Reduce, Reuse... Repopulate Responsibly?

Many people these days have a very optimistic view of the positive changes being made to our environment. In an Econtalk podcast, host Russ Roberts interviews environmental scientist Jesse Ausubel, and many interesting points are brought up regarding the return of nature to our world. 

In this podcast, Ausubel brings up the increase in precision agriculture and how it allows for rising crop yields in smaller areas, therefore, freeing up land that can be reverted back into nature. It's a beautiful concept, one that I think has potential. Ausubel and Roberts volley ideas that could allow for land to be freed from agriculture. Recently, more and more individuals are changing to vegetarian and pescatarian diets, either for health or personal reasons. Ausubel speculates that as these diet changes become more widespread, the need for land to grow crops for livestock would decrease drastically, allowing for nature to reclaim these spaces. He also believes that the use of corn for fuel is preposterous, and to stop this practice, as well as to implement policies on food waste, would assist in freeing up land. 

I love the concept of these changes, and I loved the optimism expressed by Ausubel's way of thinking. The episode is worth a listen. Ausubel's is a very positive outlook to have. However, I have my doubts about how, exactly, this will work out. In order for nature to reclaim the land, the farmer who owns the land has to want that land to go back to the environment. For him, this is not going to be financially beneficial, so why wouldn't he sell the land to someone who may develop it, and make a pretty penny? This is a situation where I believe the privatization of land would come in very handy. He could sell the land to someone who may develop it, OR, he could sell it to an organization whose sole intent is to allow nature to reclaim the land. I suppose his decision would depend on who could offer more for the land, but since we are being optimistic, let's hope the environmental organization or individual would pay more. At this point, because money is such a huge benefactor in land-use decisions, I do not believe that the environment will continue to improve on the whole. We have already pushed nature past the tipping point. Our environment will never be as it once was, as there will always be exploitation of natural resources.  It is true, as Roberts and Ausubel discuss, that the environment is improving in some places and degrading in others. I think that throughout the rest of time, this is a cycle that will persist in our technologically and industrially evolving world. 

Environmental degradation is fundamental to environmental improvement. If we never would have over-indulged on natural resources, we would never have to worry about improving environmental conditions and conserving vital resources. Environmental degradation not only stimulates innovation, but it also leads to additional education, causing more people to be proactive about a problem. 

If we chose to look at global warming as a form of degradation, we can see, as Ausubel pointed out, that this elephant in the room also has it's benefits; Excessive carbon dioxide levels provide more food for plants, and the warming of certain climates has allowed for more trees to grow in areas where climate wouldn't usually allow for this kind of growth. I think it's important that the environment degrades in some places as it improves in others, as this allows for the innovation and other positive aspects of degradation, to evolve and thrive. Now that more people are aware and educated on environmental issues, to improve the environment is really a matter of the enforcement of policies and regulations, continued education, and creative innovation.  

Countries such as China are on an excruciating path to improving environmental conditions. They are getting more and more creative with their conservation and policies, and little by little, changes are occurring. Industrialism in China has led to some serious natural disasters, and these disasters have certainly been a motivator for change. Unfortunately, I believe much of China has surpassed a tipping point of their own, perhaps to the point where the environment will never be able to be recovered into land that can be used for anything worthwhile. China, which is the most populated nation in the world, has a population of over one billion. That's a lot of people to load onto the environmental wagon. 

While population is a large factor of environmental well-being, depopulation won't necessarily fix economical and environmental dilemmas. Declining populations actually lead to a whole new set of problems. For this example, I will use the town of Spencer, IA. When I was a child, probably about 12 years old, I visited Spencer with my grandparents. My grandmother was born there, and most of her family still resided in the town. While out to breakfast one morning, I looked around and noticed that I was, by far, the youngest person in the restaurant. Many of the patrons were easily over 65. I turned to my grandpa and asked, "Is there anyone in this town who is under one-hundred years old?". He laughed at me, and still laughs at me for it to this day. But the town of Spencer, which has a current population of a little over 11,000, has actually seen a decrease in population over the years. 

In towns with a declining population, the economy often takes a hard hit. As the average age of an area grows older, people begin to die off, instead of replacing the population. In these areas, the value and quality of homes deteriorate, leaving little room for the expansion of the housing market. Not only that, but elderly people are generally more frugal and less impulsive, meaning they won't stimulate the economy the same way younger generations would. As a result, businesses are not able to bring in adequate revenue. Less entertainment venues and stores are built, and overall, the town experiences an economic crisis. Without children in the area, there is less of an emphasis on playgrounds and schools, which simply pushes younger families away. I don't believe a declining population is the answer, at least not in a sense where we make population growth stop altogether. 

I do, and always have, believed in population control. I firmly believe that not everyone should be able to have children. We have to have a license to drive a car, do someone's surgery, do someone's hair, or sell real estate. These things are all available to anyone, anywhere who is willing to put in the work for it. But anyone could give birth to a child, even, and especially in some cases, those who shouldn't. Having children is an enormous responsibility, and I believe that as with the items mentioned above, an individual should have to put in the work in order to have a child. Certain financial, emotional, educational, and personal criteria should be met by an individual wanting a child. I think this would ensure a more intelligent, harder-working generation, one that is more willing to do what it takes to ensure a greater return of nature to our world.