[QUOTE=tomndebb]
“Footprints” are certainly useful tools, but they are not inherently objective, (otherwise, every calculation of footprints would arrive at an identical conclusion, which they do not). Beyond that, I would note two criticisms of the inference you have drawn.
[/quote]
As I said “most objective”. Surely this is the *most *objective and scientific way of measuring our impact on the planets ecology.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
First, since population is only one aspect of the footprint calculation, I believe it is incorrect to claim that if the world has exceeded its biocapacity, then we are, by default, overpopulated. With no change to population, (or even with an increase if it does not get out of control), increases in food production, improvements in food distribution, improvements in recovering or replacing renewable resources, and reductions in the production of waste would result in both a reduction in the human footprint and an increase in the world’s biocapacity. In fact, the very .pdf to which you linked shows examples of those phenomena, today. Several European nations have been reducing their footprints and the global per capita footprint has shrunk every year since 1980. (Since the overall human footprint is increasing through the same period, this would tend to support the argument that population, itself, is the main current culprit. However, changes in existing societies (more food in underdeveloped countries, substitution of renewable for non-renewable resources, and less waste in developed and developing countries) could, conceivably, reverse the overall footprint.)
[/quote]
It is a good thing that some European countries are decreasing their footprint. At the same time, however, other European countries are increasing theirs. Across the planet there is increasing population and increasing consumption of resources (e.g. China and India) which swamp out this effect.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Second, the fact that we have currently exceeded the (variously described) footprint does not indicate that we are currently overpopulated. As an analogy, consider a corporation and its debt. A beginning company may borrow heavily to get started and an established and profitable company may go into debt due to various forces. However, debt, even for multiple years, does not equal bankruptcy. As long as the company takes steps to get itself out of debt before such time as all the loans fall due, it may survive not only that period of debt, but actually turn itself around to the point of carrying no debt. In the same way, the world may currently exceed some ratio of footprint to biocapacity analogous to debt, but that does not mean that we are actually overpopulated and cannot recover. It is certainly true that if we make no effort to change direction, we will probably become overpopulated, but the world has not yet reached the point of resource bankruptcy.
There is no place on Earth where starvation is the result of an inability of the world to produce food. Every case of starvation, currently, is due to a lack of distribution, not production. The currently large footprint(s) are attributable to excess toxin production and reduction of renewable resources (debt). We may be too foolish to turn those trends around, but the fact that we are currently in a deficit does not equal bankruptcy.
[/QUOTE]
Is it possible to borrow against the ecology without a permanent impact? Maybe it is if this in the short term, but I suspect that long term overpopulation will have a lasting effect on ecology. There would be a lag time where ecosystems would need to regenarate in response to the payback of ‘debt’ via reduction of footprint. I don’t think using monetary debt as an analogy quite works.