Subscription Center
Sep 23, 2009 01:11 PM | 73
Population growth, now at roughly 78 million extra people per year, is the don't-go-there zone of modern environmentalism and political discourse.
But let's go there for the moment: The biodiversity crisis. The water crisis. The climate crisis. Lurking behind all these crises is at least one shared factor: human population. Species extinction? Think land clearing for agriculture to feed a growing population of 6.8 billion people. Water? The majority of water goes directly to growing that same food supply. And giving a helping hand to all these other crises as a result of all the fossil fuel burning needed to power our lives and lift billions out of poverty: anthropogenic climate change.
So is birth control policy and access the answer to the environmental challenges of our time? So argues an editorial in The Lancet, as well as recent research from the London School of Economics, and statisticians at Oregon State University, just to name a few recent examples.
This suggestion is rarely received warmly. The Sierra Club has been troubled in recent years by U.S. nativists opposed to population growth, particularly via immigration. "The Population Bomb," a controversial book by environmental scientist Paul Ehrlich predicting widespread starvation as a result of population growth, turned off a generation of thinkers, in part by being wrong (at least in the short term) and in part by seeming anti-human, continuing a tradition that stretches back to the "Dismal Theorem" of Thomas Malthus. And, of course, the specter of population control looms like an Orwellian nightmare, ceding control over what we think of as one of the most basic freedoms a human being has.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B—a journal from the Royal Society whose motto is "Take nobody's word for it" —wades into these treacherous waters this week with a special issue, "The Impact of Population Growth on Tomorrow's World." As Roger Short of the University of Melbourne writes in the introduction, "The inexorable increase in human numbers is exhausting conventional energy supplies, accelerating environmental pollution and global warming, and providing an increasing number of failed states where civil unrest prevails," among other faults. And he goes so far as to call for a halt to future population growth.
Then again, ask other contributors to the special issue, is population growth even a problem? After all, as various nations have developed, birth rates have fallen—in some cases so much so that populations are shrinking—thanks, in large part, to empowering women to control their reproduction. Or so argue public health scientists Martha Campbell and Kathleen Beford of the University of California, Berkeley in the special issue.
Yet, this demographic transition does not hold everywhere. And, as political scientist Bradley Thayer of Baylor University argues in the same issue, national population bombs trigger war, especially of the internecine civil variety, as well as terrorism as "youth bulges" in Middle Eastern countries leave large masses of young men without economic prospects. In fact, notes Steven Sinding of the Gutmacher Institute in Manchester, Vt., controlling population growth can actually help individuals and families escape poverty. Witness the exceptional economic rise of China in recent decades, in part helped along by the controversial One Child Policy instituted by Mao Zedong.
And family planning has proven effective in the past, from Thailand to Iran, yet funding for such programs has dwindled in recent years. Partially as a result, developing countries in eastern Africa—Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe—have seen their populations begin to increase rapidly again in recent years.
Lurking behind all this is a potential crisis in the very resource that has enabled this unprecedented expansion of human numbers: fossil fuels. Thanks to growing population and dwindling supplies, fossil fuel production per capita may peak by mid-century—ending the two centuries of unlimited growth in energy production that is at the root of modern civilization, consultant Richard Nehring writes in the journal.
Yet the issue leaves unexplored vexing questions such as: Who gets to set the limiting number for population growth? Who are the targets of restrained fertility and is this just? And, ultimately, is there an ideal number for human population on this planet?
While an increase in population from 6.8 billion today to closer to 10 billion by mid-century will make sustainable living on the planet a challenge, especially since the bulk of that growth will be among those living in poverty who have a moral claim to economic development, the real problem may not be human numbers so much as human behavior. After all, we have doubled the population in the past 50 years while the world economy measured as global gross domestic product has increased seven-fold and resource use has increased nearly four-fold.
The real problem may be consumption, which, to date, begets ever more consumption.
Image: © iStockphoto.com
Tags:
birth control,
climate change,
environment
More News Blog:
Next: Uncharted waters: When hydrogen fails, the students turn to that old standby--Gasoline
Previous: Cancer stem cell research gains traction, tackles new targets
See what we're tweeting about
sciam Childhood ADHD Linked to Obesity in Adulthood http://t.co/cgPaHWaLAH
sciammind Childhood ADHD Linked to Obesity in Adulthood http://t.co/2aMODYK8Vr
BecCrew Why does Margaery only have one dress?
