Understanding Population Growth and Decline

Exploring the Ethical, Social, and Environmental Consequences of Population Reduction

Note: This essay was prepared with the research assistance and ghostwriting of ChatGPT 4.0, who contributed slightly to the development of the ideas herein.

Friend's Views on Population Reduction

I have a friend who routinely sends me articles on population reduction. He feels that we need to cut our population from 8 billion to 4 billion. Why that number? I don't know. It seems arbitrary to me. In any case, I routinely send him articles outlining the other side—that with the kind of aging populations we have, we might be coming to a situation where they all have nobody to support them.

Uncertainty in Prediction and Scientific Evidence

When it comes to analyzing real-world situations, we are often dealing with predictions, and these predictions are fraught with uncertainty. Even scientific evidence, which is typically seen as more reliable, is subject to uncertainties. Predictions based on such evidence might be supported by strong data, but there will always be naysayers challenging the quality of the research or its interpretation. This is simply how science works—it is a probabilistic process at best, marked by frequent paradigm shifts, both big and small. While Kuhn emphasized the major paradigm shifts, smaller, more frequent shifts in understanding are also common in scientific inquiry.

The Uncertainty of Demographic Science

Many of these issues are grounded in demographics, which is a dismal science, much like economics, if not worse. I wrote an essay on this earlier today, discussing the failure of predictive science. Population projections are based on predictive models, and their consequences often rely on environmental and sociological concerns that are inherently uncertain. These projections are not as solid as some might believe—they’re quite speculative and unreliable in many respects.

Ideological Biases and Justification

Finally, we need to analyze the different methods proposed, considering what good they might do, what harm they might cause, their costs, and how they might benefit us. Unfortunately, this kind of analysis is rarely done well. Often, people approach these issues from an ideological standpoint, and their biases influence their conclusions. They tend to justify their choices as being the correct ones and might even dismiss others as ignorant for not agreeing. This is all apart from the issue of competing values, which further complicates the discussion.

Arrogance and Dogmatism in Population Reduction Advocacy

There is also an element of arrogance and dogmatism in making these recommendations. Proponents often assume their views are correct without sufficiently considering the possibility that they might be wrong. This lack of humility undermines the credibility of their arguments and prevents them from engaging in a more nuanced debate.

Values vs. Facts: The Role of Logic and Consistency

It's essential to distinguish between values and what is happening in the world. Values cannot be cogently argued—they are subjective and vary between individuals. While we may agree or disagree with another person’s values, there is no objective basis for declaring one set of values superior to another outside the context of our own value system. The most we can argue for is logical consistency, often expressed through Kantian ideas like the categorical imperative. But this is purely about ensuring internal consistency within a given set of values, not about proving any one value system to be inherently better than another.

Evaluating Evidence and Values

So, what do we make of all this? While we can examine the evidence, critique it, or choose to accept or reject it, each of these actions has implications. If we accept the evidence, it will have consequences, but if we reject it, there are no real implications beyond recognizing that it is not proven. Moreover, if a theory or claim is not falsifiable, as Popper suggested, it has no utility in advancing scientific knowledge. Ultimately, the question of values arises—what we value cannot be logically argued, as values themselves are not subject to empirical proof or disproof.

Population Reduction as an Issue of Values

Thinking about this a little more systematically, I decided it's an issue of values, threats and opportunities, costs and benefits, as are most things in the world. That's an analyst’s perspective. And also, it occurred to me that values are paramount, and I am a humanist, a lapsed Christian, let's say.

Humanist and Christian Perspectives

I think the humanist perspective and the Christian perspective, particularly the Old Testament Christian perspective, are quite specieist. That is, placing more importance on the well-being of human beings than the well-being of other species. So, that's a value. It's neither something that can be proven or disproven as it's a value.

Balancing Human and Non-Human Concerns

This viewpoint does not imply a lack of concern for non-human beings. Rather, the primary focus is on humanity. A humanist might regret the suffering of species just as an omnivore with a conscience might feel guilty about eating meat. Recognizing that animals have consciousness, emotions, and non-linguistic thoughts can weigh on one’s mind. Still, a humanist or specieist might prioritize human welfare above the welfare of animals, seeing it as a pragmatic stance rather than an ethical failing.

