Overpopulation vs Overconsumption

Table of Content

In today’s world, the use of technology for communication and media is crucial to stay updated on current events. However, as public communication increases, so does awareness about global issues. The article “Brazil: Amazon Deforestation Seen Surging” by Reuters discusses the causes and effects of deforestation in the South American rainforest. Similarly, the Center for Biological Diversity presents another article titled “Prevent Corals, Fish and Whales from Ocean Acidification,” which addresses related causes. These articles are widely shared online, raising questions about the source and solution to these problems. To find a solution, it is crucial to shed light on the underlying causes of these issues. [12]

The question of whether overpopulation or overconsumption is a more significant threat has sparked a debate about the impact of humans on the environment. This debate has implications for the general population, government, and future generations. While concerns about food scarcity, cultivation of marginal lands, and environmental damage lead many to believe that overpopulation is the primary concern, others argue that overconsumption outweighs the negative effects of overpopulation. Ultimately, society must decide whether to prioritize addressing significant population growth in places like India or substantial consumption in countries like the U.S.

This essay could be plagiarized. Get your custom essay
“Dirty Pretty Things” Acts of Desperation: The State of Being Desperate
128 writers

ready to help you now

Get original paper

Without paying upfront

Addressing this issue is crucial for those affected, but it will be a challenging task. The solution brings up several questions: Who bears responsibility for the consequences of excessive consumption and population growth? Who will take charge in resolving this problem? How can we prevent further damage to both the planet and humanity?

Advocates argue that overconsumption is the main cause of negative effects on the environment, culture, and economy. They emphasize that a small part of the global population consumes the majority of resources produced. This perspective challenges the commonly held belief that overpopulation is to blame by presenting alternative facts and beliefs.

In response to the controversy, a teacher from the SHiPS Teacher’s Network shared a biased case study that argues overconsumption has a greater impact on humanity. Despite the author’s clear bias, they present factual evidence that supports the notion of overconsumption being responsible. One such example is the mention of birth rate disparities, where a German woman would have six descendants in three generations, while in the US it would be 14 and in Africa it would be 258. The implication is that Africans would deplete resources and damage the environment 18 times faster than people in industrialized nations by the middle of the next century. This data strongly suggests that overpopulation is the main cause of the damage.

The author counters with a compelling argument to support their standpoint. They assert that the individual who has the greatest impact on the environment is a person in the U.S., as they have 50 times more negative consequences compared to someone in Bangladesh. Furthermore, an average American consumes 50 times more steel and 300 times more plastic than an individual in India. By examining consumption instead of solely population, the issue of scarcity from an environmental perspective appears significantly distinct. Drawing parallel to the backcountry ethics of leaving a campsite untouched, the author highlights that individuals who consume more than they produce are engaging in erroneous behavior. After analyzing this teacher’s response, one can readily conclude that overconsumption is the primary culprit. [5]

Paul Ehrlick’s research unveiled an equation that takes into account three variables to measure humanity’s impact. The equation indicates that the impact is determined by multiplying the population, affluence (per capita consumption), and the technology employed in producing goods (energy, waste). Ehrlick emphasized that per capita consumption and technology are equally crucial as the population in assessing this impact. Thus, all three variables hold equal significance within this context. [5]

Both overconsumption and overpopulation are significant concerns that cannot be underestimated or ignored. Overconsumption is the primary and most urgent threat, but overpopulation is also alarming due to the large number of individuals residing in countries like India and China. This has led to worries about overcrowding, especially with reports of crowded areas worldwide and exponential population growth. Consequently, overpopulation has become a heavily-weighted topic on people’s minds.

Although some believe that the root cause lies with overpopulation while others acknowledge that both contribute to our present problems, it is widely acknowledged that a small percentage of the global population consumes the majority of Earth’s resources regardless of which issue has a greater impact on them. Thus, while overconsumption poses a substantial problem, its effects are intensified by overpopulation.

In the article “Where Should We Focus”, author Michael Hanauer discusses the debate between overconsumption and overpopulation. Hanauer acknowledges that both sides have a common goal but emphasizes that humanity’s current consumption rate and rapid population increase are unsustainable. To illustrate, Hanauer compares the consumption patterns of affluent nations and developing countries, highlighting the stark contrast in lifestyles between average Americans and individuals from less privileged countries. He explains that this significant disparity in consumption is not solely due to practices such as recycling or minimal plastic use but rather because people in these countries lack basic amenities like cars, heating, refrigerators, and even homes. Hanauer argues that as long as Americans consume at a reasonable rate, they should not be seen as selfish. Furthermore, he points out that Americans not only believe in their moral right to consume responsibly but also desire this level of consumption.

Hanauer stresses the significance of tackling the inequality in consumption between the wealthy and the poor, which he attributes to a lack of basic necessities. He believes it is essential to provide all global citizens with a reasonable lifestyle while also focusing on sustainability. Furthermore, Hanauer highlights overpopulation as a major long-term concern, asserting that higher living standards result in lower levels of overpopulation. As developing third world countries adopt American essential items, overall global consumption rises. To achieve this equilibrium, Hanauer argues that population control is not only important for sustaining the earth but even more crucial.[13] Common Ground:

Although all perspectives on this subject acknowledge the significance of both arguments, they each prioritize their own viewpoints. However, despite their disagreement on who bears the most responsibility for the problems, they both accept accountability for their impact on society and all related matters. To facilitate comprehension, it is crucial to separate the effects of these two issues. The consequences for culture and the environment are identical, regardless of the cause, and will be extensively addressed.