Deadline: Jul 15 2013
Reward: $5,000 USD
SciBX: Science-Business eXchange, a joint publication from the makers
Deadline: Jul 25 2013
Reward: Varies
This challenge provides an opportunity for Solvers to build a web-based or mobile “app” to explore data relationships in scholarly conte
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
73 Comments
Add CommentLearn to make water! There is plenty of food, it's just not getting to where it is needed because of political manoeuvering. Not only consumption, but the end result of it: waste. There is a finite number, but the dispersion of it is the problem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere was a great piece on this a few issues back in SciAm's stiffer and more dense doppelganger, American Scientist. The basic assertion was: we don't need birth control, because population has grown linearly with increased exploitation of fossil fuels (save in the U.S. since the 80's, probably because we outsource our heavy industry). So, if fossil fuels peak, that will draw down the population. Inevitably. Hasn't world hunger gone up this past year for the first time in decades? No doubt there's more to come.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI remember the 'Club of Rome' in the 1950's identifying population growth as the overriding problem for the future. Then the world population was about 3 billion. As a matter of world concern, overpopulation has risen and fallen in the public's consciousness since then several times.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article and 'Lancet' suggests government action to control population growth and birth rates. Direct government action, particularly massive interference with people's predilection to breed, by any country 's government or international body is fraught with all kinds of unintended consequences. Some of the potential problems are listed in the article.
Overpopulation is the kind of issue that can only be controlled by actions directed at 'tipping points' or 'sweet spots' . I am not sure enough study has been done to identify any useful tipping points.
The ideal in forming Public Policy is NOT to impose population wide laws and enforcement regimes, but to find that one place were relatively contained actions will set in motion a whole series of cause and effects that bring about the desired result naturally. I can think of several examples and would be willing to discuss them if anyone here wants.
In any case, the Chinese 'One Child Policy', the biggest example of government fiat, was draconian and very uneven in its application.
A 'tipping point shift ' policy means much fewer unintended consequences, with population levels arriving at a new natural level.
However, as I said, I don't think we have arrived at an understanding of what that tipping point might be. The fact that birthrates level off and even drop with an increase in the size of a middle class suggests some possibilities.
Sorry! I am adding this note because I forgot to check the "Email me when someone responds to this discussion. " check box below.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTry making water!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, this is at a crucial point, and there really is a finite number of people, just not distributed correctly. Plenty of food! Again, not distributed correctly. Mostly by means of political and economic manouevering.
The problem with consumption, is waste. Too much trash/garbage!
Filthy people, filthy planet. Reducing the ability of low intellegence to reproduce is a viable step.
The short answer is "Yes, obviously." Current rates of resource depletion and side effects of human industrialization are simply not sustainable, even without further "growth." Despite the soothsayings of economists and politicians, there is no such thing as magic. Technical innovation is impossible to predict or schedule, and there's every chance that overpopulation (characterized as peak oil, peak water, etc.) will correct itself in a very, very unpleasant manner.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWealthy countries, which generally have stable or declining populations, have greatly exacerbated the problem, by transferring resources and know-how to poor countries, where such aid has resulted in unprecedented population growth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions....
Aid should be linked to family planning, otherwise it just ends up creating a larger problem. And now that the religious nuts are out of power in the US, perhaps family planning can return us to sanity, and to sustainability.
Disparity is an issue we need to contend with.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt last Scientific American has had the guts to raise the population debate. Its been ongoing for years in comments to global warming etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPopulation out of control is the primary driver of climate change, loss of biodiversity and loss of empathy within our species.
Religion is the main opponent of population control. We currently have the right to population control measures and even (though not entirely legal) abortion in Australia now, but the latest statistics are frightening. Amongst practising religious people in Australia the Muslims are the largest group followed by Catholics and Hindus, all opposed to birth control.
