No. I primarily mean that our planet is now already ecologically overpopulated with people. Of our kind, too many copies exist when comparing it with the amount of members of other mammal species of our size. Of no other member of the mammals of average physical size have ever lived in the evolutionary history as many at the same time as ours. Look at the other primates. Never have they populated per kind our planet in hundreds of millions, let alone one billion. And today they are largely threatened with extinction. Our relatives the apes are even worse off. And that is the situation of many current big species. Which one of them fetches the ten million pieces? I think not a single one. Many only consist of a few tens of thousands of them. Only some have more than one million members.
Of Homo sapiens there are more than seven billion! This is not only ridiculous in relation to all other similar mammalian groups. No, it's much worse. His existence, only by number and by way of life, displaces all other animal and plant species on our planet, and may also affect the greenhouse effect. Of course, his number may increase for a while without suffering from hunger. Firstly, by barely wasting food and then by destroying all existing untouched nature and making it suitable for agricultural land. For every human being needs a piece of earth for his existence (for food cultivation, housing, infrastructure, etc.). And he can only get that by stealing that piece from the remaining other species. Because they cannot start anything against humans. And of course, our species may in the future meet his need for energy moderation and transform them into more sustainable forms. In short, man might be able to sustain a nice time, with many more members than the current seven billion; with energy and without hunger. But probably sweating in a warmer atmosphere.
But in what kind of a world? In a world that is practically stripped of from all nature! Do we want that? Do we want to live without forests or jungles? Do we want the destruction of all remaining natural flora and fauna? Do we want an end to biodiversity? Are we so selfish and stupid? And when all land is finally plowed and operated, and human beings continue to increase in number. What then? Then the hunger will still eventually strike. For humanity is growing, but unfortunately the earth is not growing along.
Conclusion: the often-conducted discussions about whether or not Malthus was/is right, as far as his population theory is concerned, are meaningless. These discussions usually only look at demographic, economic and food-providing, or in other words anthropocentric aspects. But the ecological impacts are generally overlooked. The world is already overpopulated. We already destroy nature. And that despite the well-intentioned activities of environmental and nature conservationists. Because also the current nature reserves set by many governments will ultimately have to pay for the unbridled human population growth. In the future they will be, with great luck, only islets in vast global agricultural areas with urban agglomerations. As I said, every person needs a piece of land. Nature protection can thus only be effective if it coincides with the propagandizing of a small family of maximum two children as a necessary limit. Of course voluntarily and otherwise with the help of stimulating government measures. This is also the best form of development aid that the rich countries can offer to poor countries. China is currently the only country that has seen the seriousness of the situation years ago. Now the rest.
Albert Jansen
