From a Boom in Population to Doom in Resources?

by Username on February 23, 2018 - 10:58pm

     The purpose of the Dennis Dimick’s article; “As World’s Population Booms, Will Its Resources Be Enough for Us?” in the National Geographic was to bring to light the current and future issues relating to our populations increasing growth rates, our consumption increase, the factors behind these issues and viable solutions. The concern for whether or not we will have the resources necessary to deal with the estimated population increase stems from the fact that at the current level (7.2 billion humans), over 800 million people do not have enough food to eat (Dimick, 2018), and that general estimations place the population figure between 9.6 and 11.3 billion by 2100 (Dimick, 2018). However, that is only half of the problem, as the population rises, there will be an increase in consumption and resources required to service these it. Since the end of the Second World War, our capacity to generate food and other requirements has not been increasing at the same speed as the population, and as this trend continues, the Earth’s open resources will become increasingly damaged by overuse and eventually less giving than needed. In most of the world, the population rate has dropped to 2.5 children per woman (slightly above the return rate of 2.1), however the majority of countries in sub-Saharan Africa maintain rates as high as 4.6, and experts predict increases rather than stagnation. To solve this problem, these countries must receive assistance and economical development boosts. The article used many sources, most notably the National Geographic, United Nations (population trends), United States government statistics, along with a few other published articles and papers.

     I believe with the less conservative estimations included in this paper which believe that our population will rise to 11.3 billion by 2100 for the simple reason that the only way I believe we could reduce this growth would be to develop the under-developed countries of our world, and this will never happen (unfortunately). Ethically and morally, the one and the many should do what they can to assist those who can benefit for assistance and kick-starting this development would not only improve the quality of life of hundreds of millions of people, but it would also help us preserve our environment and hopefully reduce our population growth. But this would require massive assistance, subsidies, and global action. Getting rid of the conflicts, war zones, and oil concerns is noble, and the right this to do, but fundamentally, the majority of those with the influence, power and wealth to do these things, have gotten to those positions by following the most fundamental of human flaws: greed and self-importance. We will always reach for more, never satisfied and wanting more, regardless of what it does to others. Case and point, most are fine purchasing clothing they know was made by a sweatshop child.


Article Consulted: As World’s Population Booms, Will Its Resources Be Enough for Us?

Author: Dennis Dimick




I agree with you in your response when you touch upon bringing to light the current /future issues that affect our population such as growth rates and consumption. Based on the article I found from The Royal where it states in its introduction “The number of people living on the planet has never been higher, their levels of consumption are higher then ever and major changes are taking place in the environment”(royal society,2012,p.11). Based on information available from the same source I agree with your estimate of the population between 9.6 - 11.3 billion, my information shows “Under the UN medium fertility variant the population is expected to reach 9.3 billion by 2050.”(Royal society,2012,p.20) Based on this it’s a reasonable assumption to think that in the following 50 years we will have added an additional 2 billion people. Feeding the planet is complicated since “live stock has major implications for the environment footprint of agriculture(royal society,2012,p.77)” and fish stocks are in serious decline globally. I also agree with your claim that the earth’s resources will become damaged and eventually there will be less and less of these needed resources. The article by The Royal Society shares the same point of view and gives examples such as “pollution of wetlands could possibly affect drinking water, the deforestation of hillsides could expose downstream communities to the dangers of flooding, the destruction of mangrove forests to allow shrimp farming can damage fisheries and as well as exposing communities to tsunami damage” (royal society, 2012, p.65). Overall I enjoyed your summary. What stood out to me and made me choose this particular response is we both share a similar opinion. We both believe that the root cause of all these problems that ultimately prevents us from change is greed. People are more interested in making money and turn a blind eye to the fact they are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

Roayal society, 2012, People and the planet, Excellence in science,

I chose to answer this summary because I found really interesting how you explain why there will be no action taken even if there are possible solutions. Also, the subject of the article chosen is an important environmental issue and a major social issue when it involves people with difficulties having food. Like you said in your summary, population growth needs to slow and it works in developed country, however, the problem is in developing countries. The average child by women won’t stop rising because there is no reason why it should in those difficult environments. The need for international help is there in developing countries but like you said, there will never be enough help for all the developing countries. The people with the power to help the needy people and the environment care more about money and power, it is clear that there will be less food for more people but the help needed will be too little for the amount needed.

About the author