In making his case for more people ("What the world needs now, is people — more people," Opinion Exchange, April 3), Tyler Cowen obliquely refers to environmental problems that may be tied to overpopulation but goes on to lament the economic ramifications of a declining population and ultimately states his opinion that "the greater tragedy would be a failure to take full advantage of the planet's capacity to sustain human life." As members of the only species capable of contemplating our impact on the planet, it's disturbing, to me at least, that Cowen would engage in such an exercise and come to his conclusion, knowing full well that cramming humans into every nook and cranny comes at the expense of thousands of other species with which we share the earth. Due to our boundless ingenuity, there's no doubt we could fill the world with more people (up to a point), but those of us who value the amazing diversity of life on earth would not want to live there.
I do agree with Cowen that declining human fertility poses serious economic challenges. But the answer is not more people. Rather, it's to develop economic systems that do not depend on an endlessly expanding human population, and we should be thinking about that now.
Doug Norris, Brooklyn Park
• • •
Cowen's recent article cited possible global population decline as a "looming existential threat" and said "the greater tragedy would be a failure to take full advantage of the planet's capacity to sustain human life." John Crisp's Monday commentary "Is the long battle over climate change lost?" (Opinion Exchange) argues that "we will have to accept the reality that growth cannot be unlimited as long as our resources are finite." A dichotomy in perspectives!
Nearly half of the world's population lives on less than $5.50 per day, and nearly 10% on less than $1.90 per day, according to the World Bank. Climate change will exacerbate this crisis. To sustain the population requires food and shelter and meaningful work and income. Reducing poverty rates requires accelerating economic growth, consumption of earth's resources and pollution of the environment. And the impact of raising global living standards to that of advanced economies is beyond comprehension.
Minnesota is witness to the conflict between growth and the environment. On the Iron Range, lawn signs say, "We support mining, mining supports us," and the mining is for copper and nickel, which threatens the Boundary Waters. Farming produces our abundant food supply but pollutes groundwater, lakes and streams. 3M employs thousands and produces unique products that enhance our daily lives but has also caused serious groundwater pollution with their production waste. Enbridge Line 3 will transport polluting fossil fuels and presents risk for polluting spills.
We are not "willing to accept a life with less ... comfort, pleasure and self-indulgence," to answer Crisp's question. And the global poor cannot be expected to accept a dire future. Hard to argue that the long battle over climate change will be won.
Don Bailey, Bloomington
• • •
Crisp argues that addressing global climate change will require much more than small lifestyle changes by a "minority of eco-friendly individuals, no matter how well-intentioned" and that national and international efforts have thus far been halting and halfhearted. On all this Crisp is right.
But he goes on to "suspect" that the climate change battle is "lost." On this Crisp is not just defeatist; he's wrong. Serious people are studying and proposing serious political and scientific strategies, like a carbon fee and dividend. Taken together, these efforts have a real chance to ameliorate climate problems.