**Uniqueness 2 Generic Links 16
Impacts- Econ Bad- Overpopulation
Download 0.75 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Impacts- Econ Bad- Famine
Impacts- Econ Bad- OverpopulationEconomic growth bad – overpopulation Hickerson 5/4 (Jeremy, Statesman Journal, Economic growth might be bad, as well, 5/4/09, AD: 7/6/09 nexis) I couldn't agree more with the April 29 letter from David Ellis, "Population growth might be bad." I suggest "Economic growth might be bad." In both cases, it depends on where you're at in the spectrum of the physical limits of your environment. For the population issue, experts concluded in the 1970s that we were nearing our planet's population limit (see the 1972 "The Limits to Growth" report to the Club of Rome). The idea that economic growth might not be desirable is just an extension of the population growth discussion. Continual economic growth depends on a growing population to supply more labor and more consumers. Likewise, a continually growing population depends on economic growth to provide jobs. Overpopulation implies economic growth is no longer good, though it remains a necessity for some of the undeveloped world. So if we can't have an economy based on continual growth, what should we do? (See Bill McKibben's "Deep Economy.") We must only manufacture what we need and end marketing ploys aimed at getting people to buy new gadgets; dismantling the economy we have known and beginning a totally different way of life. This can't be accomplished solely by the free market. Rich countries consume more than poor countries Ramphal 97 (Sir Shridath, 15 years Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, is Co-Chairman of the Commission on Global Governance, and author of Our Country, The Planet, written for the Earth Summit, Now the rich must adjust, http://www.unep.org/ourplanet/imgversn/91/ramphal.html, June 1997, AD: 7/6/09) So far in the global discussion of our environmental predicament, the tendency has been to put the focus on human numbers, on population growth, as the crucial source of environmental stress. Population is undoubtedly part of the picture, and the developing world, where the growth in numbers is predominantly taking place, must hold its growth down. But it is through consumption that people impact on the environment, and because people in industrial countries consume much more per head, the one-quarter of the world population living in them presses far more heavily on the environment than the poorer three-quarters who live in the developing world. Five years after Rio, we need a wider acceptance that how much we consume - and therefore how aggressively, and often unthinkingly, we go for growth - is critical to our common future on this planet. Rich countries consume more and allow poor countries to bandwagon Jhunjhunwala 3/31 (Bharat, Bachelor's Degree in Science (Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics) from Kanpur University and doctorate in Food and Resource Economics from University of Florida and Assistant Professor of Economics at the Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, Let the poor suffer more, http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?title=Let%20the%20poor%20suffer%20more&artid=trgZhqqYRy0=&type=, 3/31/09, AD: 7/6/09) The development of countries follows this pattern too. Again, there are two models. One is that a high rate of growth in rich countries opens markets for the goods of poor countries and pulls them out of poverty. The second model is of independent development of scores of poor countries. The second model alone delivers true development. Twenty per cent of the world’s people living in the rich countries consume 80 per cent of the world’s resources. If they reduce consumption more resources are available for the poor. A reduction in growth of the rich, as is happening in the present recession, will open up opportunities for poor countries but the World Bank does not like this. Impacts- Econ Bad- FamineEconomic growth ensures famine through resource depletion—this will spark global resource wars. Milbrath 89 (Lester, Professor Emeritus of Political science and Sociology at SUNY-Buffalo, Envisioning a Sustainable Society, pp. 343-344, AD: 7-6-9) BL Trying to solve our nested set of ecological/economic problems only with technological fixes is like treating an organic failure with a bandage. The key difficulties, which will be ignored by that strategy are that biospheric systems will change their patterns and there will be an increasing squeeze on resources. As global human population continues to grow, and these new people demand economic growth to fulfill their needs, there will be unbearable pressure for resources. Soils will be depleted. Farmland will be gobbled up into urban settlements. Water will become scarce, more polluted, and very high priced. Forests will be depleted faster than they can regenerate. Wilderness will nearly disappear. The most easily extracted mineral deposits will be exhausted. We will search the far corners of the globe, at very high economic and environmental cost, for more minerals and possible substitutes for those that are being depleted. Fossil fuels, especially petroleum, will constantly diminish in supply and rise in price. Worst of all, biospheric systems will react to our interference by no longer working the way we have counted on. International competition for scarce mineral and fuel resources could become intense and bloody. The highly developed nations are likely to try using their money and/or military power to garner the bulk of the resources for their own use. (It is difficult to imagine that a big power would allow its supply of critical fuels or minerals to be cut off without putting up a fight.) At best, those actions will only postpone the inevitable adjustment. The poorest nations (usually those with the densest populations) will be unable to maintain even subsistence levels—they are likely to suffer widespread famine and disease. All of this frantic activity will have devastating impacts on the ecosphere. Climate change will debilitate every ecosystem and economy. Ultraviolet radiation will increase, as will acid rain and toxic poisoning of our air, soil, and water. In addition, we can expect more and more soil depletion, loss of crop land, mismanagement of water resources, oil spills, devastating accidents (Bhopal, Chernobyl), deforestation, spreading deserts, extinction of species, loss of wildlife, and air and water pollution. With disrupted biospheric systems and severe resource shortages, I cannot imagine that it will be possible to sustain growth in material throughput. We may be able to grow in nonmaterial ways (increasing knowledge, artistic output, games, and so forth), but material growth cannot continue. Our endeavor not to change will have failed to forestall change; instead, we will become victims of change. Download 0.75 Mb. Share with your friends:
|