I'm about to try to make an opinion for a newspaper as a Challenge for myself. Let's see our first trial.
Sustainability the Population.
main ideas :
> Why sustaining the population?
> What are Limiting factors of population growth?
> How to sustain?
> Challenges of the idea
> Conclusion : Is it sustainable?
The word "sustainable" started to be popular in terms of Global Warming issue. There are plenty campaign in sustaining thing, from , sustainable energy, sustainable transportation to sustainable development of a company. The word "sustain" means still exist or keep alive. So, sustainability is the ability for someone or something to be kept alive for a long period. In this occasion, we will discuss about sustainability of a population of human.
Fewer people discuss about sustainable population. Some readers may question it, though. It can be considered as the main reason for some problems like deforestation, criminality, food scarcity, global warming, urbanisation, unemployment, housing, overfishing etc. What does it have to do with population? It is simply by the analogy that the more population, the higher the level of consumption, while in the other hand the resources to fulfill aren't increasing with the rate of the change of population. Those problem are interconnecting and population is its main source.
But it is not simply unlimited because life itself is constrained, such as the space of living, age, food, economy, health, even by war. For example, people needs space for living, while the space itself cannot expand. The Special Province of Jogjakarta is inhabited by around 2.5 million people. Assuming that Java Island covers an area of 12 times than DI Yogyakarta, then it can only support the life of 30 million people. Suppose also we have 1% rate of population growth, so Java Island can hold up the population until at about 180 years or up to 9 generation of human. Then, how can the other than 30 million stay in Java? Not to mention unhabitable places like volcanoes, steep cliifs, lake, rivers, etc. That is the question that ignites this topic. Should the whole population occupy Java totally, then people can't grow rice because there is no place for rice fields. Then they don't have rice to eat. That is a small illustration of what unsustainable population can make impact to life.
There are many means proposed to sustain the population. Having a sustainable population doesn't always come to the terms "the rate of birth equal to the rate of death" . Due to the improvement in health science, life expectation are higher. It means the rate of death will not increasing. Then, what we can do are controlling the birth rate and distributing the population.
There are some challenges is implementing this proposal. Some people consider birth control to be sin. Some believe that it is a crime and too much interfering individual's life. Though there are some examples of inability to control birth due to the lack of education and entertainment as well as vision-to-the-future mindset. The lack of education can contribute in the poor family planning. Entertainment can put into consideration because living nights without TV or even electricity, for some people, lead to unplanned births. There is also some thought that this program puts people who gave a lot of birth as the ones to be blamed. Population distribution are faced with the culture of staying together in the same place whatever it costs, especially those who are poor. This idea is generally of disbenefit to crowded area, while in roomier areas this idea is considerably fits the situation.
After a small thorough analogy, examples and illustration, it all comes to the individuals themselves for what they want for their future. People are free to choose their choices. Whether people prefer to be sustained or unsustained. Eventually, do you agree to sustain ourselves?