[Your instructor’s name]
[The course]
[The date]
Abstract
The essay is an attempt to contradict the Ehrlichs' opinion that the number of people on Earth is the worst destructive power that the planet faces. The essay advocates that there are more humane ways of saving the planet that shortening the number of people living on it. People are not only the destructors, but also the builders of everything on Earth. The essay suggests Other scholars' views on the problem, who view people as the power of sustainable development on the planet.
Introduction
In their book "The Population Bomb" as far as in 1968, Paul and Anne Ehrlich advocated the idea that the planet's most terrible threat is the number of people inhabiting it (Ehrlich & Ehrlich, 63-65). They argued that it is necessary to shorten the amount of people in order to save the planet and give it the way for prosperity and successful existence (Ehrlich & Ehrlich, 64). Along with other factors, the Ehrlichs described the humans as the most destructive power on Earth. As much as I agree with the authors' concern about the planet, I think that they are too harsh on the people's issue. There are many threats to the Earth's existence, and for one thing, humans are only one of these threats. For another thing, humans are the only ones who can actually do something in order to prevent the destruction of the planet. Thus, they are both the reason and the remedy, and we cannot only call them destructors. People are not solely a disadvantage - they are one of the greatest assets of the planet that constantly work on the planet's welfare.
Paul and Anne Ehrlich have dedicated a great part of their lives to first publishing "The Population Bomb," and later to trying to explain what they meant by it and fighting back the accusations made about them because of the book. Still, they do have some very vital issues discussed in their book.
There are still some points about "The Population Bomb" that do not allow to consider it a complete failure. The authors made some predictions about the problems that the humanity will face in future, and they were right about some of them. In order not to be single-sided, it is important to give credit for the work which was done well by Ehrlichs. However, the main thesis - about overpopulation being the biggest problem - was not so well-proved. It has been a hot point for discussion for many years after the book was published.
While the authors argued that the growth of the number of people will lead to hunger (Ehrlich & Ehrlich, 66), we can see that the world is producing enough food, and the minor starvation problems appear not globally, but in some particular areas on the Earth, which does not influence the general numbers of food produce. Although Ehrlichs did have point when they were talking about the new sources of food (Ehrlich & Ehrlich, 66). However, as they themselves admit, their overall food prediction was wrong because they did not foresee the green revolution and the impact it would make on the food sources and situation (Ehrlich & Ehrlich, 67).
In his book "Overpopulation," Andrew Einspruch also mentions that the growing population leads to growing problems, such as need for food, water, places for living, and proper health conditions (Einspruch, 8). But unlike Ehrlichs, he sees the population not only as a problem, but also as a great opportunity (Einspruch, 8). He argues that more people provide more ways for well-being and novelty on the planet (Einspruch, 8), and it is impossible not to agree with him. People are the development, the pushing power of progress, people are the ones who do care about their existence and, as a result, will strive to think of the ways of making the planet a better place.
In their book, Ehrlichs suggested two ways of shortening the population. The first one was called "birthrate solution" - they suggested lowering the birthrate (Ehrlich & Ehrlich, 68). The second solution was "death rate solution," where they suggest that the ways of raising death rates find the people in the form of wars and famines (Ehrlich & Ehrlich, 68). Both of these suggestions seem outrageous and contradict many humans' rights, beginning with moral ones. What considers birthrate, it is, indeed, a good idea to provide people with information about contraception and to try to prevent people with illnesses like AIDS not to reproduce. But Ehrlichs suggest to cover with the birthrate control not only the troublesome groups of humans, but all of the people. And it seems utterly unfair that somebody should give people the right to have children or take that right away. The "death rate solution," as called by Ehrlichs, sounds even more barbaric. They say they want to save the planet and at the same time suggest that it would be a good idea if there were more wars or famines. I really do not think that anyone has a right to decide whether a person should or should not be born and how and when the person should die.
There are many scholars who consider overpopulation one of the main threats to the planet's existence, but they do not eliminate the trouble only to people. In their article "Global Water Resources: Vulnerability from Climate Change and Population Growth," Vörösmarty et al. research the water consuming problem in the connection with growing population and climate change (Vörösmarty et al.). The scholars find the water resources problem a rather disturbing one, but unlike Ehrlichs, they do not suggest shortening the number of people in order to save the resources. Vörösmarty et al. announce the importance of "societal adaptations to water scarcity." The scholars argue that due to their research results, there is a need in a combined approach which would incorporate the water resources, the climate change, and socioeconomic societies (Vörösmarty et al., 288). Such approach, as the scholars argue, will lead to improving the situation with water supply on the planet.
In his article "Are More People Necessarily a Problem?", David Malakoff gives account of the environmental situation in Machakos Reserve and discusses the benefits of overpopulation in this particular region (Malakoff, 544). He explains that Machakos has become a contradiction to the established belief that the increase in population is a disaster. On the contrary, as Malakoff shows, fast population growth may actually bring betterment and prosperity (Malakoff, 544). As the research shows, the increase in population in Machakos and Nairobi had lead to the economic and social changes which enabled the citizens to make the barren hillsides green again, to revive the declining soils, and to expand the production of crops and the earnings (Malakoff, 544-545). Malakoff remarks that the Machakos is not the only place where the increasing population growth results in surprising improvements in the environment conditions (Malakoff, 544).
Conclusion
In spite of the great resonance provoked by Paul and Anne Ehrlich's "The Population Bomb" in 1968, most of its predictions did not come true. Their main argument - about overpopulation being the greatest threat to the planet - has not been proved. The ways of saving the planet such as controlling the birth and death rates seem barbaric.
Many scholars agree that overpopulation is one of the problems of our planet, but they are not so radical in their opinion as the Ehrlichs. Most scholars consider overpopulation as one of the problems, but not the only and the greatest issue. Researchers suggest various ways in which the sustainable development on the planet could be made possible.
Also, contrary to Ehrlichs, the scholars consider humans not only one of the problems of the Earth, but one of main powers that can change the course of the planet's existence and can stop the increasing quantities of destruction.
Works cited
Ehrlich, Paul R. and Ehrlich, Anne H. "The Population Bomb Revisited." The Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development 1.3 (2009): 63-71. Web. 8 Apr. 2016.
Einspruch, Andrew. Overpopulation. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group, 2013. Print.
Haberman, Clyde. "The Unrealized Horrors of Population Explosion." The New York Times. 31 May 2015. Web. 8 Apr. 2016.
Malakoff, David. "Are More People Necessarily a Problem?" Science 333.6042 (2011) : 544-546. Web. 8 Apr. 2016.
Vörösmarty, Charles, Green, Pamela, Salisbury, Joseph, and Lammers, Richard B. "Global Water Resources: Vulnerability from Climate Change and Population Growth." Science 289.5477 (2000) : 284-288. Web. 8 Apr. 2016.