Obviously, the problem is the population in the *_developed_* world. Each of its members is 20X the stress on the on the earth, in terms of resource usage, as that of a member of the population in the Third World. That makes the Effective Population of the earth 6 billion (actually little higher because the U.S. is not the only country in the developed world) in the United States and 6 billion in the third world. The planet simply cannot continue to take the stress.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI used to work in a bacteriology laboratory and when you infect a plate the bacteria thrive and multiply exponentially and then they run out of reources and they all die and the fungi take over. If we can't learn from that simple lesson then our fate is sealed. Unfortunately all power bases rely on having more people to support them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSmaller, lighter bodied Asian vegans require less from the environment than American counter-parts, and are proving to have an "Edge" over us for survival too! Have we out-grown our own boots in America for the last time? Is bigger really better ? We are huge people even compared to our European ancestors aren't we? Why? How reversible is this? What are the chances of a smaller, lighter, faster, more intelligent American being bred with current philosophies in place? Do football stars make for a better country? Why are these bigger anachronisms from the 'Smoke Stack" age given first crack at breeding in out schools? Where are our ping-pong playing intellectuals? Computer wizards? Math giants? Science aces? Physics gurus? Does American society cater to them, give them exclusive breeding rites? Idealize their behaviors? Award them with the adoration of the prettiest girls? Hell no! We pass them off as Weirdos, "Geeks" and other derogatory terms, and sequester them to an almost homosexual image, complete with short legs, sparse bodies, bent shoulders, taped glasses and a shame-able social awkwardness we poke fun at! Not so in Asia! China has more post graduates with IQ's of 130+ than the U.S.has students, drop-outs included, and are about to teach the West a severe and lasting lesson for this! India stands in line, for a whack at the American "Balls" with even better scholastic performances! The 21 century will belong to them, and as the dollar falls, the 'Yuan" soars, and it is too late for America to pull up and they cannot pull out!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSmaller, lighter bodied Asian vegans require less from the environment than American counter-parts, per intelligent, productive citizen, and are proving to have an "Edge" over us for survival too! Have we out-grown our own boots in America for the last time? Is bigger really better ? We are huge people even compared to our European ancestors aren't we? Why? How reversible is this? What are the chances of a smaller, lighter, faster, more intelligent American being bred with current philosophies and social forces in place? Do football stars make for a better country? better citizens? Why are these bigger anachronisms from the 'Smoke Stack" age given first crack at breeding in out schools, colleges, Universities? Where are our ping-pong playing intellectuals? Computer wizards? Math giants? Science aces? Physics gurus? Chemistry Giants? Literary geniuses? Does American society cater to them, give them preferential, exclusive, breeding rites? Idealize their behaviors? Award them with the adoration of the prettiest girls? Hell no! We pass them off as Weirdos, "Geeks" and other derogatory terms, and sequester them to an almost homosexual image, complete with short legs, slight bodies, bent shoulders, taped glasses and a laughable social awkwardness we poke fun at! Not so in Asia! China has more post-graduates with IQ's of 130+ than the U.S. has students, drop-outs included, and are about to teach the West a severe and lasting lesson for this! India stands in line, for a whack at the American "Balls" with even better scholastic performances! The 21 century will belong to them, as the dollar falls, the 'Yuan" soars, and it is too late for America to pull up, too soon for Asia to peak.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter WW II the world population was 2 billion. Today it is at least 3 time that and growing faster and faster. Global warming caused by human populations make it obvious that less humans would cool the planet back to normal. My model is the usual yeast that multiply as long as there is food, just like humans. Then they are finished when the resulting alcohol overwhelms the yeast. The Chinese as usual had it right. One child per couple. It is harsh but so is all life on earth ending because of human stupidity. No one ever published my letters. You probably will not either.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan we seriously discuss how many people our planet should be carrying, plus or minus one or two hundred million? We are at about seven billion now. Is that ideal? How about eight billion (we're getting there fast). Is that ideal? First, we need to ask what we want to achieve, as a human race, on a continuing basis for centuries into the future (science, the arts, flourishing of human and other species, etc. etc. ...). Then, how many people are needed to achieve these goals (the lower number) and how many would be so many as to prevent these goals from being attained (the higher number). I believe we've already far surpassed the higher number, but opinions may differ. In any case, it would be useful to hear candidate numbers for an ideal human population size.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBirth control is a simple solution. Why are people so resistant?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHaving it be a voluntary choice is obviously better than having
it mandated, sort of like making a choice to live greener, in a
more sustainable manner. We also have the technology to make
it available to more people. Constant growth is not a natural process.
This planet needs us to slow down.
I have to point out one factual mistake: China's one child policy began in Deng's era, not Mao's time. In fact, Mao encourage Chinese had more than one child. One child policy began in late 70's but until 80's it was strictly enforced in urban earas.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother thing is, China's rise couldn't be contributed to the one child policy at the least sense. Industrialization, respect for individual rights ( not as much as western country but much better than communism time) and globalization are widely thought the main reasons for China's economic success.
Yes, I agree now the international community is facing a overpopulation crisis. However, I totally disagree that government has a role to play in birth control. Government is responsible in providing public services, not telling its people how many children they should have.
I guess one way to reduce the impact of overpopulation is more investment in scientific research, like renewable energy, genetic-engineering food, energy efficient vehicles, enviromental friendly industrial waste disposals etc.
