A useful
way, Cohen argues, to examine the problem of population growth is to view the
decline of Easter Island in relation to the problems we are facing here on Earth. Easter Islanders, most likely Polynesian peoples, have inhabited
this part of the island from as early as circa 400 A.D. Where the original
inhabitants might have numbered in the hundreds, the population slowly rose to maybe
ten thousand at its peak. The collapse and decline of this society, who carved
giant heads called moai out of volcanic rock, was exacerbated by the practices
which lead to the ecological degradation of the land. There is plenty of
evidence in favor of this hypothesis: decrease in pollen cores suggests that
deforestation occurred at a rapid pace, which led to soil erosion among other
things; introduction of a Polynesian rat species that feasted on forest seeds, preventing regeneration of the trees; increased
hunting and fishing to stave off starvation. In simplest terms, the higher the
population, the more mouths to feed, the more land that needs to be cleared for
agriculture, more trees cut down for canoes, firewood, construction, more rope
to erect statues, which leads to more degradation. The island eventually would be unable to sustain itself, which leads to more disputes concerning available
land and more frequent infighting among the society. The Earth itself is an
island, albeit one on a grander scale in the context of the solar system, and
humans can very well use up the resources of this island similar to the way
Easter Islanders have—so Paul Bahn and John Flenly’s assumption that “Easter
Island was a microcosm which provides a model for the whole planet” (190) is
certainly one deserving of merit.
If
there is an upper limit to human carrying capacity, it will certainly lie beyond the
threshold humans are willing to tolerate. Humans can subsist off very little—it
is only how much we are willing to sacrifice in personal well-being before
there is a call to arms for change. Cohen suggests that we will be forced to
make a change simply because we have to.
Although
there is no definitive answer to the human carrying capacity of Earth, we can
still construct models to interpret quantitative and qualitative data to assess
the situation. It would be highly complex, incorporating a variety of
circumstances relating to the global economy, politics, and many other contributing
factors. The capacity will be conditional on our choices and constraints—our
needs and wants. The carrying capacity of Earth is a highly complex question
which yields equally highly complex answers. There is no choice but to take
caution when making decisions as humanity falls forward into the future.
Critical Thinking: In what sense does the Earth not have single
carrying capacity for human beings?
Scientists
can constructs models as they please, and there will still not be a definitive
answer to the question of Earth’s carry capacity. Circumstances are subjected
to change. New technologies develop. Human ingenuity has proven its worth more
times than once. It is a highly complex issue, and one which does not yield
any direct results. Human carrying capacity incorporates many facets that
factor in political policies on a global scale. The diversity of lifestyles and
beliefs contribute to this complexity. What we decide as important will ultimately
affect the limit in Earth’s ability to provide.
Works Cited
Cohen, Joel E. “Human Carrying Capacity.” Sources: Selections in Environmental Studies.
Ed. Thomas Easton. United States, 2014. 189-192.
No comments:
Post a Comment