Humanism and Concern for Other Species

If you’re a humanist like me, you prioritize human well-being over other species. However, this does not mean you ignore the well-being of non-human species. As a humanist, you may still be concerned with the survival of other species, especially from a pragmatic viewpoint. For example, losing fish stocks or polluting the air would have direct negative consequences for humanity. Therefore, it becomes imperative from a humanistic perspective to preserve the environment, protect fish stocks, prevent pollution, and address environmental degradation, pesticides, or species loss—since these factors ultimately impact human survival and well-being.

Embracing Speciesism

I'm a speciesist, I admit it. I also self-identify as a humanist, and a omnivore, and a wombat. Scratch the wombat, it's not true. In any case, looking at speciesism, to me it means I value the well-being of humans over the well-being of species other than human. I guess that's an issue of values, isn't it?

Specieism in Other Cultures and Religions

Other cultures, other religions, would have different perspectives. I suspect most of them are specieist. Some, such as the Jains, are probably not. The Buddhists? Not sure. Probably. The Hindus? Probably not. Buddhists, I meant, probably not. Specieist.

Speciism in Political Movements

Libertarians I have no idea about; are they specieists? Libertarianism is not formally a religion, though it has some of those characteristics, as do all political movements.

Specieism Among Right-Wing Conservatives

Right-wing conservatives? Generally specieist, except it's curious that a lot of the arch-conservationists come from right-wing perspectives. So, a mixed bag there.

Considering Conscience in Animals

I suspect that we're the only animal that can be considered as speciesist, or humanist, or any other-ist. The only animal with developed conscience, although it may be that some other animals do have a rudimentary conscience. Not so sure. Dogs appear to seem to feel guilty anyway. Cats? Nah, that's another story, unless I'm misreading them.

Specieism as a Slur

I also think that the term "specieist" functions as a slur. It’s not a value-free or objective term but is often used to make people feel guilty for holding the perspective that human lives have more value than the lives of animals. Specieism, in this context, is more of a moral accusation rather than a neutral description, implying that prioritizing humans over animals is inherently wrong.

Balancing Omnivory and Conscience

So, humanist? Yes. Speciesist? Yes. Mea culpa. Also an omnivore. I do have a conscience, sometimes too much conscience, I think, but I still eat meat. Feel guilty about it, of course, but I still eat it. So, anyone who isn't a speciesist is probably somewhat unhinged. Or a vegan, or a vegetarian, or a philosopher. Oh, I repeat myself, don't I? OK, kidding aside, there are some problems. But, I'm still a speciesist.

The Natural Cycle of Species

It is an incontrovertible fact that species arise and they die, emerge into some other species, evolve, let's say, and may reach a dead end. Reach a dead end or may persist for the millennia. We have examples of each in the fossil record, in the living record.

Species Extinction and Environmental Degradation

We are experiencing a high rate of species extinction, one that rivals past extinction events, such as the Younger Dryas or other catastrophic impacts. This is affecting not just large animals but also smaller species, not necessarily mammals. This level of extinction seems unprecedented in modern times. Yet, there are people—particularly on the right—who deny this, claiming that everything is just fine. I believe they are cherry-picking their evidence and ignoring the environmental degradation and species loss occurring around us. We know that species extinction has happened throughout history, even in recorded times, and it continues today. Without buying into alarmist climate change predictions, I still recognize the issues of resource depletion, species extinction, and loss of biodiversity. These problems affect not just humanity but other species as well, and from my perspective, that is a very tragic outcome.

Need for Deeper Exploration

However, I thought I needed to explore these issues a little more deeply and see if I could make sense of it all.

Facts or Interpretations

I acknowledge that much of this is opinion, speculative, based upon disputed evidence, evidence of varying quality, disputed as to its soundness by many, disputed as to its interpretation by others. So you cannot make those blanket assertions as though you know things to be fact, when in fact they are in doubt. We're into Nietzschean territory here with no facts, but interpretations.

Population Growth and the Standard of Living

In university, I read a paper or two on population growth and reduction, and the claim was made that as the standard of living of societies improved, growths declined. As I remember it, the argument was basically in pre-industrial societies, people have no reliable means of birth control. I'll caveat that with there probably were herbal products that were known to the women who were members of the tribe. But in any case, people would have large families because many children, a high percentage of children would die in infancy.

