Arguments against overpopulation that are demonstrably wrong, part six: "We have a resource distribution problem"
Quick preamble: I want to highlight some arguments against overpopulation which I believe are demonstrably wrong. Many of these are common arguments which pop up in virtually every discussion about overpopulation. They are misunderstandings of the subject, or contain errors in reasoning, or both. It feels frustrating to encounter them over and over again.
Part one is here
Part two is here
Part three is here
Part four is here
The argument
The phrase “resource distribution problem”, and variations thereof, are one of the most common objections to overpopulation. Here are some examples from a quick search of the internet:
“Overpopulation arguments ignore the real problem: distribution and consumption of resources. We act like the earth can't support billions - maybe it can't support billionaires.”
“…there’s already more than enough resources. There’s not an overpopulation problem, there’s a resource distribution problem.”
“We have a resource distribution problem, not a population problem.”
“Overpopulation” is a lie—we have a resource distribution problem, not a population problem.”
It’s certainly true that we do have a resource distribution problem. I will not dispute that in this post. However, I will dispute the use of this as a dismissal of overpopulation.
These statements address economic inequality, not environmental sustainability, carrying capacity or ecological overshoot – which are central to overpopulation.
Consider three requirements for the sustainable use of any given resource:
1. There must be enough to satisfy human needs/demands in the short to medium term. In the case of a fish stock, this would be ensuring a person can go fishing and catch what they need to feed themselves.
2. There must be enough to satisfy human needs/demands over the long term. For example, can that person go on fishing at the same rate and catching what they need for food in 10 years’ time? 50 years? 100 years? 500 years? Importantly, this should not deplete the resource over time. For example, if a fisherman has to expend extra effort just to catch the same amount, that indicates the resource is being depleted.
3. There must be enough to satisfy the needs of the ecosystem. For example, are there enough fish leftover for them the fish to fulfil their niche/role in the ecosystem, as prey or predators to other organisms?
In my experience, most people’s understanding of overpopulation is centered around point one above, with little or no consideration given to points two and three. When focusing on point one the resource distribution argument makes perfect sense. But no so points two and three.
Take food waste as an example. The argument goes that humans produce enough food to feed everyone, yet we waste huge amounts. Therefore, if we redistributed this food to where it’s needed, instead of wasting it, then everyone would have enough to eat.
Thought experiment: Let’s pretend someone creates an amazing machine which reduces food waste to zero via redistribution. Now every time a tomato in your fruit bowl is about to go bad, this machine promptly detects it beams it away to be eaten by someone in need. Now everyone has enough to eat and we have addressed point one above.
However, if we assume the tomato was produced using unsustainable practices (a reasonable assumption I think), then points two and three are not addressed. A tomato rotting in the fruit bowl and a tomato beamed away to a person in need both have the same ecological costs. The fossil fuels, land, pesticides, plastic and other inputs still remain.
How a resource is distributed amongst humans does not address inherent problems of unsustainability. From a sustainability perspective, a hectare of rainforest destroyed for a billionaire’s golf course is the same as a hectare of rainforest destroyed for subsistence agriculture. 1000 liters of water extracted from a lake for a billionaire’s swimming pool is the same as 1000 liters of water extracted for everyday cooking and cleaning.
Therefore, redistributing resources alone cannot solve the problems associated with ecological overshoot, if that redistribution is simply taking the same unsustainable consumption and distributing the resulting outputs differently between humans.
In fairness, I will highlight some reasonable aspects of the “resource distribution problem” argument.
1. Some forms of resource distribution do improve sustainability. For example, replacing a field of cows with a field of lentils can allow a smaller field to produce the same amount of food. In theory allowing some of the field to “rewild”.
2. Changing overconsuming individuals/groups into more “normal” consumers helps. For example, changing the billionaire with a swimming pool to a normal consumer of water would mean less water is taken from the lake.
3. Our unequal resource distribution is blatantly unfair and addressing this would absolutely be a good thing, even if it doesn’t address sustainability. This post is not seeking to defend or dismiss resource distribution problems, but to highlight that such problems should not be used to dismiss overpopulation.
There seems to be a common belief that removing excessive consumption from the wealthiest and worst over consumers (e.g billionaires) would mean there are plenty of resources for both humans and the environment. I think this view underestimates how far into overshoot humans have become, and how unsustainable practices underpin most of our everyday lives, from food, housing, transport, heating and so on.