Biologist Allen Greer’s article
“Fewer people would mean fewer worries”, which appeared in The Australian on January 16th 2008, addresses the issue
of climate change and other environmental problems facing society today. Greer argues that stabilising or reducing the
human population is a better way to tackle the Earth’s environmental problems
than relying on increasing levels of technology. Essentially he says this
because technology is unable to cope with the demands of a growing population
and that the human population has already overwhelmed the Earth’s natural
cycles. Unfortunately for Greer, the
strength of his main supporting points is somewhat undermined by some flaws in
his supporting points, resulting in a somewhat mixed overall argument.
Greer’s main reason for his
conclusion, which he comes back to throughout the article, is that technology
cannot meet the demand caused by a rapidly expanding population. Greer points
out that the proposed technological solutions, such as clean coal and nuclear
power are unproven and carry their own environmental problems and may not work
as well as was hoped. Greer also states that technology is always playing
catch-up with population growth, as soon as one technological solution is
found, such as genetic engineering to improve crop yield, is rendered almost
obsolete by the population growth that occurred during the development of that technology.
A secondary point also supports
this first reason: that technology that is developed, while beneficial for the
developers of the technology and society as a whole, also damages the
environment. Greer highlights the damage and unalterable changes that damming
and irrigation does to natural watercourses, as well as the manipulation of the
genes of animals and plants for the benefit of humans rather than the
environment.
The second most important
reason, according to Greer, is that the growth in human population has reached
the point where the planet can no longer cope with the demands and the level of
emissions that come from the population. Greer argues that before the
Industrial Revolution, the planet’s natural biogeochemical cycles could cope
with our emissions, but now those cycles are overwhelmed resulting in a
changing climate. He also says that Earth cannot replenish its resources or
breakdown our waste fast enough to meet the demands of rapid population growth.
Greer also argues that
stabilising human population is a better option because it would not be that
hard to achieve. He states that the birth rates in many western countries are
already falling and not much adjustment would be needed to create a stable
population. Greer also uses China as an example of a country that has already
employed an effective population reduction technique that has minimised
environmental damage.
The final point that Greer
discusses is that the growth in human population has reached the point where is
damaging the quality of life of some of the population. He states that the
planet has finite resources, and that a rapidly increasing population means
there is less available for each individual person.
Greer’s overall argument follows
the pattern of a deductive argument, which is that if the reasons for
supporting the conclusions were true, therefore so would the conclusion be
true. Greer emphasises this by restating his conclusion after he explains each
of his supporting reasons. But whether
the reasons Greer has provided are sufficient for us to accept his overall
argument can only be established by evaluating the strength of his reasoning.
As mentioned in the
introduction, some of Greer’s points have flaws that affect the strength of the
argument. One such flaw involves Greer’s statement that population growth is
affecting quality of life. While the statement in itself may well be true and
sounds acceptable, the relevancy of it in an article when the conclusion regards
technology and reducing population size has to be questioned. By including such a statement, Greer runs the
risk of adding what is known as a red herring to the argument. Similar to a
detective or mystery story, a red herring in an argument sense is designed to
throw the reader off track and think of something that may not be all that
important. It is especially dangerous in cases such as these when what is
claimed seems valid and relevant. Fortunately for Greer, this flaw does not
greatly reduce the validity of his argument, as it is appears in an argument
that provides only minor support for his conclusion.
There are also some issues with
relevancy with his supportive argument regarding the development of technology.
The mention of the benefits to the creators of the new technology isn’t
especially important to his argument, and undermines the other supportive
reasons he includes in that argument. The argument in itself also is not
especially important and only by tying it in to his main reason for support
does Greer give it a tenuous relevance and acceptability. If Greer had made
greater mention of the damage of technology on the environment in this argument,
it would have been of more value to his overall conclusion.
The most problematic flaw in
Greer’s argument is his assertion that lowering the human population would be
easy to achieve. It is problematic because that statement in itself may not
even be correct. While it is true that birth rates are declining in western
countries, it is not the case in less developed nations such as those in Asia
and Africa. Greer appears to have made a hasty generalisation here; he has
drawn a conclusion from too small a sample. Even his example of China as a
country that has limited its own population growth is problematic. Very few
countries with long established ideas of civil liberties would support a move
to regulate the number of children a person could have, no matter what the
birth rate of the country was. Greer himself even stated that the policy was
“coercive”.
But while there were some flaws
in Greer’s argument, there were elements that provided strong support for his
overall conclusion. One of his main arguments, that the planted was being
overwhelmed but a booming population, is well supported by evidence that was
easy to accept. It is common knowledge that the level of emissions, such as
carbon dioxide, has increased greatly since the Industrial Revolution. It is
also a commonly held belief among scientists that those emissions are impacting
on the Earth’s climate. The fact that nuclear waste takes a long time to
breakdown and become safe is also hard to dispute. As a specialist in biology,
a science that includes the study of the environment, you can more easily
accept what Greer claims, as there is an assumption that he has relevant expertise
in the area. The relevancy of the point and the authority with which it is
presented add weight to Greer’s overall conclusion.
Greer’s major support for his
conclusion, that technology cannot meet the demand of population growth, is
similarly backed by strong evidence. The idea of clean coal is, as Greer points
out, still an idea and the problems with nuclear power are well documented. We
can accept the Greer’s claim that technology is always playing catch-up with
population growth based on his example of the genetic engineering of crops.
Despite all of the innovations and new technology that has enabled growth of
crops in previously barren places, there is still hunger and starvation in many
countries. Again Greer’s knowledge of biology and genetics adds weight to what
he claims. The supportive argument that Greer provides for this argument also
lends some support. This is perhaps the most acceptable and relevant of all the
arguments the Greer makes in support of his conclusion.
We can see now that Greer’s
argument contains a mix of well thought out, reasoned statements as well some
that were less so. The two main reasons in support of the conclusion were well
supported, while a number of his more minor arguments had flaws. We cannot say
that the argument is entirely good or bad, due to its inconsistencies and
unevenness. It could be argued that if Greer had focussed more on his two main
arguments, or even left out some of the minor ones, the article as a whole
would have been stronger. Greer failed to provide any real solutions to the
problems that he discussed. He also did not discuss any viable way to reduce or
limit population growth. Greer did consider other factors, such as consumption
playing a role in problem of limited resources, but only on a superficial
level.
The issues of climate change,
the environment and a rapidly growing human population are very important,
especially in countries such as Australia which are vulnerable to climate
change and are attempting to balance protection of the environment with a
growing population. Greer’s article highlights the difficulty in finding the
right balance, and encourages us to come up with innovative solutions to try
and address these problems.
