Overpopulation:

Environmental and Social problems

Human population is growing like never before. We are now adding one billion people to the planet every 12 years. That's
about 220,000 per day.
The list of problems this is causing, or at least complicating, is a long one. It includes shortages of all our resources, war
and social conflict, limits on personal freedom, overcrowding and the health and survival of other species.
This page summarizes many of these problems, and more could easily be added. While overpopulation is not the sole
cause of these, it is certainly a root cause. We hope to see more media coverage of this link in the future. We can do
something about population, and we can solve all these problems more easily if we do.
How about our resources?
Many basic resources are strained by our current population:
Food: one billion people, one out of every seven people alive, go to bed hungry.Every day, 25,000 people die of
malnutrition and hunger-related diseases. Almost 18,000 of them are children under 5 years old. Food production and
distribution could catch up if our population stopped growing and dropped to a sustainable level.

Water Shortages: About one billion people lack access to sufficient water for consumption, agriculture and sanitation.
Aquifers are being depleted faster than they can be replenished. Melting glaciers threaten the water supply for billions.
Wouldn't an ethic of population reduction now, make people's lives much better? [read more]

Air quality: In many regions of the country, childhood asthma rates
have risen dramatically in the past 20 years. The problems are not
limited to the industrialized countries with their automobiles and
factories. Children in undeveloped countries, where people depend
on burning wood and dung for their heat and cooking, are also at
risk.

Oil and gas are the underpinnings of what is, historically-speaking,
the extremely cheap and fast transportation that today's huge
population depends on. Imagine how we could feed and supply our
huge cities (N.Y., L.A., London, Mexico City, Peking) if all the hauling was done in horse-drawn carts and sailing ships.
Yet there is a finite amount of these fossil fuels in the Earth, and we have
already extracted the easy-pickings in much of the world. The concept
"Peak Oil" means that after some year, perhaps between 2005 and 2020,
world oil production will max out and then start to decline.

"M. King Hubbert created and first used the models behind peak oil in
1956 to accurately predict that United States oil production would peak
between 1965 and 1970.[1] His logistic model, now called Hubbert peak
theory, and its variants have described with reasonable accuracy the
peak and decline of production from oil wells, fields, regions, and
countries,[2]"

Hubbert's predictions were accurate for U.S. production, and his
prediction for World peak production was around 2006. There is ample
disagreement among experts as to if and when this will happen, but some experts point to the sharp rises in oil prices
since 2007 as an indication that oil is now passing it's peak production. See these Feb. & March 2010 articlesfor three
current estimates.

As our population and our needs for energy rise, we try to exploit ever more difficult sources of energy. At least half of the
cause of the oil-spill disaster in the Gulf is

May 25: "Let's make no mistake about it,
what is at threat here is our way of life"
Gov. Bobby Jindal
the unprecedented rise in population. If we had only 150 million people in the country, we would not be rushing to drill
wells one mile deep in the ocean before we have developed safe technologies to do so. Of course our inefficient energy
consumption patterns play a part in the urgency of our needs, and we will have to adjust them over time. But equal efforts
must be put into keeping our population below critical levels.
(news about oil & gas)

Other Fuel: Half the World's population relies on burning wood and dung for cooking and for heating. More and more
people live in these regions and have to travel further each day to collect wood, and are often exposed to hardship and
danger. Articles at National Geographictell these stories from around the World.

February 01, 2009 THIES, SENEGAL - Adam and 100 Friends launched a region-wide initiative to provide pregnancy
prevention tools called CycleBeads and also to build more energy-efficient wood stoves that will help address
desertification in Senegal.
The Ozone Layer. 50 years ago parents told their kids to go play outside because sunshine is good for you. Many
parents today don't think that way, because the ozone layer of the atmosphere no longer protects us as well from the
harmful ultraviolet (UV) rays of the sun. The ozone layer is a region of concentrated molecules of a form of oxygen (O3)
high above the earth. Without it there would be no life as we know it here because the UV rays from the sun can be very
harmful. But various chemicals from human industries, especiallychlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), destroy ozone over the
course of years. Some of the most dangerous ones have been banned in many countries, which has slowed their rate of
increase in the atmosphere, but they are very long lasting and will continue to deplete the ozone layer for many years.
Currently the layer is being destroyed at a rate of about 4% per decade.

