3. Population Increase Has Wiped out the Material Benefits People Have
Achieved
Matthew: Sarah, is there a need to control population only in countries like India, Africa, Brazil ... those countries that we call the underdeveloped countries, or is there a case for limiting population in Europe, for instance?
Sarah: The reason one would have to limit population is because you’re running out of food and you’re running out of resources. The people in Europe and America consume a far greater proportion of the world’s resources and the world’s food than they do in India. So ... um ... population is directly related to ... um... consumption and your general impact on the environment. If as an individual your impact is far greater then anybody else’s, um...then that is the factor that’s important, rater than how many people there are., or how many people can the world support. Now it’s ...obviously in that sense, it’s possible to increase population if everybody’s willing to un... use less material or eat less food, but it isn’t if everybody’s continually wanting more and more and more, and this is ...seems to be the trend at the moment...higher and higher consumption.. with at the same time a greatly expanding population. And the problem in ... um ...areas which are poor and which have expanding populations is that they try and develop and try and... er ...get...er...more material benefits, but as soon as they do this, the population increase has wiped out any benefits that they may have um...achieved.
Matthew: But do you feel that this battle with a ...a rapidly expanding population can be won?
Sarah: The most sensible thing is to realize that you can’t go on expanding human populations for ever and countries and individuals must decide to have a policy which would limit population.
Achieved
Matthew: Sarah, is there a need to control population only in countries like India, Africa, Brazil ... those countries that we call the underdeveloped countries, or is there a case for limiting population in Europe, for instance?
Sarah: The reason one would have to limit population is because you’re running out of food and you’re running out of resources. The people in Europe and America consume a far greater proportion of the world’s resources and the world’s food than they do in India. So ... um ... population is directly related to ... um... consumption and your general impact on the environment. If as an individual your impact is far greater then anybody else’s, um...then that is the factor that’s important, rater than how many people there are., or how many people can the world support. Now it’s ...obviously in that sense, it’s possible to increase population if everybody’s willing to un... use less material or eat less food, but it isn’t if everybody’s continually wanting more and more and more, and this is ...seems to be the trend at the moment...higher and higher consumption.. with at the same time a greatly expanding population. And the problem in ... um ...areas which are poor and which have expanding populations is that they try and develop and try and... er ...get...er...more material benefits, but as soon as they do this, the population increase has wiped out any benefits that they may have um...achieved.
Matthew: But do you feel that this battle with a ...a rapidly expanding population can be won?
Sarah: The most sensible thing is to realize that you can’t go on expanding human populations for ever and countries and individuals must decide to have a policy which would limit population.