The Pop Bomb

 

“While you are reading these words four people, most likely children, will die of starvation—and twenty-four more babies will have been born”

 

 

 

In the 1960s, a new kind of fear began to spread across America. The idea that the rapid growth of population will eventually deem Earth inhabitable to mankind was powerful and controversial. It struck fear in a massive audience leading to radical proposals, discrimination against large families, and a disposition of doom that fell over largely populated areas. This alarming reality check was delivered to the world by one scientist: Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich.

Ehrlich was originally a biologist at Stanford who specialized in the study of butterflies. After one trip to the overcrowded streets of Delhi, his focus immediately changed from insects to the infestation of a much more complex species: mankind. His concern was straightforward: “We live in a finite planet with finite resources. With such a system, you can’t have infinite population growth.” (2015 Interview population bomb documentary).

Dr. Ehrlich became the grim reaper of human existence. In 1968, the biologist came out with “The Population Bomb”. Millions purchased the book and were shocked by Ehrlich’s apocalyptic prophesies. He warned that hundreds of millions of people would starve to death by the 1970’s, that 65 million of them would be Americans, that overcrowded India was doomed beyond repair, and that “England will not exist in the year 2000”. In 1970, he predicted that the end of mankind was right around the corner.

 

“Sometime in the next 15 years, the end will come. By ‘end’, I mean an utter breakdown of the capacity of the planet to support humanity.”

 

 

Ehrlich’s warnings and proposed methods of worldwide birth control kick started an international trend of fear-fueled protests and demonstrations, defending both sides of the controversial argument. One in particular was headed by a former student of Ehrlich, who demonstrated what post carrying-capacity America might look like by leading a public starvation demonstration.

The biologist’s calls for immediate action led to the formation of the Zero Population Growth organization. During his appearance on the Tonight Show, Dr. Ehrlich explained the philosophy behind ZPG: “We have to get the death rate and birth rate in balance and there’s only one of two ways to do it: one is to bring the birth rate down, the other is to push the death rate up”. Support for ZPG spread throughout America as the number of members went from six hundred to six hundred thousand. Commercials and newspaper articles encouraged married couples to limit themselves to two children, creating a negative stigma for families that exceeded this number. Ehrlich’s proposals for reducing the birth rate were radical, but to him, necessary. He advocated using force if voluntary methods failed along with:  a “responsibility prize” for childless marriages, taxes on children, luxury taxes on diapers and cribs, and additive chemicals in public water that would decrease fertility.

 

 

Women protesting the sterilization of mothers: Racial discrimination became a factor in the controversy when colored families were targeted by ZPG advocates to limit their families. 

 

 

 

Student of Paul Ehrlich, leader of a demonstration that involved 60 people starving in public: “There’s too many people and we would like to see people have fewer children and better ones…

 Anyone who’s thinking of having a third child should try going hungry for a week”

 

 

Underdeveloped countries, which are more vulnerable to the environmental consequences of overpopulation, had already started implementing birth control methods. In the mid 1970s, the Indian government went to unethical extremes to encourage mass sterilization. Some communities were bribed into sterilization with food aid and free health care, while others were sterilized by force. A 1970s American News Station reported that over 8 million sterilizations had been performed in India, many by force. The anchorman described the inhumane treatment of the women, equating it to the treatment of cattle. Another station described the scene as a

deadly assembly line where “83 women were operated upon in a span of just six hours by a single doctor.” Protests flooded the streets of India, which authorities responded to with firearms. Over fifty protesters were shot down and killed during one demonstration.

 

 

 

 

So what ever came of the feared population bomb?

As we can see by the overabundance of food in America and the existence of England and India, Ehrlich’s drastic claims did not become reality. He predicted that by the 1970s, India would be starving. The case was quite the opposite. The Green Revolution, which peaked in the 1970s and 80s, created an agricultural boom by introducing new farming techniques and technology. The population growth may have been booming, but the economic explosion left an impact that was even more powerful than Ehrlich’s warnings: optimism.

A common criticism of Dr. Ehrlich’s theories is that humans are conscious, problem-solving beings. When we see a factor that has the potential to threaten our existence, we implement regulations and awareness. An example of this would be the Clean Air and Water acts in America. We have the unique ability to change our destiny.

Many parts of the world are even dealing with the flip-side of the population bomb: a “baby bust”. Counties in Asia and Europe are calling for another baby boom to manage issues related to the aging population and a lack of women in certain parts of the world.

Although the majority of his ominous predictions did not come true, Paul Ehrlich was successful in bringing a pending issue to surface and spreading awareness. Although the national policy in India has changed and no longer requires sterilization, the country has seen a voluntary decrease in family size. The population bomb was defused by urbanization, the Green Revolution, and efforts towards food distribution. In a 2014 interview, Ehrlich admits that there are things in the past the he would not have written today. But his core message and beliefs remain unfazed by the fortunate turn of events in the world.