The Role of Children in Primitive Societies

And in primitive societies, you needed children to take care of you in your old age, which might not be that old by today's standards, depending on the area we're talking about. There's some evidence that Cro-Magnon peoples lived to a ripe old age, and the farming peoples lived not nearly as long. In any case, you needed people to take care of the farm and take care of you when you aged. And you didn't have much choice with the caveat that maybe there were some primitive abortions, and there were some maybe primitive contraceptive methods. I'm not sure. Abstinence, I suppose, would be one. But generally, you wanted children. Couples wanted children.

Reasons for Large Families in Less Developed Regions

Earlier in this chat, I discussed the reasons why couples would choose to have more children, particularly in less developed regions and in almost all agrarian or hunter-gatherer societies. These reasons have been well-documented by anthropologists and sociologists. The need for larger families often stems from the necessity for labor, the lack of social security systems, and high child mortality rates, which drive families to have more children as a form of economic security and to ensure that some children survive into adulthood.

Scholarly Discussions on Family Size

The reasons for larger families have been extensively explored by anthropologists and other scholars over the years. Although I cannot recall the specific readings I encountered, this has been a topic of discussion for decades. Numerous scholarly works explore how cultural, economic, and environmental factors influence family size in different societies. Providing readings on this topic would enhance understanding.

Religious Strictures on Birth Control

There are religious prohibitions against birth control in at least one religion that I am aware of, and possibly many others. This has a significant impact on family size. However, it’s important not to focus on only a few major religions, as the world is home to over a hundred major religions and countless sects, not to mention individual interpretations, which are as numerous as the world's population. Understanding the variety of religious perspectives on birth control is crucial to a broader discussion on population dynamics.

Decline in Family Size with Improved Living Standards

As the standard of living improved, people didn't have such a strong imperative for children. As sanitation and health improved, fewer children died. Still a lot of children died. A lot of mothers died in childbirth. But overall, it became less of an imperative to have a large family, to take care of you in your old age, and to replace the children that had died. And then people developed improved methods of contraception. People developed more and more methods for birth control. Roman Catholics and other religions disapproved.

Impact of the Birth Control Pill and Global Trends

Then science invented the pill. Things really took a change. Then you have Chinese one-child policy, which actually proved to be disastrous in some ways. So as societies get wealthier, and technology improves, rates of population growth decline. And that's true throughout the world. We can see these trends. Demographers have seen these trends. It's quite clearly been shown that as people move from agrarian to higher-level industrial societies, populations decline. And it's happening worldwide.

The Source of the "Four Billion" Population Figure

I am curious about the origin of my friend’s figure of four billion as a target for global population reduction. Is this number a commonly cited figure among depopulation advocates? Where did this idea come from, and what rationale, if any, is used to support this specific number?

Suspect Numbers and Population Reduction Targets

For instance, if I meet someone who suggests that the global population should be reduced from eight billion to four billion, that figure itself is highly suspect. It seems like an arbitrary number, pulled from an unreliable source. There is no solid scientific basis for that number—it’s at best a guesstimate. Even if we accept this target as reasonable, we still need to discuss the associated costs and benefits, the threats and opportunities, and the methods for achieving it. Each method will come with its own set of threats, opportunities, costs, and benefits, and the effectiveness of each must be evaluated.

Consequences of Population Decrease

So, when we look at the consequences of population decrease, we need to consider the impacts and how it would be achieved. And the impacts could be horrendous, depending on how it's accomplished. It could be a giant plague. It could be nuclear war. It could be an life-ending cometary impact. Maybe super volcanoes. It could be man-caused. It could be the Chinese one-child policy. All of these have consequences. And you may argue that there are benefits. You may argue that there are more costs than benefits. It depends on your values.

The Challenge of Population Decline

Part of the topic has to do with the rate of population decline, if indeed population decline is happening, and it is, according to numerous studies, at least in the developed countries, and maybe less so in other countries. I guess demographics is a pretty dismal science, ranking next to economics, but demographers attempt to make predictions, so there are probably predictions around rate, population growth, and decline.

Catastrophic Collapse vs. Gradual Decline

And the question is, what rate do we need? What time frame are we looking at? It's quite clear that catastrophic collapse would mean immense suffering. There's no other way in which we could have catastrophic collapse. So, gradual decline through various social measures might be an option, but is this rate sufficient to satisfy the doomsayers around population?

