[Guest Post] Population vs Environment

(This is a guest post by Rosemary who wrote this short essay for her AP Environmental Sciences class.  Feel free to discuss!)

The problem of population and the environment is a ubiquitous struggle that seems to be unfeasible. This is because the negative effects are in a continuous cycle, in which the population weakens the environment, and at other times the environment causes the increase in population. The question of which subject is more of a priority is solely based on the individual; however any person would agree that both matters are of important interest because they affect us very heavily. Through the environmental forum provided by ASB and the movie Slum Dog Millionaire, I have seen and discussed the contradicting areas with peers of my age.

            In my personal opinion, life should always be the first priority and it should always be protected. After attending the forum, I felt disappointed about our society. At least ten girls said that we, as humans, are so prone to having sex that we should just do it. Are we just animals that don’t have enough self dignity to have power over our physical desires? If we treat having sex as just an itch that we have to scratch, this is what causes the problems of environmental declining and also unfortunate STD’s. If everyone had the right mindset about what it means to have sex, then diseases like AIDS, HIV, and STDs would never have been an epidemic. What does it say about our society that HIV/AIDS is an epidemic? Although it is true that the increase in population is harming the environment, cutting off population, using contraceptives, and increasing abortion is completely illogical and unreasonable. Sebastian Schmieg, who looks at green issues and news stories from the political, business, technological, and social perspectives, writes: “After all, saving the planet is far more important than saving an ‘unwanted’ human child, ... At least, we now know the price of a human life: something that we used to think was priceless.” I completely agree with the satirical Schmieg; when have we started looking the habitat that was created for people, as something more important than people? If we regard the environment as more important than population, we have the sense that it would be better if humanity disappeared altogether or shrank to far more “reasonable” proportions than if we choked our planet in carbon, which would have the same result anyway: humanity’s extinction. But is it better for us to be extinct faster with our green planet still bio-diverse and beautiful, than for us to drag the planet down with us? Sure, population is growing far too rapidly for our planet to hold, but increasing contraceptives is not the solution. A suggestion given at the forum describes a financial incentive that encourages smaller families. I can imagine this simple and strong method to be very successful. In conclusion, I have learned a lot about the environmental issues that an increase of population causes, and I believe the solution to this problem must be treated with integrity and morality, and not with what is more convenient. Let’s stop cleaning up spider-webs and kill the spider.