Adopting his infamous tone of doom, Ehrlich explains that there are currently more than 4.5 billion people in the world, and they are consuming more resources than ever before.

“I do not think my language is too apocalyptic in “Population Bomb”. My language would be even more apocalyptic today. The idea that every woman should have as many babies as she wants is, to me, exactly the same kind of idea as everybody being permitted to throw as much garbage into their neighbors’ backyard as they want.”

As the world continues to see a growth in people and the consequential depletion of the environment, Ehlrich’s ominous warnings still echo in the hearts of humanity.

“Too many cars, too many factories, too much detergent, too much pesticides, multiplying contrails, inadequate sewage treatment plants, too little water, too much carbon dioxide – all can be traced easily to too many people”

-Ellie Hunt

 

News report picture: https://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/06/01/blogs/dotpopcronkite/dotpopcronkite-facebookJumbo.jpg

Population bomb documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8XOF3SOu8I

Article: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/01/us/the-unrealized-horrors-of-population-explosion.html

Ehrlich 2014 portrait: https://swh-826d.kxcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Paul-R-Ehrlich.jpg

Plan your family poster: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/12/india-sterilisation-deaths-women-forced-camps-relatives

India sterilization: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/12/india-sterilisation-deaths-women-forced-camps-relatives

Honey Bee Cabin

Much has been said regarding the current status of the honey bee in America today.  It seems like every other week we receive a new report on the wellbeing of hives across the country.  Half of these mention that bees are heading straight toward extinction and the other half claim bees are making a dramatic comeback.  While both of these do contain some truthful parts, being that bees were once heading towards extinction but have since made a mild comeback, both statements are not entirely truthful.  In reality, honey bee numbers across America have started to rise for the first time in a ten-year drought yet we still see a massive decrease in functioning hives each year.

Colony-collapse disorder is the term given to bee hives suddenly and rapidly deteriorating, killing all the bees and destroying the hive.  Colony-collapse has many causes but almost always occurs in the winter, when the bee population of the hive drops to its lowest.  It is when the population is the smallest that factors like neonicotinoid pesticides and varroa mites can take down a whole hive.  We have known about this main cause for quite some time, and much has been done to reduce the prevalence of these toxins.  For instance, many states have banned the use of neonicotinoids as a pesticide to protect pollinators, and the EPA is already working on a federal ban right now.

However, the varroa mite is a different story; it is not some compound that the government can ban. The varroa mite is common brown beetle roughly the size of a nail head, found in nearly every country of the world except for Australia and other isolated countries.  Varroa mites begin their lifecycle as tiny eggs laid inside the comb of a hive.  Here, the mites will wait for the queen bee to lay an egg in their cell.  Once the honey bee pupa, hatches so does the mite.  The mite then attaches to the baby bee feeding off its blood while the bee consumes the honey and nectar in its cell.  The mite will remain attached to the bee for the rest of its life, feeding off its blood, eventually killing it.  Then it finds another bee to attach to. There are many common methods of removing varroa mites, from putting in varroa strips which contains a chemical deadly to the mites to even dusting the whole hive in powered sugar to prevent the mites from hanging on to the bees.  Unfortunately, almost every method used was not effective enough to prevent collapse.  Until now…

Researchers at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem have accidentally discovered that after feeding their bees tiny doses of Lithium Chloride nearly every varroa mite died.  The concentration of lithium chloride is low enough to spare the bee, but the mites are killed off nearly as fast as the compound is applied.  If further testing yields the same results as found, this could be essential in the quest to save the bees.  Leaving only the regulation of noenicitinoids as a factor for extinction.   In the end, much has been accomplished to prevent extinction, including policy changes, neonicotinoid bans, and new varroa treatments; however there is still a lot to be done to save our fuzzy friends.

-Tyler Carlson

MOOve Over, Meat Industry!

Picture this: the year is 2050, population has soared to almost 10 billion people… and they all want to eat meat. Currently, in the United States alone, there is approximately 1 one cow and seven chickens for every three people.2 The global population as of now is right around 7.3 billion people, but rising quickly. In a world where food shortages are already a common occurrence and farmers are running out of land for crops, how will humanity adapt to these thwarting conditions?3

Since the mid-twentieth century, worldwide meat consumption has greatly increased. Assuming that this trend in consumption will not change, it is important to start considering new options to replace meat. Although tofu has become a viable alternative for many vegans and vegetarians, for others, it can be a somewhat “acquired taste.” Scientists, taking this into consideration, have begun developing an alternative to the cattle industry: cultured meat.