Thought Experiment on Population Reduction

Assuming, for the sake of argument and as part of a thought experiment, that a reduction to four billion is the target population, we must consider the costs and benefits of this proposal. What would be the consequences of such a reduction? How could it be achieved without incurring significant social costs? We would need to evaluate the effects on the economy, the care for the elderly, and other aspects of society, both in industrialized and non-industrialized countries. In truth, many industrialized nations are not experiencing population growth through natural birth replacement. As I understand it, they are operating below the natural replacement rate, which further complicates any conversation about population reduction.

Environmental Impacts Beyond Humanity

I believe there are other significant negative impacts on the world, apart from those directly caused by humanity, that could affect us in the medium term. We are, in a sense, fouling our nests—polluting and depleting resources. Those on the right who claim that technology will solve all our problems, in my view, are misguided. To put it bluntly, I think their thinking is unsound. Resource depletion and pollution are real issues, and we are continuing to exacerbate them by failing to address these concerns meaningfully.

Bjorn Lomborg and Non-Alarmist Perspectives

One of the more prominent authors in the non-alarmist camp is Bjorn Lomborg, a Scandinavian academic widely regarded as an opponent of mainstream environmentalism. Those on the left often view him as the enemy because of his more conservative stance on environmental issues.

Interpreting Current Trends and Consequences of Inaction

We need to examine current trends and the proposed courses of action, considering how to identify error. The key is to predict the effects of different actions, as well as the consequences of inaction. If we agree on fundamental values, we can work from that position. However, if we have a fundamental disagreement on values, we may be working at cross purposes, unable to find common ground in our approach to analyzing trends or taking action.

Critique of Population Reduction Proposals

I would say that any proposal suggesting we need to reduce the global population to four billion is based on sloppy thinking. It lacks a clear understanding of costs and benefits, threats and opportunities, and the ultimate impacts. These proposals are built on one particular set of values, which may not align with the values held by others. Even if we conduct a thought experiment and assume that the values advocating for population reduction are sound, we still need to confront the practical issues—how this reduction would be achieved and its broader consequences.

The Ethics of Population Reduction

When it comes to population reduction, even if it were deemed desirable, the practical challenges are immense. I have no clear idea how we could achieve this without causing widespread, and I would argue unnecessary, suffering. Furthermore, I’m not sure what a rational target population would even be. However, I am aware that some movements, particularly among the wealthy elite, include eugenicists who believe their own circles are more important than the general population. This is not just speculation; it’s backed by their own writings. It’s likely that some of these individuals are ethically blind and willing to go to great lengths to achieve depopulation, whether through ethical or unethical means.

Ethical and Practical Considerations

Ethics, costs, benefits, threats, opportunities, and consequences all come into play when discussing such drastic measures. I strongly suspect that advocates for population reduction have not fully considered these factors. At best, they have looked at partial issues or isolated parts of the equation without understanding the broader context in which their proposals would operate.

Workable and Ethical Proposals for Population Reduction

I’m curious about what practical and ethically sound proposals have been suggested to reduce population. There must be a range of proposals, some of which are ethically questionable, while others may be more ethically adjusted. It would be helpful to distinguish between these types of proposals and examine which ones could be implemented without significant moral or social cost.

The Push for Immigration as a Population Solution

There is a strong thread, particularly in Canada, the U.S., and Europe, that suggests we need to increase population through immigration. This is seen as a solution to address the social impacts of an aging population—those retiring or passing away. Since these regions are not at replacement-level birth rates, immigration is viewed as necessary. However, this influx of immigration seems, in my view, quite uncontrolled. I suspect that economists, demographers, and others forecasting population catastrophes due to reduced population growth have had the ascendancy in driving these policies.

Concentration of Population in Canada

The argument is sometimes heard, particularly from right-wing commentators, that the U.S. and Canada are huge countries with untapped resources and that most people don’t live in most places. In fact, in Canada, the population is concentrated along a fairly narrow band near the U.S. border. This argument overlooks a significant reality: most of Canada is shield country, which is not particularly habitable. There is not much good farmland, the climate is not ideal, and it is a northern country. The farther north you go, the worse the climate becomes for growing crops.

Climate and Agriculture in the North

A compensating factor in northern regions is that the days last longer during the summer, which offers some benefit for agriculture. However, even with extended daylight hours, the overall climate remains cold, with short growing seasons. For the most part, this northern wilderness remains sparsely populated. Miners, loggers, a few trappers, and some Indigenous communities live there, but in general, people have settled in prime areas where building is easier, the land is flat, and the farmland is more fertile. Consequently, the claim that Canada is a vast, underpopulated country is misleading and hollow.

