Population, desertification, and migration.

PIP: When an imbalance develops between population numbers and the carrying capacity of the land, the persons thereby displaced are referred to as environmental refugees. The utilization of the land beyond sustainability leads to land degradation and ultimately, desertification. The social and political impacts of long-term environmental migration can be distinguished: a) at the site of origin of the displaced persons by the residual population; b) at rural sites of destination within the nation between the new arrivals and preestablished populations; c) in the cities within the nation; d) in the nonindustrialized foreign countries; and e) in the industrialized foreign countries. In the event that an area which had previously been devoted to pastoralism is converted to agriculture, the displaced pastoralists might respond through armed rebellion. In some instances, the disenchanted urban squatters become a politically restive and even a destabilizing force, as occurred in Sudan in the 1980s, especially in Khartoum and Port Sudan. The foreign countries to which many of the displaced persons are migrating are subjected to increasing levels of migrant-induced economic, cultural, and political strains. The growing problems associated with south-to-north migration across the Mediterranean Sea have recently led France, Italy, Portugal, and Spain to enter into a consultative arrangement with Algeria, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, and Tunisia. All foreign aid to the nonindustrialized countries that attempts to ameliorate the problem of desertification must adopt integrated approaches that: a) address population issues; b) support environmental education; c) provide for the protection of biodiversity; d) encourage participatory forms of local and national government; e) provide opportunities for income generation outside the livestock sector; and f) foster political security and facilitate ecogeographical (subregional) cooperation.^ieng

A world in balance.

PIP: The objectives of this paper are to define the scope of global population growth within the uncompromising everyday realities of technology, economies, and politics and to demonstrate the intimate between the human population problem and the increasing problem of Nature's destruction. It is hoped that the human species will come to its sense in time to create an adequate standard of living of all of its members in peace and environmental balance. The number of people the world can support is considered in terms of 1) the provision for a standard of living adequate for everyone's health and wellbeing, 2) consideration for wildlife and nature, and 3) reliance on existing levels of technology and politics. Standards of living are suggested for the affluent and the austere. The focus on the discussion is on standards of living, global carrying capacity, the imperatives of population control and respect for nature, humans versus wildlife, and the need for a universal declaration of respect for nature. Carrying capacity is determined by total land area, cultivated land area, forest land area, cereals (grain), and wood. Use per capita of each of the 5 essentials is determined for the affluent or austere standard of living. An affluent standard means that world population would be limited to 2 billion, which is 50% of the current population. An austere standard of living means a limit of 3 billion, or 33% less than the existing population. The unfortunate reality is that today's total population of 4.5 billion is increasing at an annual rate of 1.9% and is not expected to level off until it has increased 3 times. This population growth occurs at the expense of wildlife. Of the total terrestrial animal biomass, humans constitute 4% and domestic livestock 15%, which, in 40 years, will reach a combined 40% and lead to more species extinction. One species of bird or mammal will become extinct for each increase of 220 million people, which happens every 3 years. The solution is a radical stop, reversal, and stabilization of population to achieve one which is lower than today's 4.5 billion.^ieng