Consumption, economics, and habitat.

COUNTRYSIDE: Paul Strand's letter in the March/April issue is indeed correct that most world problems can be traced back to a human population too large for the Earth to support while keeping natural systems healthy and functioning properly. The Earth now carries over six billion people yet it is estimated that the planet can only support between one and two billion people at present rates of consumption without the serious disruption of natural functions that can clearly be seen today. Thankfully, population growth is now viewed as a problem by many governments and citizens of the world along with the intertwined problems of consumption and economic growth.

Measured in constant dollars, the world's people have consumed as many goods and services since 1950 as all previous generations combined. Since 1940, Americans alone have used up as large a share of the Earth's mineral resources as did everyone before them put together. The typical North American consumes each year resources equivalent to the annual yield from 12 acres of productive farm and forestland. For all the world's people to consume at that rate, it is calculated that three extra Earths would be needed!

This wildfire spread of consumerism around the world is the most rapid and fundamental change in day-to-day existence humans have ever experienced. Over a few generations we have become car drivers, tv watchers, mall shoppers, and throwaway buyers. The tragic irony of this transition is that the rise of consumerism has been highly effective in harming the environment, but not in providing people with a fulfilling life.

Lowering our consumption, and hence economic growth, need not deprive us of goods and services that really matter. To the contrary, life's most meaningful and pleasant activities are often paragons of environmental virtue. The preponderance of things that people name as the most rewarding are infinitely sustainable. Organic gardening, small scale husbandry, religious practice, conversation, family and community gatherings, theatre, music, dance, literature, sports, poetry, artistic and creative endeavors, education, and appreciation of nature all fit into a sustainable way of life that can endure through all future generations. Thus, the realism of sustaining the environment and therefore ourselves demands that we recognize the need for a deep and fundamental change in our value system of equating consumption with fulfillment. We need to convert our culture of "lots now" into one of "some forever".

The economy is a subset of the ecosystem, so as the economy expands it places ever-greater strains upon the parent system. In effect, the economy is like a parasite consuming its host. The reason traditional economic analysis fails to reflect the depreciation of natural capital is that nowhere do economists consider the carrying capacity of ecosystems despite the fact that all economic activity ultimately depends upon healthy ecosystems. This oversight makes economic analysis increasingly unconnected to biological reality. Forests, for example are much more than a source of consumer goods. Indeed they are a key element in the balanced functioning of all planetary life. As economies grow, huge fortunes are amassed, yet biologically the Earth becomes increasingly impoverished. There is little question that we in the rich countries have the hardest task ahead. There is no precedent for shrinking our economy, no blueprint for voluntarily going from more to less. But we can and must, for every signal from nature is telling us we have become a devastating force of global proportions.

Regarding natural habitats and biodiversity, we need to depart from the old way of evaluating land according to what can be extracted from it as a commodity. We need instead to turn to a new way of valuing land by the life it harbors. The blank place on a map is not a useless waste; indeed it is the most valuable part. An area on the order of 600,000 square kilometers (approximately equal to all of Washington and Oregon) is necessary for the speciation of birds and large mammals. A global interconnected web of biotic communities this size must be reclaimed and maintained if we are to preserve the Earth's natural systems. Therefore, we must begin to value land in large measure according to its value to wildlife.

To expand on Paul's assertion that we not trash God's Earth--the ecological teaching of the Bible is inescapable. God made the Earth. He loves it. He thinks the Earth is good. And He has never revoked the conditions that oblige us to take excellent care of it. Our place in creation is defined much more by our responsibility to care for it and for each other than it is by how creation might be useful to us. The belief that we can manage the Earth better than nature herself is probably the ultimate in human conceit. Not only is nature more complex than we think, it is more complex than we can think. It is a mistake to believe that because human beings were made in God's image, somehow the rest of creation is devalued. All creation is sacred. Praising the creator while we ruin creation is blasphemy. -- D. K. Newman, P.O. Box 888, Tonganoxie, KS 66086

Post Script: After e-mailing a copy of this letter to Paul Strand's address his wife wrote to tell me he passed away last October. She went on to say that he had received many unsigned hate mail letters from COUNTRYSIDE readers. Writing a letter of disagreement is one thing, but unsigned hate mail should be beneath any Countrysider to even consider. Thankfully, Paul never saw them.

COUNTRYSIDE: In response to Paul Strand's letter regarding overpopulation as the source of all the world's problems, that seems a little simplistic, and ... well ... wrong.

How logical is it to say that if there were half the population there would be half the drain on the world's resources, and not take into account our individuality? Two extreme examples, Mother Theresa and Princess Diana, both died during the same time period. Whose absence relieved the world's resources more? I mean no disrespect to two much loved and admired women, but I want to make the point that it's not the fact of being a person that drains resources, but the fact of being a greedy or self-indulgent, or at the least, thoughtless, person that results in the tremendous wasting of materials, natural or otherwise.

I saw an interesting article in one of my children's magazines that exposed the contents of average kitchens around the world. In the third world country, photos there were pots, bowls, plates, a grinding stone, and a fire, and that was about it. The American kitchen's content filled a drive-way with dozens of items, small and large. So, who's living responsibly? The family that owned comparatively little had absolutely everything they needed. The American family had way more than actually necessary.

Was it the number of people or the number of possessions that posed the problem to the world's resources? Compare a couple with several children who live relatively simply, to a couple with no children or only one or two who live self-indulgently, and I think we would find the childless couple more wasteful than the family living simply. The numbers are not the issue, but the amount of waste. And the family living simply is probably actively teaching their children to continue living simply into their adult lives. (If they're not, they ought to be. How many children born to those who lived through the Great Depression were over-indulged because parents didn't want their children to grow up deprived like they did? What a waste of a horrible era of wonderful lessons on living thriftily.)

I don't deny that there are areas in the world that cannot adequately support the number of people they contain. Even in these places, is it the number of people in the world, or the distribution of people and natural lack of resources in these areas that pose the problem? I'm sure I'm being over-simplistic, too. It would take more time and knowledge than I've got to fully figure this one out. Regardless, Mr. Strand raises a vital point. Our resources are being used up at an alarming rate. Responsibility for the solution begins at home. COUNTRYSIDE, you are a part of the solution, and thanks for being there. -- Cindy [e-mail]