You “believe” that the world can support many more people than it does today, yet more and more we are seeing that supporting the number we have today causes environmental degradation and disasters. I, and many others, feel that the quality of life is part and parcel with the quality of nature. That is, conserving wildlife, natural areas, the oceans and so on are all fundamental for having quality living conditions. So, from my perspective, we already have too many people!

Also, “getting what one wants” means that we will drive the environment into worse and worse scenarios. Take Spain for example. I was told once by a Spaniard that in the days of Caesar, a monkey could go from Gibraltar to the Pyrenees without setting foot on the ground. Today, Spain has many environmental problems, driven by population pressure (I would suggest). The Spaniard was suggesting to me that life was good for Spaniards, even with complete deforestation. I would say that Spain would be much more interesting for all, if it had more nature.

And, you are wrong that people in poor countries suffer worse environment than rich. Here in Brazil, and in most Latin American countries, the environment is in much MUCH better condition than it is in Spain and the rest of Europe, and it is better here than in the United States. More nature, more clean water, more clean air, more wildlife and so on. The rich countries are the ones that have already degraded their environments!

Are you a biologist? You seem to have the perspective of Julian Simon that the only thing that matters are people. He also says the world could support many more people, but he would say that the environment is of little importance in comparison. I would suggest that without a good environment, life is less interesting, and the quality of life is directly related to the diversity of life – not just human. Usually biologists understand that, and non-biologists don’t.

Cheers,

Jim

Jim, this is my position regarding some of the points you raise:

- Yes, the world can comfortably support many more people than it has today.

- People in poor countries suffer a worse environment than those in rich ones.

- People have the means (social, technological, etc.) to improve the environment. “Improvement = population size X means X time” is a plausible equation.

- Generally speaking, consumption equals “getting what one wants.” Except in very specific cases, I see no compelling reason to tell, or coerce, people to get less of what they want and pay for. I believe the same applies to the number of children people prefer to have.

- I think that the best thing rich countries can do for poor ones is to set a good example. But I admit that few people agree with me as to what constitutes a good example. Too bad for me

Thank you for the opportunity to debate these matters.

Clearly our assumptions determine our conclusions. If we assume the humanistic perspective that when things get bad enough we will fix them, then perhaps Marcelo is correct (but see David Ehrenfeld’s insightful book “The Arrogance of Humanism” – and others) to see why those assumptions are incorrect.

If we as ecologists recognize that the earth cannot even indefinitely maintain the current standard of living due to population pressures, then we must also recognize that the solution to the population problem is not just letting people move from where they live to another, favored country. Rather we need to move to control populations everywhere.

At the same time, we need to recognize where population does the most damage. Garret Hardin had a simple equation that basically said impact = population size X affluence X time. So, the major environmental impacts come from countries with the greatest population densities and affluence – The USA, Western Europe, and now China and India.

Immigration might be a small part of the population problem, and so perhaps Marcelo has a point to be considered. However, reduction of population is absolutely necessary to maintain a quality of life that includes nature, AND that guarantees the future of humanity. I would recommend a two-tiered approach – the countries with the highest density and affluence first cut back on their consumption, thereby setting an example to the world, and second, those same countries help (education, health) the less affluent countries so that they can then take better care of themselves.

Immigration can be seen as people trying to get to the promised land, or as people trying to escape bad conditions. If conditions were good in their home countries, fewer people would be emmigrating. Perhaps the rich countries would be better off helping the poor countries to become promised lands, rather than use them as cheap sources of labor and entertainment.

I think that would be much more effective than laws that will inevitably be broken.

I have spoken with many Latin Americans who think it quite ironic that the United States pushes them to control their own populations when it was through uncontrolled population growth that the United States became what it is today – and when today, the population density in the USA is much greater than that in most Latin American countries. Brazil, for example, has the same area as the 48 contiguous states, but also has 100 million FEWER people than the 48 states!

Sincerely,

Jim

Stuart H. Hurlbert, eminent ecologist at San Diego State University, writes against immigrants in the official blog of the Ecological Society of America (ESA). He doesn’t want immigrants because he thinks they destroy the environment. According to Hu….