Not to mention the psychological problems that come from large families.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article fails to mention the concept of "carrying capacity" .... the number of any organism that can inhabit an environment without destroying it. If we look at the earth as an envronment and humans as a particular organism that inhabits it I believe any analysis of carrying capacity will demonstrate that we are already clearly above earth's carrying capacity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course you have read the part in the bible where jesus says: "if you breed like flies you will like flies" eh??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo survive in the long term, humans must demonstrate they are "smarter" than bacteria on plated media or yeast in a corked bottle of fruit juice where populations will increase until they run out of food or poison themselves with their own waste products....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisisn't there somewhere in the bible where jesus warns: "if you breed like flies you will die like flies" .... if it is not there is should be.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you Jing...The problem here in America is that government ENCOURAGES population growth. Our economic model can not survive without increasing the economic base continuously. Outside of immigration, this encouragement is done in two ways. First, the government gives you tax breaks for having more children. Second, the government gives more benefits to the poor for having more children. We could balance our budget and quit having to sell securities to China if these two things were eliminated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem with this approach is making population a global problem. Population must be evaluated on a regional basis. Countries that control population on a national stage have mixed results for the same reason. Water is no found on every inch of the earth, vast areas have little or no water resources. Artificially moving water takes energy and money. The economy of the waterless region will dictate the value of moving water. If water is scarce, people will fight for it or leave and find a better source. The impact of natural disaster readiness and medical improvements are the true 'culprits' of population growth. Humans will adjust by limiting births at a tribe level. If the gov't. gets involved, the tribal decision will be not to limit births, left to only what is regionally available, ie resources, the tribe will limit births. The results will take time, but they will take place as long as gov'ts. stay out of the decision. Humans are not cattle, they still make the choice to breed and part of that choice is to decide not to breed or not right now. Science is not needed in this part of the birth process.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPopulation increase is more environmentally damaging than any other phenomenon. And, the environment degrades locally, so must be protected locally. The Pew Research Center reported last year that U.S. population, which was 296 million in 2005, will increase to 438 million in 2050. (The U.S. Census Bureau forecasts 439 million.) That 48% increase will be much greater than for any other industrialized country, and is even greater than for Latin America. Of that increase, 82% will be the immigrants who arrive during the 2005-2050 time period and the descendants of those immigrants. You don't need to be a nativist to be alarmed by the environmental implications of those numbers or the high rate of immigration that is driving them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat no one mentions is using mass media to popularize 1-2-child families worldwide, emphasizing personal benefits and gratifications of a single healthy accomplished child. With the help of a supporting tax structure rewarding small families media can accomplish this culture change, bypassing religions to glamorize the small family image.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a complex problem here. We all know that the ideal total fertility rate per female of childbearing age (TFR) is about 2.1 births.The population then roughly replaces itself from generation to generation. In a developed country where contraception is fully available the tendency is for the TFR to reduce to a much lower figure. This first creates population imbalance through too few workers supporting too many aged. Many advanced countries are experiencing this now. Eventually this works its way through but thereafter the population and consumption declines. Not good news for a thriving economy. Developing countries, where early mortality is high, need a much higher TFR to replace themselves. Every country has its own needs. There is a built in tension between freedom of individual choice and a country-wide/world-wide policy. How do you manage that?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn a developed country the average female needs to have 2.1 live births for the population to be stable. In the 19th century, and of course before, some 8 or so live births were required in order that at least 2 children would live to breed. A it happens, many developed countries have a rate well under 2, This leads first to an imbalance between workers and retired (which is causing problems now) and, when this has worked out through the generations, there will be a decrease in population and so a deflated economy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany developing countries are in the same position as we were 100 years ago -- although each one will vary. There will always be clashes between the choices of individuals with regard to family size and any kind of overarching countrywide or worldwide 'ideal' policy.
it is tempting to forget that the ability to control conception is not simply a convenience, but a major change affecting the future of the human species. When we play with fire it's best to know what one is doing and what will be the foreseeable results.