The World's forests are another resource that is strained by our growing population. Not only are they a source of fuel
and building material, recent research has focused on forests' ability to sequester greenhouse gases and protect us from
global warming.
(News about forests and carbon sequestration)

We are straining our Oceans' ability to breed the fish we eat, to sequester carbon, and to replenish the air. In the 50's
and 60's, Florida was a by-word for the abundance of the sea. Now even some of the "trash fish" of that era are too rare to
fish commercially or recreationally. Isn't this a clarion call that we need to lower our human population so that we can
again enjoy the abundance of nature? [article on Florida seafood, 2010]
June 2011, The Second Annual European Fish Week, organized by Ocean2012, a coalition hoping to change the
Common Fisheries Policy of the European Union.

Even the earth's topsoil itself has limits: most people don't realize that in many regions good growing soil is limited to the
top 6 inches of topsoil and that heavy crop growing is depleting this.
Social Problems
Overcrowding I don't know about you, but back in school I heard about experiments on Norway Rats that were put in
overcrowded cages, and suffered many physical and behavioral problems.The same has been shown for Sitka Deer and
for mice. Some folks think this is happening to people too.
It's a common observation that people in small towns are friendlier than people in cities. However, that's just a hunch for
most of us. One recent study from U.C.Irvine found that less densely packed people are friendlier towards their neighbors.
One specific finding was, "For every 10 percent decrease in population density, the likelihood of residents talking to their
neighbors at least once a week jumps by 10 percent. And involvement in hobby-oriented clubs increases even more
significantly -- by 15 percent for every 10 percent decline in density."
Conflicts and Wars: Some of the most brutal and persistent conflicts and full-out wars of the past decades include the
stresses of overpopulation and conflict over resources.

- One of these was the genocide in Rwanda. As John M. Swomley wrote in War and the Population Explosion: Some
Ethical Implications, Michael Renner noted that "The Hutu leaders that planned and carried out the genocide against the
Tutsis in 1994 relied strongly on heavily armed militias who were recruited primarily from the unemployed. These were the
people who had insufficient land to establish and support a family of their own and little prospect of finding jobs outside
agriculture. Their lack of hope for the future and low self esteem were channeled by the extremists into an orgy of violence
against those who supposedly were to blame for these misfortunes."

- Another source of resource conflict is the Jordan River,which passes through
Syria, Jordan, the West Bank and Israel. Researchers report that most of the 37
actual military conflicts over water since 1950 took place between Israel and its
Arab neighbors over the Jordan River and its tributaries, which supply millions of
people with water for drinking, bathing, and farming. These are desert regions and
the limits on water should guide the population policies of the nations involved.
[article on Jordan River, 2010]

- The confilict between Pakistan and India are especially sensitive since both
highly-populated, fast growing countries have nuclear weapons. Pakistan's major water source is the glacial waters of the
Indus river, which originates in Indian territory. [article on Pakistan's water] [archive]
Further information about the scarcity of water. Sandia Postel in her 1992 book, The Last Oasis: Facing Water Scarcity,
indicates that early in the 90's, twenty-six countries with combined population of about 230 million people had water
scarcity.
Democracy? We tend to think that Democracy offers us freedom of choice, but in the last 40 years, we have had little
effective input into most of the political decisions that affect our lives.
Do we have a truly Democratic system when most of us never even meet our Representatives at the various levels of
Government? Even our State and City representatives probably don't know us and our views about the laws and
regulations they pass. The only people most of them see on a regular basis are the lobbyists, who consequently have a
disproportionately large influence on those laws and regulations.
Democracy and Optimum Population Size: 2500 years ago, Aristotle considered the best size for a city and
concluded that a large increase in population would bring, "certain poverty on the citizenry, and poverty is the cause of
sedition and evil." He considered that a city of over 100,000 people would exclude most citizens from a voice in
government.
To get an idea of what the founders of the United States had in mind for our representative Democracy, at the low
end, the Constitution says (Article 1, Section 2) that a Representative to the House should represent a minimum of 30,000
people. When the Constitution was written, the United States had a total population of around 2.5 million, and the
Constitution allocated 65 Representatives to the 13 states. So each Representative of "the People's House" had about
38,500 constituents. Currently each Representative has 712,650 constituents. It's really a form of irony today to call it "the
People's House" when only wealthy donors and paid lobbyists really have the ear of your "representatives." What we have
now is not Democracy in the sense intended by the country's founders.
Health and Population density: Sometimes viruses spread faster in denser populations, which enables deadly
mutations to continue. Doctor Nathan Wolfe, of the Global Viral Forecasting Initiative, studies virus mutations which jump
from animal to human populations. The AIDS virus is one of the deadliest of these. On a recent episode of CNN's Planet
in Peril, Dr. Wolfe said "Individuals have been infected with these viruses forever. "What's changed, though, is in the past
you had smaller human populations; viruses would infect them and go extinct. Viruses actually need population density as
fuel." [read article]
Bringing it back home -- Overcrowding
If you live in a growing metropolitan area, you notice:
The cost of housing is rising significantly. Usually, the denser the city, the higher the cost of housing and taxes.

The length of your commute: the average Americanspends over 100 hours per
year commuting to and from work. Not only does this needlessly waste energy (gas
or electricity) but especially it wastes our time. Certainly most of us have better uses
for our time than inching through stop-and-go traffic. Yet they keep on building
housing, without paying for our wasted time and energy.

Recreation: the distance you must travel to enjoy natural open spaces. In his 2005
book: "Last Child in the Woods", Richard Louv introduced the term "Nature deficit disorder" to identify a phenomenon we
all knew existed but couldn't quite articulate. His book has created a national conversation about the disconnection
between children and nature, and his message has galvanized an international movement. Now, three years later, we
have reached a tipping point, with the book inspiring Leave No Child Inside initiatives throughout the country. Not only
adults, but especially our children, need easy casual access to natural environments.

How about parking in your town? Where we live, the developers with a complicit city council just build, build, build new
housing; block after block of 5 & 6 story buildings. They do not contain ample parking for their residential units, and they
bring many more people into the town. And the developers have gobbled up several of the convenient down parking lots
and turned them into more gigantic housing blocks, doubly compounding the problem.
Unfortunately for the residents of the city, the outcome for many local businesses has been termination. We certainly try
our best to support local businesses and would strongly prefer to shop where we can see the merchandise and talk to an
informed salesperson, but we won't fruitlessly try to park, circle the block, and pay to park in a lot 3 blocks from the store.
It's much faster and easier for most residents over the age of 45 to go online and have goods delivered. Many downtown
stores are closed, and either vacent or replaced with fast food shops for the students who walk through on their way to
and from school.

The never-ending new buildings block our views, our light and our air. Twenty years ago, my town had a sense of
space, with views of hills and water from most streets even downtown and nearby. But thanks to a few developers' and
planners' emphasis on "growth", many entire blocks are now walled in with 5 and 6 story behemoths.
Many of us bemoan these losses and have felt helpless in the face of the financial powers backing these developments.
However, if these developers had to fully pay the rest of us for the loss of our amenities, they might slow down. There is a
way to put a monetary value on the losses the community has suffered. In an appraisal, a residence with a view and a
spacious surrounding is more valuable than one that is boxed in between high-rise buildings. In my region that might add
$100,000-$200,000 (or more) to the value of a house. If 2 people spend perhaps 10 waking hours a day there and own
the house for 5 years, that works out to about 36,500 waking hours. That's $2.74 - $5.48 per hour. Let's call it $3.00 per
hour for the sake of this very rough estimate.
Of course, no one person spends 10 hours a day at one spot on a city street, but many hundreds (or thousands) of
people do pass by. In my town of about 100,000 people, perhaps 100 cars/hour and 100 pedestrians per hour pass
through the downtown blocks. (More in the daytime and fewer at night.) The buildings which are being built take up an
average of about half a block apiece. By rough estimate, it takes a car 10 seconds to pass, and a pedestrian one minute.
That works out to 46.7 person-hours/day that someone is being deprived of light and air and a sense of spaciousness. At
$3.00 per hour, that's $140 a day or a little over $51,000 per year. These buildings may last 40-50 years, making the total
value of the lost amenity $2,040,000-$2,550,000.
The problem so far has been that when an individual buys or sells a single house, they control what they are willing to
spend or what they can ask for that asset. But when a building is built in town, the 4,000 or 5,000 people per day who
pass by it are not compensated for their loss. However, that is what government can do, and we suggest permitting and
licensing fees to compensate us for our losses. The city can charge this to the developer, and apply the resulting city
income to mitigating these losses by purchasing other sites & the development rights to other sites.
These are, of course, very rough estimates, and a permitting law would require better estimation of the current value of
spaciousness in the community, and of the foot and vehicle traffic past any proposed building site.

