The Effects of Human Population Growth

Dorianna Reimer, Ann Johnson, Ryan Penny, Angie Gagnon & Heather Varaleau

April 8th, 2002

BIOL 411: Conservation Biology

Professor Lisa Poirier

 INTRODUCTION

As one may have already deduced from the media, and a variety of other sources,

the central source of the Earth’s environmental problems is humans and our population

growth (Oskamp 2000). The human population has grown to well over six billion

individuals, and continues to grow at an exponential rate. Human impact on the global

biosphere now controls many major facets of ecosystem functioning (Palumbi 2001).

Humanity persists and reproduces as a result of resource manipulation, as with all other

species (Mannion 1998).

How did the human population come to believe that the Earth and its components

were placed here solely for our use and degradation? In the realm of values, our nation

has a particularly strong value of human mastery over nature, which is well illustrated by

the injunction of the book of Genesis (I, 28): “be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the

earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over…every living thing that moveth upon the

earth”. This point of view dominated for decades and often still does. In 1952, John

Locke argued that nature existed primarily for facilitating the comfort and convenience of

humans (Pierotti & Wildcat 2000). Today, many would argue that statements such as

these have no place in current society.

The world and its creatures are slowly crumbling around us. Those who are not

interested in saving the Earth’s species should at least be motivated to save the Earth for

themselves and the rest of the human race. With all of the Earth’s resources depleted

there will be nothing to keep the excessive human population alive. Human population

growth and overconsumption are no longer a problem that can be dealt with later; the

2
collapse of the ecosystem may not be far off. As more advances occur in technology and

medicine, the human population continues to increase. Yet, the Earth stays the same size

as our needs grow and, eventually, we must reach equilibrium otherwise we will push

ourselves into our own extinction.

The effects of human population growth are extensive and are currently affecting

every component of the Earth ecosystem. It would be impossible to explore every detail

of this vast topic in a single paper. As such, we will begin with a brief overview of

human population growth, and then proceed to discuss the impacts of large human

population size on waste creation and how waste creation effects natural populations, we

will look at aspects of land destruction, the implications of human population growth for

wild plants, and the effects of human population growth on biodiversity and the Earth’s

species. Finally, we will suggest possible solutions to the problem of human population

growth.

HUMAN POPULATION GROWTH

The human population is increasing at a dramatic rate. The world’s population

reached six billion people in September of 1999 (Bryant, 1999). In 1930 the population

was only two billion, thus it has tripled within a human lifetime (Bryant, 1999). The

population growth rate is exponential, and continues to increase dramatically. To give a

clearer picture of the enormity of human population growth, every second three people

are added to the earth, which is approximately 87 million people, or the entire population

of Mexico, per year (Bryant 1999). Bryant 1999 suggests that by the year 2050 the

population from 1999 will double, this suggests that there will be over twelve billion

3
people on the earth. Although the massive human population increase is undebated, such

projections are. Environmental News Network suggested, in 1999, that by 2050 the

population will have reached 9.3 billion people. Although these projections from growth

models give an idea of where our population is headed, they are likely inaccurate.

Feeney (1991) wrote that population projections beyond a few decades were

inaccurate. This statement is supported, as it is already known that population growth is

not constant and it is difficult to predict at what rate population growth will occur. A

projection done in 1972 suggested that our population would be well over seven billion

people by the year 2000 (Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 1995). Although it is now thought we will

reach this number before 2010 the projection was inaccurate. Feeney (1991) suggests

that models can be inaccurate because it is not known when human populations began

their dramatic increase, thus, time scale is very difficult to determine.

The population has not remained constant over time (Wall and Przeworski, 2000).

When and why it began to increase is questionable. Based on mitochondrial DNA and Y

chromosomal testing, Wall and Przeworski (2000) suggest that the increase may have

begun as long as 50 to 100 thousand years ago. This suggestion is based on evidence of

an unexpectedly large number of genetic mutations occurring around this point in time.

Alternatively, they also suggest that the human population began to increase

approximately twelve thousand years ago, around the time when agriculture was being

established.

Bryant (1999), however, suggests that “Especially since 1960, several

developments have dramatically reduced infant and child mortality throughout the world:

the use of DDT to eliminate mosquito-born malaria; childhood immunization programs

4
against cholera, diphtheria and other often fatal diseases; and antibiotics. During the

same period, the “Green Revolution” greatly boosted food output through the cultivation

of new disease-resistant rice and other food crops, and the use of fertilizers and more

effective farming methods.”

Birth and death rates are not the only factors in determining population growth.

Two important factors that the US Census Bureau includes when determining overall

population growth in a given population are life expectancy and infant deaths. Focusing

on the growth within a specific population is also important. In general, it has been

noticed that the greatest increases in population occur in developing nations. Even

though there is high infant mortality and a short life expectancy in these nations, the birth

rate still over compensates giving an increase in population size. It has been suggested

that this is due to the lack of education of women in these nations, and the lack of

contraceptives available to them (Environmental News Net, 1999).

HUMAN WASTE PRODUCTION

The growing human population exerts an ever-increasing influence on the Earth’s

resources. Changes in human resource use since the Industrial Revolution have

contributed to these changes. Global, human-induced flows of materials are now twice as

high as natural flows (Gardner and Sampat 1998). As well, at least 100 000 synthetic

chemicals have been invented, and many have been released to the environment, with

unknown consequences (Gardner and Sampat 1998). The number of humans that the

Earth can sustain is determined by the ability of the planet to provide food, living space,

5
resource supplies, and waste assimilation (Young 1991). The last service has been

affected both by human population growth and changes in human resource use.

Changes in Patterns of Waste Production

Waste creation often outpaces population growth (Young 1991) and is a major

component of the problems related to population growth. Waste production is affected

by consumption patterns and the level of industrialization and therefore varies across

countries and cultures. With the advent of industrial economies in wealthy nations, the

nature of human use of resources changed; industrial economies depend on converting

large amounts of raw materials into products, which are often used once and then thrown

away (Young 1991). Industrial economies encourage high levels of resource

consumption, and the economic health of a nation is related to its consumption level

(Young 1991). In developing countries waste is created in large quantities only by a

wealthy minority; even in the developed nations, recycling of material was common until

World War II. After the war, planned obsolescence of manufactured products and the

creation of new synthetic materials decreased recycling, with the result that modern

industrial economies are not very efficient at recycling (Young 1991). Most of the waste

is produced by industrial activity, composed mostly of mining slurry, factory effluent,

smokestack emissions, and product trimmings; non-industrial garbage from homes and

offices is a much smaller fraction of the total waste produced. The amount of material

thrown away by industrial economies, and the potentially toxic nature of it, has increased

the environmental impact of waste creation.

6
 Waste is handled by burying it, burning it, or dumping it in the ocean (or nearby

water body or released in the air), as it has been throughout history (Gardner and Sampat

1998). Extraction of large amounts of raw materials cause damage to habitat through

extraction and processing of material; for example, mining can remove layers of earth

above the site and create large-scale pollution from processing ore; in the United States

alone, 19 000 km of streams and rivers are contaminated by mine waste (Gardner and

Sampat 1998). The conversion of materials to products creates pollution, due to factories

emitting pollutants from smokestacks, or creating toxic ash that is deposited in landfills

(Chiras 1992). Materials that have been used can be buried in landfills, but this creates

problems with toxic leakage from materials and often results in wasted resources that are

replaced by more resource processing and manufacturing. The use of fossil fuels releases

toxic chemicals and large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (Marowski

1992). The increasing human population adds non-industrial wastes like sewage, which

under natural conditions could be handled by natural ecosystems, but overwhelms the

systems’ capacities as amounts increase (Marowski 1992).

Natural ecosystems have innate waste control mechanisms; however, both the

nature and the amount of waste generated by humans have changed. New synthetic

chemicals cannot be broken down by bacteria, because, no bacteria have evolved to

digest them (Chiras 1992). These new materials can have toxic effects in the

environment, ranging from the death of organisms to a decrease in reproductive potential

(Marowski 1992). Naturally-occurring substances are normally diluted, decomposed, and

recycled by ecosystems, which are currently overwhelmed by the amounts created by

industrialization and rapid population growth. In addition, natural chemicals such as

7
carbon dioxide are released into air or water, or as solid waste, and the effects of this

enrichment of the environment can result in the alteration of food webs, and subsequent

cascading effects on natural communities (Marowski 1992).

