Introduction
The article chosen for the purpose of critical analysis and evaluation is ‘Fewer People Mean Fewer Worries’. It was published in ‘The Australian’ edition of January 16, 2008 in the Higher Education Section of the newspaper. The author of the article is Allen Greer who is a famous zoologist of Australia and has produced research over biology and evolution of certain Australian animals including lizards, snakes and tigers. As the name indicates, the article is about growing world population and the number of limited resources available on the earth for its habitants. Greer is of the view that if this growing population is stabilized, then it would be possible to consume the resources in a fair way. Also, he asserts upon the fact that instead of making new and emerging technologies, we must limit our population since these technologies are contributing nothing to assure that every possible resource is being available to everyone. He provided examples of pollutants emission from automobiles, waste from factories and plants which are disturbing our environment and are destroying existing natural resources. Thus in his point of view, these technologies are not playing their parts in the improvement of mankind rather these are disturbing for us, and therefore instead of creating new technologies for the betterment of mankind, there is a need for population control so that the natural resources already available to us can be properly utilized and distributed amongst the entire world.
The overall evaluation and analysis for this article is in contrast with the author, as the claims provided are baseless and lack any statistics which can ensure that the arguments are true to an extent. Further, the author has denied his own presumptions while presenting the arguments over total fertility rates. The constant blaming over technology has certainly been unfair, since it has relived us and made our lives comfortable. More arguments would be presented in detail in the evaluation section.
Analysis
Greer starts his article by presenting his main arguments in bold letters in the first paragraph. According to him, the entire world is rushing for new and emerging technologies and is in the favour of production of as much new technologies as possible. However, it is ignoring some other facts which have been occurring to our earth and to us ever since these technologies have been introduced. The most common issues are of climate change, water scarcity and shortage of arable land for agriculture purposes. Even the phenomenon of Global Warming is a result of all of these technological innovations which came all the way to facilitate mankind, but at the same time these are destroying our environment and climate badly. But if the process of technological innovations cannot be halted, then there must be an alternate way to restore the natural resources over the earth as much as possible. A solution that has not been debated much, according to Greer, is of stabilizing of population.
He asserts that this would be ‘more durable solution’ for the problems of mankind who is currently facing many environmental hazards. He proposed that if new technologies are assigned the task to solve these problems, they would create more and different problems as they have created in the past.
He starts expanding his main argument by arguing that the world does not think in this way of stabilizing population since it is commonly assumed that huge populations build big economies. More the hands, bodies and minds are there, the more will a nation grow and guaranty economical success. Also, it is a common assumption around the world that since urbanization and arrival of new technologies vanished most of the limited species from the face of the earth, so if we try to limit our population, we would also get vanish. However, the truth is that the huge population is not solving the problems right now and does not guaranty success and growth any more. Instead, it is creating and enhancing problems and the quality of life has been declined now. The creation of new problems is propelling the world to create new technologies as a solution, which will ultimately produce more problems for the mankind.
Greer has presented examples to support his arguments. He has considered climate change because of carbon dioxide emission and said that nuclear energy was proposed and developed to overcome the destruction through this emission. But there is a significant amount of waste from nuclear plants which is dumped into seas and oceans and is affecting our environment adversely. Clean coal is now proposed; but it is only an idea up till now and it is not clear that how much it will contribute and what undesired effects would it accompany. Therefore, the only solution left is of stabilization of population, so that every stomach can be fed and the natural resources would become available to everyone. Greer blamed technology that it has brought artificial measures for food, agriculture etc and is cutting out natural means of food and water. It is because of dam making, flood-mitigating and power producing which has now led the world towards water scarcity.
In the end, Greer has proposed that it is not difficult to stabilize the population. Western countries are already going through population stabilization by maintaining their fertility rates. China has achieved an economical growth because of its ‘one-child policy’, which has not only made the country economically stable and developed but also saved it from relatively less environmental hazards and damage. Both China and Australia have fertility rates below the replacement level, i.e., 1.6 and 1.5 respectively. But Greer still seems to be worried for his country that how come a population of 180 million could be fed when lands are drying and water is becoming scarce for agriculture and other purposes. Therefore, he again asserts upon his main argument that instead of making new technologies that include genetically modified and artificial food as one of the solution, it is time to make the population stable. In this way, the resources of earth would remain save for future and there will be no need for more innovations which could arise more problems (Greer, 2008).
Evaluation
If a critical look is taken over the article, it would become evident that it lacks depth, statistics and the entire article is simply based over assumptions and propositions which are not supported by any related research. Almost entire arguments are weak and do not satisfy the exact realities of the world. First of all, it would be wrong to argue that it is technology and its innovations which have created problems for the mankind. In actual, it is the need of today and the inventions of new technologies cannot be and must not be halted in any case. These have made our lives easier, comfortable and facilitated in almost every aspect of life; from transportation and communication to medical sciences and treatment of those chronic diseases which were considered untreatable even in the near past. These have leaded us to such an era of luxuries and comfort that now life cannot be imagined without them (Stair and Baldauf, 2009).
Therefore, the arrival of new technologies must be welcomed every time and the process should not be stopped at all. It is not technology that has created water scarcity. Dams have been made to store water and to produce power through it, so if there would be no dams or storing of water for appropriate use, the rivers would flow in their natural way and will eventually fall into oceans. Then how it would be possible to generate low-cost electricity? Nuclear power plants have taken the place as electricity generators on a large scale, which is the need for today’s world and its importance cannot be denied at all. All these technologies have been developed to serve mankind and according to the need of population. As the population grows, technology gets itself ready for more exploration and innovations. Thus the basic argument is weaker and is not acceptable.
The second argument is about stabilization of population, in which Greer has denied his own arguments. More recently the most problematic situation for the world is not of extreme population growth; rather it is of population contraction. People from the enlightened countries are now having fewer babies than in the past, and now governments are trying to persuade them to have babies so that they would not left with a large number of senior citizens in the near future. Also, there is a need for future generation to hold the economies and all these technological innovations, such as the nuclear bomb and nuclear power plants. As world’s two largest powers China and US have low birth rates (1.54 and 1.6) and are suffering with population contraction, the phenomenon of a “population bomb” that was supposed to explode and sweep all resources of the world is bunk and must be discarded now (Last, 2013). Greer has pointed that both Australia and China have fertility rates lower than the replacement level at which their population growth has been stabilized. In fact, the population of both the countries is not stabilized yet it is shrinking and contracting, as the rate of stabilization is not 1.6 or 1.5, its 2.1 which is the total fertility replacement rate. Any number less than 2.1 means destabilization and lack of human force in the coming future. While presenting his arguments, Greer has completely ignored this fact, and therefore presented contradicting arguments which makes his article weak and loose.
Conclusion
The article ‘Fewer people mean fewer problems’ by Allen Greer does not provide enough strong arguments in the support of his title and the main argument. The author believes that instead of new technological innovations, there must be population stabilization. But he seems to be unaware that the world is already suffering with a population contraction, and there is an equal probability of having resources more than the entire world population in the coming future, if the situation remains the same. There is a need for population growth instead, so that people would serve their countries and economies and would be there to support their seniors in the hour of need.
Bibliography
Greer, A. (2008). Fewer people mean fewer worries. Higher Education, The Australian. [Online] Available at:
<http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/appointments/fewer-people-would-mean-fewer-worries/story-e6frgckf-1111115324512> [Accessed May 31, 2013].
Last, J. V. (2013). What to expect when no one's expecting: America's coming demographic disaster. New York, Encounter Books.
Stair, R. M., & Baldauf, K. (2009). Succeeding with technology. Boston, Mass, Course Technology.
