*****FORWARDED MESSAGE*****
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 20:13:55 +0900
From: Hendrik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Multiple recipients of NETSOURCE-L <netsource-l@[192.168.0.225]>
Subject: [NS] Will Humans Overwhelm the Earth?
-- forwarded article: --
New York Times
December 8, 1998
Will Humans Overwhelm the Earth? The Debate Goes on
By MALCOLM W. BROWNE
PHILADELPHIA -- Two hundred years ago the Rev. Thomas Robert Malthus, an
English economist and mathematician, anonymously published an essay
predicting that the world's burgeoning humanpopulation would overwhelm the
earth's capacity to feed it.
Malthus' gloomy forecast, called "An Essay on the Principle of Population
As it Affects the Future Improvement of Society," was condemned by Karl
Marx, Friedrich Engels and many other theorists, and it was still striking
sparks last week at a meeting in Philadelphia of the American
Anthropological Society. Despite continuing controversy, it was clear that
Malthus' conjectures are far from dead.
Among the scores of special conferences organized for the 5,000
participating anthropologists, many touched directly or indirectly on the
dilemma suggested by Malthus: Although global food supplies increase
arithmetically, the population increases geometrically -- a vastly faster
rate.
The consequence, Malthus believed, was that poverty, and the misery it
imposes, will inevitably increase unless the increase in population is
curbed.
This contention has prompted endless debate. Malthus' critics have argued
that man's ingenuity will always keep pace with population growth by
finding improved ways to produce food. They cite the success of the "Green
Revolution" launched in the 1950s and 1960s by Dr. Norman Borlaug and his
associates in developing high-yield strains of rice and wheat.
But the scientific descendants of Malthus argue that feeding the world's
masses is only part of the problem. Just as dangerous, they contend, is the
omnivorous consumption of nonrenewable resources, the irreversible
destruction of habitats and species, the fouling of the air and seas and
consequent changes in climate, and many other effects of a growing human
horde.
One of the symposiums held at last week's meeting was regarded as so
contentious that a similar conference was banned from the 1994 meeting of
the American Association for the Advancement of Science, on the grounds --
said its organizer, Dr. Warren Hern, a Colorado physician and
epidemiologist -- that "you may not ask that question."
The question, posed as the title of the symposium, was this: "Is the Human
Species a Cancer on the Planet?"
Hern, the director of an abortion clinic in Boulder, Colo., noticed nearly
a decade ago that aerial and satellite views of urban centers taken over a
period of years bore a striking similarity to images of cancerous tissue --
particularly melanoma -- invading the healthy surrounding tissue.
In his presentation last week, Hern argued that in many parts of the world
the increase in human numbers is rapid and uncontrolled, that it invades
and destroys habitats, and that by killing off many species it reduces the
differentiation of nature. All of these features are characteristic of
cancerous tumors, he said.
This assessment was applauded by another member of the panel, Dr. Lynn
Margulis of the University of Massachusetts in Boston, who is the co-author
of another highly debated theory, the Gaia Hypothesis.
The hypothesis, the brainchild of an English theorist, Dr. James Lovelock
and Dr. Margulis, who is a microbiologist, is that the earth deploys
feedback mechanisms to maintain an environment hospitable to life. In this
it resembles a gigantic living organism, proponents of the Gaia idea
believe.
Life on earth has survived many crises, including mass extinctions caused
by the impacts of asteroids and comets, Dr. Margulis said, and life will
continue despite the threats created by humanity -- but with reduced
diversity.
She agreed with the notion that the human race is a kind of
self-destructive cancer.
"For millions of years," she said, "the earth got along without human
beings, and it will do so again. The only question is the nature of the
human demise that has already begun."
Dr. Margulis quoted a line from the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche:
"The earth is a beautiful place, but it has a pox called man."
A different but complementary perspective was offered by Dr. Compton
Tucker, a physical scientist at the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration's Goddard Space Center. Tucker is an analyst of images of
the earth made by Landsat and other orbiting spacecraft. In particular, he
keeps track of deforestation and other anthropogenic changes in the global
habitat.
"In many regions, we've seen astonishingly rapid change since 1975," he
said. "Vast tracts of both rain forest and dry tropical forest have
disappeared in the Amazon Basin as human communities expand and clear the
land for cattle ranching. This has led to a monoculture dominated by cattle
breeding, with losses of immense numbers of the species deprived of forest
habitat."
Several speakers cited U.N. statistics indicating that population growth
rates in underdeveloped countries averaged only 1.77 percent per year
between 1990 and 1995. The expectation for that period had been for a
growth rate of 1.88 percent.
But since 1930, when the world population was about 2 billion, the
population has nearly tripled, and each doubling of the population has
occurred in a much shorter time than the previous doubling period. The U.N.
report projected that the world population could reach 9.4 billion by 2050.
Demographers say that the population increase has leveled off in China,
where the government limits family size, and that the rate of population
increase has declined in Bangladesh and other populous countries.
But recent U.N. statistics identified 28 countries -- 20 of them in Africa
-- where fertility rates increased during the past decade. Among the
countries was the United States, which has the third-largest population
after China and India, and where the fertility rate increased from 1.9
percent to 2.1 percent, largely because of Hispanic immigration.
All the speakers at the symposium had expected vigorous criticism from the
audience of anthropologists, but were surprised to encounter few strongly
negative comments.
"Arguments over the accuracy of Malthus' views, future population trends
and the earth's carrying capacity are never-ending and never resolved," one
speaker said. "Many people prefer to just forget about the big questions
involved, and get on with their lives."
Population pressure is partly a question of perception, said Dr. Bernice
Kaplan, an anthropologist at Wayne State University.
"I ask my students how they feel about being increasingly crowded by the
growing population, and they reply, 'We're not crowded,"' Dr. Kaplan said.
"That attitude results from being young and not having experienced the
changes old people have seen during their lives. Whatever environment
you're born into is the one that seems normal.
"You don't seem to realize the problems created by population pressure
until you get old," she said, "and then nobody listens to you. We are a
species that doesn't respond to threats until it's too late."
-- end of forwarded article --
