View - ResearchGate

182Cairns: Eco-Ethics and Sustainability Ethicseco-regions is essential to the quest for sustainable use of the planet. Humankind in developedcountries faces two major problems: (1) an increased population of old people and (2) excessiveconsumption of material goods. These seemingly unrelated problems could be addressed concomitantly.If the consumption of material goods were diminished, the ecological footprint of developedcountries would be closer to the world average. The many workers who have two jobs to maintaina materialistic life style could reduce working hours and spend more time with their families (includingcaring for the elderly), on recreation, and volunteer social work. No nation-state or ecoregionshould solve labor problems by encouraging immigration from nation-states and eco-regions thathave exceeded their carrying capacity because these immigrants will age. If this practice continues,population problems will become even more acute globally since it permits nation-states andecoregions to avoid facing the fact that they have exceeded their carrying capacity. Exportinghumans to solve national and local problems is an unsustainable practice. The Middle East andNorth Africa have 6.3% of the world population and only 1.4% of the water and one of the world’shighest birthrates. The region cannot export people indefinitely to avoid addressing carryingcapacity problems since this will accelerate problems in the host countries.In contrast, the United States has 4.6% of the world’s population, but is responsible for nearly25% of the world’s anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. Both overdeveloped and third-worldcountries must address carrying capacity issues in a different way. Neither exporting nor importingpeople is a sustainable practice for either group. On a global scale, both overpopulation and overconsumption of resources are severely damaging other life forms and driving some to extinction.Iran’s family planning initiatives, including contraceptive use, have reduced fertility rates from ahigh of 5.6 in 1985 to 2.0 in 2000. Regrettably, the United States, which should be a world leaderin working toward population stabilization, has withheld US$34 million from the United NationsPopulation Fund and cut off aid to international family planning organizations whose servicesinclude (but do not use US funds for) informing women of legal abortion options. In an overcrowdedworld, a point has been reached where each population increase means less resources per capita,which will push more impoverished persons into starvation and even death. Earth can only supporta finite number of people, beyond this point the primary issue is how people will die and at whatage. These are not circumstances that favor peace.Population stabilization will not be fully effective until urban sprawl is eliminated. Then, morespace will be available for natural systems (i.e., natural capital and the services it provides). Thepolicies espoused by “smart growth” proponents does reduce per capita land consumption but,unless coupled with population stabilization, merely saves land for the present generation that willbe lost in succeeding generations (i.e., it is an unsustainable practice unless the reduction in percapita land consumption is coupled to population stabilization).HOMO SAPIENS: AN ENDANGERED SPECIES?Initially, a question about Homo sapiens being an endangered species appears preposterous,but the statement does have merit. Humans inherited a storehouse of natural capital that took 3 billionyears to accumulate; they have greatly depleted it in just a few centuries. For most of theirexistence, humans were a small-group species spread thinly over Earth. However, recently in evolutionarytime, they have become a large-group species living in high densities over a substantialpart of the planet’s land and exhausting the fisheries of the world’s oceans, which cover a largerpart of the surface. The planet has been turned into a common ground from which any individual