The process begins by growing individual muscle cells that then connect and grow into tissue. Once enough of these cells are aggregated, other hamburger ingredients like egg, onion, and bread crumbs are added for taste. This remarkable development seems like an obvious solution to the world hunger crises—meat we can grow ourselves! For all the steak lovers out there, researchers are still trying to grow longer muscle cells that are required to form steaks, but as of now only hamburger meat is possible. Although, considering the progress made in the last decade, nothing is impossible!

The process of growing cells, however, is a controversial science. In order to grow the cells, scientists must use fetal bovine serum. This serum is collected from fetal calves and remains an unsustainable source of nourishment for the cells. Yet, in recent years, the same hamburger meat has been created without FBS.

The danger with FBS—disregarding its controversial nature—is the potential harm it could effect on consumers. For example, a diseased calf has the possibility to transfer the bacteria and illness to humans. This type of chain reaction is exactly what caused the beloved Mexican restaurant franchise, Chipotle, to shut down in 2016 due to an e. coli outbreak.4

Of course, the potential benefits are difficult to understate. Less cows mean less methane, a greenhouse gas, and less of the world’s agricultural space devoted to livestock feed. Reducing the number of cows would lead to more humane treatment of animals, giving us
healthier options such as grass-fed beef.

The decision that we have to make involves evaluating the risk and reward associated with this process. Is it worth advancing the research for cultured meat? I think that our answer should be yes. Otherwise, any hopes of accommodating the wants and needs of the world is impossible. Taking into account our future population and the demands that come with it, it is imperative to break from the status quo and begin a new era of innovation and creativity. Some may say this is easier said than done, but I believe that humanity has a good track record of adapting to stress. The only factor is whether we do it sooner or later.

-Sonia Clemens

 

1 http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/2015-report.html

2 https://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/07/global-livestock-counts

3 https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/06/27/155527365/visualizing-a-nation-of-meat-eaters

4 http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/15/news/companies/chipotle-food-safety-meeting/index.html

 

 

 

Environmental Health and Mental Health

As our climate changes, we tend to think about physical impacts to the environment, such as erosion or air pollution. We separate what is happening to the environment from ourselves to justify the detrimental impact that our current lifestyle generates. In reality, climate change directly impacts human wellbeing in many ways, including mental health. As our climate changes, weather patterns shift. Extreme changes in the weather destabilizes homes, which can impact physical and mental health. Research by Bourque and Wilcox (2014) provided evidence from specific weather events that have impacted psychological health. One of the weather pattern changes they studied was the drought in Australia that lasted nearly a decade. According to the prior research, the drought has been attributed to an increase in psychological distress causing anxiety and depression. The drought has greatly impacted the people whose life depends on the land, especially farmers. As they lose their crops due to the lack of water, their source of income dissipates. Many of the farmers reported feeling an “overwhelming sense of loss” because of losing their crops to the drought (Bourque & Wilcox, 2014). Furthermore, the Australian farmers have less access to mental health resources because of demographics and low income, making them more susceptible to psychiatric problems.

Indication that climate change has negatively impacted mental health can also be seen in the indigenous Inuit populations in Canada. Inuit life revolves around their natural environment. They use the land to sustain life through hunting and fishing, as well as many other activities that require the land. Beyond just sustaining life, the Canadian forests are their home, so you can imagine that losing their land could be equivalent to someone’s house burning down. The Inuit people are being directly impacted by climate change because of decreasing temperatures and an increased occurrence of storms that is destroying their home. This increased stress has been correlated with poor mental health. In fact, the suicide rates among the Inuit population are 11 times higher than the Canadian average (Bourque & Wilcox, 2014). Similar to the Australian farmers, the Inuit people also do not have proper access to mental health resources, which demonstrates the disparity climate change has on mental health in susceptible populations.

On a larger scale, climate change has increased the number of severe natural events, such hurricanes and floods, all over the world. Severe weather events can destroy homes and lives, which leads to acute stress. The elevated stress from these events is correlated with higher rates of PTSD and depression (Bourque & Wilcox, 2014). Specifically, flooding has been tied to high incidence psychological stress. In fact, a Dr. Onarae Rice at Furman University studies the relationship of dopamine pathway to PTSD in rats. In order to give the rats PTSD, one of the steps is to make the rat swim in water for an extended amount of time to simulate the feeling of drowning in a flood. Clearly, environmental disasters can directly impact mental health.

It is important that we help people who are experiencing the detrimental impact of climate change on their mental health. The first step is the acknowledge the correlation and inform people of it so that following a natural disaster people may be more likely to seek out mental health resources. It is also important that we have means for people to get counseling, since those who are the most susceptible to climate change impact most often don’t have resources. Of course, it is vital that we make changes to save our environment so that climate change does not progress.

-Olivia Larner

 

Bourque, F., & Cunsolo Willox, A. (2014). Climate change: The next challenge for public mental health? International Review of Psychiatry, 26(4), 415-422. doi:10.3109/09540261.2014.925851