosystems could be greatly diminished for future generations (meaning, an even a smaller carrying capacity).
Comments