While this argument seems to be fairly convincing at first, it
does not take much scrutiny to see the faults in it. The main problem with this
is the superficial, anthropocentric reasoning the author has used. Once the
reader sees the cracks, this argument has very little left to keep it from
collapsing.
While falling fertility rates in current times may well have
caused our population growth rates to fall, putting the ‘population bomb’
behind us, but the fact is, there are still more people present on the earth
today than there were in the 1960s. Although we survived the ‘fastest
population growth the world will ever see’, there are still more mouths to
feed, bodies to shelter and clothe and warm, minds to educate than the world
has ever seen.
Firm assertions such as the statement that Paul Ehrlich was
wrong in foreseeing incurable famines further weaken this argument. While he
may have been wrong about the particular decade such famines would occur in,
one cannot simply toss his warning aside as something that will never happen.
While food production may have increased drastically over the years, in most
cases food production has increased in countries that already have surplus
resources. The ‘serious problems with food distribution and malnutrition
mentioned’ cannot be overlooked the way Lam has here. As our population grows,
so will the number of people who fall in the group with no access to food and
clean water.
As for the decreasing poverty rates, statistics such as the
ones cited here mean very little in practical terms. Coming from a third-world
country myself, I can attest to the fact that a country’s increased wealth on
paper does not necessarily mean that the money always trickles down to the
masses. Furthermore, the poverty line arbitrated by the WHO only distinguishes
between the very poor and the not-so-poor; people close to this line have tough
lives regardless of which side of it they are on. Increasing inflation rates
have also meant that more people who could manage to live hand-to-mouth simply
cannot do so any longer.
The biggest blow to this argument is the fact that the world
is not a utopia where humans are the only important beings and our actions have
no repercussions. There is a limit to how many fields can be planted, how many
animals can be reared for meat, how many fish can be hunted by the thousand.
Were the food production rate to grow to be able to feed an additional 3
billion people in the next 70 years, the ecosystem would be drastically
affected. Furthermore, we humans burden our planet just by living on it with
our emissions and carbon footprints. Global warming, an issue the author has
alluded to, in worthy of more than just a passing mention in one single
sentence.
Lastly, where someone is born is purely based on
probability. One cannot really conclude whether or not the 7 billionth baby
would actually lead a better, healthier life than the 6 billionth child.
