Rich or poor, educated or illiterate, socialist or capitalist, Muslim or Catholic, secular or devout, with tough government birth control policies or none, most —most families—tell the same story.
Scottish sociologist John MacInnes at the University of Edinburgh calls this the reproductive revolution. Until the 18th century, half of children died before entering their fertile years, and many more before they completed them. Most women spent almost all their (often rather short) adult lives bearing and rearing children.
The patrician societies that have dominated the world for millennia were designed to ensure women fulfilled this role. The regulation of child production was done "through church and state, the norms surrounding sexual activity and sex roles, illegitimacy, cohabitation and marriage, family and kinship obligations and property law," says MacInnes.
In much of the world, the drive to maintain fertility institutionalized arranged marriages, often of very young girls, maintained brutal sanctions against female adulterers or girls who would not accept their lot, and ostracized any form of homosexuality.
The reproductive revolution is kicking all this away, because it is simply no longer needed to sustain populations. Feminism is not a new idea. And some individuals have always broken free. But, for most women, the reproductive revolution has "taken it from the realm of utopia to practical possibility," says MacInnes.
The global collapse in fertility rates and rise of feminism is not the slow diffusion of a new idea, or a mechanistic response to aid workers handing out condoms. This is the breaking of a logjam. The logjam of a patriarchy that has suddenly lost its purpose.
British demographer Tim Dyson of the London School of Economics sees the change even in rural India. India still adds about 19 million people to its population each year—a quarter of total global growth. But its fertility is falling fast, now averaging 2.8 children per woman. Dyson remembers that back in the 1960s, sociologists compared women's lives in India and the U.S. "In India they married at 17, had seven kids, the last one at 43 years old, and died typically at 46. In America, women typically married at 18, had two kids quickly and then more than 40 years of life after childbearing. Now, Indian women are grabbing that life too. Sterilization is the main form of contraception in India, and the average age of sterilization is 26 years old."
Where is this taking us? Through most of history, women have had between five and eight live births each. For a while after childhood death rates fell, they continued to do so. That's why world population quadrupled in the 20th century. But today the global average is 2.6 births, half the figure even a generation ago. The figure is falling fast towards the current global replacement rate which, allowing for girls who do not reach adulthood, is 2.3 children per woman.
Smaller families do not immediately cut population growth. There is rising life expectancy to account for, along with a legacy of 20th-century baby boomers who remain fertile. But the trend is clear. And in the past 40 years, the world's population growth rate has fallen from 2.1 per cent to below 1.2 per cent.
Percentages are not the same as absolute numbers, of course. But since 1987, the number of additional people on the planet each year has fallen from 87 million to 78 million. The downward trend will accelerate. Growth may, on current trends, be zero or even negative by mid-century. Some countries are already shrinking. In 2008 there were 26 of them, headed by Russia, Montenegro, Bulgaria, Zimbabwe, Ukraine, Latvia and Swaziland. Others are only sustained by inward migration.
It took around 130 years, from about 1800 to 1927, for the world to get from one billion people to two billion, but only another 33 years to reach three billion, which happened in 1960. Reaching four billion took just 15 years to 1975. The fifth billion came in 12 years, in 1987, as did the next billion, achieved in 1999.
The next billion people will take a little longer than the last, probably 14 years if we reach seven billion as expected in 2013. And getting to eight billion will take another 20 or more years. And we may never reach 9 billion.
Peak population is probably much closer than most people think. Virtually all countries that have brought their fertility rates down from five, to four and three have gone on down below the replacement level. Much of Europe is below 1.5. By 2100, on current fertility trends, Germany could have fewer natives than today’s Berlin, and Italy’s population could crash from 58 million to just 8 million.
Once a negative trend has set in, it may prove very hard to break. As well as having ever fewer potential mothers, societies may get out of the habit of having babies. Children will be rare, exotic and unusual. We can see this already. Only a few years ago, going to a cafe in Italy would see you surrounded by noisy children. Now you will likely only see adults, including many young latte-sipping men and women who would once have been surrounded by kids.
Other repercussions of the baby bust will play out over the coming decades. One of the most controversial is the rising tide of migration. It is created in part by the income differentials round the world, but even more by current record differences in fertility. When women in some countries have more than six children, while others have barely more than one, trading people is an obvious safety valve for both sides. Europe and North America already badly need foreign hands to keep societies and economies functioning. We should stop pretending otherwise.
