View - ResearchGate

Article 2622780 percent of the growth comes from immigration. Unless the per capita standard of living isreduced, more resources will be required for these additional people. This need comes at a timewhen the United States is already using a disproportionate amount of global resources. Regardlessof the present position on immigration, the United States can neither have perpetual exponentialpopulation growth in a finite area nor continue to co-opt a disproportionate share of the planet’sresources. As pressure on finite resources increases, per capita share of them will diminish. Whenthis occurs, the United States will become less attractive to migrants, unless per capita resourcesworld-wide are becoming depleted.In areas such as Afghanistan and the Gaza Strip, exponential population growth continuesdespite an already low standard of living. In the United States, massive immigration, both legal andillegal, continues and many large families are still produced here, so the concept of carrying capacityis neither understood nor is it a major issue in national policy decisions. If this situation continuesthroughout the 21 st century, arguably even the first half of the century, there will be a painful,possibly tragic, day of reckoning.Reducing the per capita and national size of the ecological footprint will provide more time inwhich to make the transition from unsustainable to sustainable living. Examples of how this reductionmay be implemented are given in Wackernagel and Rees (1996) and Hawken et al. (1999).These and other similar publications provide persuasive evidence that reducing the size of the ecologicalfootprint does not produce a concomitant reduction in quality of life. In fact, social capitalincreases as a consequence of the group effort to live sustainably.Living sustainably requires that humankind recognize that exponential growth of population andincreased resource consumption are simply not possible on a finite planet. It also requires an ecoethicalrelationship with natural systems, which avoids viewing natural systems as commodities.Eco-ethics will guide humankind toward sustainable behaviors. An ethical relationship with naturalsystems, which recognizes humankind’s dependence upon them, will also increase the likelihoodof leaving a habitable planet for future generations.CONCLUSIONSUntil the end of the 20 th century I would have thought referring to Homo sapiens as an endangeredspecies was absurd. However, loss of habitat can drive a species to extinction andhumankind is destroying its habitat on a global scale quite rapidly in evolutionary time. The primaryillustrations used in this paper are the two interrelated concepts of carrying capacity and the majorextinction of species both of which may disrupt some processes of evolution with consequencesthat might well persist for millions of years. Loss of resources per capita is likely to result in aresource war. Resource wars are increasingly likely because the human population is increasingexponentially while resources are not. The Albuquerque example was used because the situationcould have been avoided if simple steps were taken in the framework of a water budget and adrought plan. However, the special interest groups have not been able to reach the necessary consensus.If humankind used eco- and sustainability ethics, science-based decision making, and a systemslevel approach, there would be more incentive to replace unsustainable practices with sustainableones. These latter practices must be integrated within human society if they are to persist(i.e., become sustainable). If the concept of carrying capacity is taken seriously, either subsistenceor optimal human density and per capita ecological footprint size should be used to develop animmigration policy. Emigration should be discarded as a means of solving carrying capacity issues.