LOSS OF FARM LAND DUE TO OVERPOPULATION

In a recent edition of the Wall Street Journal, I noticed an article entitled "Fewer Farms to Feed Local Appetite." This article explored the loss of farm land in the Bay Area. In recent years, much of the Bay Area has lost large tracts of farmland in order to accommodate the ever increasing need for housing brought on by the growing population.

According to this article, between 2000 and 2008, Alameda County lost more than 12000 acres of farmland, 6% of its total available. In Santa Clara County, farm acreage dropped more than 5% between 2005 and 2008. Farm acreage in Contra Costa and San Mateo Counties has also declined. A 2008 study by SAGE, Sustainable Agricultural Education, a non profit group dedicated to sustainable local farming, revealed that 22% of Bay Area land was used for urban development between 1990 and 2004 occurred on high quality farm land.

According to Sibella Kraus, president of SAGE, the demand for local food is rising, but the state and local governments have not created incentives to prevent farmland loss. According to Gregory Gee, assistant agricultural commissioner in Alameda County, farmers blame the loss of farmland on developers whose primary interest is the revenue generated by new home sales.

To generate support for local farming, officials from San Francisco’s parks and health departments have been advocating for the establishment of urban gardens within small city lots. Alemany Farm is an excellent example of San Francisco’s urban farm movement. In 2005, Mr. Antonio Roman-Alcala established Alemany Farm. This farm is located adjacent to the 280 freeway and serves Alameda counties residents.

Local farms are also important to the environmental health because they bring consumers closer to the food they purchase. Local farming negates the need to import food from areas that are many miles from where the food is consumed. The practice of shipping food long distances is environmentally unsound as it taxes natural resources and produces harmful fumes from the use of petroleum products necessary for transport. Shipping food is unnecessary. For example, many California based grocery stores offer apples from Washington. This is an unnecessary practice as California has a climate conducive to growing apples.

Locally grown food is also important to our physical health. I have often heard people lament that they don’t eat vegetables because they taste bitter. I agree, vegetables are bitter when picked before they are unripe or grown too an excessive size, practices that are necessary to prevent bruising when shipped. I remember my first home grown, sun ripened tomato. I was shocked to discover that tomatoes are in fact neither mealy nor bland, but rather sweet and delicious. Shipping food from far off places is unproductive and unnecessary.

Long ago, I abandoned my local mega mart. Instead, I make it a practice to patronize my local farmer’s market. I recognize that many farmers markets are not open year round, especially those in rural areas. In those instances, I choose seasonal, locally grown produce from my local natural food store.

The loss of useable farmland is not specific to the Bay Area, rather it is becoming an epidemic, especially in industrialized nations. It is just one of the many consequences of over population by humans. I have done my part to reduce our over population problems by declining to have children, and by purchasing locally grown, humanely raised, organic produce and animal products. I urge my fellow humans to find ways that they can contribute to the health of planet on which we all depend on for life.

References

Scheck, J. Fewer Farms to Feed Local Appetite. (2010, March 11). The Washington Post, p. A11A.

ECOLOGICAL CONSERVATION: WHY HUMANS NEED TO PRACTICE POPULATION CONTROL

As a student of social work, I was recently assigned the task of describing how my life passion is connected to social work. My first thoughts were: social workers advocate for change, but I am not a social worker and I do not know how to effect change. But after some reflection, I realized that I was mistaken. First, I realized that I am a social worker, but not in the usual sense. Rather than advocate for people as many social workers do, I prefer to advocate for the welfare of non-human animals. Advocating for change has, until recently, been something that I felt I did not know how to do. I recently discovered that advocacy is best done through education and example. After some reflection, I realized that I have been advocating for change for a long time. But the work of advocacy is never ending. So, in an effort to be the best social worker I can be, I am going to take this opportunity to effect change by offering information about a topic that I am passionate about, ecological conservation. In this and future writings I will also offer suggestions for behavioral change that can be made to reduce ecological destruction. I this writing, I will discuss the subject of human population control. I recognize that this is a sensitive topic. It is not my intention to offend or ridicule the reader. I ask only that each reader take what is true for him or her and leave the rest for future consideration.

My job, my life purpose, is to educate humans about the connection among all life forms. Some people can be anthropocentric and believe that they are superior to other beings. Some people also believe that overutilization of the earth’s resources through overpopulation will have no detrimental effect on human survival and the survival of other living things. The human impulse to procreate without considering the long-term consequences is an example of the error of this thinking.

According to Weissman (2007), through overpopulation, humans will deplete the earth’s resources and ultimately destroy the human race. Unfortunately, according to Weissman, other animals will be destroyed as well. However, some animal and plant species will survive and the earth will heal itself once humans are no longer present. But overpopulation can be reversed. In his book, “The World Without Us”, Weissman refers to the work of Dr. Sergei Scherbov, group leader of the Vienna Institute of Demography of the Austrian Academy of Sciences and analyst for the World Population Program. Dr. Scherbov states that by reducing family size to one child per family, the destruction of the environment as caused by overpopulation can be halted and subsequently reversed. According to Mr. Weissman, the world population grew to 6.5 billion in 2007. If we continue along this path, assuming that each woman has 2.6 births in her lifetime, world population will reach 9 billion by the middle of the twenty-first century. However, if we reduce our population to one child per person per lifetime, we can drastically decrease human population by one billion people in the same amount of time.

I recognize that there are many people who want more than one child. I respect this personal preference. However, I suggest that each person desiring to have more than one child consider adopting one of the many children who are in need of a loving parent, rather than add to the overpopulation problem.

REFERENCES

Weisman, A. (2007). The World Without Us. New York: St. Martin's Press.