Since 1970, environmentalists have increasingly brought up the same theme that there is a limit to growth on Earth. This is linked to many different aspects of globalisation, sustainable resources and population increase.
Thomas Malthus, for example, believes that overcrowding is inevitable, as population grows geometrically, whereas ‘the means of subsistence’ only grows arithmetically. Some economists take this theory further and argue that productive activities face a ‘law of diminishing returns’.
Malthus believes that only famine, disease and war can hold back population growth.
So far, Malthus’ theory has been disproved by the fact that food supply growth is as fast as population growth and the world’s economic output has grown even faster. No difference has been seen between arithmetic and geometric growth as of yet.
Malthus’ overcrowding theory can be classified by Allen’s (1995) geographical ideas about globalisation. Allen explains overcrowding as a simple illusion created mainly by MEDCs. Space is continually shrinking due to more efficient transport and communication. This makes countries seem closer together than reality, considering how easy it is to move around the world. Unequal interdependence can cause international market dominance and small businesses can become bankrupt from the increasing competition overseas. Integration can cause an underlying moral panic from the threat of minority beliefs dominating the majority’s beliefs due to increased migration. This problem has a solution however; we can educate society about other beliefs so people do not remain ignorant and not rely on stereotypes for their opinions. All these factors create a strong illusion of overcrowding in many forms, which spreads throughout the links in society.
The natural world provides society’s life-support system and resource base. The Earth is finite in human resources, whereas economy, the multinationals and the world cities are able to grow indefinitely. Finite unsustainable resources are causing a threat, as society has been exploiting them in and unsustainable way. Now human society must steer away from the tipping point in order to become sustainable. The changes will not be immediate or of any great magnitude, as we have become used to the exploitation that provides us with electricity that we use daily, whereas, if we had began sustainably, no change would be needed. Unsustainable resources are only unsustainable because human society exploits them in an unsustainable way.
The prospect of damage to natural systems and exhaustion of natural resources due to global exploitation of minerals like crude oil, causes and underlying moral panic to businesses and environmentalists. This is because the demand for resources will succumb to a global increase and put pressure on the economy link with businesses that deal directly or indirectly with natural resources. This can also affect human society from an interpretivist perspective, as costs of resources would increase with the demand and moral panic would spread along the links between countries using globalisation. This then adds to Allen’s theory of the illusion of over-crowing, through the lack of oil affecting transportation, therefore causing unequal interdependence to increase and smaller businesses must face a complete collapse due to their dependency on natural resources for profits.
On the other hand, integration may slow to a steady rate, as transport links become less efficient and prevent immigration to countries like the
Population growth is not the only cause of the world’s overcrowding, but human society’s impacts on each other and the Earth through our lifestyles. Affluent and over-consuming societies will have a greater negative impact on the environment than lesser, producer-orientated societies, even if they are in the minority. Areas experiencing economy and population growth like MEDCs are having a heavy impact. Even developing countries have some of the biggest environmental impacts in the world. For example, Mumbai has developed its city to try and keep up with the 21st century market. The economic growth has greatly helped the city increase, but its GDP is not high enough for its government to afford to cut down on its CO2 emissions. This can only be fixed by increasing business opportunities to give the government more money through taxes and GDP. Unfortunately, this means that CO2 emissions will have to increase before they can decrease. With the world so near the tipping point, and debatably past it already, can we afford to put this kind of pressure on the environment?
Opinionated by Hoxy, aged 16
Resources: “An Overcrowded World?” by Sarre and Blunden