Personal Freedom
As the problems of higher population density become worse, there are more and more restrictions placed on our
freedoms. You may think some of these are good ideas. Some of them are, given the circumstances. But they are
necessary only in order to accommodate the larger population that our policies are encouraging.
Putting limits on water consumption. California is mandating that residential users cut back 20% on water
consumption. At the same time they mandate that Cities build more and more housing. That is severely mistaken priorities
on the part of our non-representatives.

Cities put limits on driving London charges people to drive into downtown. Annually, politicians in New York
repeatedly propose doing the same thing.

Limits on travel: Traffic and congestion themselves put limits on our freedom to travel when and where we please.
Cities that are overly crowded are not good places to go shopping, for meals or entertainments, because it is overly
difficult to get there and park.

One seemingly small loss of freedom that comes with increased housing density is limits onburning fires in fireplaces.
Laws are passed, neighbors snitch on neighbors, and one more of life's little pleasures is lost to increasing housing
density.

Restricting what people can do on their land: In rural areas, people are freer to build what they want and do what
they want on their own land. When people are packed in close together, our actions impinge much more directly on our
neighbors and more restrictions must be enacted.

How about other species?
Species Extinction: We are in the midst of one of the greatest extinctions of other species in the history of the planet.
The last one of this magnitude was over 60 million years ago, when the dinosaurs became extinct. Yep, we're the cause
of this one, as we either kill them off outright, or cover over their living space with houses, roads and development. Did
God give us dominion over this beautiful garden that we might destroy it, or that we might take care of the glory of
creation? It's our choice.
Habitat destruction: Our exploding population in the U.S. is converting about 1.2 million acres of rural land per year to
subdivisions, malls, workplaces, roads, parking lots, resorts and the like. The rural area lost to development between 1982
and 1997 is about equal to the entire land mass of Maine and New Hampshire combined. (Approximately 39,000 square
miles or 25 million acres)
Habitat Fragmentation Not only is habitat being built over, it is also
being divided into ever-smaller pieces. Habitat fragmentation reduces
species richness and diversity, by isolating a species population into
subpopulations that may be too near the minimum viable population size,
and so die off in each fragment. A fundamental finding of ecology is
thespecies-area relationship, that the size of a habitat is a primary
determinant of the number of species in that habitat.
Some critics point out that we can accommodate more people without so
much habitat loss and
habitat fragmentation if we
all live in cities or densely packed developments. This is certainly true, but
the point we emphasize here at HowMany.org is that this is not what most
people want. Many people, given the choice, prefer to live on larger parcels.
Many people want larger yards and gardens, and get-away cabins where
you can't see your neighbors. And we can continue to have these amenities
if we re-energize a vision of a smaller, more sustainable population.


Habitat fragmentation endangers the Jaguars in Costa Rica. (May 12, 2010)
More news about Endangered Species & Habitat.

Does a growing population really help any of us?
These are some of the ways our growing population is impinging on our quality of life, and in many regions of the Globe,
life itself.
It's a long list, and more could be added. As some point out, these problems are not entirely the result of overpopulation.
We could consume less, we could use resources more efficiently, and we could distribute them in ways that would not
deprive so many of access to the basics. But there is no doubt that these these problems could be solved more
easily if we don't add 3 billion or 5 billion, or many many more people to our lovely planet.
And coverage of the link is almost nonexistent in most media outlets, even those covering the environmental and social
problems that ensue. This is the most basic question that an intelligent species could ask: What is the right number of
us to be living on our fair planet?
Instead of saying there is nothing we can do about it, just accommodating to the imagined inevitability of it, shouldn't we
be asking "Does a growing population really help any of us?"
It's hard to think of a current problem which will be solved more easily by adding another 2.3 billion people to our
population.
Rather than asking how we might accommodate additional billions of people, we could be asking:
Will the addition of another 2.3 billion people competing for land and resources do anything to improve the lives of people
living now?
Will the lives of those 2.3 billion additional people be anything as enjoyable, prosperous, and free as those of their
parents?
How can we effectively and non-invasively control population growth?
The answer to that last question is easy
POPULATION GROWTH:

From these models we see that a growing
population puts major strains on the available
freshwater and forest area. We see that more
people indicate more consumption of freshwater
and a greater need for developed area and
paper products. The excel model shows that
both freshwater availability and forest area are
reaching zero at a rapid rate. Although we know
the depleting of both is a definite threat, we
cannot totally rely on these models. We fail to
take into account other significant factors.

