FOR FURTHER THOUGHT
Chapter 6
1. Does advanced technology make a society less or more vulnerable to collapse? Develop arguments
defending each point of view. Which arguments do you find most convincing? Is one point of view true in
the short term and the other true in the long term?
2. What are real-world limits to human population growth? Is it safe to approach these limits? What are
current indications that some of these limits have already been exceeded?
3. In view of the IPAT equation, consider this statement: “For long-term sustainability, we must not only
reduce the size of our ecological footprint but also the number of feet.” Do you agree or disagree? Why?
4. What would have the greatest effect in the pursuit of long-term sustainability: (a) recycling, (b) new
technologies, (c) population reduction, (d) government regulation, (e) organic agriculture? Defend your
choice. Show how it interacts with the others.
5. According to Paul Murtaugh and Michael Schlax, avoiding the birth of a single child in an
industrialized nation has a much a greater effect on reducing CO2 emissions than environmentally
conscious consumer behavior. For example, it is estimated that an average citizen participating in
personal conservation measures could reduce his/her lifetime carbon dioxide emissions by 486 tons,
which is 20 times less than the CO2 emissions avoided by choosing to have one fewer child.i Will this
information affect your choice of family size? Why or why not?
6. What are the consequences for individual citizens of economic and social collapse? Describe
conditions in “failed states.”
7. Give examples of the effects of human population growth on biodiversity.
8. Review the three sustainability conditions. Make a list of your daily activities (cooking, heating and
cooling, driving to work, shopping, etc.) and a list of your possessions and determine whether they meet
or violate these conditions. What changes would have to be made, at the individual and societal level, to
meet these three sustainability criteria?
9. Globally, the number of humans is currently about 7 billion,ii and is expected to increase to about 9.2
billion by 2050.iii At this rate of growth, the world population will increase by approximately 59 million
people per year, which is equivalent to adding a Los Angeles every three weeks or a country the size of
the United Kingdom each year.iv Following China and India, the United States is the third most populous
nation in the world.v In contrast to other industrialized countries (e.g., Japan, European countries) whose
populations have more or less stabilized, the United States is still growing at a rapid and unsustainable
pace. There are currently about 308 million people in the United States,vi and this number could increase
to 438 million by 2050,vii equivalent to adding a city the size of Chicagoviii each year. Do you feel
comfortable with this rapid population growth in the United States? If not, what policies would you
recommend that would reduce this unsustainable growth?ix
10. Take the online “Ecological Footprint Quiz” at http://myfootprint.org. Identify personal changes you
can make to reduce your footprint. Retake the online quiz to determine how such changes would
quantitatively reduce your environmental impact. Are you willing to make such changes? If not, why not?
11. Harvard‟s socio-biologist Edward O. Wilson warns, “The pattern of human population growth in the
20th century was more bacterial than primate. When Homo sapiens passed the six billion mark we had
already exceeded by perhaps as much as 100 times the biomass of any large animal species that ever
existed on land. We and rest of life cannot afford another 100 years like that.”x Do you agree? Why or
why not?
12. Eating meat could be as damaging to the climate as driving a car. Consider, for example, that the
production of 1 kg (2.2 pounds) of beef (a big burger) does as much damage to the climate as driving an
energy-efficient car for 250 km (155 miles).xi Furthermore, a recent study by Gidon Eshel and Pamela
Martin at the University of Chicago has demonstrated that an individual eating the standard meat-based
American diet causes about 1.5 tons more greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 equivalents) per year than a
person eating a 100 percent vegetarian (vegan) diet. By comparison, an environmentally conscious
consumer who chooses to drive a Toyota Prius (hybrid) instead of a Toyota Camry would reduce annual
CO2 emissions by only about 1 ton.xii Adopting a vegan diet has a greater impact on reducing global
warming than buying a hybrid car. Why is there more emphasis on better cars than on better diets?
13. E.O. Wilson cautions, “The constraints of the biosphere are fixed. The bottleneck through which we
are passing is real. It should be obvious to anyone not in euphoric delirium that whatever humanity does
or does not do, Earth‟s capacity to support our species is approaching the limit. … But long before that
ultimate limit was approached, the planet would surely have become a hellish place to exist.”xiii Do you
agree? Why or why not?
14. “Frugality is a revolt against some basic values of the Sumptuous Society. For the sake of personal,
social, and ecological well-being, frugality rejects the gluttonous indulgence, compulsive acquisitiveness,
conforming and competitive consumerism, casual wastefulness, and unconstrained material economic
growth promoted by the peddlers of economic „progress‟ and embraced to different degrees by all of us
who have known the enticements of affluence.”xiv Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Why or
why not?