The other critical change is aging. As fertility falls, the world is becoming older. Our species has never lived in societies where there were more old people than children. But soon we will. This is truly terra incognita.
Some say we will never be able to afford to look after all those old people. But there is, to coin a phrase, a silver lining. The old are human capital, sources of wisdom and experience. We have to harness that capital better. The old will have to work longer—but they will also expect to be valued more.
Take health. All the things I have been talking about have happened because the 20th century eradicated the killer diseases that wiped out most children before they could grow up. But in the 21st century there is a new priority—to help the old stay fitter for longer. So they can have better lives, of course. But also so they can contribute more.
We are coming through the greatest surge of human population numbers in history. It has already changed us profoundly and the end game will change us even more. The reproductive revolution unleashed huge forces of economic activity, social dislocation and liberation—for women in particular. But well before the end of this century, Homo sapiens—the brash, go-getting, hormone-driven, young naked ape of the 20th century—will be older and will likely be more conservative, less innovative, more boring even. But perhaps also wiser, less frenetic, and more caring of each other and the environment. Older, wiser, greener.
The tribal elders may take center stage once more. But this time they will not just be revered, they will be the largest group in society. And in all the probability, they will be dominated by women. Demography is destiny. There is no going back.
Excerpted from The Coming Population Crash: And Our Planet’s Surprising Future by Fred Pearce. Copyright © 2010. Reprinted with permission by Beacon Press.
Subscription Center
See what we're tweeting about
53 Comments
Add CommentWell this was a nice story with which to start my day. The state of women's rights in parts of the world is something that makes me very, very angry. I hope these male-dominated societies take note that what's good for this oppressed group is good for us all, as illustrated by this article. I won't get too excited, however. I think many of these cultures are way too deeply rooted in "tradition" (read: fear of change.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBangladesh population growth has stalled for quite a while now. And it has much to do with education, Gramin Bank (Micro Credit) as well as the memory of painful famines in the past. Also, the population of Bangladesh, mostly Muslim, are not religiously fanatic. Good for Bangladesh.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately, world population, as a whole is unlikely to stop increasing anytime soon. In the USA, as the percent of catholic+hispanic people increases, so does the birthrate. Similarly in Europe, massive subsidies for children is resulting in immigrants from Africa to come in and have lots of children to generate an income.
In the mean time, the resources that created our modern civilization (.... petroleum being cheif among them) are dwindling.
Malthus was right. So far at least.
"NatureTM".... if you are in the US and thinking that Women in Bangladesh have less rights, thing again. Bangladesh has had two female heads of state, elected! While in the US, "anonymous" women show their legs to entertain people between games where the men have names. Women are used in advertisement and pornography in far greater numbers in the US than in Bangladesh. And don't forget the 16 year old 'brides' of the Mormons! Its legal in the USA. In Texas a woman can have sex before she can vote! American women have the illusion of 'rights'. American men do not respect their women enough as they do in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and India.... each of which has had female heads of state.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, Bangladesh can do better. But as long as women are anonymous legs in your national sport, -America is not that much better off :)
Sanoran, any chance to attack America, right? I know parts of my country are backward and we have some pretty shameful regional subcultures. I didn't even mention Bangladesh, but I'm sure they have some backward people as well. I love my country, but I'm not blind to her flaws. I think SciAm readers are not the Americans you're thinking of, for the most part, although there are rotten ones in every bunch. I got something positive out of this article, and you had to get all insecure and negative. Trust me, Bangladesh is not what I was thinking of.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease check for spelling mistakes! Overall, this article is poorly written and unsophisticated. I expect more from Sci Am. Strong statements are being made without references. Other issues such as socioeconomic status of fathers and population density problems are at play here. It is not just women that are making these decisions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI challenge women to push their emotional sensibilities and gender politics aside to achieve the survival of the species.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen I was born in 1950 the world population about 2.5B. It has now nearly reached an estimated 7B, and is currently projected to reach 10B in the expected lifetime of most women alive today, if that level can be sustained.
Of course the world population is controlled by the number of births and the number of deaths. As the current population requirements exceed the local or world wide availability of water, nourishment and spatial resources, disease, war and starvation arise to correct the situation. If the population is not somehow limited to sustainable levels the result will be increasing suffering and death for previously unimagined numbers of humans. Please!
As I understand from recent Scientific American articles, the oceans' deep sea fish have been increasingly more efficiently over harvested and the world's supply of nutritious deep sea fish are quickly approaching unsustainable populations.
