CONSPICUOUS CONSUMPTION: The number of people on the planet has doubled from 3.5 billion to seven billion in just a half century. The most obvious issue with so many of us here is our profligate consumption of dwindling natural resources and the waste and pollution generated in the process. Pictured: A person surviving on waste in the Philippines.
Image: StockByte/Thinkstock
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Dear EarthTalk: The world added its seven billionth person in 2011, but the news came and went quickly. But isn’t population growth the “elephant in the room” that needs serious attention? Can you outline the major impacts of unchecked population growth and what, if anything, is being done to try to arrest it?—Aaron Rodriguez, Tucson, Ariz.
Unchecked human population growth could be a recipe for doom for the planet and its inhabitants. And it has reached staggering levels in recent years—the number of people on the planet has doubled from 3.5 billion to seven billion in just a half century. While we’ve made great strides in educating people around the world about family planning and birth control, the global fertility rate still hovers around 2.5 children per woman. At that rate, population will grow to 11 billion by 2050 and nearly 27 billion by 2100.
While such a scenario is unlikely given that fertility rates tend to decline as countries develop and modernize, the prospect of a planet with tens of billions of people on it is scary indeed. The first widely published pundit on the potential impacts of too much human population growth was Englishman Thomas Malthus, whose 1798 “An Essay on the Principle of Human Population” warned that violence, genocide, nasty weather, disease epidemics and pestilence would be precursors to widespread famine in a world with too many humans. “The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race,” he wrote.
History views Malthus as an extremist and many would argue that, despite population having swelled some seven times since his day, we have so far managed to avert a planet-wide “Malthusian catastrophe” whereby population has simply outpaced our ability to feed ourselves. Nonetheless, a 2007 UNICEF report indicated that 10.9 children under five-years-old die each year around the world, with malnutrition and other hunger-related diseases responsible for 60 percent of the tragedy. And a 2009 World Health Organization and UNICEF study found that some 24,000 children in developing countries were dying each day from preventable causes like diarrhea resulting from lack of access to clean water for drinking and sanitation.
The most obvious issue with seven billion of us here is our profligate consumption of dwindling natural resources and the waste and pollution generated in the process. A recent joint study by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the Worldwatch Institute found that humans now use 20 percent more renewable resources than can be replaced each year. And while many would say that climate change has eclipsed overpopulation as the major issue of the day, others counter that atmospheric temperatures wouldn’t be growing nearly as much if there weren’t so darn many of us burning so many fossil fuels.
Human population numbers are predicted to trend downward around the world within a few generations. This so-called “demographic transition” is already underway in the U.S. and other developed countries where fertility rates have dropped due to lower infant mortality, increased urbanization and wider access to contraceptives. Given that fertility rates drop as countries develop, and that lesser developed countries have begun to leapfrog ahead in their urbanization and adoption of technology, the United Nations Population Fund predicts that population may peak in the late 21st century and then begin to shrink.
CONTACTS: United Nations Population Fund, www.unfpa.org.
EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.
See what we're tweeting about
14 Comments
Add Comment"Nonetheless, a 2007 UNICEF report indicated that 10.9 children under five-years-old die each year around the world"... ummm. Just 10.9? or is it 10.9 out of a thousand, or 10.9%, or what? And why the hyphens in "five-years-old"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, why specify the fertility rate based on the number of women.... it should be based as per person. I have no idea what the ratio is between men and women, but 2 per couple would be a break even point.
Because nobody knows the ratio 'per person', but we DO know how many children each woman has had (I suspect there are very few women who can't tell you how many children they have, men can only guess).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually as for what is 'break even' that's deceptive. If the population was steady-state then replacement would be 1.0 children per adult. In reality the population structure is more like there are say 50 children 30 adults, and 20 grandparents. In that kind of structure if you advance one generation you go to 30 grandparents, 50 adults, and 50 children at your 'replacement' value. Your population just grew from 100 to 130 in 1 generation, and in the next generation it will grow to 150. 2 generations is 50 years, which puts us right out there late in the 21st. You'd have to lower the rate BELOW replacement to stabilize in less than 2 generations. This is why the PRC mandated ONE child per family, not TWO.
My expectation is that population will peak long before the end of the century, maybe as early as mid-century. Wars will continue to take their tolls, with the risk that nukes may get used somewhere and seriously mess up some ecologies. Resources, particularly water, are already getting more and more expensive to obtain, which might result in serious food shortages over more of the world. One can't help but be apprehensive about the threat of disease. A serious flu epidemic could be a nearly unimaginable disaster, for example, with billions dying. Global sea rise could result in the direct and indirect death of huge numbers of people. And there are long shots like massive solar flares and meteorite strikes. Nobody knows for sure which disaster will catch up with us first, or whether it will be some combination of things. But even 11 billion is looking extremely unlikely to me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAbortions and Birth Control are Against The Will Of God.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe must increase our birth rate to insure our "culture" wins. The Pope is right- no Birth Control! No Abortion! The Mullahs are right too-Keep Them At Home And Pregnant. Oh yeah, the Mormons are right too- Big Families are good!
