人口問題其實是環境問題的根源，18世紀末英國經濟學家馬爾薩斯(Thomas Malthus)提出人口的增長率往往高於資源的增長率，結果引致資源不足，繼而帶出疾病、戰爭、餓荒等等社會經濟問題，這些天災人禍使人口又會向下調整。
不過，自踏入廿世紀以來，科技的高速發展令人對這套被稱為馬爾薩斯主義的觀點產生質疑，因為現實告訴我們，人口上升並沒有帶來預的災難性影響。可是，這些反馬爾薩斯主義者忽略了一點，就是資源耗用的時間性。使用某一資源的影響不一定是即時性的，而可以是十年、五十年甚至一百年後才會顯現出來，環境資源就是一個典型的例子：一天之內砍光地球上所有樹木不會立刻導致人類滅亡，即使一天之內用盡了所以非再生能源人類活動也不會立刻終止。廿多年前經濟學家Julian Simon說只要human capital(e.g.人類的智慧)仍在，便可以不斷製造出各樣資源，包括能源，所以就算挖乾了所有油田也無礙，人類可以轉靠可再生能源，可以製造風力發電機、太陽能裝置等等，人類活動依然可以靠增加人口(即增加human capital)來生生不息延續下去...
但是Julian Simon支持人口無限增長的論調是站不住腳的，因為他完全漠視了所以human capital都需要用自然資源來製造、運作這一事實，沒有自然資源根本不可能有human capital，太陽能裝置也得耗用金屬!
人口增長至某一程度，就一定會對環境帶來沉重壓力，除非......
2 comments:
Unless ..... what?
A. Human population miraculously decreases
B. Sudden discovery of resources
C. Space age comes and space colonisation begins
D. Alien technology discovery
E. The Earth is unhabitable and the End is finally here
F. None of the above (please state)
Just speculating, with some humour and fantasy!
All are possible! But I will pick 'A' if you asked me, because it is what we can reasonably expect.
But I want to add something: if decision makers refuse to do this (as what our Chief Executive said that he hoped to have a population of 10,000,000 probably coz of economic reasons), there can still have some solutions to get a certain degree of population increase while avoiding unacceptable envir damage. I think this is possible, based on two conditions
1) you know every species has its role in the ecosystem. They will consume natural resources and produce as well. If their production exceed consumption, population increase will not pose a problem, just like green plants.
2) then you must ask me this question: when population size gets bigger and bigger, they will suffer from a lot of problems such as having not enough food, space, shelther. Yes, this is of course possible, we do have this in the natural world. But it depends whether you accept a natural 'check' by the negative sides of these problems. Say, If you accept starvation as a mechism to determine who can survive, it is ok. If Person A consumes less natural resources (lower ecological footprint) than Person B, Person A can survive. Mr. Earth will be happy with this. If human can fulfill 1), then 2) is only a social problem and has nothing to do with environmental damage as the law of nature will do the job. This comes fromthe idea of, as my nickname suggests, Darwinism.
If we accept both, we can have population increase for a longer time (not infinitely, it will still be a 'S-shaped' increase - it will stop at some point, but it's just the time we come to the max will be longer and the max will be higher), as everyone competes with each other by using fewer resources (or using more efficiently). Given that amount of resources are fixed at any one time, this idea may have the potential to allow population increase, holding Scenario B to E do not occur.
But, we don't want this happens as far as social issues are concerned. To what extent we should accept this idea and can avoid this is an interesting question to me.
Post a Comment