By looking at the figure 3 we see the growth
of India and the United States population over a
25-year time span. We start off in 2000 where
the initial population of India was
1,090,000,000 people and the United States
population was 298,444,215 people. In order to get the increasing numbers we took the population
growth rate and multiplied it by the initial population and added that number to each preceding
year. Indias population growth rate was 1.51%, while the US s population growth rate was .92% (Census
Bureau 2004). As a result, the populations grew. With this equation we see that by 2025 India is already
at 1.6 billion people, while the US is at almost 400 million people. This model differed from Stella in that
we only account for the population growth rate. This rate already accounts for birth, death, and
immigration rates. With this graph we also assumed the following: population growth was a constant, no
other factors will prevent the population from growing constantly.

The reason for India s greater growth rate per year may be attributed to the women being less educated,
the countrys GDP, and the rate of migration. The United States Gross Domestic Product exceeds
$11,750,000,000,000, while India s GDP is $3,319,000,000,000 (Census 2004). With less money, India s
population will not be suppressed because working class has a greater need for more children for more
income. The United States' population mainly grows because of increased immigration. 820,000 people
are immigrated to the United States yearly, whereas India s problem more resides in their lack of
migration (Nowak no date). Because of the United State s power and wealth, many people are attracted
to it. For both countries, medical advancements have increased the lifespan of people, thus the number of
births exceed the deaths. India also experiences rapid urbanization. This urbanization arises from India s
highly impoverished population. People move to the cities in hope of job opportunities. In 2001, the urban
population was about 28%, yet by 2025 it is expected to reach 36% (Economist Intelligence Unit 2006).
This urbanization causes more growth especially since the urban poor contribute the most to a growing
population because they contribute the most to the labor force. In addition, they continue to reproduce
because of their desire for male children, who are considered more efficient in the workforce and are less
of a financial liability. A lack of education also contributes to India s growing population. 40% of the
worlds illiterates live in India. Its literacy rate is only 65.2%, where 75.6% of males are literate and only
54% of females are literate (Economist Intelligence Unit 2006). An increase in education would potentially
lead to postponed marriage, thus less children would be conceived. An education could also provide people
with better jobs, thus the need for children workers would be less. More well-paid jobs in the private
sector are provided to the educated. Women would also learn to use contraceptives, thus preventing
unwanted pregnancies. In the year 2000, the rate of contraceptive use for women between 15 and 49
years of age was 52% (CIA 2003).Meanwhile, for the United States, 99% of the population is literate.
99% of males and females are literate as well. About 85% of the US population uses contraception. This
number was taken from a 1995 survey, and we can only assume it has increased (Kaufmann 1998). These
differences in numbers greatly affect the population growth rate.



FRESHWATER AVAILABILITY VS. POPULATION GROWTH

By looking at figure 4 we see a graph displaying the comparison between the
consumption of freshwater in India and in the United States. We started off
with the initial value of fresh water availability for the United States to be
4,477,000,000 m
3
, and for India to be 500,000,000,000 m
3
. After these
initial numbers, the per capita fresh water use was multiplied by the
population and the resulting amount was then subtracted from the overall
fresh water available. Indias per capita fresh water use was 1211 m
3
, and
the US s per capita fresh water use was 6932 m
3
(Census 2004). In order to
analyze the increase in water use, we assumed that the per capita water use
was the same for all habitants of each country. Per capita water use takes
into consideration all the discrepancies and achieves an overall rate. In
addition, this graph does not include any excess in-flow of freshwater, which could ultimately affect the
rate at which water is used. However, this does not impact the hypothesis being proven due to the
growing population, which will ultimately still decrease the amount of available water.

