Population Problem Demands Action Now
I agree with Lee Dye wholeheartedly about the importance of addressing the problem of overpopulation (“Overpopulation Should Be Popular Topic,” Jan. 17). He is, however, absolutely wrong in stating that before we can really tackle the problem, we need to estimate or define the world’s human “carrying capacity.”
“Carrying capacity” refers to the number of people the Earth (or a given region) can theoretically sustain. While this information can be useful, it should not be the central focus of our effort to slow the world’s rapidly growing population. Even if the Earth’s maximum capacity is never exceeded, the quality of life for everyone--especially those in developing countries where the population problem is most acute--will be greatly diminished if current growth rates continue.
Essentially, that is the point professor Joel E. Cohen makes in his new book, “How Many People Can the Earth Support?” which Mr. Dye quotes extensively. Cohen suggests that it is less important for scientists to tell us what the hypothetical limit of the world’s population is than to realize that the Earth’s human population has already surpassed the lower estimates of the Earth’s maximum capacity and shows no sign of leveling off in the near future.
The urgency of addressing this problem cannot be understated. Population growth underlies virtually every environmental, developmental and national security problem facing the world today. Global population now exceeds 5.7 billion, and it is growing by almost 100 million every year--by 260,000 every 24 hours.
Future prospects, moreover, are even more staggering. If effective action is not taken in the next few years--as today’s 1.6 billion children in the developing world under the age of 15 reach their childbearing years--the Earth’s population could nearly quadruple to 20 billion people by the end of the next century.
Fortunately, although population growth is an enormous problem, it is one we can solve--if we make a determined effort to do so. Over 30 years of experience have shown us that with adequate funding for family planning and reproductive health services--as well as educational, economic and social opportunities necessary to enhance the status of women--we can stabilize world population in the first half of the next century.
The main obstacles to population stabilization, however, are not scientific--they are political. While the rest of the international community is increasing its commitment to efforts to slow global growth, the U.S. has all but abandoned its traditional leadership in this area. Under the foreign aid bill recently passed by the House of Representatives, funding for international population programs will be cut by more than 50% below last year’s level--in real terms, to its lowest level in 25 years--and budget constraints promise to limit significantly U.S. contributions to these programs in the future.
As Mr. Dye argues, we do need “enormous vigor and broad political support” for this issue. But we must use our limited resources for efforts that actually reduce population growth, not on scientific prognostications of the Earth’s potential carrying capacity.
REP. ANTHONY C. BEILENSON
(D-Woodland Hills)
