NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... ered around, it was be painfully obvious that this could only mean one thing: the resource is very abundant now, compared with the demand for that resource. However, the only thing that this means is that resources just aren't as scarce right now, as they used to be. One of the major causes for this is quite possibly the over-saturation of the market with such resources. Because mankind's economies are using the resources so quickly, there doesn't appear to be as much scarcity as there once was.
These resources don't last forever. Eventually, they will run out, and this is when the problems will occur, as Norman Myers alludes to. Simon would most likely favor the harvesting of resources however mankind deems it necessary, without regard to how much of that resource remains. Mankind could extract the resources from the Earth, and not worry about it, because according to Simon, 'resources have been getting more available rather than more scarce since World War II'; (Simon, 2).
Both Simons and Myers make valid arguments in support of their cause. However, I just can't agree with Mr. Simon, because eventually, his logic does not hold true. The Earth is very much like a commons, as discussed by Garrett Hardin in his essay, 'Tragedy of the Commons'; Everything will work satisfactorily until the Earth reaches its carrying capacity, which is when the problems start to occur (Hardin, 4). Now Simon reasons that technology has increased the carrying capacity of Earth from 4 million people about ten thousand years ago, to 5. 5 billion people today (Simon, 6). I totally agree with this.
However, if that trend will continue or not is highly unlikely in my opinion since populations tend to grow exponentially, and then they level off simply because there are just not enough resources to sustain life for that many members of the species. Simon assumes that everything can and will be used, or the availability of resources will improve at the same rates as they are today, and this is just not true. Resources are finite, and eventually, they will run out. Simon would probably favor a policy, which placed absolutely no regulation on population growth. In fact, he would probably encourage population growth because he views it as a cause of an increased standard to living (Simon, 11). Later on in his argument, Julian Simon cites the Nobel Prize winner in agricultural economics, Theodore Schultz.
In 1951 he published an article called 'The Declining Economic Importance of Land, '; which showed that food production per person was going up because of technological change, and the need for agricultural land was going down (Simon, 21). Now, this might be totally true, in 1951. The population of the world then was not nearly as great as it is now. Also, there were many more resources available then than there are now, after more than forty years of constant consumption by mankind. Simon's reason for believing in this is because it is part of a theory of 'all economic history'; (Simon, 22).
He believes that, on average, human beings create more than they use in their lifetimes, or else we would be an extinct species (Simon, 22). I say this is not true. Why? There are a couple reasons. For starters, human beings are not capable of producing natural resources in any large quantity with much efficiency, nor have they ever been able to. Also, these trends only hold true because the Earth has not yet reached its carrying capacity yet.
This is an extremely important part of my logic. Sure, Mr. Simon may appear to be right using the figures that he uses. However, past figures are not very effective when predicting the effects on mankind's consumption in the future. On the contrary, Norman Myers is thinking more about the future. For example, he states he has written over thirty papers on mass extinction, and these deal mainly with 'hot spots'; on the Earth, where one fifth of all species on Earth are confined to 0. 5 percent of the Earth's land surface (Myers, 24).
Myers also claims that 30, 000 species are being lost every year, which has been backed up by several credible scientists in the Club of Earth, whose professional credentials are beyond question (Myers, 16). This is horrifying! When a species is gone, it's gone forever. Who knows what is being lost with each species that disappears from our planet? The cure for AIDS? A cure for cancer?
The fact that there are 'hot spots'; on the Earth, as far as species are concerned, is extremely relevant for the future predictions, because these are the areas being affected today that were not being devastated 50 years ago. The rainforests in Brazil and Africa are some of these 'hot spots'; and each day, more and more of these vital areas are being lost because local farmers are struggling to make a living. Another valid point which Myers brings up is that in 1985, the world's grain harvest plateaued, and has continued to do so every year since (Myers, 24). According to Myers, during this time period, the Earth has taken on an additional 626 million people, which means that food availability per person has declined by almost 9 percent worldwide (Myers, 24). This is exactly the type of thing which the world should expect to see more of.
The Green Revolution, which allowed world food production to keep up with the population growth, has slowed down faster than the rate of population growth, and this means that more and more people are going hungry every year. This is especially horrific when the world population is projected to double again in the next thirty years (Myers, 24). Norman Myers would favor an increased amount of family planning programs for sure. He would also be in favor of access to birth control measures for whoever wants them, because this will definitely curtail the growth of population. Countries like China, which had severe population growth problems, have significantly cut down on their population growth by imposing regulations on the number of children that each family can have. This is proof that if a country becomes aware of their problem, and they choose to address it, the problem can be corrected.
This logic can be followed on a worldwide level, which is necessary when talking about population growth. In conclusion, I strongly feel that Norman Myers has made a stronger argument than Julian Simon, and his facts are much more relevant when discussing the future of the Earth. Mankind does overuse the resources of the Earth. Simon makes a valid argument for his theory, but I don't believe that he takes into account the future limitations of natural resources and the vast changes that life on Earth will go through. Norman Myers does this, and his theory is the one which I strongly support.
The evidence is stronger in my opinion that the world's rate of consumption must be slowed down if our species is going to be able to exist on Earth forever. There are hundreds of conservation committees and groups which try to save the forests, oceans, rainforests, and rivers, but how successful can they be without the support of the world behind them? There will come a time when the people of Earth realize what their way of life is leading to, and they will have to change. The sooner they realize this, the less painful it will be for everyone involved, especially the Earth. Hopefully, they don't come to this conclusion too late.
Works Cited Page Hardin, Garrett. (1968, December). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162, 3 - 8. Myers, Norman & Simon, Julian (1994). Scarcity or Abundance. New York: W.
W. Norton & Co. , Inc.
Free research essays on topics related to: carrying capacity, hold true, human beings, food production, population growth
Research essay sample on Population Growth Carrying Capacity