Effects of Waste

Various types of waste can have numerous effects on species. This is illustrated

by some of the following examples.

Solid synthetic waste can have negative effects on marine species. Debris

dumped in the ocean causes significant mortality and sublethal effects in many marine

species through either ingestion or entanglement (McCauley and Bjorndal 1999). For

example, sea lions have had their jaws tied shut by entanglement in plastic nets or rings,

and have subsequently starved. Brown pelicans have become enmeshed in fishing line

and strangled themselves. Sea turtles have choked on plastic bags that they mistook for

jellyfish and swallowed. McCauley and Bjorndal (1999) examined the effects of nutrient

dilution from ingestion of debris on loggerhead sea turtles, Caretta caretta L. Nutrient

dilution occurs as ingested debris displaces food in the gut, reducing intake of nutrients

by the turtles. McCauley and Bjorndal (1999) found that C. caretta do not increase their

food intake to compensate for nutrient dilution. The effects on turtle populations may be

serious; their diet normally consists of food low in nutrients (medusae and ctenophores),

and up to 51% of C. caretta populations can have debris in their digestive tracts. Broad

population-level effects of a decrease in nutrient intake include decreased ability to reach

offshore currents, decreased growth rate leading to a longer developmental period and

8
increased vulnerability to predation, depleted energy reserves for growth and

reproduction, and decreased survivorship (McCauley and Bjorndal 1999).

Synthetic chemicals released into water bodies can also have negative effects on

wildlife populations. Wilson (2001) described the effects of polychlorinated biphenyls

(PCBs) on a re-established colony of harbour seals, Phoca vitulina L., in northeast

England. The colony returned to a former industrial site that was originally a seal

breeding ground. Over the period of eight years, from 1989 to 1997, the seal population

at the site had a low yearly birth rate, ranging from 0-10%, which is much lower than the

normal birth rate of 20-30%. As well, seal pup mortality was high, with seven of twelve

pups dying before one month of age. Observers of the pups noted a gradual weakening

of the pups, despite adequate maternal care, and necropsies of three pups found elevated

levels of PCB’s in the blubber. An examination of the environment found that the local

fish and invertebrates had elevated levels of PCBs, which passed up the food chain and

accumulated in the seals, and was passed to the seal pups through their mothers’ milk.

Pollution limits the recovery of this vulnerable population.

A similar example is the effect of pollution on beluga whales, Delphinapterus

leucas Pallas, in the St. Lawrence estuary, as described by Hickie et al. (2000). The

whale population was decimated by hunting, which ended in 1979 leaving a population in

the low hundreds. Today, whales are not hunted, but the habitat of the estuary has high

levels of pollutants, including PCB’s from toxic discharges locally and upstream of the

estuary. This may limit the population’s recovery.

Slow population growth has not been linked directly to pollution, but animals

with high concentrations of chemicals in their bodies show reproductive impairment,

9
immunosuppression, and tumor formation. Immunosuppression due to pollution may

play an important role in the decline of populations, particularly seal populations.

Several recent population crashes have been blamed on previously unknown viral

infections. On Macquarie Island south of Australia, a population of southern elephant

seals, Mirounga leonina L., is decreasing by 1.5% per year. The decline has been linked

to an arbovirus and a low seal immune response. Vulnerability to viruses could pose a

major threat to endangered seal populations (Marchant 2001).

The introduction of organic waste by humans can cause problems as well.

Reliance on human-produced sources of food can cause conflict between humans and

other organisms, by creating so-called pest species. For example, in the Golan Heights in

Israel, golden jackal, Canis aureus L., populations increased between 1993 and 1995

(Yom-Tov et al. 1995). The increase was due to illegal dumping of carcasses in an area

with ranching and poultry farming. The dumps contained mostly turkey, hen, and cattle

carcasses, and 65-70% of the waste was available for predator consumption. The dumps

supported a dense population of jackals, which also preyed upon live calves in the area.

Ranchers controlled jackal populations through poisoning, as is usual with many pest

species, but poisoning had negative repercussions on other species in the area, many of

which were the focus of conservation programs (Yom-Tov et al. 1995).

The enrichment of the environment by humans, with subsequent increases in

some species populations, can disrupt communities and ecosystems. Additions of

substances by human activity can be significant. Wayland and Hobson (2001) calculated

that sewage and pulp and paper mill effluent was a major source of nitrogen in the North

Saskatchewan River near Prince Albert, and in the Wapiti River near Grande Prairie,

10
Alberta. Johnes et al. (1996) studied ten British catchment areas, comparing nitrogen and

phosphorus intakes between 1931 and 1996, and determined that the increase in livestock

and human populations in the area doubled the areas’ nitrogen and phosphorus loads,

undoubtedly a significant increase.

Changes in resource availability create bottom-up perturbations of food webs, this

will not necessarily increase abundances at higher levels of the food chain. Miltner and

Rankin (1998) examined rivers and streams in Ohio, and found that trophic enrichment

altered the relative and absolute densities of periphyton and macroinvertebrates. This in

turn influenced higher trophic levels through decreased drift, changes in food quality, and

decrease efficiency in forging due to changes in habitat structure. As well, large

periphyton stands caused a decrease in dissolved oxygen, with repercussions on many

other organisms. In general, Miltner and Rankin (1998) found changes in community

structure associated with enrichment, especially in low-order streams, with the correlated

effects of loss of sensitive fish species (mostly specialized insectivores), a decrease in the

relative abundance of top carnivores and insectivores, and an increase in the proportion of

tolerant or omnivorous fish species. As well as changes in food webs, human-caused

increases in nitrogen from treated sewage in coastal waters has been linked to damage or

death of fish and shellfish, algal blooms that decrease dissolved oxygen levels, and

outbreaks of disease (Marowski 1992).

The release of naturally-occurring substances where they normally are not found ,

such as sulphur dioxide, copper and nickel into the atmosphere, can have toxic effects on

flora and fauna. Odasz-Albrigtson et al. (2000) studied the effects of air pollution on

plant species along the Russian-Norwegian border. A general decrease in photosynthetic

11
efficiency was found, along with alteration of growth due to sublethal SO2 levels. As

well, SO2 damaged stomatal mechanisms, decreased the amounts of chlorophyll, and

causing death in some plants. In addition, air pollutants were found to influence seasonal

changes in the cold tolerance of Pinus C. species. Complex mixtures of pollutants are

believed to render forests susceptible to natural stresses, a process that contributes to their

decline (Marowski 1992).

Global Climate Change

The release of naturally-occurring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, as well as

methane and synthetic compounds such as chlorofluorocarbons, has been implicated in

the greenhouse effect, which in turn has been implicated in global warming (Marowski

1992). If such wastes do add to global warming, the implications for other species would

be severe and widespread, as summarized by Marowski (1992). Global warming often

changes habitat dynamics. Habitat changes would affect most species. For example,

changes in temperature or water supply would affect community interactions in various

habitats. The changing patterns of ocean currents would affect the movement and

survival of mobile invertebrate larvae. Vegetation patterns would shift with changing

temperatures. Migratory journeys would be affected by changing availability of food

along routes. Earlier seasonal melting of ice would affect fish species, who time their

spawning with the spring melt. Melt would result in a large early pulse of water washing

away eggs and larvae, and decreased water levels later in the season subsequently

affecting fish habitat. Less ice in the Arctic Ocean would decrease the space available for

algae, which grows on the underside of the ice, and forms the primary productive layer of

12
the Arctic food web. Rising ocean levels due to the melting of polar ice would negatively

affect corals, that need to grow in shallow water in order to photosynthesize. Widespread

extinctions would likely follow from changes in habitat caused by global warming.

In addition to habitat changes, some species may be negatively affected by global

warming as a result of their physiology. In many reptile species the sex of offspring

depends upon the temperature at which the eggs are incubated. This affects the rate at

which embryos develop. The sex that benefits from a larger size develops at a higher

temperature. In alligators (Crocodylidae, C.), males must be bigger for territorial

defense, while in turtles (Testudines, L.), females are larger because they need to produce

more eggs. A higher temperature could alter sex ratios in reptile populations, with a

possible decrease in population reproduction rates (Marowski 1992).

