OVERPOPULATION: Are we running out of room?

“Inadequate sources of freshwater for drinking or effective sewage treatment, depletion of natural resources to include fossil fuels, increases in air, water and soil contamination, deforestation, loss of ecosystems, global warming, loss of workable land, mass desertification of the Earth, mass species extinction, slashing and burning of rainforests, high infant and child mortality, malnutrition, increase in epidemics and pandemics, starvation, malnutrition, global poverty, low life expectancy, elevated crime rates, conflict over scarce resources, less personal freedoms and an exponential rise in global consumption.”

“What is ‘our future’, Alex?”

Yes, indeed.  This is the ugly future face of an overpopulated planet; a scenario we are rapidly headed toward without a clear blueprint of how to divert the current course.  Our population has been gradually growing since the Black Death in 1400, but, due to the development of advanced medical practices and increased agricultural productivity, the planet’s population has skyrocketed in the last 50 years.  According to U.S. Census Bureau information, the global population has grown from 2.3 billion in 1940 to over 7 billion last year.  Furthermore, continued advancements in food production and medical technology will likely increase birth rates and life span even further to where we could conceivably eclipse 10 billion by 2040.

A significant problem with how to attack this problem is that no experts seem to be able to come to a consensus as to how many people are “too many”, as far as planetary sustainability is concerned.  Some estimate that we are already overpopulated while a few others set the bar at a whopping 16 billion – almost 2 ½ times our current population.  Can you imagine that?  Look anywhere you go; the supermarket, driving, restaurants, and imagine 2.5 times as many people everywhere.  The world would be astoundingly crowded.

Interestingly enough, the problem of overpopulation is no recently-concocted concern.  In fact, it was a major talking point amongst ancient Romans and Greeks including Socrates and Plato.  A citizen of Carthage in the second century CE opined about the then global population of about 190 million; “What most frequently meets our view is our teeming population.  Our numbers are burdensome to the world, which can hardly support us… In very deed, pestilence and famine and wars and earthquakes have to be regarded as a remedy for nations, as the means of pruning the luxuriance of the human race.”  Obviously, this isn’t a groundbreaking issue of which we are just now becoming aware, although, 190 million people sounds like paradise.

Regardless of what we eventually find to be the agreed-upon population ceiling, most everyone agrees that there are just too many people on this planet, in one way or another.  The question is; what do we, or can we, do about it?  How do we stave off an impending global population crisis?

Some experts believe an increase in global wealth distribution and industrialization of the third world will eradicate poverty and disease enough that birth rates will taper off.  Areas with greater burden of disease and warfare have far higher birth rates than the global average simply because their calamitous conditions cause in the citizenry a sort of PTSD about losing family members, so to compensate they simply have extra babies.  Lose the war and disease, no need for a dozen kids. This is of course a double-edged sword as with increased industrialization come more noxious greenhouse gases being blasted into our already-beaten down atmosphere, but for now, let us temporarily forget about that pesky little speed bump and focus on the task at hand:  How do we convince people to stop making too many kids?

Other experts, however, argue that population increase is not the issue on which to focus, but rather, that we should be paying attention to rampant over-consumption, particularly in the West.  More particularly, we should pay attention to it in the United States, where 40% of the world’s goods are consumed.  Simply put, the Western world is consuming substantially more than the rest of the world.  In fact, it is estimated that the average American has the same carbon footprint of 250 Ethiopians.  So we must, therefore, ask the question; are we just participating in that oh-so-human activity of destroying ourselves by any means possible, just on a grander scale?

Perhaps the answer lies in Mother Nature herself.  Historically, biological records show that as populations increase, fertility rates decrease.  Taking into account other means of population control like disease and famine, Mother Nature seems to be self-regulating, or at least she used to be.  Enter modern medicine and agricultural development.  Thanks to our philanthropic pharmaceutical companies anyone can now procreate, even if they weren’t intended to.  It is a shameful characteristic of a populous that has put its own personal reproductive agenda ahead of global stability.

Pardon me while I climb down off this soap box.

Seriously though, we must be more self-aware and begin to question if we are intentionally bypassing Mother Nature’s ability to keep her planet healthy by having babies when we aren’t supposed to and consuming more goods than we need to so we can ultimately be kept alive for decades longer than we would have (or should have) naturally.  One has to imagine that at some point the levees of nature will break and our overseer will unleash hell in the form of a super bug or similar blight to wipe out half the world’s population “Black Death”-style.  Or, perhaps, the escalating conflict over scarce resources will lead to another planetary-scale war.  Either way, the score will be Planet : 1, Humans: 0.

It is difficult to postulate which of these wonderful outcomes is most likely. Regardless, if we don’t begin taking measures to stabilize the population in one way or another, it is likely that Mother Nature will unleash her own punishment upon us and not a single one of us would be undeserving of it.

On Hunting: The underlying reasons why we either hunt or hate hunting

The leaves are starting to change. As autumn falls upon us, we will become witness to the beauty of nature’s transformation from lush green to yellows, oranges and reds in preparation for winter slumber. Families will begin to gather around the TV on Saturdays and Sundays to cheer on their alma maters and favorite professional football teams, kids will scramble into SUVs for weekend trips to the apple orchards for some fresh doughnuts and, of course, the army of fluorescent orange-clad “sportsmen” will once again grace our nation’s forests and fields. It’s hunting season again and Mother Nature is in the crosshairs.

Growing up in a “hunting family” in the northern Midwest, I was always around, and even participated in, the killing of animals in their native habitats. From Bambi to Chip & Dale, no furry creature was beyond the power of my mighty bow and arrow or .410 gauge break-action shotgun. My tenure as “Conqueror of Nature”, however, was abbreviated as I only bagged a handful of squirrels and one rabbit. Turns out I wasn’t very good at it and it sort of just slipped away from my mind for a few decades.