There's no hope of reducing population except through a self inflicted Malthusian event which will probably happen real soon. I figure that a virus will be unleashed or evolve that will cleanse the earth of people but hey, The Lord moves in mysterious ways!
The numbers and stats are great until you realize that many human "religions" are stuck in the past still doing their damnedest to overpopulate the planet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe basic question still remains: Just how stupid are humans?
I suspect many of us already know the answer...it's not too hard to figure out.
Re "a 2009 World Health Organization and UNICEF study found that some 24,000 children in developing countries were dying each day". I find that figure hard to believe. Is it an error? That's nearly 9 million per year. Daft!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know this isn't the best of sources, but, that said, the UN report from 2011 only predicts a world population of 10 billion by 2100. This differs greatly from the above article's huge numbers. Wikipedia only predicts out to 2050, but agrees with the UN predictions at that date. Kind of makes this article sound like a lot of hot air.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWilliamGrogan, how many people are in "developing countries"? If there are perhaps 240,000,000, then 24,000 would be one child dying per day per 10,000 people. That doesn't seem too unrealistic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe way I see things going, I tend to expect population to peak in the early 21st century, probably under eight billion, with evidence increasing constantly.
Link to UN paper supporting my comment above: http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Other-Information/Press_Release_WPP2010.pdf
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe pessimist in me thinks it'll be war and inequality and starvation and disease which will keep numbers down.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut the optimist in me would like to think it possible that we could make sure that women and men can become equal in all countries, that everybody can have access to food, education, and healthcare - and crucially, to contraception and abortion.
Then we could bring down our numbers in a fair and humane way, and maybe even learn how to live decently on the only planet we've got.
Unfortunately, too many people believe the only contraception method that is acceptable is abstinance. Unfortunately, 'abstinance only' as contraception does not work...except in societies where young men and women are never allowed to be alone together.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe 'abstinance only' is the single greatest reason young unmarried women have abortions...and that those who don't end their pregnancies, since they see abortion as one of the greatest sins, as often as not end up among the poor and ostracized in our society.
I hope I'm not being too repetitive. I just said this on another list.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think there should be a lot more talk about better male contraceptives. As a would-be engineer, one form I'd suggest was said to be used in early Roman times, and perhaps before that. It involves a bit of body piercing, which doesn’t seem to be that objectionable these days, and I don’t mean vasectomies. The man had a small hole cut in the bottom of the penis, near the scrotum, into the urethra. When it healed, a tube could be inserted to conduct fluids to the head of the penis, or removed for semen to go out the new hole, instead of into the vagina. A bit messier than condoms maybe, but we should be able to live with that. For more security, one might want a removable plug for the head of the penis, or a T-shaped tube with one arm blocked. Perhaps it would include a small reservoir with a rubber balloon.
I’m happy to say that my partner and I are beyond the age of needing such.
To give added incentive for use of such, I favor a birth tax on each individual, based on the square the number of one's kids (checkable by DNA), plus 1, times the square of one's bank account, wherever it may be, plus $1, times atmospheric CO2 PPM.
If you are old enough to remember, Japan was the source of cheap labor for manufacturing. When that got too expensive, it moved to Korea and Taiwan, and now China and India. When they get too expensive, as is already starting to happen, business will move to other places.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBusiness is *always* motivated to cut costs, and labor is a cost. So they will move in search of cheap labor, leaving development in their wake. Labor is no good without electricity and roads and the other necessities to run a factory, and at least enough education that the workers can do their job.
Thus, unwittingly, business is a force for improvement in the world, at least until the robots get good enough and they can dispense with the workers. When that happens, aid agencies can send in the robots to upgrade a nation.
So let's just cut to the chase.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHumans are obviously the planets worst infection. An infective organism that is getting closer over time to killing it's host.
The question going forward...is this infection self-limiting or not?
It is one of the few infective organisms that that more or less "thinks and writes"...does other stuff...and apparently is pretty impressed by it's own cleverness.
In fact it's cleverness as evidenced by it's "technology" is probably a main source of it's lethal-ness....that and the other side of the (sub)consciousness coin as evidenced by it's "religious" urge to reproduce and struggle for dominance.
As an organism...it seems to have problems connecting it's "brilliance" with it's lethal stupidity?
Why is that?
Read it quick...this message will self-destruct in 30 seconds...