Another example comes from a study done by Hogg and Williams (1996) on

stream invertebrates. They experimentally increased the temperature in a stream by 2-3.5

◦
C. Observed changes included a decrease in organism densities, particularly

Chironomidae (Diptera), early onset of adult insect emergence, increase in growth rates

and precocious breeding in Hyalella azteca (Amphipoda), smaller size at maturity for

Nemoura tripsinosa (Plecoptera) and H. azteca, and altered sex ratios for Lepidostoma

vernale (Trichoptera). It was noted that many of these species could disperse to other

habitats, however, human fragmentation and destruction of habitat has and will eliminate

this option for many species.

Conclusions

13
 Human-created wastes alone have the potential to eliminate many species from

Earth, and are compounded by many other effects of human population growth, such as

habitat loss and resource consumption. Waste can have mechanical effects on species, as

plastic debris has on sea turtles, or toxic effects, as PCB’s have on the harbour seal

population. Waste can also affect habitats, like the effects speculated to occur due to

global warming.

Wastes have been controlled by pollution-reduction devices, such as scrubbers on

smokestacks (Chiras 1992) or changes in waste management, such as an increase in

incineration over dumping in landfills. As well, industries have been pressured to

decrease the amount of waste created by changing equipment and manufacturing

processes, and recycling hazardous materials. Recycling materials can potentially reduce

the amount of waste (Young 1991). However, recycling uses energy, some materials

cannot be recycled, or there may be no market for some recycled products.

The main focus of efforts to solve the waste problem should be decreasing

consumption levels, in addition to decreasing the worldwide human population.

Decreasing consumption levels in developed countries would reduce both resource and

energy use, and lower overall human impact on the global environment. A high standard

of living is still possible with reduced consumption; basics such as food, shelter, and

clothing could be obtained using fewer materials than is currently used by industrial

economies (Chiras 1992). As well, an increase in living standards with less waste would

forestall environmental degradation in developing countries, and could possibly slow

their population growth. The resulting decrease in resource manipulation by humans, in

14
both developed and developing countries, would allow greater resource manipulation by

natural ecosystems, allowing their growth and restoration.

LAND DESTRUCTION

We, as the human race, require more and more land as our total population

continues to increase. If we do not find a way to stabilize our growth, then we must find a

new area to settle and populate, whether it be the oceans or space, or we will eventually

kill ourselves off. Until we can do this, we must take care of the land we have at the

present time and learn how to preserve it as best as we can. We must look at how we are

using our land and how we are destroying it before we can learn to properly manage it

and use it to its full potential.

Arable Land

The amount of land that is available to us is very important; it is where we live

and grow our foods. The Earth has a surface area of about 510 million square kilometres,

of which only 149 million square kilometres is land, the rest is water, mostly oceans

(Brunner 1998). Furthermore, even less of that land is usable, as many land types such as

mountains are uninhabitable. Humans have transformed other land types into arable land,

not necessarily a positive change, and often irreversible.

Arable land is important to the human race as it is the land we utilize for our

survival. We use it to grow crops, grow food for animals we raise, and also land for

animals and humans to live on. Proper management of this land is important because

everyone needs it, yet it is far from evenly distributed among individuals. For example,

15
Canada has a population of about 31 million people on about 10 million km2 of land,

while Singapore has about 3.5 million people and only 647 km2 of land (Girvan 1999).

Therefore, in Canada, there are approximately 3.1 people per km2, yet in Singapore there

are approximately 5400 people for every km2 (Girvan 1999). This is an incredible

difference in the density of people that inhabit a country.

As we use arable land, we tend to lose it due to overuse, and effects such as

salinization and toxification (Evans 1998). Then, we must then replace that land, in

addition, as our population grows we need more land to grow more crops for the

increased number of mouths that need to be fed. Thus, a problem arises and needed land

must be found or created. Unfortunately, some undesirable measures are taken in order to

attain this needed land.

Conversion to Agriculture

The process of deforestation, in which forests are cut down and the land is cleared

in order to make open fields for cropland or for animal grazing, is one method of creating

new arable land. Techniques such as slash-and-burn have been adopted to extend

farmland, as it is a quick process and puts nutrients into the soil. Slash-and-burn

techniques have large repercussions on soil biota, which plays an important factor in

sustaining a forest (Soulé and Orians 2001). Having more fields increases crop yield and

consequently increases profits to the farmers. Once the land is cleared, it is prepared for

farming by tilling which causes a greater nutrient release as a result of leaching (Thomas

1994). Once the land is used for crops, the soil is leached of the nutrients it once had, and

without human help, can take a very long time to replenish. In efforts to reverse this

16
effect and return nutrients to the soil, farmers load their land with fertilizers that may run

off into nearby ecosystems, such as lakes and rivers, causing further harm. (Thomas

1994). Over cultivation can be devastating to the land, and in turn can create a great deal

of erosion to the land in the future.

Similar to deforestation, lands such as wetlands, marshes, and bogs are filled to

create more arable land. These ecosystems are extremely complex and little disturbances

can cause a cascade of negative effects. Other than being home to a number of habitat

specific species, wetlands, marshes and bogs act as water filters. When they are filled for

farmland, there is a dramatic decrease in the water quality downstream.

There are many reasons why humans raise animals, including for food, fibre,

personal enjoyment, and profit. Often such animals as cattle, goats, or sheep are raised for

their products, such as meats, dairy, or fibre. A great deal of land is needed to maintain

these animals (Thomas 1994). They are herbivores and, therefore, require a field in which

to graze, live, and exercise. As animals graze, they do not only eat the plants, but they

also damage the plants’ foliage and root systems with their hooves (Thomas 1994). This

damage causes a great deal of concern when there are too many animals on one piece of

land, because the land is unable to support them and regenerate fast enough to maintain

itself. Plants die, leaving bare soil that is eroded by wind and leached by precipitation.

Overgrazing can be prevented; yet again the issue of growing demands for the animals’

products and, unfortunately, profit-making come into play.

Obtaining water in some areas of the world can be more difficult than in others.

Irrigation has been one solution to obtain enough water to support people’s land. Too

many people irrigating from one river can create problems downstream. The river begins

17
to lose volume due to the increase in the number of channels being diverted and the

salinity and alkalinity begin to increase with an increase in the sediment to water ratio

(Thomas 1994). Downstream, the river basin becomes drier and less productive because

the lack of water and increased salinity will not allow plants to grow (Thomas 1994). In

turn, more soil erosion occurs as there are no plant roots to hold the soil down.

A great deal of soil erosion takes place due to activities of the human population.

With an excess of soil erosion taking place, a process called desertification can take

place. Desertification is the process by which a desert spreads or creeps in non-desert

areas due to human activities (Goudie 1990). Lately, this has become a serious problem

as such deserts like the Sahara have been growing larger by the year, turning productive

tropical areas into dry, uninhabitable places. This leaves less room for the human race to

live in, yet it is often the human race that is to blame for this process as it is a result of

activities such as deforestation, irrigation, and overgrazing.

Urbanization

Urbanization is the development of cities or towns, roads, airports, industry,

commercial areas, and residency (Evans 1998). Spreading of cities and towns tends to

take place on surrounding agricultural land which in turn pushes the agriculture out

farther (Evans 1998). This of course means further deforestation and clearing of the

surrounding land (Gardner 1996). Urbanization is also a more permanent modification;

once a field is planted, it will re-grow if the conditions are right, but once a building or

road is laid down, it will take many decades before the surrounding natural communities

18
re-establish in the area. A majority of the world’s population now lives in cities, and the

problem of urbanization will only continue to grow (Evans 1998).

Another serious problem that arises from the increase in human population is

landfills. While usually associated with urbanized areas, landfills have developed into a

severe problem as many large metropolitan areas are running out of room to dump their

garbage. Most areas in North America require certain standards in order to run a landfill

site (Tammemagi 1999). Regulations covering proper siting, covering, operations,

collections of garbage leachates, and monitoring of external environmental conditions

must be followed in order to remain operational (Tammemagi 1999). However, as urban

areas continue to grow, so do the landfill sites they use, and many are approaching a

crisis as they have few places left to dump their garbage. Eventually there will be no

more space.