A greater percentage of the world's population has now crowded into the world's largest cities in hopes of improving their opportunities. As a result the world's demand for power production is increasingly being met by, not 'renewable energy' but coal burning generation facilities.
And then there's global warming: whatever you chose to believe, its potential impact on the general production of food and availability of water are almost unimaginable.
The only way to minimize the number of humans suffering in the future is to reduce the number of humans. I hope you can achieve that for all of us.
This is really encouraging information. I had thought that educating women was the only safe way to avoid the "population bomb." And educating females was a threat to many traditional societies. I'm pleased to be wrong. If the planet's human population tops out at less than 9 billion rather than 15 billion, everyone will be better off. Keep in mind, however, that the revised number is still 3 billion more than we have now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgreed with doctor D. The article is not very scientific. What about statistics in Washington Post that contradicts that article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/10/AR2010061005384.html?hpid=moreheadlines .
Agreed with doctor D. The article is not very scientific. What about statistics in Washington Post that contradicts that article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/10/AR2010061005384.html?hpid=moreheadlines
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for giving us some hope. The population bomb has already exploded and we are already living an unsustainable global lifestyle. Perhaps Gaia, the collective conciousness of the planet, is already beginning to express itself through our women. A note to NatureTM, no, not just another chance to attack America. If there is any country on Earth that needs to look at itself in the mirror, it has to be America. It isn't because America is bad, or even more or less of a mix than anywhere else in the world. Just one example, we have exploited the environment, both within our country, as well as world wide, and try to be world environmental leaders. Sanoran is trying to make the case for women in the same way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt isn't our way(s) of life that need to be "attacked" or pointed out, it is our illusions. If attitude is power, way too many American attitudes are abuses of power.
And now I must make a most difficult assertion for naturally nurturing women to accept or adjust to: that offering food (sending money) or shelter (adopting) children produced in unsustainable environments only ensures continued or even increased production of children in unsustainable environments. While these actions are most consistent with the nature of nurturing instincts, in an overpopulated world they only increase human suffering. Please, carefully consider the repercussions of such actions in the cruel new world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with the false placement of "choice" on the mother. Fathers are 1/2 responsible for the creation of children and they make choices in this regard as well. It is problematic when authorities such as the U.N. reinforce patriarchy by placing all responsibility on women.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article was unflattering for SciAm. It lacks any research or objectivity. It is, at best, an editorial suited for the tabloids and network news publications.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjtdwyer says: "The only way to minimize the number of humans suffering in the future is to reduce the number of humans."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's true. It's also true that the only way to eliminate human suffering is to eliminate humans. Go self-destruct on your own terms. The only reason unsustainability is a concern is that people are no longer trained to grow, create, mend, nor replace what we consume.
Observe the emotive lean of this linguistic disaster:
"Now is this happening? For one thing, more and more women are leading independent working lives, rather than succumbing to a life of child bearing and raising."
Is it really the opinion of the author that to grovel for a boss-man and to work for involuntary contributions to your rich lords is 'independence' -- while to enjoy the magic of bearing children and raising your kids is to 'succumb' somehow to a lower purpose? Unbelievable!
madmac - My earlier demise is already assured, thank you. I'm only concerned about your self destruction and those that that suffer with you. Don't rely on your children being too clever to suffer - it may not be enough.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'd like to see proof of these population figures. What I have seen is that we are already at 7billion people (as of late last year) and even the USDA projections put us at 9 billion between 2030-40 now. The 'acceleration rate' is decreasing and in large part due to the articles premise but we are unlikely to avoid the 'magic 10b' mark where the infrastructure starts to break by 2050. That an aging population unable to effectively work that infrastructure when the time comes doesn't make me feel any better. This article is unbalanced and misleading.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisZiYauRen - Here's the U.S. Census Bureau data:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpopgraph.php
Keep in mind that, regardless of the birth rate, the population is stable as long as the death rate is equal to the birth rate. The population may never reach 10B as long as enough people are dying.
"Now is this happening?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes.