15. According to several estimates, the entire Earth can sustainably support only 1 to 2 billion people at
an American standard of living, ensuring sufficient nutrition, health, personal dignity and freedom.xv For
the United States, the optimum population level has been estimated to range from 40 to 100 million,
which is less than one third of the current size.xvi What do you think is the optimum population size for
the United States and the world? Do you prefer an optimum that is biocentric (allowing room for all
species to survive and thrive) or anthropocentric (allowing room for humans only)?
16. One common reason many countries, including the United States, have no population policies is
concern over potential human rights violations. The modern western commitment to individualism, often
socially irresponsible individualism, may lead western observers to identify certain harmless techniques
and incentive structures as violations of the rights of individuals. An international consensus must be
developed in which the individual is considered not to have the right to endanger the future of his society,
his nation, other nations, or the Earth through his unwise choice with regard to reproduction. The human
rights of future generations to a life free from wars, famine, and disease caused by the excessive
reproduction of their forbears should be guaranteed. Irresponsible reproduction should not be considered a
“right” any more than any other act which endangers the well-being of society. Effective forms of
incentive or social pressure, whether appealing or not to the western bias towards individualism, should
not be gratuitously faulted.xvii Do you agree or disagree? Why?
17. Gandhi once said, “Civilization, in the real sense of the term, consists not in the multiplication, but in
the deliberate and voluntary reduction of wants.”xviii How do you define civilization?
i
Murtaugh and Schlax (2009). The summed CO2 emissions of 9,441 metric tons for a newborn child and its descendents assumes a
constant-emission scenario, i.e., business as usual. But even in the most optimistic scenario tested by Murtaugh and Schlax (2009),
which assumes an 85 percent reduction in global CO2 emissions from 2000 to 2100, the summed CO2 emissions of a newborn and
its descendants are still 562 metric tons, i.e., larger than the CO2 savings that can be gained by that above mentioned
environmentally conscious consumer behavior.
ii
United States Census Bureau, US and World Population Clock, http://www.census.gov/main/popclock.html, accessed 10/19/2009.
iii
United Nations, Press Release, March 13, 2007, POP/952, “World Population Will Increase by 2.5 Billion by 2050,”
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/pop952.doc.htm, accessed 10/19/2009.
iv
The World Fact Book – Country Comparison: Population, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-worldfactbook/rankorder/2119rank.html, accessed 4/24/2011; “Biggest US Cities by Population”, http://www.biggestuscities.com,
accessed 10/29/2009.
v
The World Fact Book – Country Comparison: Population, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-worldfactbook/rankorder/2119rank.html, accessed 4/24/2011.
vi
United States Census Bureau, US and World Population Clock, http://www.census.gov/main/popclock.html, accessed 10/19/2009.
vii
Haub, Carl, “Our National Demographic Future: U.S. Population Could Reach 438 Million by 2050, and Immigration is Key,”
Population Press, Fall 2009, pp. 10–12, http://www.populationpress.org; source of data presented in Population Press article:
Passel, J.S., and D.V. Cohn, U.S. Population Projections 2005-2050, Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C.,
www.pewhispanic.org/files/reports/85.pdf.
viii
“Biggest US Cities by Population”, http://www.biggestuscities.com, accessed 10/29/2009.
ix
See Huesemann and Huesemann (2008) for a discussion of policy options.
x
Wilson (2002), p. 86.
xi
Fanelli, Daniele, “Meat is Murder on the Environment.” New Scientist, July 18, 2007,
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19526134.500, accessed 10/12/2009; Organic Consumer Association, “Meat Production
Spews More Greenhouse Gases than a Three-Hour Joyride,” http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_6165.cfm, accessed
10/24/2007.
xii
Eshel and Martin (2006), Table 3; Kanter, James.
xiii
Wilson (2002), p. 88.
xiv
Chapman et al. (2000), pp. 172–173.
xv
Daily, Ehrlich, and Ehrlich (1994); Pimentel, David, “How many Americans can the Earth Support?” Population Press,
http://www.populationpress.org/essays/essay-pimentel.html, accessed 4/20/2010.
xvi
Pimentel, David, and Marcia Pimentel, “Land, Energy and Water,” in Grant (1992), p. 30; Werbos, Paul, J., “Energy and
Population,” in Grant (1992), p. 49; Costanza, R., “Balancing Humans in the Biosphere,” in Grant (1992), p. 58.
xvii
Huesemann and Huesemann (2008), p. 808.
xviii
Elgin (1993), pp. 48–49.