Also associated with urbanization is fragmentation, the division of large areas of

undisturbed land or creation of borders with a number of different objects such as cities,

roads, or canals. Fragmentation has a number of impacts. Gene flow among species may

be reduced, novel species may be introduced, dispersal of animals decreases, and

coexistences increase due to patchiness. Fragmentation is becoming an increasing threat

to our wildlife with the development of more cities and roads in areas that were once

untouched by humans. Disturbances such as fragmentation can only do harm to the land

and eventually make it unusable.

Solutions

19
 The human race has already done unimaginable damage to the planet we live on.

We must take immediate action in order to preserve what we have left and try to reverse

some of the effects that have occurred. Conservation management needs to be introduced,

especially in third world countries where the environment isn’t always a priority, but in

developed countries as well. Restrictions need to be enforced by governments to ensure

that the land we live on is protected for future generations. Necessary steps need to be

taken in each given area in order to solve different problems effectively.

There have been many forest management plans to conserve forests across the

world. Replantation programs have been set up to re-establish forests that have been

clear-cut. As for rainforests, there are a number of organizations that are set up to

preserve them from farmers who slash-and-burn the forests. These organizations are

funded by people who support their cause and want to conserve the environment. Also,

similar to these are organizations set up to preserve wetlands from being destroyed.

Controlling overgrazing is easy with land management. It is quite simple; do not

overstock the land with too many animals. Then, land will not be destroyed and money

can be made from that same piece of land as long as desired. Often, the problem is greed,

and therefore matters such as land management and issues concerning the environment

are overlooked.

Irrigation is another situation that is similar to overgrazing. As long as resources

are not overexploited, then problems will be minimized, but many people are only

interested in growing as many crops as they can to increase profits. Management of how

much water is taken for irrigation needs to be implemented in some areas in the world,

preventing salinization and toxification of rivers. If everyone was to be given an equal

20
piece of land and they took no more, then the river systems would be much healthier and

possible desertification could be avoided.

Desertification is a process caused by human mismanagement and, therefore, is

preventable. Some have attempted to fix the problems that have been created. Proper

irrigation and planting of shrubbery and other vegetation has successfully reclaimed land

that was once lost to desertification. Claiming land as a reserve helps prevent

desertification as that land is not usable by humans and therefore is protected from the

degradative effects of humans.

Fragmentation also can be reversed by simply replanting the missing vegetation

that was once in that region. A continuum is re-established in the particular ecosystem

and over time, relationships that were lost may form again. Fragmentation can sometimes

be difficult to battle against. Where anthropocentric changes have been made, getting rid

of fragmentation is not something that is always law-biding. In this case, getting rid of

that building, road, canal, or whichever placed ‘border’ is not possible without

consequences, and therefore a great deal of ethics would come into play.

Similarly, trying to re-establish and conserve land when it comes to urbanization

becomes very difficult. Often, once something is there and built, then that land is lost and

can be extremely difficult to reclaim. The goal is to try and prevent urbanization before it

happens. Preventing urbanization can be accomplished by turning a particular ecosystem

into protected land such as a sanctuary or a reserve so that it cannot be used. It is difficult

to claim land as a sanctuary or as a reserve as usually a great deal of endangered animals

must inhabit the area and a plan of action to help them must be set up. Often the actual

land is not looked at in this case, but more the animals that live on the land. So

21
urbanization should be planned very carefully to prevent any serious effects to the

surrounding environment.

Landfill management is also important for the future as where we put our trash is

something that should not be overlooked. Ensuring that recycling becomes an important

part of everyone’s daily life will dramatically help decrease the amount of garbage. With

more recycling, the less we need to take from the Earth, in forms such as deforestation to

obtain pulp and paper. Where we put our garbage is also a big concern; some countries

pay other countries so they may dump their garbage on that other country’s land. This can

be avoided if everyone is to put in effort to control the amount of waste that they throw

out each day and by encouraging others to recycle as much as they possibly can.

Conclusion

With a rapidly growing population, many aspects of how we should use the land

that has been given to us should be considered. It is important to preserve the land that we

have left and help re-establish the land that has been lost. We only have one planet, and

ensuring that we keep it healthy is important. This can be achieved with proper

management and conservation.

WILD PLANTS

One very important aspect of life that is impacted by population growth is wild

plants, those that are uncultivated and growing in there original natural state (Thompson

1993). Wild plants are an important area of study for several reasons. Plants are primary

22
producers and they support life on Earth. In addition, wild plants have important

medicinal and agricultural uses. Also, they provide ecosystem services.

Effects of Human Population Growth

Human population growth affects wild plants in many ways, but particularly in

the destruction of plant habitat via deforestation and agriculture. Humans have also

introduced several invasive nonnative plants and animals to places that cannot withstand

the added competition, thereby causing mass extinctions of wild plant species. There are

countless medicinal wild plants that have become well known and as a result over

harvested to extinction. Delicate wild species are also affected by air, soil and water

pollution as well as global warming.

As the Earth’s human population increases, so does our use of fossil fuels. The

increasing rates of fossil fuel emissions and other gases has been found to be a potential

cause of global warming (Bunce 1994). Data from Antarctica has shown a definite

correlation between increased greenhouse gases and global warming (Bunce 1994). The

climatic change is thought to be far more rapid than that of a natural climate change,

putting plants at risk. If the changes are too rapid, some plants may be unable to disperse

naturally to new habitats and, subsequently, could become extinct (Soule and Orians

2001).

There is a vast array of anthropocentric alterations presently taking place that are

causing mass extinctions of wild plants. It is estimated that if the present extinction trends

continue, two thirds of the worlds 300, 000 plant species will disappear by the end of the

next century (Belsie 1999). Approximately 60% of the plant species listed under the

23
American Endangered Species Act are threatened by invasive species (Soule and Orians

2001). An invasive introduced species can cause a decline of native species by

outcompeting them, spreading disease, or alternating the habitat (Soule and Orians 2001).

Humanly disturbed sites are also usually dominated by introduced species, decreasing

potential habitat of wild plants.

Importance of Wild Plants

Plants and algae are primary producers, supporting life on Earth. Both humans

and wildlife are directly dependent on wild plants both for food and shelter, and

subsequently for survival. Humans rely on wild plants far more than they often realize.

Wild plants are the source of many of our current medicines and unknown medicinal

plants could hold cures for currently incurable diseases like cancer. Today, 3.5 billion

people rely on plant-based medicine for primary health care and less than 1% of all plant

species have been screened for bioactive compounds (Kirby 1999).

Maintenance of old growth forest is crucial for wild plants. An old growth forest

is in the oldest stage of forest succession and has not been significantly modified by

human activities (Quinby 1998). These forest have higher plant species richness that that

of a replanted forest, and are important for species diversity and prevention of

extinctions. Old stands are also very important for the carbon cycle as they allow more

carbon to enter a permanent carbon pool (Schulze et al. 2000).

Medicinal wild plants are invaluable to humans, however, they are often

overharvested once they become well known for their healing properties. There are many

examples of this. The yew tree, Taxus brevifolia, for example was once exploited for

24
cancer fighting properties(Watson, T. 1995). Several years ago, taxol could be made only

from bark stripped off a Pacific yew, killing the tree. Each patient's treatment required

two or three of the slow-growing trees. But scientists have recently found a way to make

taxol from the needles and twigs of a European yew. Now U.S. yews grow unmolested,

and humans still benefit (Watson, T. 1995). Medicinal wild plants like these must be

protected before they become rare like the yew tree.

Many people fail to realize the importance of wild plants in supporting the

world’s food supply. Agriculture is highly dependent on the diverse array of genes

contained in wild plants. According to Catling and Porebski (1998), 30% of Canadian

native plant material is related to crop species at a genetic level. Agricultural technology

is able to use beneficial genes of wild plants to make crop plants more resistant to disease

and varying environmental conditions. If wild relatives of crop species become extinct,

this leaves farmers at a serious disadvantage because genes cannot be created once they

have been lost. For example, fifty years ago Chinese farmers used an estimated 10 000

varieties of wheat. By the 1970’s that figure fell to about 1 000 (Kirby 1999).

