p.p1 to control the lives of individuals


p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.

0px 0.0px 0.0px; line-height: 14.0px; font: 12.0px Times; color: #000000; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000}span.s1 {font-kerning: none}span.Apple-tab-span {white-space:pre}Asking the question ” do we have have a population problem?”. Well both environmental scientists and economists now say that if population continues to grow, that problems are inevitable.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Though, the United Nation predicts that there population statistics show that there will be a slowing in growth within the next 100 years and a decline in population size. At one point in time it was asked “do we still need to work on controlling population”? Mathew Connolly a historian argued that the twentieth-century movement to control population was an oppressive movement that failed to deliver on its promises. But now that population growth is slowing, the age of population control is over. Now it is a question on how much is the Earth’s carrying capacity, and are we willing to change the standard of living in order to support a larger population? Though it may seem that we have large expanses of land of where people can live, but countries with large land areas and small populations can be overpopulated in terms of resource availability.

The “yes” side argued by David Attenborough, argues that environmental problems that are faced by the world are due to human numbers and without a population reduction, problems will become ever more difficult— and ultimately impossible— to solve. In my eyes the only way to go about making more land for the increase of humans is to take the land from the plants and animals. With the impact of the billions of people on Earth and the very little space, people are open to talk about the impact that has been created like global warming, famine, spreading of deserts and species loss. But the discussion of population size always seems to go in one ear and out the other.

In order to reduce population size, there needs to be a better understanding of the problem that is at hand.  The “no” side argued by Sean Lanahan, argues that the world’s agricultural system currently produces just enough food for at least double the current world population, and that the so called “over -population” myth of “unsustainability” is a scare tactic that is designed to control the lives of individuals and justify the dehumanizing nature such as abortion and euthanasia. The argument that Lanahan is making claims that over population is a scare tactic to thus control the lives of humans. He claims that there are plenty of calories available for consumption and plenty of land suitable for farming to create more food. The current problem with malnutrition in less developed countries is that they do not have the equipment and infrastructure needed to successfully harvest and sell food. His argument also claims that in the desert of the world, solar power plants could be installed to produce electricity that will help increase jobs and revenue.  In my opinion I think that the “no” side of the argument is in other words is faulty.

This is because Lanahan does not bring up at the worlds natural resource use, its economics and or its environmental preservation.  Thus the “yes” side would have my vote.

x

Hi!
I'm William!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out