The environment is significantly affected by two issues: the increasing population and rising consumption in developing nations. This leads to scarcity of resources, resulting in long-term consequences without a feasible solution. Additionally, there are short-term effects that hinder our appreciation of the earth’s beauty, such as deforestation and the decline of fish, whales, and coral. These extreme examples of environmental devastation were previously discussed. In her article “Overpopulation and Extinction,” Amy Harwood argues that the planet is currently undergoing its sixth mass extinction with an estimated yearly extinction rate of 30,000 species. Harwood effectively links population growth to the rate of extinction. She emphasizes that this mass extinction is unique because it is caused by one species rather than natural processes on a planetary or galactic scale. Given the clear examples we encounter daily, it would be unwise not to acknowledge the detrimental effects of overpopulation and consumption on the environment.

Both overconsumption and overpopulation have a significant impact on our way of life, resulting in cultural implications. It is crucial for us to take action to prevent the negative consequences arising from our awareness of this impact. Measures such as reducing energy consumption, recycling, and purchasing fewer materialistic items can help address these issues. However, it is important to acknowledge that the effects of these problems go beyond superficial changes.

In his article “Creating the Consumer,” Anup Shah explores how consumption patterns in America have evolved into the excessive levels seen today. The author highlights that early settlers and Europeans had a more conservative mindset, with only wealthy individuals being able to partake in luxurious living and extravagant spending.

Religion and societal pressure were responsible for upholding this mindset, as it was deemed extravagant and disapproved of to spend excessively. In a survey conducted by Hanauer, only 21 percent of respondents indicated willingness to give up their cars, while merely 13 percent would forgo their Quarter-Pounders with cheese. During my research, I came across an article titled “Overconsumption won’t Save America” authored by David Sirota. Sirota characterizes Americans as self-centered and unaware, epitomizing their mentality with the phrase “shop till you drop.” He highlights that despite persistent economic challenges such as unemployment and rising prices for necessities, America persisted in its customary post-Thanksgiving shopping spree. This simultaneously exasperated me and inspired me to glean insights from Sirota’s observations.


When seeking a resolution, it is vital to consider all viewpoints. Despite the significant differences in opinions, it may be feasible to do so. To achieve this, it is crucial to disregard the arguments presented by each side and instead find common ground. The focus should not be on determining which poses a greater threat to the world and its inhabitants but on how humanity can cooperate to decrease Earth’s resource consumption and space utilization. Both parties must comprehend and value the opposing perspective for this purpose. By extensively studying articles and papers from both standpoints, formulating a plan should become more manageable. Since both issues have proven detrimental to the world, an effective solution should address them both.

The short-term problem is overconsumption, and it should be prioritized for solution. It is difficult to prevent countries like America, with higher consumption, from exceeding their fair share. However, higher consumption countries are also shown to have a higher GDP, indicating a higher standard of education. While this is not always the case, it applies to America, where we are certainly responsible for consuming well above average. “With world population at 6 billion and rising, the richest 20% of humanity consumes 86% of all goods and services used, while the poorest fifth consumes just 1.3%.” [4] Hence, addressing overconsumption must commence in these educated yet excessive consuming nations. The goal is to appeal to countries with higher education by proving that material possessions do not lead to happiness and that a lower consumption and standard of living may offer a more desirable lifestyle. “First, we need to recognize that there are more effective and satisfying ways to achieve fulfillment than by simply buying more stuff.” [9]

In this article, Vicki Robin discusses the connection between money and unhappiness and argues that true happiness comes from spending time doing what we love with loved ones. She emphasizes that constantly earning money to acquire more possessions only brings stress and complications. Robin supports her argument by pointing out that surveys have shown people were happiest in 1957 when families had modest houses, a limited number of cars and bathrooms, and basic black and white televisions. She attributes the current debt and materialistic desires to social pressure and advertising. To reduce consumption levels, it is necessary to eliminate the belief that money can buy happiness and more possessions will satisfy our wants. Achieving this requires collective effort from the entire country.

The current generation of children witnesses the negative effects of material wants on their parents’ lifestyles which encourages them to save more, avoid debt, and manage their finances wisely. This is just the beginning; however, with a concerted effort, we can establish a lower and more realistic standard of living.

The issue of overpopulation is a complex one with no easy solution. The rapid increase in human reproduction will eventually deplete and harm our planet. However, implementing small cultural changes within our society and globally could help slow this growth and increase the time we have on Earth, leading to greater happiness. In my opinion, the solution does not involve limiting the number of children or eliminating individuals deemed unworthy; instead, it requires appreciating the time we have. This approach also addresses the problem of overconsumption. We must embrace a simpler lifestyle, prioritize quality time with loved ones, and reduce material desires and consumption. By adopting this approach, we can effectively address both issues.

Cite this page

Overpopulation vs Overconsumption. (2016, Jun 24). Retrieved from


Remember! This essay was written by a student

You can get a custom paper by one of our expert writers

Order custom paper Without paying upfront