Letter: Disaster is not inevitable from population growth
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: I am dismayed by the doom- laden predictions of the American ecologist David Pimentel ('Birth- rate cut urged to avert crisis', 22 February) about there being too many people on our planet. His simplistic argument that population growth represents a global threat is hugely misleading. It is the common currency of many academics. It is not, however, the common view of ecologists or environmentalists.
Ecologists do not say that increasing populations will inevitably lead to a series of disasters. They no longer believe in yesterday's thinking that environments have absolute carrying capacities. Environmental quality is closely tied to the capacity of local people to manage resources in a way that they choose. And poverty undermines this capacity.
The way to bring down population growth is to focus on poverty alleviation. This is also the link to safeguarding the environment. Where people have the technologies, resources, social organisation and capacity to decide for themselves, their ingenuity and skills have led to remarkable economic growth in many communities the world over. More people can result in less erosion. More people can result in more trees and forests. And when people feel secure about the future, so birth rates fall.
But these successes are threatened by consumption patterns in Europe and North America. It is our overconsumption of resources that is appropriating the capacity of poorer countries to develop. Our consumption leaves a deep 'ecological footprint' on the developing world. Sustainable development is supposed to be about partnerships. But partnership does not mean that they (in the Third World or the South) cut their populations, while we (in the industrialised countries) continue to overconsume.
The good news for all of us is if we act locally, but think globally, then 'continued population growth' will not lead to 'catastrophic public health and environmental problems'.
Yours faithfully,
JULES N. PRETTY
Director, Sustainable Agriculture Programme
International Institute for
Environment and Development
London, WC1
23 February
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments