× Didn't find what you were looking for? Ask a question
Top Posters
Since Sunday
a
5
k
5
c
5
B
5
l
5
C
4
s
4
a
4
t
4
i
4
r
4
r
4
Home Q & A Board Science-Related Homework Help High School Level Science
New Topic  
Jaimie Jaimie
wrote...
Posts: 6
Rep: 0 0
10 years ago
Hello,
I have a question that I am really not sure how to answer. Could someone advise on which path to take for this answer- I am really stuck.
The question is: " If Canada’s population were to start declining in the next few years, would this automatically translate into a lower ecological footprint for the average Canadian?

My answer is no but I am not sure how to explain this. Is this a situation of Tragedy of the Commons or/and do I mention the factors that determine human carrying capacity (desired standard of living, avail. of new resources, health of the earth) and that the outcomes and interplay of the 3 are too unpredictable to know for sure how the ecological footprint would be affected?
This came from a chapter section entitled " Human Population Growth: Causes and Consequences".

Thank you so much for your help.
Read 4335 times
3 Replies

Related Topics

Replies
wrote...
#1
Educator
10 years ago
Quote from: Jaimie (10 years ago)
" If Canada’s population were to start declining in the next few years, would this automatically translate into a lower ecological footprint for the average Canadian?

Hi Jaimie, welcome Slight Smile I'm assuming you're Canadian, so are we!

A decrease in population doesn't necessarily translate into a lower ecological footprint - it usually does, but not in a first-world country. In addition, each person in every country is responsible for his own ecological footprint. How much gasoline do we use, what kind of car do we drive, how many harmful substances to we fail to recycle... this and many other examples are up to the individual. Even if your population as a country declines, each citizen is still responsible for the size of his own ecological footprint.
wrote...
#2
10 years ago
Not automatically. Canadians could still consume more per person -- drive more, go on more vacations, want bigger houses, have bigger TV sets, etc. Canadians would presumably be aging more and that would mean more driving, more medical needs, travel, etc. which would mean more than say consumption by younger children. Canadians could still produce more for export. They could end up say utilizing dirtier technologies -- say tar sands rather than hydro or nuclear.
Jaimie Author
wrote...
#3
10 years ago
Glad to be here! Thanks for the warm wishes. So glad I found this site.
So to sum up your point bio_man,  you're saying that because of what an ecological footprint is and how it is up to the individual because of various listed factors, then it may not necessarily translate into a lower eco. footprint for the ave. Canadian.
...and what vanbu is saying, is that because Canadians could still consume/want/export bigger and better things or technologies, that it may not necessarily translate into a lower eco. footprint for the ave. Canadian

So not mention of tragedy of the commons here? Just wanted to clarify, thanks!
New Topic      
Quick Reply
Explore
Post your homework questions and get free online help from our incredible volunteers
  1113 People Browsing
 102 Signed Up Today
Start New Topic Take the Tour CoursesNew Study Tools Topics Trending Browse by Textbook
Live Chat
Related Images
  
 287
  
 303
  
 178
Your Opinion
Previous poll results: How often do you eat-out per week?