Wow, this article makes it sound as if the foreign populations replacing Europe is a good thing. Perhaps he should read Mark Steyn's America Alone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlkEYoKC-kA
Andreas - I agree: allowing migrations from overpopulated regions merely encourages the continuation of unsustainable growth in regions with inadequate resources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo jtdwyer... thats the point ... they aren't and won't be unless we get involved in some form of massive die off. These 9b by 2050 predictions are all based on stable mortality/fertility columns. Nice for a quick look and public reassurance but not the way its going. The 10b max infrastructure load figure dissolves anyway with improved standards of living increasing consumption and fewer 'prime age' people to work in it. We'll be lucky if the real supportable figure is even 9b by 2050.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisZiYauRen - All projections of the future merely extrapolate current trends, all very loosely based on the conditions of the past ~100 years. On the other hand, critical factors really can change significantly in unexpected ways not even considered in this analysis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe increase in crop yields over the past ~150 years have been due to farm mechanization and automation, increasing use of fertilizers and pesticides, stable climate and I'm sure other factors.
This mechanization of crop production, fertilizers and pesticides are heavily dependent on petroleum based chemistry. What would something like a little ice age, from continues CO2 production or from increased volcanic eruptions do to crop production?
The world's largest cities now occupy much of the previously most productive farmlands. A decrease in crop yields could produce a 'food crash'.
How much of the world population is dependent on nutrients from now nearly depleted fish harvests?
The presumption of this article is that women will continue to choose their career over having children. That requires that stable employment continues to be available for women.
The current population may be already be unsustainable, with minor unforeseen variations in critical support factors. There is no magic maximum population value that existing infrastructure can support: it is itself determined by a complex and fragile set of conditions.
Future mass migration may be more about water and food than jobs and consumer products. If and when destabilization of nutrient production occurs the population will be reduced, one way or another. I haven't even mentioned the specter of war, pestilence or disease, if infrastructure destabilization occurs and starvation begins.
Women used to have many children and the weaker ones died. Now they have one or two and do everything possible to rear them, whatever health or genetic problems they may have.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCivilization may be able to support a weaker species for a while. But what if there is some great natural disaster which knocks us back to stone age conditions?
The comment "It's better than changing diapers" says everything I need to know about the writer and her attitude toward motherhood. There is old saying "The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world" that I fully believe. I hope the writer doesn't rock a cradle.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn societies that expect mothers to work outside the home and pay for child care, one child may be feasible, or perhaps two, but any more would not be possible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo be a mother at home raising several children would probably require either a rich husband, or some form of government assistance.
A most interesting article. Here in the US we have to import labor to harvest our crops but they never go home! We have the people to do this work but they won't!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's great that fertility rates are decreasing in many countries, but the world is a LONG way from stabilizing the human population.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou would never know, from reading this article, that humanity added its most recent billion-person increase in population faster than ever, and that we are on track to add billions more under "business as usual" population policies.
Fred Pearce's happy talk is good, if it gives people hope that improved access to contraception and improved lives for women can make a difference in lowering population growth. But it is bad, if it makes us complacent.
There is nothing inevitable about population stabilization! It will take work!
NatureTM ""Trust me, Bangladesh is not what I was thinking of."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee, that is the problem. As much as I would like to refrain from stereotyping americans as wilfully ignorant, you just go on and make it too obvious. It's not an attack on america, your statements just merely reflects how little you know about the rest of the world and its cultures. Going on to imply that women in less developed countries are oppressed is a bad call.
NatureTM ""Trust me, Bangladesh is not what I was thinking of."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee, that is the problem. As much as I would like to refrain from stereotyping americans as wilfully ignorant, you just go on and make it too obvious. It's not an attack on america; your statements just merely reflect how little you know about the rest of the world and its' cultures. Going on to imply that women in less developed countries are oppressed is a bad call.
NatureTM ""Trust me, Bangladesh is not what I was thinking of."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee, that is the problem. As much as I would like to refrain from stereotyping americans as wilfully ignorant, you just go on and make it too obvious. It's not an attack on america; your statements just merely reflect how little you know about the rest of the world and its cultures. Going on to imply that women in less developed countries are oppressed is a bad call.