Conservation Tactics

Why do wild plants get so little attention in comparison to wildlife? Plants are

fundamental to nature’s functioning, yet people are far more inclined to save a “cute and

cuddly” animal over a plant. One approach to preserving wild plants in Europe is a joint

effort. Plant conservationists are joining forces with bird enthusiasts who are far more

numerous and better funded (Vines 1996). These campaigners are making a strong case

for safeguarding areas that are of special interest for both birds and plants.

25
 Another approach to conservation of wild plants in Canada is creating a list of

prioritized rare species that are economically valuable (Catling and Porebski 1998). This

list would range from plants with little agricultural importance to those with high

potential and some with substantial current economic value. Useful plant properties range

from firewood and harvestable berries and plants with medicinal properties, to close

relatives of major crops. This approach is highly anthropocentric but could be easier to

implement as money is often the determining factor in the acceptance of a conservation

proposal.

Seed banks are increasingly becoming popular as a tool for conserving wild plant

species. Seed banks provide immediate access to plant samples, allowing researchers to

evaluate them for new sources of medicine, nutrition and genes (Schoen and Brown

2001). Seed banks are also important because plants conserved in seed banks are immune

to habitat destruction, disease and predation. All over the world efforts are being made to

stockpile plant diversity. There are currently over 700 botanical gardens that maintain

seed collections of wild, ornamental, medicinal and crop-related species (Schoen &

Brown 2001). Seed banks are a great idea but cautions should be taken when educating

the public on this matter. It cannot be assumed that plant species put aside in seed banks

are safe for all time. Action must still be taken to conserve wild plant species in their

natural environment.

One example where a seed bank could have proved useful is in the attempt to save

the wild coffee plant of Mauritus. This plant was thought to have become extinct, but a

single plant was found, protected, then cloned (Belsie 1999). Although a single plant

exists, it will still face extinction as it cannot mate sexually and lacks the genetic

26
variation to defend itself against various selection pressures. Had a seed bank contained

seeds of this plant there might have been hope of a rehabilitation program.

In an effort to slow extinction rates of plants around the world, a team of plant

experts working with the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN),

also known as the World Conservation Union are trying to launch an international

program to conserve the world's plants and trees (Kirby 1999). They have drawn up a list

of the conditions to be met to ensure the survival of threatened and important plants,

including: (1) sound scientific information on which to base decisions and policies; (2) an

immediate focus on hot spots, especially those under pressure from human influences; (3)

rigorous criteria to identify sites of high plant diversity; (4) reducing the effects of

invasive plants (and other species); (5) promoting sustainable use and training programs

for botanists.

Conclusion

Plants support life on Earth. High priority should be placed on education of the

general public about the importance of wild plant preservation and its role in supporting

this beautiful planet.

BIODIVERSITY AND THE EARTH’S SPECIES

Changes taking place at a global scale have direct and indirect effects on the

health of wildlife species (Deem et al. 2001). In fact, humans may currently be the

world’s most dominant evolutionary force (Palumbi 2001). Even if the more modest of

the projections for human population growth are correct, it seems likely that many dozens

of threatened or endangered species will, in fact, become extinct before the middle of the

27
next century (Feldhamer et al. 1999). Furthermore, at the current rate of human

population growth, total loss of species would be expected within the next 200 years

(Maurer 1996). There are three main sources of the Earth’s environmental problems:

human overpopulation, overconsumption, and underconservation (Oskamp 2000). The

human population must cease to grow at its present rate if we are to conserve biological

diversity and a working global ecosystem (Maurer 1996) for future generations of both

humans and other organisms. Biodiversity is the summation of all living plants, animals

and other organisms that characterize a particular region, country, or the entire Earth

(Feldhamer et al. 1999). Humans affect biodiversity at the genetic, species, community

and ecosystem level (Chapin et al. 2000). This impact on genetic diversity is critical,

because genetic diversity is the raw material of evolutionary change, including adaptation

and speciation (Chapin et al. 2000). In the rapidly changing environments that we are

creating, without genetic diversity, species have no chance to change with their

environments. In this paper I will discuss five topics. First, I will explore the

consequences of habitat loss, alteration and fragmentation. Second, I will review the

effects of exploitation. Third, I will discuss the repercussions of pollution, both organic

and inorganic. Forth, I will introduce you to the emergence and transmission of disease

as a result of habitat changes, exploitation, pollution, and species introduction. Fifth I

will examine the outcomes of species introductions. And, finally, I will suggest some

solutions to this vast array of tribulations.

Habitat Loss, Alteration, and Fragmentation

28
 Land use has been ranked as the most intensive driver of terrestrial environmental

change in the coming century (Sala et al. 2000 as cited in Novacek & Cleland 2001).

Many species have been eliminated from areas dominated by human influences (Chapin

et al 2000). The current massive degradation of habitat and extinction of species is

taking place on a catastrophically short timescale, and the effects will fundamentally alter

the future of evolution of the planet’s biota (Novacek & Cleland 2001).

A number of mammals and many other species are endangered or threatened as a

result of deforestation (Feldhamer et al. 1999). Deforestation results in displacement

and/or death of individuals previously occupying these areas. Loss of habitat not only

minimizes the area available for the resident organism, but it creates edges (and

subsequent edge effects) not suitable for many organisms to live in, and may change

biogeochemical processes at the perimeter. In addition, altered land creates new niches

and welcomes the invasion of new species and new forces. Biodiversity in a given area

can influence the ability of exotic species to invade communities through either the

influence of traits of resident species, or some cumulative effect of species richness

(Chapin et al. 2000). In many regions, land conversion forces declining populations

toward the edges of their species range, where they become increasingly vulnerable to

collapse if exposed to further human impact (Channell & Lomolino 2000 as cited in

Chapin et al. 2000).

Human activities often augment drift and diminish gene flow for many species,

which reduces genetic variation in local populations and prevents the spread of adaptive

complexes outside their population of origin, thereby disrupting adaptive processes both

locally and globally within a species. (Templeton et al. 2001). Habitat fragmentation is

29
one of those activities. Fragmentation of ecosystems can result in human-made “island

ecosystems” that have been compared to geographical islands, functioning to isolate

populations of species geographically and to confine them to smaller areas (Deem et al.

2001). Under extreme fragmentation, adaptive potential is lost as the genetic diversity

within local populations is eroded (Templeton et al. 2001). Speciation is unlikely in

these fragmented isolates; rather, an extinction rachet is created (Templeton et al. 2001).

Edge effects are a result of fragmentation. Because of their large spatial requirements

and low densities, carnivores (and other large animals) are especially sensitive to edge

effects and related human induced mortality (Schonewald-Cox et al. 1991; Clark et al.

1996; Woodroffe & Ginsberg 1998 as cited in Revilla et al 2001), and adult mortality rate

is a key factor in the viability of small populations of carnivores that are either

fragmented or at low densities (Gaona et al. 1997 as cited in Revilla et al. 2001).

Unfortunately, extinction may be the fate of many wildlife species located within newly

created “artificial islands” (Deem et al. 2001). In addition, it is important to remember

that forests are not the only habitat altered by humans. Most other habitat types,

including grasslands, prairies, swamps, marshes, and other wetlands, have all been

usurped by humans for their own use, with negative consequences for certain mammal

species (Feldhamer et al. 1999) and a great deal of other species as well.

The processes of deforestation and urbanization are often accompanied by the

creation of a large number of roads. Roads pose a particularly challenging problem to

those interested in forest conservation in developing nations, because the development of

roads and road networks is strongly correlated with economic growth and national wealth

and linked to the scale of ecological disturbance and natural resource degradation (Wilkie

30
et al. 2000). Road building is necessary to sustain many economies because it gains them

access to the resources around them. Roads not only increase access to previously

isolated natural resources (Wilke et al. 1992 as cited in Wilke et al. 2001), they also

fragment landscapes into small, disconnected patches (Forman & Alexander 1998 as

cited in Wilke et al. 2001). In addition, roadways are possible barriers to movement by

small mammals (Oxely et al. 1974: Swihart & Slade 1984 as cited in Feldhamer et al.

