Are Homo sapiens, destroying Earth? This question has sparked a debate that intensified over the past century and has brought to light some basic social and economic underpinnings of the world’s most advanced species that could potentially threaten all species and life, as it exists today. Homo sapiens, humans, have existed, on earth as a species and some subspecies on the evolutionary chain for hundreds of thousands of years. Most of their time on the planet has been spent as people of indigenous tribes, existing at the subsistence level. Frail in physical construction, the human was not high on the predatory food chain and his only chance for success was the use of his large brain. Over the last millennia, humans have developed technology that has allowed them to multiply at a near exponential rate. With the current population approaching 6 billion, famine and poverty are rampant and world leaders ponder over policy that could both slow the rate of population growth and protect the environment that has provided so much for our grand species.
Presently, there are four competing opinions in the population and environment debate, neoclassical, classical, dependency theorists and analysts. Neoclassical economists believe that population growth is a moot point and in a free market economy, could actually increase the rate at which innovation and technology are developed, thus stimulating further and more rapid economic growth and not degrading the land. The classical economists believe that there are decreasing marginal returns to population growth and due to the finite spaces of earth available, will degrade the quality of land. The third camp, dependency theorists, believe that population growth is a product of our social structure. They believe that poverty contributes to land degradation, however, it is not the absolute cause and other factors contribute. The final group, analysts, view population growth as having a multiplier effect to environmental degradation, yet it is not the primary issue.1 The following analysis will evolve reasons for believing that rapid population growth is not the primary issue but still a cause when discussing environmental degradation. The problem, itself, stems from deeper issues such as political influences, existing global economic structure and the composition of affluent versus poverty stricken families.
When studying any social situation in order to understand the present and the future, it is necessary to view the precedence, or past. Like every other species humans have one simple need, food. Humans have evolved, over the centuries, from a hunter-gatherer nomadic people to an agrarian localized culture. Once that transition was made and humans became more sedentary, the population began to expand. The need for children stemmed from the fact that a farmer’s life is a hard life and he can use all the help he can get. Hence, children became a factor in production and the family became the central production unit.
As population increased the demand for certain goods increased and, therefore, specialization was promoted but not beyond the scope of the local village. With increased production came increased nutrition, which eventually lowered the crude death rate while birth rates remained the same and the population skyrocketed. The theory of demographic transition identifies this discrepancy between the crude death rate and crude birth rate as the point in population growth where countries should industrialize because the ability to accumulate capital is increased due to the ability to increase production. Thus, demand became so intense that collectivism and factory production were the only way to meet that demand with supply.
But how was the environment responding to the incredible social and economic mutations humans were encountering? A primitive biological model attempts to draw a cause and effect relationship between industrialization and the environment. This model is based on precedent. In 900 AD, Europe was nearly completely covered by forest canopy. 3 As humans became more agrarian they needed space for crops and cattle grazing and by 1900, nearly all of the forests had been eliminated.2,3 In effect, population growth, searching for raw materials and ways to increase food production is associated with deforestation. This relationship can be seen today in less developed countries as they "slash and burn" their way to a higher level of food production.
The primitive model only highlights a direction; more people need more food and as a result the area of cultivatable farmland must expand. Unfortunately the primitive biological model does not explain the extensive human population growth that the world has witnessed over the past 100 years. Improvements in technology have fundamentally changed human biological behavior. By combating virulent microorganisms humans extended their lifetime by a significant amount. This shifted the distribution of ages to a population that could be productive for a longer period of time, hastening the economic development of humans.2
When considering models of economic development and population growth, it is necessary to consider the problem-solving and cooperative nature of humans. It is those qualities that make the relationship between humans and the environment more complex.2 Therefore, more than just the exogenous variables of the primitive biological model effect the environment, there must be endogenous factors.