I do agree with you since 30 year ago... I don't know what is mankind waiting for.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRampant population growth is not hard to slow and then stop, but we must see the problem clearly. The writer doesn't illuminate the issue. He implicitly sets up a false dichotomy, framing the issue as if the only choice is between unrestrained population growth and coercion. The most widespread and germane coercion in operation is governments, men, and ideologues denying women the choice and means to limit their families. The lack of available, inexpensive, family planning correlates closely with abuse of women and children, and overpopulation. That's it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolvingApe has it right. Access for women to inexpensive family planning is essential and, interestingly, the cure. It may involve limiting the tyranny that men and some religions currently exercise over their women and girl children.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPrimary education for everybody is the single most important parameter to change the game. Then political decisions that drive technological changes will do the rest. Television and media have an important role to catch and help develop the skills around everywhere. Look at BBC as a trendsetter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen we talk about population, we often forget to mention that 1 billion people suffer from malnutrition, (a polite word for hunger), and 1 billion more live below the poverty line.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, democracy , not the financial system, is bankrupt as it fails to effectively represent the interests of the poor. Feed the poor decently and large families will diminish in size , as they have done everywhere where welfare has been implemented. So it is clear that a world-wide humanitarian policy must be adopted if we are to take the increasing pressure off diminishing world ressources and decrease all forms of pollution.
Overpopulation is clearly the cause of all environmental ills and many of today's social problems. Crime is one example. Even if criminals formed a constant percentage of the population, it is the absolute numbers that count. The same is true with many of society's growing problem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost of our problems would disappear in one generation if human beings did the only sensible thing and put an immediate halt on population growth. All humans should have mandatory birth control devises from the age of puberty and should be restricted from removing them until they can show they have, 1.) trained for some sort of employment
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2.) worked at the same job for at least a year 3.) have been financially self sufficient for at least a year 4.) can demonstrate an IQ of at least 100 5.) can show evidence of no substance abuse or alcohol addiction and 6.) have attended parenting classes and received a satisfactory grade. This may sound drastic, but if the alternative is to make our planet totally devoid of life as we know it within 50 years, then it's necessary. Why is having a child a right? It should be a privilege one earns.
yes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBirth Control is the answer. It will be available to those in poverty who have no need for more children.
Without it we are doomed just as surely as we are by the loss of energy.
Birth control, birth control is the mantra to repeat in answer to most of our problems, first the domestic of course.
Don't raise the issue of who gets to decide without remembering we're all deciding right now. The issue needs to be raised with the "God will provide" and "As Allah wills it" types in the hierarchies of the large family religions. It's not hard to see that the limiting factor here is patriarchal control of women by the RCChurch and Islam in general, both of whom don't read SciAm. Of course resource and energy conservation will help survive the aftermath of the resource wars, but why do we never plan ahead? Maybe we need technocracy, not democracy, now that we've got some decent cognitive science... This whole issue is dispiriting, when I know so many women who don't want children at all. But they're all secular, not religious. I think there's a link. More science, less faith, fewer kids, less conflict. Works for me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have always marveled at how much larger, physically North Americans and some Northern Europeans are relative to say the "Average" Chinese or Indian. In America fewer are born, but of much higher consumption of resources! Indians, mostly vegetarians, and Chinese in similar fashion eat veggies and rice with some meat, cost much less to governments and environment per capita, now what do they produce? China has more post graduate s with IQs of 130+, than the U.S. has students, drop-outs included! India far surpasses that figure, and produces the engineers and programmers for the world! The "Smoke Stack Era" American Middle Class loborer is now the "Legacy Worker" of an industrial age moved to Asia, where he was not duplicated, but replaced by fine bodied Chinese women, rice burners all of them, and weighing in at 80 pounds direct,ing computer controlled hydraulics and electrically powered super factories, and dispensing with the necessity for brawn altogether! My Question, and my point really, Does modern technology favor the use of many smaller, faster, brighter, individuals, each making less demands on the overall community over the larger heavy, high caloric intake meat eating Neanderthal-like behemoths of the "Foot-Ball" era of America? Does numer in population tell the whole story?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe always tip toe around the developed world when discussing the implementation of schemes to fix the world. These ideas are for the undeveloped nations-those scourges on the planet that are the cause of all of our problems. How is it fair for any of us to think this way? Do not we have compassion or value a life? What makes those people's lives any less than ours? But, please don't get me wrong, I am in no way a religious person; I rather detest the very thing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the key lies in education. What thing does say the Taliban or Creationists fear the most? The truth. Facts taught with education. If you keep your people ignorant then they will not question the status quo. But alas I run on a tangent for it is not just religion that keeps people ignorant. It is poverty, war, or in the developed world adamance to remain so for fear knowledge will make you appear "un-cool". Regardless, if all people were provided with an education they would at least know enough to make a choice for themselves and that there really is such a thing as an option. Then to provide those options for all such as in this instance birth control-which mind you I am a proponent for.
