The 7 Billion Mark - what does it mean?

I have been dragging my feet on writing this post since last week.  I knew I wanted to write about the population milestone we just past of 7 billion humans on planet Earth, but I wasn't sure of where I wanted to go with it.  To begin with, 7 billion is a number that is very difficult to get your head around.  To help bring some meaning to that number, I did a little number crunching.  If all 7+ billion of us joined hands and could  do so around the equator (oceans not withstanding) we would encircle the earth around 160 times! I'm happy to share the numbers, if anyone is interested.  That is a startling fact, at least to me.  So what are the implications?  As a ecologist, I am immediately drawn to the concept of carrying capacity.  Carrying capacity is the measurement of the biomass (living stuff) that a given ecosystem can sustain/hold.  What is the carrying capacity of the Earth?  Some have attempted to address this question by use of computer models (ex: World2 and later World3).  But I think there are some key observations that we can make without the aid of such models.

1. The human population is concentrated in cities.  This in turn concentrates consumption and waste production in these areas.
2. Population growth is near flat in Europe and N. America and increasing more rapidly in areas least able to sustain it (lack of clean water, proper sanitation and food supply).
3. Humans have transformed the ecosystems of the planet in ways no other animal ever could (ex: only 2% of rivers in the US still flow unimpeded to the sea. - Abromovitz, 1996, "Imperiled Waters, Impoverished Future: The Decline of Freshwater Ecosystems")

So the question is, what do we do?

If continue on our current path, nature will change and make adjustments, as it always does.  The trouble is that the changes may not be ones that are favorable to humans.  We have already scene in highly impoverished areas that we have alarmingly high infant mortality rates and shorter life expectancies.  These are signs that in these areas we have exceed the environmental and economic carry capacity and the human population is paying the price.

But the impacts are not limited to developing nations.  The way of life we have grown accustom to here in the US will change (is changing already in some places).  Clean air and water must be assured if we are to survive and thrive.  There is a movement lead by the conservative end of the political spectrum to reduce regulation in an effort to foster economic growth.  I believe this is a very dangerous path.  In effect what is being proposed is to exchange long-term sustainable clean air and water supplies for short-term financial gains.  Effective and appropriate legislation is needed to assure the long-term needs of humanity and ecosystem Earth are balanced against short-term economic benefits.   This ties back to one of my earlier posts that tried to make the case for looking at longer term horizons when making business/investment decisions.  We know that it is far cheaper to protect and maintain a clean water supply than to have to clean it up later, if it can be cleaned up?

The  bottom line for me is that we need to change the way we live and do business such that sustainability and environmental protections are simply how we live and work, not some special cause of overlay to a business plan.