Wow. Another book degrading the role of a house mother and imposing its idea of female independence on the world. BEING A HOUSE MOTHER IS NOT A BAD THING! Its not for everyone but woman who choose to actually make sure there kids are taking care of are the real heros. Not woman who downplay the role of motherhood in an attempt to stick it to the man or compete with their husband. Pathetic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article is good but does not have all the facts, <a href="www.yahoo.com">reproduction</a> is not so complicated as it sounds.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think humankind will survive somehow!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think this is the best news I've read in a long time. Human overpopulation is the root of many of our problems, so it is wonderful that the problem is somewhat resolving itself through advancement of women's rights and the general improvement of quality of life. A definite win / win. The only down side is that world economies will need to adjust to shrinking economies but that was inevitable. Either the earth was going to lose her ability to sustain us or we were going to learn to place fewer demands on her. I'm glad to see some sign that human population reduction may not come as a result of mass extinction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@whwsjackfrost, I didn't read that anywhere in the article. Obviously you are allowing your paranoia and persecution complex write the subtext. I have never heard anyone claim that being a "house mother" was a "bad thing". The issue is choice. For many woman around the world there is no choice as to which role they will play in society. That is changing. Being a full-time mom is still one of those choices and I would say one of the most important roles a women can play, but it isn't for everyone. Everyone should have the right to self-determination, whether or not that choice agrees with the prevailing culture.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLike most trolls you hijack the topic to inject your own agenda, like a mosquito injects malaria. That says more about you than the topic.
What a load. Where do you find this sort of neo-feminist drivel? Judging by the grammar, some third rate community college. Please Scientific American if you value your reputation at all, don't print this kind of schlock.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo where's the science part in this article?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo where's the science part in this article?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article is largely politically correct optimistic fluff. Of course in urban centers there is trend toward smaller families, but population growth is still an acute problem in less developed countries, as well as in deeply religious societies (often overlapping areas).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn addition, while the birth rate is slowing, as pointed out, infant mortality has dropped much faster, largely thanks to Western knowledge and help. It will still take way too long, before population growth stabilizes.
@sanoran and Anya-K:
Your comments deserve a response. I am not an American, but I have lived in the US, as well as traveled extensively throughout Asia, including Bangladesh.
Arguments comparing the status and life of women in the US and places like Bangladesh or India, or the Middle East, are largely absurd. "Naked legs" may offend some religious sensibilities, but are mostly irrelevant to the question of equality, or to population growth.
I agree whole-heartedly with Doctor D. While I find the subject and views interesting this article is poorly written. I think the author mean patriarchal societies on the top of the second page, not patrician societies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi enjoyed this article....in a slew of bad news on top of bad news, its nice to read something encouraging....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not a Scientist but I read a lot. This is what I found out about Beacon Press the publisher of the book that Sci Am is quoting. It sounds like Beacon Press has an agenda.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBeacon Press is an American non-profit book publisher. Founded in 1854 by the American Unitarian Association, it is currently a department of the Unitarian Universalist Association.
Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA), in full the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations in North America, is a liberal religious association of Unitarian Universalist congregations formed by the consolidation in 1961 of the American Unitarian Association and the Universalist Church of America. Both of these predecessor organizations began as Christian Unitarian and Universalist denominations; but modern Unitarian Universalists define themselves as non-creedal, and therefore they are not limited to Christian beliefs or affinities, but may also draw wisdom from other religions and philosophies as well, such as Humanism, Buddhism, Judaism, and Earth-centered spirituality, among others, or different combinations of them. Therefore the UUA qualifies as a form of post-Christian liberal religion with syncretistic leanings.
Beacon Press claims to publish works that affirm and promote several principles: the inherent worth and dignity of every person; justice, equity and compassion in human relations; acceptance of one another; a free and responsible search for truth and meaning; the right of conscience and the use of the democratic process in society; the goal of the world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all; respect for the interdependent web of all existence; and the importance of literature and the arts in democratic life.- Wikipedia
I find the entire article highly suspect and political in in tone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is unfortunate that one of the 'gods' said, "Go forth and multiple."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDespite the deficiencies in this article, it would be great for the environment if humans did undergo a 'little' population retraction (like 3.5 billion). But resources being what they are and the slow pace of the speculated population correction, there are going to be more environmental disasters.