Geographical Limitations: Mountain Ranges

A significant percentage of both Canada and the U.S. is dominated by mountain ranges. These include the Cascades, the Rockies, the Selkirks, and the Purcells, among others. All of these are part of the great chain of mountains that stretches from the far north to the southern extremes, forming a key section of the Ring of Fire. Because of the rugged terrain, these areas are not suitable for large-scale human settlement; they are marginal lands.

Desert and Dry Lands

In the U.S., a considerable portion of land is desert. While this is less true for Canada, there are dry lands, though no true deserts exist. The best example of a semi-desert in Canada is found near the Osoyoos region. Although these areas are not entirely uninhabitable, they are far from being optimal for widespread agricultural or urban development.

Bibliography

Bongaarts, J. (2001). Fertility and reproductive preferences in post-transitional societies. Population and Development Review, 27(Supplement), 260-281. https://knowledgecommons.popcouncil.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1258&context=departments_sbsr-pgy
• Author Note: John Bongaarts is a distinguished demographer known for his work on fertility, reproductive health, and population dynamics.
• Reading Note: Bongaarts explores fertility trends in post-transitional societies, comparing them to pre-industrial contexts where large families were necessary for survival and economic productivity. He examines why family sizes tend to shrink as societies develop.

Boserup, E. (1965). The conditions of agricultural growth: The economics of agrarian change under population pressure. Allen & Unwin. https://www.biw.kuleuven.be/aee/clo/idessa_files/boserup1965.pdf
• Author Note: Ester Boserup was an influential economist and demographer who argued that population pressure could drive agricultural innovation.
• Reading Note: This seminal work discusses how population growth can lead to increased agricultural output in subsistence economies, linking larger families to economic survival strategies.

Brown, L. R. (2011). World on the edge: How to prevent environmental and economic collapse. W.W. Norton & Company. https://www.amazon.ca/World-Edge-Environmental-Economic-Collapse/dp/0393339491
• Author Note: Lester R. Brown is a prominent environmentalist and founder of the Worldwatch Institute and the Earth Policy Institute.
• Reading Note: Brown examines resource depletion and environmental degradation, proposing changes in human practices to avoid future collapse. His work emphasizes sustainability, though some aspects of the evidence remain debated.

Caldwell, J. C. (1976). Toward a restatement of demographic transition theory. https://u.demog.berkeley.edu/~jrw/Biblio/Eprints/%20A-C/caldwell.1976.PDR.transition.theory.pdfPopulation and Development Review, 2(3/4), 321-366.
• Author Note: John C. Caldwell was a renowned demographer whose work on the demographic transition theory had a profound influence on understanding population dynamics.
• Reading Note: Caldwell discusses how economic and social structures shape family size, particularly in pre-industrial societies where large families serve both economic and social purposes.

Chapple, C. K. (2006). Jainism and ecology: Nonviolence in the web of life. Harvard University Press. https://books.google.com/books/about/Jainism_and_Ecology.html?id=abLZNdYxay8C
• Author Note: Christopher K. Chapple is a scholar of comparative religion, with a focus on South Asian religions and environmentalism.
• Reading Note: Chapple explores Jainism’s principle of nonviolence, offering a critique of speciist views. This work presents an alternative perspective on biodiversity conservation, emphasizing non-human life.

Davis, K. (1951). The population of India and Pakistan. Princeton University Press. https://archive.org/details/dli.ernet.239863
• Author Note: Kingsley Davis was a sociologist and demographer who contributed significantly to studies on population and social structure.
• Reading Note: Davis examines the economic, religious, and cultural factors that lead to large family sizes in rural South Asia, where children provide essential labor and social security.

Eberstadt, N. (2019). With Great Demographics Comes Great Power: Why Population Will Drive Geopolitics, Foreign Affairs. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2019-06-11/great-demographics-comes-great-power
• Author Note: Nicholas Eberstadt is a political economist and demographer at the American Enterprise Institute, specializing in population studies.
• Reading Note: Eberstadt explores the economic and social impacts of population decline, particularly in developed nations. His predictions are based on contested demographic data and interpretations.

Goody, J. (1976). Production and reproduction: A comparative study of the domestic domain. Cambridge University Press. https://books.google.com/books/about/Production_and_Reproduction.html?id=xmUpNLeGo8sC
• Author Note: Jack Goody was a social anthropologist known for his work on family structure and kinship systems.
• Reading Note: Goody’s work examines the relationship between subsistence patterns, inheritance systems, and family size, offering a comparative study of pre-industrial societies.