These graphs differ in that Indias per capita water use is less than the United States, thus the United
States depletes their freshwater supply more quickly, even though India starts off with a greater amount
of freshwater supply. However, because of the United States financial stability, the availability of
freshwater is not as great of a problem although its supply is still depleting. The US should have more
access to clean water and more money, so it can clean its water with better purification systems.
The United States has a greater land and water area than India, which allows them more access to water.
The United States has 9,161,923 square kilometers of land, while India has 2,973,190 square kilometers
of land. Meanwhile, the US has 469,497 square kilometers of water, and India has 314,400 square
kilometers of water (CIA 2006). India mainly relies on its ground water for drinking water and that is not
only limited, but also becoming more and more polluted, as the growing populations lead to an increase in
garbage being produced, and waste being deposited in the soil (Economist Intelligence Unit 2006).
Furthermore, with 60% of the labor force employed in agriculture, 40% of their cultivated land is irrigated,
which leaves farmers dependant on the annual monsoon. The monsoon season (June and
September/October) provides India with the majority of its precipitation. Because the monsoon season
brings about much flooding and polluted water this leads us to the problem of a lack of fresh water supply.
With a growing population, a greater demand for fresh water exists. 19% of India has no access to clean
water. According to Rich Planet, Poor Planet, population growth and consumption will cause people living
in water- deficit areas to jump to a population of 2.4 billion from 505 million within the next 25 years
(Flavin 2001). The US also has more consistent precipitation rather than one monsoon season.

FOREST AREA VS. POPULATION

In figures 5 and 6 we see the growth of India and
the United States population in relation to the
amount of forest area available over a 25-year time
span. We start off in 2000 where the initial forest
area of India was 67 {million hectares} and
the United States forest area was 299.6 {million
hectares} (Butler 2006). In order to get the
decreasing numbers we took the forest area
available and multiplied it by the deforestation rate
India s was 0.0294 million hectares per year and
USs 0.2152 hectares per year and then
subtracted it from the forest area available from the
preceding year. As a result, both forest areas
decreased. Here we made the assumption that the
deforestation rate of both India and United States
was constant throughout the 25-year span.
Although not specifically accounted for, tree
regeneration, forest fires, and new trees planted
are embedded into the deforestation rate given
above.

Figure 7 compares the forest area of the United
States with India s forest area. Because theUS
starts with a greater amount of forest area the total hectares exceeds Indias forest area until about 2008
when Indias forest area exceeds the US s. These forest areas differ because of the differing rates. You
can also see how the US s forest area nearly crashes by 2019. This does seem entirely realistic
considering 2019 is only 13 years away. Furthermore, these graphs do not take into account forest
regeneration rates and the planting of new trees. The deforestation is supposed to include these two
factors, but perhaps they were not stressed enough in the mathematical calculation.

The forest areas rates of depletion differ between these two countries because of the different growing
populations, and the greater urbanization in India. For India, deforestation issues arise partly because of
the growing masses of poor people who depend on biomass for energy (Flavin 1991). Furthermore, the
migration from rural areas to urban areas has sparked a growing demand for timber, lumber, and paper.
Evidently, this rapidly depletes the forests (Greep 1998). This loss of forest leads to greater problems
since forests have much control over the ecological balance, biodiversity, and quality of the environment.
Forests can check for soil erosion, water retention, and conserve and regulate the water cycle. It also
retains carbon in order to balance the CO
2
and O
2
in the atmosphere, thus reducing greenhouse gas
emissions (Laurence 1999). Meanwhile, in the last 200 years, the United States has lost 50% of its
wetlands, 90% of its northwestern old-growth forests, and 99% of its tall grass prairie (US Census Bureau
2006). Every day, an estimated nine square miles of U.S. rural land is lost to development (US Census
Bureay 2006). India is at greater risk because they already have less land (see above). If we destroy our
forests it means that global warming will be even a greater of a problem because of the increase in
greenhouse gases. Also, we will lose many animals because they lose their habitat. The food chain will
thus be disrupted. So, both countries experience forest loss, but at different rates. The US nears crashes
sooner than India because people in the US consume much more wooded products and construction of
paved areas is more frequent.


