People

Why population hysteria is more damaging than it seems

   Much issue is made of population as we move through the twenty-first century. This issue is often linked to be synonymous with the issue of climate change: in order to solve one we must also deal with the other. However, perhaps this is a misguided attempt. For, why is a larger population necessarily bad for the environment? Sure, more people should lead to a direct increase in emissions, though this notion can be called into question when one examines the distribution of the greenhouse gasses. The "High-income nations...provided only 7% of population growth but 29% of growth in emissions. The basis of this argument is that, when the differences in the concentrations of emissions are considered, it becomes apparent the irrelevance of the population question. It doesn't matter the amount of people, but the amount of emissions. "The excessive focus on population is a dangerous distraction from the core problem, which is not how many of us there are but how we use the planet and share its resources." This seems logical; it is certainly, at the end of the day, about the amount of greenhouse gasses which we emit into the atmosphere, not how many people are emitting them. 
   However, it must also be considered that The actual requirements for a population to survive with a given amount of members are far more complex, relating mainly to the space needed for habitation (much larger than mere existence in stasis), and the availability of resources. Given substantial space, as population increases, there are less resources available for each individual. Population increases until a carrying capacity (K) is met, at which point population oscillates around the carrying capacity.

Additionally, the survival of humans relies heavily on the level of impact we have on the planet. This impact is demonstrated in the I=PAT (Impact = Population x Affluence x Technology) equation, developed in the 1970's by Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren. This equation describes how humans impact (I) the planet. The greater the three factors (P,A,T), the more impact humans will have on the environment. As population (P ) increases, humans use more land and resources, and pollution generally increases as a result. When affluence (A) increases, the environment is further impacted by higher rates of consumption, which lead to more environmental impacts, however, one could argue that affluence also can reduce environmental impacts if those affluent are inclined to use their wealth for the benefit of the environment. Finally, technological increases (T) can have a similar effect of affluence in increasing efficiency of the utilization of resources, however, with increases in P, the utilization of technology necessarily increases, greater impacting the environment. In order to continue our survival, we must control our impact on the environment, which will require the proper management of population, affluence, and technology. As these currently high population, low emissions develop, their emissions will increase substantially, and if the population problem is ignored until this point,  we will face a colossal issue when this comes to be.