1999) and a number of other organisms. Roads are barriers to genetic exchange among

populations. Where roads are constructed, edge habitats predominate, and as a result,

biomass declines (Laurance et al. 1997 as cited in Wilke et al. 2001), community

structure changes (Malcolm & Ray 2000 as cited in Wilke et al. 2001), pest invasion

increases, and the rate of species loss skyrockets (Kreuss & Tscharntke 1994 as cited in

Wilke et al. 2001). The high level of fragmentation created by roads increases the

opportunity for contact among humans, domestic animals, and wildlife (Deem et al.

2001). This increased proximity may result in increased transmission of diseases

between these groups (Deem et al. 2001). In addition to the problems previously stated,

the presence of roads provides bushmeat hunters with easier access to once isolated

forests, and consequently increases the export of bushmeat from these forests (Wilke et

al. 2001).

Exploitation

Today, human harvest of animals continues to have a pronounced effect on the

functioning of ecosystems (Chapin et al. 2000). Of endangered mammals, more than half

of terrestrial non-rodent mammals are endangered, in large measure because of human

31
hunting pressure (Feldhamer et al. 1999). In the case of trophy hunting, there is also an

effect on the health of the source population, in that the healthiest and potentially most

disease resistant individuals often are removed from populations already under pressure

(Deem et al. 2001). In some locations, mammals are killed by trapping, poisoning or

hunting because they are agricultural pests, competing with humans for their crops and

their livestock (Burton & Pearson 1987 as cited in Feldhamer et al. 1999). As animal

harvesting methods advance, animals stand little chance of survival. Marine fisheries

respond to human food demand with catches often compromising large species, lopping

off each summit of the food pyramid as populations of larger, top-level consumers are

virtually eradicated (Jackson 1998 as cited in Novacek & Cleland 2001). When top

predators are removed, prey populations sometimes explode and deplete their food

sources, leading to a cascade of ecological effects (Chapin et al. 2000). As a result,

overharvesting can lead to transformation of the habitat (Deem et al. 2001), with a variety

of events following. What was once natural selection is now leaning in the direction of

artificial human selection. Another important factor of exploitation is disease

transportation. Removing individuals from populations and transporting their live or

dead bodies, including all the pathogens and parasites they carry, to new areas has

enormous potential for affecting the health of wild and domestic animal populations

(Davidson et al. 1992 as cited in Deem et al. 2001).

A final, more subtle, process involves human domestication of wild animals.

Some stocks of wild ungulates, probably the progenitors of stocks of domestic animals,

became extinct, or nearly extinct because they were interbred with domestic forms over

many generations (Feldhamer et al. 1999). In addition, many animal, specifically

32
mammal, populations have declined because they make good pets (Feldhamer et al.

1999). Animal use and consumption is a common practice in human society. A

reduction in wild animal exploitation for use as food, pets, and other purposes would

greatly reduce possible instances of animal extinction and help facilitate their

rehabilitation.

Pollution

Pollution comes in many forms. Pollution can be inorganic substances, excess or

incorrect proportion or distribution of organic substances, light, noise or heat. Different

types of pollution are currently present everywhere in the world. There is a large body of

evidence that suggests global climate changes and alterations of the biogeochemical

cycles may cause widespread transformations of ecosystems (Novacek & Cleland 2001).

Transformations of ecosystems can have substantial effects on the organisms that occupy

them. Habitat degradation can be a result of acid rain, introduction of toxic wastes, and

synthetic chemicals, oil spills, and so on (Feldhamer et al 1999). In addition, global

climate changes, such as warming trends and changes in rainfall patterns, can influence

the epidemiology of various infectious diseases (Harvell et al. 1999 as cited in Deem et

al. 2001). Global climate changes can have a cascading effect in the world’s large water

bodies. Changes in ocean currents could reduce the number of krill and other organisms

in the sea, and such organisms constitute one of the ocean’s main staples (Feldhamer et

al. 1999). Krill account for about 250 million tons of food for whales, fish, seals, and

other species annually (Myers 1997 as cited in Feldhamer et al. 1999). In addition, air

and water pollution of numerous sorts are also linked to various noninfectious diseases

33
(Deem et al. 2001). Air and water currents circulate and interact across the globe.

Introduction of pollutants at one location can yield substantial effects elsewhere.

Another more direct and obvious type of inorganic pollution is oil spills. Oil

spills are detrimental to a plethora of organisms occupying the oceans. Oil spills are

massive events with extensive consequences. In addition, oil is continually being

released in small amounts by human communities, and in somewhat larger amounts by

industries. This gradual release of oil also disturbs organisms, their habitats and their

resources. There are also many other forms of inorganic pollution. Carnivores and other

organisms higher on the food chain are more likely to suffer from inorganic pollution,

because such dangerous chemicals are concentrated as they move through the food chain

from producers to top-level consumers (Feldhamer et al. 1999). An additional type of

inorganic pollutants are chemicals called endocrine disrupters. Endocrine disrupters are

chemicals that mimic hormones or otherwise interfere with normal functioning of the

endocrine system within an organism (Feldhamer et al. 1999). The effects include

infertility, abnormal development, and others that are now just being discovered

(Feldhamer et al. 1999). The list of pollutants that affect organisms and the environment

is almost endless. Nearly everything humans do produces pollutants that affect one or

many individuals, possibly on a global scale. We all do a small part to contribute to this

very large problem.

Disease

The amplified role of diseases as a factor limiting species’ survival can be traced

to anthropogenic changes on a global scale that have direct and indirect influences on the

34
health of wildlife species (Deem et al. 2001). These changes include human population

growth, habitat fragmentation and degradation, the isolation of populations of species,

and an increased proximity of humans and their domestic animals to wildlife (Deem et al.

2001). The problems that introduce disease typically fall into three categories: disease

brought by a subclinical host to a new region (Office International des Epizooties 1987 as

cited in Deem et al. 2001), disease vectors introduced to new geographic locations

(Curasson 1943 as cited in Deem et al. 2001), and diseases encountered by translocated

animals (naïve to such diseases) after being moved to a new region (Pandey et al. as cited

in Deem et al. 2001). Cattle carry diseases such as rinderpest that can be transmitted to

some of the wild ungulates, often decimating local or regional populations (Feldhamer et

al. 1999). In addition, populations that are under stress (most likely due directly or

indirectly to humans) are more susceptible to disease outbreaks that would otherwise run

their course without risking extinction of an entire species (Deem et al. 2001).

Furthermore, greater epidemiological impact of pathogens can make it more likely that

small local populations (many currently exist) will go extinct, the ultimate disruption in

evolutionary potential (Novacek & Cleland 2001).

Species Introductions

Human mediated introduction of species into new habitats and areas has and will

continue to be one of the major drivers of biotic change (Sala et al. 2000; Mooney &

Cleland 2001 as cited in Novacek & Cleland 2001). The mobility of people has

transported organisms across geographical barriers that long kept biotic regions of the

Earth separated, so that many of the ecologically important plant and animal species of

35
many areas have been introduced in historic time (Foley et al. 1994 as cited in Chapin et

al. 2000). Once organisms are moved from their original environment and introduced to

different environments, shifts in ecosystem equilibriums must take place to accommodate

these changes. Not all changes result in benefits for resident native species. In some

cases, species introductions by humans have induced evolution in the species around

them (Palumbi 2001) and in some cases they have caused endangerment, eradication, and

extinction. Not all species have the ability to shift their life history strategies and genetic

composition at a rate that compensates for the interference created by species

introductions. Introduction of species can lead to a cascade of events degrading the

surrounding organisms and habitat. Furthermore, the translocation of new species to a

given area can introduce novel pathogens to susceptible hosts, and can be responsible for

changes in disease ecology (Wilson 2000 as cited in Deem et al. 2001).

Species transported by humans have been known to change rapidly to match local

selection pressures in their new environments (Thompson 1998 as cited in Palumbi

2001). These changes allow organisms to exploit their new environments to the fullest,

outcompeting and preying on the organisms around them, often to the detriment of the

native species. The introduction of top predators and competitors can severely harm

endemic mammal species (Feldhamer et al. 1999) and other species at risk. Native

species are often outcompeted or consumed by organisms introduced from elsewhere

(Chapin et al. 2000). Species that may have been abundant at one time can decline

rapidly under sudden unnaturally induced pressures. A new stable equilibrium may take

decades to establish, and it may not accommodate the original organisms from the area.