OTHER FACTORS:

Although we did not graph issues besides depleting forest area and freshwater resources, many other
environmental impacts exist because of a growing population. For example, a growing population puts
strains on other natural resources. Although India accounts for 2.4% of the earths surface, it not well
endowed with natural resources. Coal, iron, ore, and bauxite are India s primary mineral reserves.
Furthermore, a growing population also leads to an increase in pollution. In a 1990 report sponsored by
the US Department of Energy, it said CO
2
emissions had grown 5.6% per year from 1950 (Economist
Intelligence Unit 2006). This inevitably leads to increase in greenhouse gas emissions, thus more global
warming. These emissions mainly come from coal combustion. The World Resources Institute said
that India is the fifth largest contributor to current annual increases in greenhouse effect because of its
methane emissions from agricultural practices. The World Resources Institute also found that developing
countries rank higher among greenhouse gas emitters because of deforestation and other human activities
resulting in carbon releases. Coal is the primary fuel for power generation, yet its high ash content makes
it a strong pollutant and inefficient source of energy (Economist Intelligence Unit 2006). The problems
persist because there is little economic incentive to recycle and conserve energy. However, progress has
been made with Indian taxation and corporate law. They have reduced excise taxes and custom duties for
certified pollution control equipment, and have depreciation allowance for units designed to minimize
pollution or conserve natural resources. Also there is an exemption from capital gains tax for industries
relocating away from urban areas (Jasanoff 1993).

Americans constitute 5% of the world's population but consume 25% of the world's energy. On average,
one American consumes as much energy as 2 Japanese, 6 Mexicans, 13 Chinese, 31 Indians, 128
Bangladeshis, 307 Tanzanians, or 370 Ethiopians (US Census Bureau 2006). The United States is
responsible for 22 percent of the world's industrial CO
2
emissions (US Census Bureau 2006). Because of
the growing populations, both nations must deal with this increase in pollution and excess use of energy.

Because we did not include some factors it is hard to graphically predict what would happen if we were to
adjust certain factors. However we can make some predictions. For example, if we were to increase the
literacy rate (meaning more people educated), we would see a decrease in the birth rate. This would then
lead to a smaller population, less forest area loss, and more available water resources. If we were to
increase the use contraceptives, a similar pattern would occur. By decreasing the per capita water use we
can also see a decline in the water usage because less water per person will be consumed. However,
realistically this does not seem reasonable, for water is necessary to everyones life and it seems
impossible to monitor ones water intake and use. Perhaps the crashing would occur at a later time. If
major advancements were made, we can avoid crashing all together.


We also realize that by changing the amount of water available we can increase lifespan, or if we eradicate
poverty, or if new medical discoveries arise, we will still see a population growth. However, at the rate
things are going the graphs still show a hint of future trends.

SOLUTIONS

The earth is a closed system, meaning that we have to recycle or store all of the wastes we produce, and
we only have one planet's worth of land and water to provide resources for agriculture, energy, and other
needs. However, for this to work, it is all dependable on two primary factors: the number of people on
each country and the average amount of resources available person and the average amount of pollution
produced. Thus, the average standard of living in each country is related to the resources available,
because the more people, the more pollution is produced, and more resources are used. Therefore, if a
strategy can be developed to lessen the ecological footprint per person it can be a very beneficial way of
lessening the demand of Earths natural resources, and a more aware mindset of the effects of
overpopulation in the present and future of our generation.

The research done in this project allows a closer look at the fact that overpopulation is a problem and that
increasing standards of living will only add to the resource demand and limited supply. Thus, some actions
that population should take upon is to continue to strive to reduce suffering by combating disease and
poverty around the world; continue to improve resource efficiency and pollution control so that standards
of living can rise without negative impact; and keep human population to numbers that are sustainable.

Furthermore, making sure people around the world have access to family planning services; empowering
women in developing countries economically, socially, and legally in a manner that results in them having
an equal say (with their husbands) in reproductive decisions; modifying school curricula to include
information on population levels and implications for the future; reforming tax laws in a way that
encourages couples to have no more than two children. Along with such strategies, we must
also encourage organic farming and other forms of sustainable development. Using wind energy products
will make a difference. Slowing urbanization as well by providing other alternatives will be effective.
CONCLUSIONS

Evidently we have discovered that a growing population impacts the environment in several ways. No
matter the country, an increase in human numbers inevitably leads to problems. We found that a growing
population puts strains on the natural resources of the environment, the forest area, and water
availability. Pollution also results from this alongside the increase of global warming. By comparing the
two different populations we drew mainly the same conclusions, yet we saw how the environmental
impacts made less of a direct mark on the lives of Americans due to our somewhat of a more stable
society. At this point we can handle the strains because of our seemingly endless access to water. But for
how long will we be able to sustain such lifestyles? That is up to you and me. First off, we must encourage
energy preservation, forest preservation, and help educate others about contraceptive use. We must also
figure out ways to increase the wealth so urbanization is less prevalent.