Book Review: 10 Billion
Earth may be 4.5 billion years old, but humans are relatively new entrants in the geological timeline. Going by this oft-quoted example, if the universe began just 24 hours ago, Homo sapiens didn't arrive until about the last 30 seconds, i.e. 23:59:30 PM. But despite this last minute appearance, humans have emerged the single-most dominant and successful species on this planet. With our wisdom and ability to think, we have indeed come a long way from the animalistic survival instincts of our ancestors.
But this progress, while making our lives easier and comfortable, has come at a terrifying cost, a damage that's irrevocable and a planetary emergency that's unprecedented. Global population officially touched 7 billion last year and human consumption of Earth's resources is on an ever-increasing rise. We have approached, or already approaching, a time when the planet is undergoing extensive depletion of food, water, mineral and other resources at a rate that's beyond replenishment. At this pace, will there be anything left for the future generations to come?
Not to sound excessively pessimistic (like the author), but there's no denying that we, humans, have significantly contributed to climate change. Extreme weather events (hurricanes, wildfires, droughts, floods etc.), global warming, rising sea-levels, loss of biological diversity, pollution, deforestation have all precipitated in recent times, and a further increase in human population, projected to reach 10 billion in the coming decades, will only end up exacerbating the precarious balance of life on Earth.
While the book doesn't offer any conclusive solution to tackle overpopulation and climate change, it's not without its flaws either. Emmott could have done well if he had stayed away from taking an undue alarmist approach to the polemic; and as grim as the situation may seem, there wasn't a need to resort to sweeping generalizations and exaggerations to base his assertions.
In fact, The Guardian's Chris Goodall in his review of the book refutes Emmott's basic premise about overpopulation:
Despite Emmott's assertions to the contrary, population growth has been slowing steadily since the 1960's. The number of people in the world is increasing by about 1% a year and the slowdown will almost certainly continue. This is never mentioned, let alone discussed by Emmott. Reasonable 2050 predictions are almost all in the 9 to 10 billion range, with most people seeing declines after that date but he tells us that we might actually see 28 billion by 2100. Does he have an argument why his number could be right? No, he just asserts it.
"We need to consume less. A lot less. Less food, less energy, less stuff. Fewer cars, electric cars, cotton t-shirts, laptops, mobile-phone upgrades. Far fewer. Yet, every decade, global consumption continues to increase relentlessly," writes the author towards the end. While this may be the case, but despite agreeing with the basic conclusion mentioned above, Emmott doesn't back up his statements with enough data. For a book about science, let alone a one about climate change, this is a big resounding NO!
 |
| 10 Billion |
Not to sound excessively pessimistic (like the author), but there's no denying that we, humans, have significantly contributed to climate change. Extreme weather events (hurricanes, wildfires, droughts, floods etc.), global warming, rising sea-levels, loss of biological diversity, pollution, deforestation have all precipitated in recent times, and a further increase in human population, projected to reach 10 billion in the coming decades, will only end up exacerbating the precarious balance of life on Earth.
While the book doesn't offer any conclusive solution to tackle overpopulation and climate change, it's not without its flaws either. Emmott could have done well if he had stayed away from taking an undue alarmist approach to the polemic; and as grim as the situation may seem, there wasn't a need to resort to sweeping generalizations and exaggerations to base his assertions.
In fact, The Guardian's Chris Goodall in his review of the book refutes Emmott's basic premise about overpopulation:
Despite Emmott's assertions to the contrary, population growth has been slowing steadily since the 1960's. The number of people in the world is increasing by about 1% a year and the slowdown will almost certainly continue. This is never mentioned, let alone discussed by Emmott. Reasonable 2050 predictions are almost all in the 9 to 10 billion range, with most people seeing declines after that date but he tells us that we might actually see 28 billion by 2100. Does he have an argument why his number could be right? No, he just asserts it.
"We need to consume less. A lot less. Less food, less energy, less stuff. Fewer cars, electric cars, cotton t-shirts, laptops, mobile-phone upgrades. Far fewer. Yet, every decade, global consumption continues to increase relentlessly," writes the author towards the end. While this may be the case, but despite agreeing with the basic conclusion mentioned above, Emmott doesn't back up his statements with enough data. For a book about science, let alone a one about climate change, this is a big resounding NO!
Comments
Post a Comment