36
 When introductions occur, hybridizations may result that can lead to extinction of

the species involved (Avise & Hamrick 1996; Rhymer & Simberloff 1996 as cited in

Feldhamer et al. 1999). This problem can arise in three ways: (1) through the

introduction of exotic species, either accidentally or deliberately, (2) when habitat

modifications result in the possibility of two previously separated species meeting and

interbreeding, or (3) our own conservation attempts and the introgression of gene pools

that can result from such activities (outbreeding depression for example) (Feldhamer et

al. 1999). Besides the possible conflicts created by breeding programs and conservation

efforts, humans are changing gene complexes at a whole new level. A new human

mediated mechanism for generating evolutionary novelty has emerged; insertion of

exogenous genes into domestic plants and animals (Palumbi 2001). Whether human

introductions are intentional or not, the repercussions are extensive.

Solutions

It is obvious to most of the human population that something needs to be done in

order to slow down the degradation of the Earth and its species. For those who are not

informed about the current problems, a key step to rehabilitation is education and

awareness. It is important to educate people about the risks of current human behaviors

such as rampant population growth, overconsumption, and underconservation.

Intervention on the part of the source of these current traumas, namely humans, is

required for any possibility of recovery or even maintenance of the biota (Novacek &

Cleland 2001). All of the environmental problems with which humans are currently

faced have been caused by human behavior, and can all be reversed by human behavior

37
(Oskamp 2000). Novacek and Cleland (2001) suggest three steps to recovery. First, we

must identify the threats to the biota and the entities most vulnerable to these threats.

Second, we must consider the scientific principles or strategies that inform prescriptions

to alleviate the threats. Third, we must apply feasible recovery strategies to aspects of the

biota that are not filtered out during the transformation.

Unless human consumption changes drastically during the next century, major

loss of biodiversity is a virtual certainty (Maurer 1996). In the long run, our society will

have to get by with far less resources per person and will also have to reduce the number

of people (Oskamp 2000). Attempts to control population growth will reap large rewards

in preserving biodiversity, particularly when the rate of population growth reaches zero

(Maurer 1996).

Population growth in itself is not the only problem; population behavior is key.

Because our impact on the biosphere is not likely to decline, we must use our knowledge

about the process of evolution to mitigate the evolutionary changes we impose on the

species around us (Palumbi 2001). These evolutionary changes include extinction and

the imposed necessity for unprecedented rates of adaptation. It is well recognized,

nonetheless, that the accumulation of scientific information itself is not the solution to our

ecological problems (Maurer 1996). As we strive to improve our knowledge of

biodiversity and ecological relationships we must also deal with perhaps the most subtle

and complex community relationships within those ecosystems, the multifaceted roles of

our own species (Maurer 1996).

The way humans view the world has a large impact on how we treat it. Although

in many individuals the traditional view of dominance over nature has vanished to a large

38
extent, pieces of it remain ingrained in our social and cultural structure. An integral step

to rectifying the current ecological dilemma is to alter this view. Many Native American

groups look at nature from a different perspective. Traditional knowledge is based on the

premise that humans should not view themselves as responsible for nature, i.e., we are

not stewards of the natural world, but instead we are part of that world, no greater than

any other part (Pierotti and Wildcat 1997b as cited in Pierotti & Wildcat 2000). Adoption

of beliefs such as these would put us one step closer to solving the problem.

Conclusion

Humans do many things that interfere with the natural function of the Earth’s

species, and it often results in their destruction. The main factors causing current

environmental trauma are human population growth, overconsumption, and

underconservation. Each of these factors combined leads to habitat alteration, animal

exploitation, increased pollution (in a number of forms), and introduction of alien species

and genes to resident populations. Current trends in human activity are detrimental to the

biodiversity and maintenance of the world’s biota. If human population growth continues

at its current rate, we will consume so much energy that there will be none left for other

species (Maurer 1996). Once these changes have occurred, they are not amenable to

mitigation (Chapin et al. 2000). The general impact of human activities on genetic

diversity disrupts or diminishes the capacity for adaptation, speciation, and

macroevolutionary change (Templeton et al. 2001). On their own, organisms stand

almost no chance of survival. Clearly, the future evolution of the planet’s biota depends

significantly on what we do now to minimize loss of species, populations, and habitats

39
(Novacek & Cleland 2001). Biodiversity and its links to ecosystems have cultural,

intellectual, aesthetic and spiritual values that are important to society (Chapin et al.

2000). In addition, changes in biodiversity that alter ecosystem function have economic

impacts through the provision of ecosystems in goods and services to society (Chapin et

al. 2000).

The current biodiversity crisis has one obvious biotic cause: ourselves (Novacek

& Cleland 2001). Human alteration of the global environment has triggered the sixth

major extinction event in the history of life and caused widespread changes in the global

distribution of organisms (Chapin et al. 2000). The repercussions are massive. I think

Chapin et al. (2000) said it best: “We are in the midst of one of the largest experiments in

the history of the Earth.”

SOLUTIONS TO POPULATION GROWTH

Exponential human population growth appears to be an enormous problem, but

there are some emerging solutions. Some are as ridiculous as genetically decreasing

average human height to 0.64mm. This idea was presented by Viau and Wistey in 1997,

on the pretext that each person would have optimal space for himself if his nearest

neighbor were to be just beyond his sight. To achieve this, one would have to be of the

forementioned height so that one could not see beyond the curvature of the earth. The

other option to resolve the overpopulation problem would be to have only 2.32 million

people on the earth, which at this point is equally as difficult (Viau and Wistey, 1997).

To reduce our current population to this level we would have to have one child per couple

for over twelve generations (Viau and Wistey, 1997). Although at first thought this

40
suggestion does not seem so unreasonable, it truly is impossible to enforce. China for

example has had a ‘one child per family policy’ since 1979. To enforce this means

restricting individuals’ freedom, even to the point where the freedom to choose abortion

is taken away and such procedures are forced (Bryant, 1999). Even in a country where

enforcement of such a law did occur, the population did not decrease to the level desired.

In light of these suggestions, it becomes easier to understand the difficulty in regulating

human populations.

More realistic suggestions have been made but they work at a much slower rate.

Education and provision of birth control are becoming increasingly important. It has

been proven that with education and empowerment of women, population growth rates

have leveled off. In developing countries where there is a lack of education for women

and provision of contraception, the birth rates are much higher. In such developing

countries, 96% of global population growth occurs (Environmental News Net, 1999).

“At the U.N. Conference on Population in Cairo in 1994, 179 nations endorsed a new

“Programme of Action” that called on governments to provide universal access to

reproductive health care by 2015 as a global human rights imperative.”(Bryant, 1999).

This program hopes to have greater success than those whose focus is merely on birth

control by identifying and working on the contributing social problems that lead to over

population. For example, this program wants to increase women’s health, education and

employment, as well as access to family planning facilities. Another part of this program

would ensure that men fulfill their responsibilities to ensure healthy pregnancies, proper

child care and promotion of women’s worth and dignity (Bryant, 1999). This paper did

41
not suggest how these ideas would be implemented. Public awareness would lead to a

solution, allowing individuals to control their familly size and lead lower impact lives.

WORK CITED

Belsie, S. 1999. Heading For Extinction, Are Plants Heading For The Way of The

Dinosaurs ?

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/endangeredplants990809.html

Accessed Feb 28, 2002.

Brunner, B. 1998. Time Almanac 1999. Information Please LLC. Boston, USA.

Bryant, P. J. January 1999. Biodiversity and Conservation: A Hypertext Book.

<http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/~sustain/bio65/lec16.htm>. Accessed on Feb. 13/02

Bunce, N. 1994. Environmental Chemistry 2nd edition. Wuerz Publishing Ltd. Winnipeg,

Canada.

Catling, P.M. & S. Porebski. 1998. Rare Wild Plants of Potential or Current Economic

Importance in Canada-A List of Priorities. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 78: 653-

658.

Chapin, Stuart F. III, Erika S. Zavaleta, Valerie T. Eviner, Rosamond L. Nayor, Peter M.

Vitousek, Heather L. Reynolds, David U. Hooper, Sandra Lavorel, Osvaldo E.

Sala, Sarah E. Hobbie, Michelle C. Mack and Sandra Diaz. 2000. Consequences

of changing biodiversity. Nature 405: 234-242.