Homo sapiens, as a species are incredibly sociable and with social beings comes hierarchical organization, and control. Governments developed land tenure systems which incorporate rules that decide who is allowed to own land. For example, in sub-Saharan Africa some governments allow people to purchase land by simply clearing it and if they let it lie fallow they can lose the land.2 Japanese forests, on the other hand, became aware of the effects of deforestation in the 17th century and are now nearly entirely protected by the government. 2
The policies that each government makes regarding land distribution, ownership, maintenance and production with respect to population growth are greatly influenced by one of four camps of environmental policy, neoclassical, classical, dependency, and analyst theorists. Neoclassical economists are mainly concerned with whether or not the economy can support a rapidly expanding population and maintain a consistent standard of living. Theory in this camp relies heavily on the invisible hand. Neoclassical economists argue that as natural resources are consumed and become scarce, they will be substituted by manmade synthetic materials and or labor.1 They also note that producers may stockpile resources in the event that natural resources are consumed to reap a higher profit as supply of the finished product dwindles, assuming demand remains relatively constant. When discussing land, neoclassical economists treat it like any other resource, changes in technology, methods and substitution can improve production, however, if the market is inefficient, land degradation can occur.1
In terms of population growth, neoclassical economists view the consequences in a largely optimistic light. They view land as a highly substitutable factor of production. Neoclassical economists also see an expanding population, in the long run, as offering alternatives and improvements in technology that can alleviate the stress caused by land scarcity. In the short run degradation can be viewed as a lag-time where technology has time to "catch up" to desired production rates. Overall, neoclassical economists see land degradation as a result of market inefficiencies.1
Classical economists, better known as Malthusian economists, assume that the natural resource base is finite. They ponder whether or not the standard of living will improve with increasing pressure from a population expanding at a geometric rate.1 Classical economists argue that output cannot sustain a rapidly expanding population, which supports Malthus’ law of diminishing returns. The crux of the classical argument resides in the "demographic trap" theory. 1 This problem resides in the theory of demographic transition and evolves from increasing population and land degradation. Classical economists believe that because resources are fixed, a growing population cannot support itself, land degrades and, therefore, the crude death rates and crude birth rates fluctuate but never converge to the low final level.1
In actuality, classical economists are only correct in certain situations. Hosier and Mather have looked at the statistical correlation between population growth rates and forest change. The results created chinks in the classical armor. They found that in areas of high population growth rates forest area was decreasing and in areas of slower population growth forest area was increasing.1 Therefore, the density, high levels of growth of the population and use of the land cause land to degrade, not necessarily the growth rate.
The third camp, dependency economists, focus more on societal structure as opposed to population growth and density. They believe that the majority of land degradation happens in the third world. They believe the problem to stem from a population-poverty situation where less developed countries do not have access to technology, capital and resources that the richer countries have. Due to the lack of resources families are forced to have a large number of children to provide for the parents in old age and other goods are more readily substituted for child education.1 Hence, inequality and poverty, yield high fertility and land degredation.1
The last camp, analysts, are a group of economists that believe land degradation is caused by population growth exacerbating other factors in the economy that contribute to land degradation, yet not the fundamental cause.1 Analysts believe fundamental causes to be polluting technologies, cultivation of "fragile lands", and "misconceived" agricultural policies. Take, for example, Nepal. Low farm productivity has forced families to cut down trees for farmland and a source of heat. This practice, participation extending to many people, deforestation has lead to soil erosion and deforestation.1
In summary, all four camps have unique views in the relationship between population growth and environmental degradation. Neoclassical economists believe that inefficient markets are the cause of land degradation, while classical economists believe it is a fertility issue. Dependency theorists believe the problem is a result of poverty and poor resource management, and the analyst camp is centered about the fundamental cause, which is a combination of all three.1 Each of the first three theories, however, presents only a piece of the composite whole. It is accepted that high growth rates exacerbate land degradation, but it is necessary to focus on the real issues. There are only a finite amount of resources, and policy makers have to realize that. Where does the real solution reside? The present rate of technological change is blindingly fast but poverty is rampant and a majority of the world’s inhabitants do not experience the pleasures of a truly modern existence. Corruption and market inefficiencies rule the corporate and trade worlds. Can the global economic machine recognize the significance of one man/woman’s strife? Rapid population growth does degrade the quality of land in the short-run and the working man/woman must strive to improve his standard of living.