There Goes Planet Earth: Part I

Enough updates!  Let's talk about something.

I just finished watching the Planet Earth series put out by the BBC.  Overall, it is documentary regarding the beauty of the natural environment, and the continual pressure that we put on it.  The final disc of the five disc set is entitled, Planet Earth: Future.  It addresses the big question of, “Where do we go from here?”  The arguments that fire back and forth are so strikingly different that it absolutely astounds me.  On one end, there are the people that say without intervention we will destroy the diversity and sustainability of this planet.  The other side says that the environmentalist are exaggerating the situation; and for all sorts of legal, political, and pragmatic reasons, nothing can be done to address the issue.

I honestly don’t understand all the arbitrary legal restrictions that prevent more proactive movements from really flourishing.  Not that I couldn’t understand.  I just have a logistical problem with the fact that warring organizations can’t get over themselves long enough to throw aside the rule book to deal with the matter.

What I do understand is that a major change has to occur somewhere, and on a global level.  You can’t tell a third world country to stop harvesting the land and the forests when their ability to survive day by day relies on their ability to harness the land.  To tell them they can’t use the land for agriculture and deforestation is basically telling them they can only choose to starve to death.  At the same time, you can’t tell first world countries that they can’t drive their cars to reduce emissions when their culture now depends on their ability to travel vast distances in a single day. 

In my lifetime, there has been significant programs and movements developed to reduce the damage done by the human race on the planet.  Recycling, mass transportation, improved fuel efficiency in vehicles, water conservation, reforesting etc.  However, the ice caps are still melting, pollution levels are still increasing, and the ozone layer continues to deplete.  What we’ve done so far isn’t enough, and it’s unlikely that we are willing, as a whole, to change our lifestyles as much as we need to.

That being said, how do we slow down the destruction?  How do we level it out, and finally allow the planet to rebound to a healthier equilibrium?

In my own little world I have an answer to lessening out ecological impact, regardless of its practicalities.  My solution: population control.  If we’re not willing to slow down the conversion of the planet’s rainforests to farmland; or somehow alter western culture to eliminate the amount of emissions and oil usage by a drastic amount; or convince oil companies that they can go out of business while we convert to electric and hybrid cars; or even, quite honestly, if change is not possible given the human demand and dependency on certain resources; if we cannot sustain the level of supply; then all that remains is to reduce the level of demand.  And if we cannot do that enough by incremental changes to our lifestyle, then all that remains is to reduce the amount of people requiring such goods.

No one can really disagree that if the world’s population was cut in half we would see at least a 30% to 40% drop in emissions, destruction, and general stress to the planet.  Less people needing food means less agriculture needed to sustain it.  Less agriculture allows farmers to rotate their lands more readily without converting more of the wilderness to farmland.  Similarly, less drivers means less emissions and gas consumption.  Less consumption means less dependency on middle-eastern oil reserves, to which people say, “that would be great!,” but as it stands we seemingly are unable to do enough to help to make it happen.  We all still have to get to our jobs, eat, and dispose of our trash.  We all like electricity, which requires vast consumptions of fossil fuels or the production of nuclear waste.  So, if it has become a necessity, the best I can imagine doing is reducing the amount of people who need it.

How does one go about doing that?  Well, no one’s a fan of WWIII, and genocide’s not exactly the best idea either.  With modern medicine, its unlikely a plague is going to level the world population.  And that zombie apocalypse everyone keeps talking about probably isn’t going to happen.  Sorry, guys.  Even if it does, I think the film industry has us pretty well prepped for what to do in that situation anyways.  In short, no one wants half the world’s population to suddenly die off, nor is it going to. 

So, if you’re not increasing the global death-rate, the only other option is to reduce the amount of children coming into this world.  Yes, I am aware that China implemented the “one child” program back in the ‘70s, and they still have the largest world population.  I am well aware that there are flaws with my conception, and that much like communism, it looks and sounds good on paper, but in practice, it probably wouldn’t work.  Bear with me, though, and understand that this idea is a thought experiment and a work in progress...

Continue to Part II -->