The Cavalier daily :: Friday, March 20, 1970 :: University of Virginia Library

It is becoming increasingly
apparent that the planet earth is no
longer capable of supporting its
growing population of human
beings. Man must now face the
inevitable choice of either drastic
reductions in his birth rate or
staggering rises in the death rate.

This is the startling conclusion
of Dr. Paul Ehrlich, of the Department
of Biological Sciences at
Stanford University, Wayne H.
Davis of the University of Kentucky,
and a multitude of other
observers.

A Matter Of Attitudes

Writing in the "New Scientist"
of December 14, 1967, Dr. Ehrlich
explodes many of the myths
surrounding the population explosion,
concluding that "Population
control is primarily a matter of
human attitudes, not contraceptive
technology. And human attitudes
are not changing or being changed
at anything like the rate necessary
to minimize the coming catastrophe
a catastrophe which could not be
avoided even if men's minds were
transformed tomorrow."

According to Dr. B. Commoner,
Director of the Center for Natural
Systems Study at Washington University,
the optimum population
the earth can support is six to eight
billion. That figure will be reached
by 2000 even if present population
trends recede. And it appears now
that current growth patterns are
not going to recede, but are in fact
accelerating at a frightening rate.

Consider the marked decrease in
the annual death rates, not only in
the United States but in most of
the underdeveloped nations. In
1940, the death rates in Mexico.
Venezuela, and Ceylon were respectively,
23, 17, and 20 deaths per
1000 persons. By 1963 these rates
had been reduced, to 11, 8, and 9
deaths per 1000.

World Population Doubles

Given the present rate at which
the population is increasing, the
population of the United States will
increase by 50 percent in the next
30 years (to over 300 million). The
population of the world will double
in the next 35 years.

The environmental consequences
of this rapid growth are
grim. We have reached the point
that massive famines are imminent,
because agricultural production
cannot possibly keep pace with the
multiplying population. As Dr.
Ehrlich points out, "The United
States has all but exhausted her
store of surplus grain. Last year she
shipped one quarter of her wheat
crop, nine million tons, to India. A
massive famine was prevented,
although the threat persists today,
made temporarily less ominous by a
good crop year. But every month,
the Indian population increases by
an estimated one and one-half
million. In another ten years it
would take the entire grain production
of the United States to save
India from famine."

In their book "Famine 1975,"
William and Paul Paddock contend
that the United States soon will no
longer be able to export enough
grain to prevent widespread famine
in other parts of the world. The
Department of Agriculture is more
optimistic, and predicts that that
day will not come until 1984.

Nor is the United States itself
immune from the population disaster.
Dr. Wayne Davis, writing in
"The New Republic" of January
10, 1970, points out that "Our
economy is based upon the
Keynesian concept of a continued
growth in population and productivity.
It worked in an underpopulated
nation with excess resources.
It could continue to work only if
the earth and its resources were
expanding at an annual rate of 4 to
5 percent."

Affluence For A Price

The affluence that Americans
now enjoy is being purchased at the
price of their environment. In his
lifetime, every person will pollute
3,000,000 gallons of water, and
industry will pollute ten times that
much in his behalf. His subdivisions
and urban sprawl will consume over
1,000,000 acres each year, and his
increasing demands upon agricultural
lands are resulting in soil
erosion of overgrazed lands, falling
water tables, and the spread of
deadly pesticides.

Mountains of discarded automobiles,
garbage, and junk now dot
the countryside, as Americans consume
more and more - led to
believe by Madison Avenue that a
better life can be found simply by
consuming more material objects.
In fact, the United States, with less
than fifteen percent of the world's
population, actually consumes over
one half of all the raw materials
produced in the world. How long
can this inequity continue?

(Continued on page 4)