Harris, M. (1977). Cannibals and kings: The origins of cultures. Random House. https://www.amazon.ca/Cannibals-Kings-Cultures-Marvin-Harris/dp/067972849X
• Author Note: Marvin Harris was a leading anthropologist and the founder of the cultural materialist approach.
• Reading Note: Harris discusses how environmental and economic pressures shape cultural practices, including reproductive strategies. He argues that larger family sizes in agrarian societies are responses to ecological needs.

Howell, N. (1979). Demography of the Dobe !Kung. Academic Press. https://www.amazon.ca/Demography-Dobe-Kung-Nancy-Howell/dp/0202306496
• Author Note: Nancy Howell is a demographer and anthropologist with extensive fieldwork among the !Kung San of Botswana.
• Reading Note: Howell provides an in-depth demographic study of the !Kung San, analyzing how family size, child survival, and subsistence strategies are interrelated in a challenging environment.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press. https://www.lri.fr/~mbl/Stanford/CS477/papers/Kuhn-SSR-2ndEd.pdf
• Author Note: Thomas Kuhn was a philosopher of science, best known for introducing the concept of paradigm shifts.
• Reading Note: Kuhn explores how scientific paradigms change when challenged by anomalies, underscoring the uncertainty and evolving nature of scientific knowledge.

Lomborg, B. (2001). The skeptical environmentalist: Measuring the real state of the world. Cambridge University Press. https://www.amazon.ca/Skeptical-Environmentalist-Measuring-State-World/dp/0521010683
• Author Note: Bjorn Lomborg is a political scientist and economist known for his contrarian views on environmental issues.
• Reading Note: Lomborg critiques environmental alarmism and advocates for a cost-benefit analysis approach to addressing environmental challenges. His work is often seen as a counterpoint to more catastrophic predictions.

Malthus, T. R. (1798). An essay on the principle of population. J. Johnson. https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/malthus-an-essay-on-the-principle-of-population-1798-1st-ed
• Author Note: Thomas Malthus was an English economist and demographer, best known for his theory on population growth outpacing resources.
• Reading Note: Malthus’s work, although often criticized for its pessimism, laid the foundation for later discussions on the relationship between population growth and resource availability.

Popper, K. (2002). The logic of scientific discovery. Routledge Classics. https://www.routledge.com/The-Logic-of-Scientific-Discovery/Popper-Popper/p/book/9780415278447?srsltid=AfmBOooQBt_lgHQf-Pi-5Eg75CJKSzAMad4uor5pJRTbuDFdEg8Sqow0
• Author Note: Karl Popper was a philosopher of science, famous for his contributions to the philosophy of scientific falsifiability.
• Reading Note: Popper argues that for scientific theories to be meaningful, they must be open to falsification. This work critiques theories that cannot be disproven and emphasizes scientific rigor.

Sahlins, M. (1972). Stone age economics. Aldine-Atherton. https://files.libcom.org/files/Sahlins%20-%20Stone%20Age%20Economics.pdf
• Author Note: Marshall Sahlins was a cultural anthropologist whose work on hunter-gatherer societies challenged conventional economic theories.
• Reading Note: Sahlins argues that hunter-gatherer societies were not impoverished but had developed a form of “affluent” subsistence, where larger family sizes contributed to economic stability in subsistence economies.

Tattersall, I. (2002). The fossil trail: How we know what we think we know about human evolution. Oxford University Press. https://www.amazon.ca/Fossil-Trail-Think-About-Evolution/dp/0195367669
• Author Note: Ian Tattersall is a prominent paleoanthropologist known for his work on human evolution.
• Reading Note: Tattersall explores the fossil evidence for human evolution, comparing past extinctions to current trends in species loss. He acknowledges the uncertainty in interpreting fossil records.

Wilson, E. O. (2002). The future of life. Knopf. https://www.amazon.ca/Future-Life-Edward-Wilson/dp/0679450785
• Author Note: Edward O. Wilson was a biologist and conservationist, known for his work on biodiversity and sociobiology.
• Reading Note: Wilson discusses biodiversity loss and environmental degradation, presenting evidence for the unsustainability of relying solely on technological solutions to solve environmental problems.