Cole Gladstone

Professor Brown-Perez

Honors 201, section 1

9 Nov. 2014

First World Problems

The Earth is dying. Ice caps are melting, species are disappearing at an alarming rate, and

mother nature is telling us to stop. There are more storms, tornadoes, extreme temperatures,

tsunamis, and the like than ever before. There are also more people on Earth than there have ever

been. Predictions say that the Earth will reach between nine and ten billion people by 2050, an

alarming increase from just 3 billion in 1950 (How Many People Can Live on Planet Earth?).

That being said, large populations are far from our biggest problem, and they are certainly not

going to be solved solely by the poor countries that house the most growth. Policies such as the

one child policy are not the answer, and should not be championed by countries like the U.S.

There is so much more that can be done to prevent population growth and encourage environ-

mentally friendly industrialization in developing countries. The wealthy world has a responsibil-

ity to aid these countries and reduce its consumption, as excess resource use is the largest con-

tributor to Earth’s problems. The totally environmental degradation which is occurring is not

only caused by overpopulation, but by the overconsumption and greed of countries that are

wealthy, developed, perfectly capable of saving the planet, and have a lot to gain from reduced

consumption.

The world population is booming. There is a fantastic site called the world population

clock that keeps a statistically accurate count of the number of people on earth broken up by

country. When viewing this site one thing is very clear: the human race is expanding at an un-

precedented rate. But why is this growth occurring? When we look more deeply into the subject,

we can see that certain regions of the world are the cause of this great population multiplication.

As I stated earlier, the world is expected to be nine or ten billion strong by 2050, an increase of

about thirty percent from today. This is a staggering number, but it makes sense when we see

that Afghanistan and most of sub-saharan Africa’s population is expected to double in this same

time period. Even more unbelievable is the expected growth of Niger, which looks at a tripling of

their peoples in the next thirty-five years (How Many People Can Live on Planet Earth?). This

enormous increase means that there are more mouths to feed, more people to dress, and more re-

sources needed to keep the human race alive. Clearly, the conclusion can be made that the

world’s resource problem can be blamed on the great population boom of the 20th and 21st cen-

turies. Right?

Wrong. The countries that are having the most growth are those that are terribly poor.

These are Countries in the bottom twenty percent of the world’s living index. These countries, al-

though growing, only use 1.3 percent of the world’s resources in any physical year. The top

twenty percent, on the other hand, use eighty-six percent of the resources. The first world wastes

like nothing else (How Many People Can Live on Planet Earth?). We take for granted everything

that is in front of us and use more than our fair share. Let us take water as our example. Water is

the most important resource on Earth. It is required for life all the way up the food chain. Water

is also the most abundant resource on the planet, taking up approximately seventy percent of the

Earth’s surface. That is a ton of water, even if there are going to be ten, or even fifty, billion peo-

ple on Earth. Unfortunately, the vast majority of this water is unusable to us. Only 2.5 percent of

the world’s water is fresh water. This still is plenty of water for us. Unfortunately, only one per-

2

cent of that 2.5 is actually accessible to humans. This means that only .025 percent (that is

.00025 in decimal form) of the world’s water is actually what is usable to man (How Many Peo-

ple Can Live on Planet Earth?).

Due to this data, you would think that we would be actively working on conserving wa-

ter. Unfortunately, turning off the tap while you brush your teeth is just not enough. Even if you

think that you are conscious of your water use, I can assure you that you are not. One small cup

of coffee from an average coffee shop requires over one hundred twenty liters of water to pro-

duce from the plant to your hand. A can of beer takes over 150 liters, a t-shirt over 3,000, and a

hamburger over 8,000 (How Many People Can Live on Planet Earth?). This water that is used to

create these products is largely wasted. After it is through with its task, it is flushed out into the

ocean where it becomes completely useless saltwater.

Our wasteful use of the world’s precious accessible fresh water has caused drastic effects

in the same countries which we are blaming for our resource shortage. Over one billion people

have little to no access to clean water, and in the next twenty years, that will grow to half the

population. The first world has a responsibility to stop this problem, as we are the ones causing

it. The average American uses 67 times the amount of resources (including water) as the average

Indonesian, according to the resource demand index (Butler 582). Much of this excessive use of

resources comes from the first world’s food consumption.

