The elephant in the room

I recently read an article on the BBC News that I would like to discuss. The article talked about a topic I have mentioned here before, overpopulation. Specifically, the article discusses how talking about overpopulation has become something of a taboo with environmentalists because of the human rights issues involved. The article referred to overpopulation as “the elephant in the room” because it is so obvious but environmentalists continue to ignore it.

I hate to admit it, but this article brings up a profound point. Overpopulation is essentially the cause of almost all environmental issues; if the human population were smaller, the demand for natural resources and our pollution output would be significantly lower. However, I have never heard any environmentalist mention this issue. The reason for this probably does not have to do with human rights issues, though. In the US, at least, environmentalists are traditionally left-wing, and many of the measures suggested to combat overpopulation, such as limits on the number of children families can have, are typically unpopular with Democrats. Additionally, few people want to hear that the world’s environmental problems are caused by overpopulation; they would much rather hear that they can recycle and make everything better. Sadly, this approach only perpetuates the problem of overpopulation; if we want to solve it we first have to acknowledge it.

I would also like to talk about overpopulation in relation to global warming. The last time I talked about this, most of my predictions were based around the fact that the amount of arable land in the world does not change; however, climate change may change not only the amount of arable land but also its location. Regardless of whether global warming is man-made or natural, it will affect how we adapt to the coming overpopulation crisis.

Previously, I mostly ignored alternative methods of farming. However, I now realize that this was unwise—if we cannot accurately predict where the world’s arable land will be in the future, alternative methods of farming not reliant on climate are needed. Today, I would like to discuss a few of these.

The first and most obvious solution is hydroponics. Hydroponic farming is nothing new—we have had the technology for years, but because it is so much cheaper to farm on land it has never been put to much use. Should global warming shift where the world’s arable land is, though, that may change. This could also be combined with what is known as “vertical farming,” an idea for farming in an urban area. As the name suggests, a large skyscraper is filled with crops, which are irrigated via pipes (the windows are enlarged to allow enough sunlight to get in). Also, both techniques could be combined with a “grow light,” a light placed above a plant to allow it to grow without sunlight. LED grow lights are cheap and easy to manufacture, making indoor or even underground farming a possibility. 

As for meat, scientists are working on a way to “grow beef without the cow.” Amazingly, it is possible to grow only a certain kind of cell from a cow in an isolated environment. This may make it possible to grow enormous vats of beef not only making slaughterhouses obsolete but also greatly increasing the efficiency of producing beef, reducing the time, labor, and air pollution involved in the process. If it is sufficiently developed, this technology could be a major tool in combating overpopulation. If a similar process could be applied to plants, crop-growing could undergo similar efficiency increases, greatly improving our chances of beating starvation.

But one thing is clear: we cannot continue to push this issue under the rug. We must develop these technologies soon, or else we will fall victim to the inevitable crash following the population boom that has come to define modern human history (the last 10,000 years). It may not happen in our lifetime, but when it does we must be ready.