Chiras, D.D. 1992. Lessons From Nature: Learning to Live Sustainably on the Earth.

Island Press: Washington, D.C. pp. 289.

42
Cousteau, J. 2002. Population Growth is a Source of Environmental Damage. NPG.

http://www.npg.org/ Accessed Feb 28, 2002.

Deem, Sharon L., William B. Karesh, and Wendy Weisman. 2001. Putting theory into

practice: wildlife health in conservation. Conservation Biology 15: 1224-1233.

Ehrlich, P.R. and Ehrlich, A. H. 1995. Population Structure and Projection, pp. 27-57 in

Population, Resources, Environment: Issues in Human Ecology, edited by

Kennedy and Park. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco.

Environmental News Net. 1999, April 5. World Population Continues to Grow.

<http://www.enn.com/enn-news-

archive/1999/04/040599/population_2496.asp>. Accessed Feb. 13/02.

Environmental News Net. 1999, August 5. Humans Altering Earth for the Wrose

<http://www.enn.com/enn-news-

archive/1999/08/080599/deadzone_4798.asp>. Accessed Feb. 13/02.

Evans, L.T. 1998. Feeding the Ten Billion. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge,

UK.

Feeney, G. 1991. Comment: On the Uncertainty of Population Projections, pp. 72-78 in

Resources, Environment, and Population, edited by Davis and Bernstam.

Oxford University Press, NY.

Feldhamer, George A., Lee C. Drickamer, Stephen H. Vessey and Joseph F. Merritt.

1999. Conservation. Pages 481-496 in Mammalogy: Adaptation, Diversity, and

Ecology. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., New York.

Gardner, G. 1996. Shrinking Fields: Cropland Loss in a World of Eight Billion. World

Watch Institute. Washington, USA.

43
Gardner, G., and Sampat, P. 1998. Mind Over Matter: Recasting the Role of Maerials

in Our Lives (Worldwatch Paper 144). Worldwatch Institute: Washington, D.C.

pp. 60.

Girvan, S. 1999. Canadian Global Almanac 2000. CDG Books Canada Inc. Toronto,

Canada.

Goudie, A. S. 1990. Techniques for Desert Reclamation. John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Chichester, England.

Hansen, A. J. and F. di Castri. 1992. Landscape Boundaries: Consequences for Biotic

Diversity and Ecological Flows. Springer-Verlag New York Inc. New York,

USA.

Hickie, B.E., Kingsley, M.C.S., Hudson, P.V., Muir, D.C.G., Beland, P., and Mackay, D.

2000. A modeling-based perspective on the past, present, and future

plychlorinated biphenyl contamination of the St. Lawrence beluga whale

(Delphinapterus leucas) population. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic

Science. 57: 101-112.

Hill, L. 2000. Whitaker’s Almanac 2001. 133ed. The Stationary Office. London,

England.

Hogg, I.D., and Williams, D.D. 1996. Response of stream invertebrates to a global-

warming thermal regime: an ecosystem-level manipulation. Ecology. 77: 395-

407.

Johnes, P., Moss, B., and Phillips, G. 1996. The determination of total nitrogen and total

phophorus concentrations in freshwaters from land use, stock headage, and

44
 population data: testing of a model for use in conservation and water quality

management. Freshwater Biology. 36: 451-473.

Mannion, A.M. 1998. Global environmental change: the causes and consequences of

disruption to biogeochemical cycles. The Geographical Journal. 164: 168-182.

Marchant, J. 2001. Out of the blue: seals already hit by pollution may carry a

dangerous, unexpected virus. New Scientist. 170: 6.

Marowski, D.G., ed. 1992. Environmental Viewpoints (Volume 1): Selected Essays and

Excerpts on Issues in Environmental Protection. Gale Research Inc.: Detroit, Ill.

pp. 544.

Maurer, Brian A. 1996. Relating human population growth to the loss of biodiversity.

Biodiversity Letters 3: 1-5.

McCauley, S.J., and Bjorndal, K.A. 1999. Conservation implications of dietary dilution

from debris ingestion: sublethal effects in post-hatchling loggerhead sea turtles.

Conservation Biology. 13: 925-929.

Miltner, R.J., and Rankin, E.T. 1998. Primary nutrients and the biotic integrity of rivers

and streams. Freshwater Biology. 40: 145-158.

Novacek, Michael J. and Elsa E. Cleland. 2001. The current biodiversity extinction

event: scenarios for mitigation and recovery. Proceedings of the National

Academy of Science of the United States of America 98: 5466-5470.

Odasz-Albrigtson, A.M., Tommervik, H., and Murphy, P. 2000. Decreased

photosynthetic efficiency in plant species exposed to multiple airborne pollutants

along the Russian-Norwegian border. Canadian Journal of Botany. 78: 1021-

1033.

45
Oskamp, Stuart. 2000. Psychological contributions to achieving an ecologically stable

future for humanity. Journal of Social Issues 56: 373-390.

Palumbi, Stephan A. 2001. Humans as the world’s greatest evolutionary force. Science

239: 1786-1790.

Peirotti, Raymond, and Daniel Wildcat. 2000. Traditional ecological knowledge: the

third alternative (commentary). Ecological Applications 10: 1333-1340.

Quinby, P. 1998. The Last of the First Forests. The Journal of Earthwatch Institute. 18:

14-16.

Revilla, Eloy, Francisco Palmares and Miguel Delibes. 2001. Edge-core effects and the

effectiveness of traditional reserves on conservation: eurasian badgers in Doñana

National Park. Conservation Biology 15: 148-158.

Schoen, S.J. & A.H.D. Brown. 2001. The Conservation of Wild Plant Species in Seed

Banks. BioScience. 51: 960-965.

Schulze, E., C. Wirth and M. Heimann. 2000. Managing Forests After Kyoto. Science.

289: 2058-2062.

Soule, M. E. and G. H. Orians. 2001. Conservation Priorities for Soil and Sediment

Invertebrates (Diana H. Wall, Paul V.R. Snelgrove, and Alan P. Covich) pp. 99-

123 in Conservation Biology. Island Press. Washington, USA.

Soule, M.E. and G.H Orians. 2001. Conservation Biology, Research Priorities For The

Next Decade. Island Press, Washington. pp59-44.

Tammemagi, H. 1999. The Waste Crisis. Oxford University Press. New York, USA.

Templeton, Alan R., Robert J. Robertson, Jennifer Brisson and Jared Strasburg. 2001.

Disrupting evolutionary processes: the effects of habitat fragmentation on collared

46
 lizards in the Missouri Ozarks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science

of the United States of America 10: 5426-5432.

Thomas, D. S.G. and N. J. Middleton. 1994. Desertification: Exploding the Myth. John

and Wiley Sons Ltd. Chichester, England.

Thompson, D. 1993. The Oxford Dictionary of Current English. Oxford University

Press.

Viau, A. U. and Wistey, M. 1997. The Mathematical Determination of Optimal Human

Population Size. Journal of Recreational Mathematics. 28: 188-193.

Vines, G. 1996. Where the Wild Plants Are. New Scientist. 149: 45

Wall, J. D. and Przeworski, M. 2000. When Did the Human Population Size Start

Increasing? Genetics. 155: 1865-1874.

Watson , T. 1995. Yews You Can Use. U.S. News and Word Report. 118: 17-120.

Wayland, M., and Hobson, K.A. 2001. Stable carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur isotope ratios

in riparian food webs on rivers receiving sewage and pulp-mill effluents.

Canadian Journal of Zoology. 79: 5-15.

Wilkie, David, Ellen Shaw, Fiona Rotberg, Gilda Morelli and Philippe Auzel. 2000.

Roads, development, and conservation in the Congo Basin. Conservation

Biology 14: 1614-1622.

Wilson, S.C. 2001. Population growth, reproductive rate and neo-natal morbidity in a

re-establishing harbour seal colony. Mammalia. 65: 319-334.

Yom-Tov, Y., Ashkenazi, S., and Viner, O. 1995. Cattle predation by the golden jackal

Canis aureus in the Golan Heights, Israel. Biological Conservation. 73: 19-22.

47
Young, J.E. 1991. Discarding the Throwaway Society (Worldwatch Paper 101).

Worldwatch Institute: Washington, D.C. pp.45.

48