One of the largest issues in today’s society is obesity. Surprise surprise, the U.S. sits very

close to the top of the list for the most overweight countries. The average American eats about

2800-2900 calories a day, up from 2500 in 1985 (Cafaro, Primack, and Zimdahl). This is a seri-

ous issue for the health of the American population and a very clear image that Americans over

consume. We are eating much more than what is needed to sustain our bodies. On the other hand,

3

about 30 percent of the world’s population is underweight (Cafaro, Primack, and Zimdahl). Un-

fortunately for these underweight people, much of the food that we eat comes from their coun-

tries, as it is cheaper to grow it there than in the U.S. We are literally taking the food out of their

mouths when we do not even need it. Americans eat, on average, twice as much meat as Western

Europeans, who are wealthy and healthy. As we saw earlier, meat is a huge consumer of precious

water as well as hundreds of other resources which can not be wasted.

Our large food intake not only hurts other humans but leads to the extinction of thousands

of animal species. Agriculture is the cause of 38 percent of the endangered species on Earth.

Ranching is the cause for another 22 percent. In fact, the major cause for species stress in 35

states and Puerto Rico is food growing and raising, let alone production (Cafaro, Primack, and

Zimdahl). Nearly 40 percent of the globe’s land mass is taken up with agricultural practices. No

wonder we are currently consuming almost two Earth’s worth of resources globally (How Many

People Can Live on Planet Earth?)!

Nobody wants to change their eating habits. It is difficult to convince Americans that re-

ducing our food intake will actually benefit us along with the planet. Fortunately, there are plenty

of statistics out there proving that eating less would be beneficial to our American bodies. Obe-

sity causes an increased risk of type 2 diabetes, cancer, liver disease, gallbladder disease, hyper-

tension, sleep apnea, and much more (Wolin and Petrelli). There are also the economic benefits

of reducing food intake. In 2000, the effects of obesity caused a $117 billion cost in the United

States alone (Preventing Obesity and Chronic Diseases through Good Nutrition and Physical

Activity 1). If we look at food production from an economic supply and demand standpoint, we

will also save boatloads of money from a reduction in food prices as well. If people want less

food (demand goes down), then companies will reduce the cost of food to try to encourage more

4

purchasing. Fortunately, with our newfound healthy lifestyle, we will resist that temptation and

continue to eat reasonable portions (or at least that is the goal.) The final advantage our reduced

consumption has is its benefits to farmers and livestock. As we reduce the amount of food that

we request, we also reduce the amount of food required for production. This means that there

will be space leftover for organic local farms where the farmers make their own rules. People

will once again view farming as a desirable profession, not one ruled by overpowering big busi-

ness. There will be room for animals to roam so as not to give them a horrible life before they are

slaughtered (Butler). Everyone will be generally better off if the first world reduces its food con-

sumption. We have a responsibility to stop the problem that we are causing. All of this talk of

overconsumption has made it clear that it is not the fault of the third world countries and their

rapidly growing populations for our environmental woes. That being said, overpopulation is a se-

rious concern when looking at the future wellbeing of the planet and its peoples. Once again, it is

our responsibility in the first world to help solve this problem.

Population growth occurs in four main stages. The first stage supports very low growth.

This is when societies are just starting out, there are very few of them still today (if any). There

is no infrastructure and the people are often nomadic. The death rates are very high, because

there is no healthcare or a real knowledge of how to live a healthy and long life. Birth rates are

also very high because kids are needed to help gather food, hunt, and keep the family subsisting.

As a society evolves into the second stage, its knowledge of life sustaining practices (healthcare,

clean water, nutrition) begin to grow. Life expectancies increase, infant mortality rates drop, and

the population begins to boom because birth rates have not changed. It takes a few generations

for the country to realize that they no longer need as many children per woman to succeed

(Rubenstein). In order to teach countries that they no longer need this many babies, education,

5

industrialization, and contraceptives are key. Unfortunately, in many cases, the countries in this

stage of demographic transition cannot afford to create these programs. This is where the first

world must step in.