Now, there is some nonsense in this text. As for Brazil, I am a Brazilian, and I can assure you that the lower birth rates of my country owns a lot to government intervention, through campaigns of sexual education, free distribution of condoms and a sort of family planning. It is precisely at this successful state intervention that sectors like the Catholic Church are constantly directing critics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow, there is some nonsense in this text. As for Brazil, I am a Brazilian, and I can assure you that the lower birth rates of my country owns a lot to government intervention, through campaigns of sexual education, free distribution of condoms and a sort of family planning. It is precisely at this successful state intervention that sectors like the Catholic Church are constantly directing critics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Being defused" implies the bomb hasn't exploded yet and therefore no harm has been done to the environment. I think it's been a relatively slow but continuous explosion for a few thousand years, with a few added bursts from the like of control of fire, coal and oil exploitation Pasteur, and shortage of forethought. One way or another it looks like we're going to feel even more effects soon. As is, the environment is seeing self-reinforcing degradation in many ways, diseases, wars, social, economic and political corruption are spreading faster under crowded conditions. It's questionable if the explosion can be contained with out doing much greater damage to the container, the Earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are reports that male fertility and reproductive functionality is also simultaneously declining in overpopulated countries-nature has its own ways of countering threats to survival.The catstrphic events are part of the system that balances homeostatically.It cannot be attributed wholly to mankind since the prompting is from nature and man or woman has to fall in line,since nature is still much more powerful than all our science and technology.In India there are minorities who see strenght in numbers and population contro lmeasures cannot succeed against will.The decisions of individuals are influenced by society,culture and ecology which are shaped by nature.So many things can be left to nature where our efforts fail
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Psychic Sidekick, "It sounds like Beacon Press has an agenda... the goal of the world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all; respect for the interdependent web of all existence; and the importance of literature and the arts in democratic life" sounds like the end of humanity as we know it. Most publishers have an "agenda" as you call it. That is irrelevant, the only thing that is relevant is the quality of the science. That applies equally to publishers with or without "agendas". So unless you have some criticism about the science behind this article then you are adding nothing more to this conversation than your own agenda.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisP.S. Look up "ad hominem fallacy"
Fred Pearce claims that there is a likely decline in population numbers sometime in the next 50 to 300 years. He fails to mention that progress made to date on addressing unsustainable population growth has resulted from massive and sustained investments in provision of family planning programs, maternal and infant health services, and communication programs that educate men and women on the benefits of small families.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPearce misses the bigger – and more immediate – picture of what is happening worldwide. In the next 40 years, even conservative demographic projections show the world’s population growing by 2.5 billion people – a 37% increase. In the absence of the efforts described above, the global fertility rate’s move towards replacement level will stall, which will lead to a much larger projected global population increase. An additional 4.2 billion people – a 62% increase – is possible if today’s status quo remains intact. Which reality the world eventually experiences – the higher or the lower projection – is the immediate issue at hand. Achieving the lower projection is one of the most important priorities for world attention.
In the 1990s, 1700 of the world’s leading scientists, including the majority of Nobel Laureates in the sciences, signed a Warning to Humanity that said in part, “Pressures resulting from unrestrained population growth put demands on the natural world that can overwhelm any efforts to achieve a sustainable future.” In 1994, fifty-eight of the world’s scientific academies issued another warning, which said that continuing population growth poses a great risk to humanity.
In the face of these authoritative statements, it is amazing that non-scientists like Pearce continue to claim that the problem is over, that it will magically solve itself, that the problem is too few people, or that growth is the way out of our problems.
Such statements ignore the question of whether the world’s ecosystem can support 9 billion people. Professor David Pimentel of Cornell University has estimated the globe's long-term carrying capacity at 2 billion. If he is right, we are in ecological “overshoot,” with tragic implications for both humans and many of our planet’s current life forms.
Many people are not aware that world population growth continues at a rate of 80 million persons per year globally. That’s the equivalent of adding a new Ethiopia every year.
Nor do they perceive the impact of such growth on the global environment, including threats to climate stability, ocean fisheries, wilderness areas, biodiversity, energy supplies, fresh water supplies, and forests, along with the poverty, ill health and human suffering that result from unplanned childbearing. To ignore these issues and declare the problem over is a calamitous mistake.
I found this article very engaging and hopeful in that I hope one day all children will be wanted by BOTH parents, and that women will value themselves more highly and consequently be more selective in choosing men who in turn will value them as well. It is also encouraging to me to see how scientific advancements have kept many families from the heartbreak of losing their children prematurely to disease.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSadly this cannot last forever. Sooner or later the force of evolution will exert itself and this trend will stop. For example the three women mentioned in the article, the woman who want to have three children will have more children than her sisters. Her children too will inherit this trait to desire more children than normal and will probably have more children too. This trait will spread and population increase will raise again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi, thanks so much for this article, I enjoyed reading every word of it. Yes, you are correct; the population crisis the world is heading to will simply be solved by women all over the world choosing to have fewer children. Although food, education and health is becoming more abundant people are choosing to have less and less children. I think this is due to awareness and people wanting a better quality of life both for themselves and their children.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNoah from http://www.howtoattractwomenhelp.com/