JAKARTA - The concept of childfree has become a topic of discussion after several local celebrities, such as Gita Savitri and Cinta Laura, expressed their desire to implement childfree. Cinta Laura calls that desire conscious logic. The world has been burdened with so many populations, says Love. The issue of overpopulation has been a concern of many parties for years. But, is it true that human birth threatens Earth? How much population can the earth accommodate?
Cinta Laura, in a YouTube account said, "I like to see facts. Our world is very overpopulated. Too many humans live in this world," said Cinta, quoted Friday, August 20. Laura's love is not the only one. A survey conducted by the author of Childlesness in the United States, Tomas Sobotka, shows concern about overpopulation as one of the most common reasons why people choose to be childfree.
In addition to concerns about the impact of overpopulation, there are also reasons such as fear of not being able to provide decent living facilities for children, financial or career limitations. Interestingly, this study refutes the notion that child-free decisions are made based on egoism. "Research doesn't find the reason (childfree) is because someone doesn't want to have fun or various reasons that often lead to negative stigma (about childfree)."
The study also concluded that child-free decisions are conscious and logical choices. Zoe Krupka, a psychotherapist who speaks for the ABC Ladies podcast, agrees. Highlighting women, Krupka said most childfree decisions "are not based on matters that are beyond their control." And a woman's decision to be childfree cannot be used as a reference to judge how they interact with children.
"It doesn't mean (women) are shutting themselves out of the possibility of being a co-parent or step-parent or being an aunt or helping their friends or siblings take care of their children. They make decisions consciously. Not based on infertility or opportunities or circumstances beyond their control," she said. Zoe.
Is the concept of overpopulation logical in childfree decisions?
Over the years, overpopulation has attracted the attention of many parties. The United Nations (UN) records the world's population at 7.7 billion people. By 2030 the United Nations predicts population growth to reach 8.5 billion people. By 2050, United Nations predictions suggest there will be a population of 9.7 billion. That number will continue to increase, until by 2100, the United Nations predicts 11.2 billion people will live on Earth.
The earth is of course not getting bigger to live in. Another issue is about resources. Many fear that food, water and energy sources will not be able to keep up with the world's population growth. However, the numbers above don't really explicitly indicate that humans are doomed, as Thanos thought. Although not necessarily humans are also a blessing for this earth. At least something can be done.
As Gandhi said: The world provides enough for everyone's needs, but not enough for everyone's greed.
In 2016, David Satterthwaite of the International Institute for Environment and Development in London released the results of his research. He quoted Gandhi's words above in the presentation of his study. According to him, the number of modern humans on Earth is relatively small. And most importantly, "It's not the number of people on the planet that matters but the number of consumers and the scale and nature of their consumption," Satterthwaite said.
That is, population growth does not mean the end as long as humans are able to change their consumption patterns. And this requires the role of all humans because analysis shows household consumers are responsible for more than 60 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, the same sector is also responsible for 80 percent of the world's land, materials and water use, the three main concerns of overpopulation.
"We all like to blame other people, governments or businesses ... If we change our consumption habits, this will have a drastic impact on our environmental footprint as well," said Diana Ivanova of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim.
More specifically, this study shows that countries that tend to be rich contribute greatly to environmental problems. One person living in high-income cities can create "six to 30 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year." Satterwhaite said many people in low-income urban areas have very low consumption, even contributing almost nothing to greenhouse gas emissions.
This fact confirms how consumption patterns affect the fate of the earth, not its people. So, if referring more specifically to who will determine the fate of the Earth in the future, they are the rich people referred to by Satterwhaite. And rather than population growth, Satterwhaite is more concerned about changes in the consumption patterns of the poor that match the consumption patterns of the world's rich.
How much population can Earth accommodate?
Ten thousand years ago the number of humans was several million. Until the 1800s, the world's population did not even exceed one billion. Even until the 1920s, the world's population did not touch two billion. But growth continues. fast. In this context it is concluded that there is no real precedent that can be used to measure the consequences of population growth.
And it's been proven that humans have predicted this wrong time and time again. The figure of eleven billion is the concern of many world authorities today. That number is like the maximum limit of the Earth's capacity for humans. Corey Bradshaw from the University of Adelaide, Australia explained that everything depends on the growth of civilization, including technology and lifestyle, one of which is consumption patterns. Bradshaw's statement fits well with Satterwhaitte's research.
A 2012 UN report summarized 65 scientific predictions of what the maximum population could be on Earth. At that time the figure of eight billion became the most widely mentioned in the prediction. That number is slightly more than the current human population. However, even though the Earth looks bad, there is no sign of the end of civilization, as the worst predictions of the impact of overpopulation.
And the prediction error was not the first. In the early 20th century, George Knibbs, in his book The Shadow of the World's Future, suggested the figure of 7.8 billion as the maximum limit for the world's population. He highlighted soil fertility issues that could impact future food availability. However, three years later, Carl Bosch won the Nobel Prize for the development of chemical fertilizers.
That is, everything is very dependent on human behavior and the development of knowledge and technology. The word overpopulation is so difficult to find the logic. Nothing is too much for a civilization that realizes the importance of caring for the Earth.
*Read other information about the ENVIRONMENT or read other interesting articles from Yudhistira Mahabharata.
Other BERNASThe English, Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, and French versions are automatically generated by the AI. So there may still be inaccuracies in translating, please always see Indonesian as our main language. (system supported by DigitalSiber.id)
