Of course it is. It has to be. The world population has never been higher. And it continues to rapidly grow. The demand for resources and land and timber increase every year. Nature must suffer. There is no other way. Every single environmental issue is directly tied to population growth. But very few people actually want to recognize this fact. And what about us? Should we act as the check valve ready to absorb the overflow from poor, over populated countries? Of course not! Our land and resources are also limited. It’s suicide.
Eventually the Earth is going to tell man to get bent and we’ll be gone. I believe it’s just good stewardship to do what we can to nurture the planet while we’re here. Sadly there are many who simply believe that we can piss on the Earth without repercussion.
We’ll be gone. But not before we’ve paved everything and used up all the natural resources.
And yet so many people cheer the rollback of environmental protections that are meant to preserve the health of this planet.
You are missing the point. The planet is not being destroyed due to lack of regulations. There is no evidence of this. The U.N, certainly did not reach this conclusion. Try not to completely poison the well with politics. You cannot work with people and condemn them at the same time. It doesn’t work that way. Nothing works that way,
The answer is industrialization. All countries that industrialize have their birth rates fall.
Nations who have large swaths of their populations living subsistence based lifestyles have correspondingly high birth rates. Children are free labor in pre industrial agricultural societies.
But industrialization can only happen in socially and politically stable states. That is the issue with much of the third world. As long as they remain unstable they will not completely industrialize. And as such their population growth will not slow.
That would be each individual country’s responsibility. We can help, but we can only take care of our little piece of the planet. And being the check valve and absorbing the third world’s population overflow is the single worst way to do it. It only serves to ruin our country too.
Agree with you 100%.
Simply fishing the same spots for 30 years makes me sad; barren compared to the 80s. Unrestrained population growth only ends one way.
I fully agree.
We can help in the sense that we can send political and economic advisors to teach the government how to effectively manage its resources. We can even send military and law enforcement advisors (if requested) to help train the military and police forces how to deal with internal and external security threats.
But we can’t do it for them. And we simply cannot accept millions of their citizens to lessen their burden.
The biggest cause of wildlife losses is change to the way land or marine environments are used, followed by direct exploitation of animals and plants, climate change, pollution and invasive species. (from the article)
This is a land use issue more than anything. Populations can increase, but if proper environmental precautions are made the wildlife will perhaps survive.
Population is also a factor, but society can play a role in telling people when they can and cannot live if they want. It up to us. on this one.
Population is the primary driver of all environmental issues. For example. If we had half as many people, habitat destruction would be half of what it is. I think it’s all pretty much proportional.