Only until I reached my mid-30s and noticed the surprisingly large numbers of my adult friends that still hunted, did I start to ponder the ethics of hunting. Why were these grown men, who had hopefully evolved past the mindless brutish thinking of adolescence, still going out of their way to kill animals? Was such an activity a necessary means of population control as the hunting community loves to boast? Or, was there something deeper to it? In my research I have read what seems to be a never ending point-counterpoint on the killing of wild animals every fall and I’d be lying if I said the issue was any clearer. It is to be noted that in my more recent years I have leaned rather significantly in the direction of the anti-hunters but I will openly admit that the hunting community brought up some interesting points, which I will discuss:

WHY PEOPLE HUNT

For seemingly an eternity, psychologists and other mind-docs have claimed that hunting is an activity that only caters to the perverted and inadequate. Arguably, most of the anti-hunting activists would agree. It is easy to climb onto this bandwagon as it makes the most sense to anyone with even a semester of psychology under their belt. The answer as to whether or not this viewpoint is accurate, however, is a little more elusive.

I figured the best place to start asking question about hunting would naturally be with hunters. Predictably, when I would question them and challenge their activities, accusing them of merely looking for an excuse to kill something, they would reply, most often, with one of the three following counterpoints:

1. Hunting for meat: This reasoning drives me absolutely mad. While there are surely some seasoned hunters out there that can identify a prime eating animal as it walks by their tree stand, the vast majority of hunters shoot the first (and every single following) animal that may come across their path until their bag limits have been filled. Not to mention, a cost benefit analysis of hunting (license fees, weapons, and other equipment) vs. buying grocery meat also voids this argument.

When taking into account the array of both good and bad cuts of meat, even in times of inflated food prices, beef costs on average $3.80/lb., according to CNNmoney.com. In doing a cost-benefit analysis, it would be preposterous to even consider small game hunting as being more affordable that buying meat in a supermarket, so for the sake of argument, we will look at how much it costs a hunter to get a deer from the woods into his stomach. The average slain deer will produce 50 lbs. of meat (according to several Departments of Natural Resources). Therefore, the cost of hunting must be under $200 in order to make this argument sound. A decent shotgun or compound bow costs anywhere from $500-$1000. Not including licenses and other assorted gear, and cost of processing the deer. This argument obviously holds little water. Next.

2. Control overpopulation: Admittedly, there is solid scientific evidence that suggests hunting is a very effective means of controlling animal overpopulation in certain areas where the animals would otherwise starve or contract disease. This reason, however, is kind of a “dickish” response to Mother Nature. Humans are the ONLY cause for deforestation, urban sprawl and diminishing wildlife habitiat. Therefore, humans using population control as an excuse to hunt the weak and diseased (as a result of the aforementioned actions of humans) is somewhat reminiscent of Hitler’s Lebensraum in which the domination of neighboring nations was necessary for the healthy expansion of the Nazi empire. Killing of those conquered citizens was merely a formality, of course.

3. Controlling pests that pose a risk to you, your family or your property: I get this. I really do. In fact, I support it. If a coyote is a threat to your livestock, by all means kill it. If a bear takes a run at you as you get out of the car, I fully support disposing of the bear. This is no different than killing a rat that has invaded your kitchen or an opossum in your garage. The difference in this act from the others, however, is that this is based in the defense of yourself, your loved ones and your possessions. Most acts committed in the defense of oneself are wholly acceptable, perhaps not by the law, but nevertheless by the mindset of most Westerners. Basically, you do what you gotta do to protect your stuff.

Back on track…

After considering the invalidity of the aforementioned replies (of course, omitting the last), an anti-hunter could only be led to believe that hunters likely kill animals just for the sake of killing something without the fear that the about-to-be-killed may respond in kind if you miss. To take it a step further, walking into a home and see multiple heads of various animals stuffed and hanging on walls is the ultimate “in your face” to mother nature and sends the blood boiling through most animal lovers. As if it wasn’t enough to kill our Earthly companions en masse, now we need to make an exhibitionist spectacle of it? The author, Aldo Leopold once observed in his 1953 publication Round River that “Poets sing and hunters scale the mountains primarily for one and the same reason—the thrill to beauty. Critics write and hunters outwit their game for one and the same reason—to reduce that beauty to possession.” On its surface, this act seems barbarous and borderline sociopathic. However, the hunting community has interesting points of defense.

In a 2007 issue of Montana Outdoors, author John Madson explains the brotherhood and sense of community and bonding that hunting may bring; “Ten thousand years ago the hunter might have stood by a fire and recounted the great deed to his clan brothers, while the old men nodded their approval and stripling boys back in the shadows listened in wonder. It hasn’t changed much. The trophy hunter, the ethical killer of the great stag, or bear, or ram, still commands attention by the fire as he recites his deeds. His peers still salute him, the old men still nod and remember, and boys still dream of tomorrow’s hunts.”

Madson continues; “Companionship can be a strong element in hunting. For as long as men have hunted, they have banded into special hunting packs with their own taboos, traditions, and rituals. And sometimes the companionship and the rituals become more important than the hunt itself, and sometimes the greatest pleasure is in anticipation and recollection, with the hunt only serving to bond the two.”

Ultimately, until the exact reason for why people hunt are mapped out via brain scan, much like recent research shows how video games turn kids into killers (Sorry advocates, it’s true. See ANYTHING written by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman), this back and forth will go on ad nauseam. Hunters will always postulate that they kill for a variety of reasons ranging from “working the dogs” to “being one with nature”. In response, the anti-hunting community will continue to scream “sociopath”, “murderer” and “hypocrite”. Hopefully someday both sides will understand the other. Then again, perhaps, we are just not equipped to understand.