Wealthy countries must pioneer programs in developing countries in order to reduce their

growth, promote green industrialization, and improve welfare for citizens. One solution which is

fairly easy and proven to be effective is contraceptives. It would cost about $9 billion to provide

contraceptives to all of the women who want them in developed countries for a year. This is the

same amount of money that the world spends weapons in 56 hours (Smith). This means that po-

tentially saving the planet takes .6 percent of the world’s arms budget (not even the weapon’s de-

velopment or the servicemen, just the physical weapons!) Studies have shown that some people

in third world countries are begging for contraceptives, but there are not the resources currently

to distribute them. Also, there is concern that the people taking the contraceptives need more ed-

ucation before being given them so that they can fully understand the side effects (Warwick).

Luckily, education kills two birds with one (book?).

If we look at India as an example for a country which has massive population growth, we

can see where the benefits of education come into play. Many poorer regions of India have very

little education, especially for women. High school attendance is poor and kids often drop out in

order to help support their families. Territories like these often see women getting married at the

age of eighteen, and having upwards of four children by the time that they are twenty-eight. One

province which has committed to making a change is Kerala. Here, the education system is both

strict and highly regarded for its excellence. Children begin school at the age of four and con-

tinue rigorous studies until they are eighteen. Women are given the same opportunities as men

when it comes to the school system, and they perform just as well. Since this push for learning

6

was put into place in the mid-twentieth century, birth rates in Kerala have dropped to 1.5 babies

per woman, and the average age of marriage is twenty-eight (How Many People Can Live on

Planet Earth?). A fully educated woman with no children at twenty-eight verses a non-educated

women with four children; this clearly paints the picture for the population and standard of living

benefits for educated verses non-educated countries. If the strategies used in Kerala could be

adopted by other developing areas, populations could be greatly reduced, especially when contra-

ceptive programs are used in conjunction.

When contraceptives and education are brought into these countries, they will begin to

enter the third stage of demographic transition. In this stage, the industrial stage, countries’ birth

rates decrease to close to their death rates, so their population growth is fairly small. This is rep-

resented in most of Europe, South Korea, China, and so on. They all have total fertility rates at

around 2.5 babies per woman, just above replacement rate (which is about 2.1) (Rubenstein 35-

51). As the name of this stage suggests, industrialization is rampant in societies of this demogra-

phy. This is why wealthy countries have a third and final responsibility to developing countries

in order to save the planet from our destruction: environmentally friendly development.

Environmentally conscious behaviors are often an afterthought. Take Whole Foods in the

U.S. as an example. You will not see many Whole Foods in poor communities simply because

they would be a bad investment. People who make just enough money cannot afford to purchase

foods that are healthy or sustainably grown. Many do not have the luxury of thinking about the

environment when considering their food intake, as all their attention goes to getting enough to

feed their families. Only people with enough wealth left over after necessities are paid for can

begin to think about consuming in a more environmentally friendly manner. You will see these

people purchasing the exorbitantly expensive organic produce, free range chicken, and non-

7

farmed fish at their local Whole Foods Market. It is not that poorer folk do not care about the en-

vironment, it is that they cannot afford to buy into the sustainable method (Serazio). Also, poorer

people often are taken advantage of, their homes, schools, and parks polluted by factories who

have control over them, distorting their visions of what it means to live sustainably (Sierra).

They have been surrounded by filth and pollution for their entire lives and therefore often have

less of a sustainable vision which drives them to clean up their world.

These same facts apply when scaled up to countries. When just beginning to industrialize,

countries pollute massively, because they are trying to make as much economic progress as pos-

sible. The environment only becomes a concern when countries have an economic foothold and

have the time and resources to develop sustainable production practices. Fortunately, countries

like the U.S. and much of Europe have already created these technologies. There is no need for

developing countries to reinvent the wheel or pay exorbitant prices for green technology. It is

beneficial to all if the first world helps by giving them affordable alternatives to their dirty pro-

cesses. We have the power to let developing countries “leap-frog polluting” (Butler 583). This

will also help to reduce population growth by lengthening lifespans, meaning that people feel

less pressured to have children at a young age (leading to more babies.) Pollution has historically

had a huge impact on lifespans. During the industrial revolution for example, Manchester, Eng-

land’s poorest lived to only seventeen on average, while the wealthy lived to thirty-eight. In com-

parison, in the less polluted rural areas, the poor and wealthy on average lived to thirty-eight and

fifty-two, respectively (Gutowski et al. 83). This can be seen today as well. There are huge life

expectancy gaps (up to 30 percent) between the wealthiest and poorest, and most polluted, areas

of the United States, simply leading to more babies being born (“Place Matters”). Green technol-

8

ogy imported to developing countries will improve not only the environment but their economies

and standards of living. It will decrease birth rates as well.

Eventually, once countries are fully developed, they enter the fourth and final stage of de-

mographic transition. This phase is known as the post-industrial phase. In this phase, populations

actually begin to drop (Rubenstein 51). As we saw in Kerala, India, birth rates had fallen to 1.5

babies per woman. As we all know, it takes two people to create a baby, so when women are

having only 1.5 babies on average, populations decrease. We can see this happening in countries

such as Japan and Germany. This would actually be happening in the U.S. as well if we did not

have such a great influx of immigration which brings our population rates up (Hubbard 209). In

this phase, since the population is getting smaller, so are the resources that are required to sustain

the people. This means that governments and corporations can focus more on environmentally

friendly activities (with prodding from their now wealthy citizens and customers) to better sus-

tain their countries with minimal impact. Quality over quantity becomes the governments’ mot-

tos.

The environment is crying out for help. Organisms are dying at an incredible rate and the

world is becoming unrecognizable from its pre-industrial state. There are many factors that go

into this destruction, but the largest is overconsumption. Wealthy countries are going through

Earth’s resources astoundingly quickly with seemingly no perception of the vast damage that

they are doing. We must pioneer the rest of the world by beginning to take responsibility for our

actions and make progress fixing our methods in order to ensure a green Earth for future genera-

tions. As wealthy nations, we must also help to aid the population boom which is occurring by

promoting contraception, education, and sustainable growth in developing countries. As Rachel

Carson said, “only within the moment of time represented by the present century has one species

9

-- man -- acquired significant power to alter the nature of the world” (Carson 5). Let us alter it for

the better.

10

Works Cited

Butler, Colin. "Overpopulation, Overconsumption, and Economics." Lancet 343.8897

(1994): 582. EBSCO Host. Web. 5 Nov. 2014.

Cafaro, Philip J., Richard B. Primack, and Robert L. Zimdahl. "The Fat of the Land:

Linking American Food Overconsumption, Obesity, and Biodiversity Loss."

Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19.6 (2006): 541-61.

Springer Link. Web. 5 Nov. 2014.

Carson, Rachel. Silent Spring. New York: Houghton Mifflin. 1962. Print.

Gutowski, Timothy G., Julian M. Allwood, Christoph Herrmann, and Sahil Sahni. "A

Global Assessment of Manufacturing: Economic Development, Energy Use,

Carbon Emissions, and the Potential for Energy Efficiency and Materials

Recycling." Annual Review of Environment and Resources 38

(2013): 81-106. Annual Reviews. Web. 16 Oct. 2014.

How Many People Can Live on Planet Earth? Prod. David Attenborough. Perf. David

Attenborough. BBC Worldwide, 2010. Films Media Group. Web. 16 Oct. 2014.

Hubbard, Phil. Thinking Geographically Space, Theory, and Contemporary Human

Geography. London: Continuum, 2002. WorldCat. Web. 7 Nov. 2014.

“Place Matters.” Unnatural Causes: Is Inequality Making Us Sick? Prod. Ellie Lee. PBS,

2008. DVD.

Preventing Obesity and Chronic Diseases through Good Nutrition and Physical Activity.

Atlanta, GA: CDC, U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 2005. Print.

11

Rubenstein, James M. "Population." Contemporary Human Geography. Boston: Pearson,

2013. 33-55. Print.

Serazio, Michael. "Ethos Groceries and Countercultural Appetites: Consuming Memory in

Whole Foods' Brand Utopia." Journal of Popular Culture 44.1 (2011): 158. Aca-

demic Search Complete. Web. 9 Nov. 2014.

Sierra, Javier. “Homeland Secutiry: When You’re Poor, the Environmental Movement

Doesn’t Stop at Simply Things Like Pollution.” Sierra (July/Aug. 2010): 40-45.

Print.

Smith, Richard. "Overpopulation and Overconsumption." British Medical Journal

306.6888 (1993): 1285. The BMJ. Web. 5 Nov. 2014.

Warwick, Donald. Contraceptives in the Third World 5.4 (1975): 9-12. Wiley Online Library.

Web. 7 Nov. 2014.

Wolin, Kathleen Y., and Jennifer M. Petrelli. Obesity. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood,

2009. Print.

12