• Question: Can we look forward to sustainably supporting a stable human population on this planet, and how can we protect biodiversity at the same time?

    Asked by anon-220971 on 19 Jun 2019.
    • Photo: Marianne King

      Marianne King answered on 19 Jun 2019:


      This is a hard question. 🙂 I think sustainably supporting humans on this planet will be very hard but I hope one day we can manage it. Whenever a solution seems to be available there’s suddenly another problem with that solution! We get told we should eat less meat to try and reduce our carbon footprint and save animals, so we turn to meat substitutes that are made with soya beans. But soya bean production can be hugely harmful for the environment as it has to grow somewhere, the same way that cows have to live somewhere. Both cause deforestation and loss of habitat for lots of animals, which is bad for biodiversity. Lots of vegetarian products that we eat to try and reduce our harm to animals also contain palm oil, the production of which also leads to deforestation and loss of habitat. It’s hard to know what the right thing is sometimes. Do you have any ideas about how we might achieve this? 🙂

    • Photo: Kaitlin Wade

      Kaitlin Wade answered on 19 Jun 2019:


      Yes – totally. But it will be challenging. We need better, more efficient and quicker ways to grow everything that the human population need whilst maintaining natural biodiversity.

    • Photo: Kate Timms

      Kate Timms answered on 19 Jun 2019:


      I definitely think it’s possible, but it would require a lot of work and changing culture.We would have to learn to have less luxuries and modify our diets.Like Marianne said, we need to eat a lot less meat. Though it doesn’t sound appetising, I think that turning to insects as a protein source will probably have to be the way forward.
      Ultimately, the only way to save the planet is to drastically reduce population growth and ensure that wild spaces remain wild. It would be impractical and unethical to introduce things like China’s one child policy, but there needs to be a change in culture which favours smaller family sizes. There are simply far too many of us for the earth to support. Especially if we want to protect biodiversity and the wonderful, amazing world we live in.

    • Photo: Nina Rzechorzek

      Nina Rzechorzek answered on 19 Jun 2019:


      I suspect that ultimately we will outgrow this planet and need to look further afield to expand our species. Not that I think we necessarily should, it’s just in our nature to do so. I wouldn’t want to see any global policies on how many children families can have, but I sometimes wonder if we could end up living in larger social groups that share the rearing of a smaller number of children. Might be quite cool to grow up with 10 parents instead of 2, but the delegation of household chores might get stressful!

    • Photo: Alex Blenkinsop

      Alex Blenkinsop answered on 20 Jun 2019:


      I hope so. There are lots of scientists researching organic farming methods to maximise crop yields using natural fertilisers etc. to encourage sustainable and environmentally friendly ways of ensuring we produce enough food to sustain the growing population of the world. Trying to do this on a large scale is challenging, so we need global governance (rules that affect every country) to get everyone on the same side of protecting biodiversity.

    • Photo: Thiloka Ratnaike

      Thiloka Ratnaike answered on 20 Jun 2019:


      This is a top question, I think we have to believe that an environmentally-friendly sustainable future is possible for our growing human population in order for it to happen. I listen to various programs on BBC radio 4 which give glimpses into the type of research scientists are doing in order to explore how to achieve this end goal- things like creating tiny batteries that harness solar power which houses can be made of! Of course building things like batteries also require natural resources which can harm biodiversity at some level, but if we have people like you interested in this question then we are one step closer to getting to a better future!

    • Photo: Shobhana Nagraj

      Shobhana Nagraj answered on 20 Jun 2019:


      I think that this is possible, and arguably should be the focus of a lot more scientific research to ensure that we have cost-effective ways of sustainable living for an increasing human population. In the animal kingdom, most animals only kill as much as they need to eat, whereas humans kill a lot more than is required to survive. Ensuring sustainability of our planet, would require humans to be more conscious of their ‘needs’ versus their ‘wants’, and to manage their wants ie: making sure we do not take more than is needed from the planet, whilst ensuring that what we take is supported to grow again eg: planting trees for every tree that is chopped down, not wasting water, using renewable energy sources and cutting down on meat consumption. There are ways science is being used to support this – such as developing meat that doesn’t require animals being killed (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lab-grown-meat/) and designing of electric cars to reduce fossil fuel emissions, and work on renewable energy sources read more about this here: http://energy.mit.edu/area/renewable-energy/ There are exciting times ahead!

    • Photo: Matthew Bareford

      Matthew Bareford answered on 21 Jun 2019:


      Much as has already been said by the other answers to this question, It is something that I personally hope that we will be able to achieve…. but it will take time and investment.

      I think certain parts of populations will probably adopt methods much more quickly than others and this will help to protect biodiversity in the shorter term, as the methods would not be universal to begin with. The effects on biodiversity could then be monitored and thus give an idea about what would be needed to help protect it.

      Unfortunately cost and investment play a part in all of this and with the factor of time, how much might be lost in the interim is another matter entirely…

Comments