On a side Note:
It is far too much to ask people to abolish foolish beliefs in omnipotent beings controlling their fates because it is simply human nature to find comfort in such ideas. In other words; religion will forever remain. Still education can temper idiotic ideas that whatever will be because god wills it. If all people can be educated; then there will be no one left to fall victim to be a hapless sheep herded by men with ill-will and selfish goals. To go further and with more relevance to the subject; given the facts despite whatever religious doctrine people may or may not follow, people can at least be allowed to make an informed decision which would likely go farther than forcibly enforcing a policy on the masses.
I do not think that birth control policies is necessarily the right answer because the average family size has already been decreasing without any policy , according to the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/02/us/size-of-us-family-continues-to-drop-census-bureau-says.html. People have modernized the way of living by using machines to harvest crops and genetics to increase nutrition in our produce; this gives us a longer life span. The dramatic increase for medical technologies and medicine have saved so many lives that in the past these people would not have been able to survive. Science Daily states that life expectancy increasing and as a result birth rates are significantly reducing http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080215210722.htm# . As technology and medicine improves and becomes more assessable to everyone it makes it more difficult to control the rate of deaths rather than the rate of births.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCars, airplanes, and factories are a major contributor to global warming and pollution, these things are being over exhausted because of the large population who mainly think about their own individual, immediate satisfaction rather than the futures. The selfishness of making a product that is only beneficial to the immediate user has been the mentality of past and some current inventors. People are now worried about their environment only because the future is here and we are living in the consequences of years of neglect. I think in order to slightly control the worlds consumption of fossil fuels is to make a substitute for fossil fuel that is safer and make it highly available. Birth control is not the problem we have right now it is more the issue of life style and span that is improving, but is having a negative effect on our environment.
Birth can not be controlled. Population will decrease when the inevitable wars, pandemics, famine, etc. move into high gear. The four horsemen are moving at a trot now but the canter and then the gallop is coming. Its too bad we humans are no more foresighted than our ancestors.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only really MASSIVE problem we have is Population Growth. All these other things: Lack of water, lack of food, over crowding, over fishing, species extinctions, pollution of air and water, world-wide epidemics are the result of the development of a monoculture (Homo Sapiens) temporarily beyond the control of normal population-limiting natural systems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut do not be concerned, Mother Nature will prevail, for she is saying, perhaps in a whisper, but soon to be a shout: Control your population or I will control them for you.
I won't attempt to predict when nature takes over. By then it will be too late for many of the Mega-fauna (Whales, Elephants, Large sharks, Rhinos, Hippos, etc) But nature is tough, She has handled mass extinctions in the past and will again.
If we do not begin to limit populations effectively, and soon, we will be one of those mega-fauna to disappear.
I believe that we are already at levels beyond the long term carrying capacity of the world for human populations. (I am speaking in Geological terms, not four-year presidential terms). When the next Ice-Age arrives we will have an appropriate test.
I don't think the issue of human impacts is directly related to the simple cumulative numbers of humans on earth. It's been widely accepted that back when human numbers were still small and when human activity was primarily still in the hunter/gathering stage, humans still were responsible for big impacts by causing fires and altering the landscape in other selective ways. Paring back human numbers without also taking into consideration the depth and breadth of our impacts is not a sensible way to consider human population. I would suggest that human migration away from the land and into urban settings is an opportunity for humanity to begin designing their cities to constrain the impacts of human numbers. A city of one million might have the same impact as a city ten or even 100 times its population if the city is designed to capitalize on its human potential to re-use resources and harvest the abundant flow of energy that envelopes us; solar, wind, water and geothermal are among those energy sources but beyond that we can anticipate nuclear fission, fusion and space based solar and with abundant energy available, humans working together can create urban areas that are dense and yet created in such a way as to fullfill our instinctive craving for a pleasant view of natural features while assured of adequate food and security.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe should overlook the discovery and introduction of synthetic nitrogen before blaming petroleum as the sole cause of population control.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUC Berkeley 1968 all over again. Ecology Action went off campus with others. I now say, as then, cultural transformation is the way. It is happening, we all can manifest and push some! I am visulising a Home World Renaissance,can you help out?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1968 UC Berkeley all over again. Ecology Action and others went off campus. I still say Cultural Transformation is the way. It is happening now, I see a Home World Renaissance coming, we can all help bring it about. Why not spend the remaining "stimulouse money" on some of these issues?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOops I'm on the air! In a word yes. Population should be controlled. Start with a goal supported with supportive objectives. Educational objectives, say to incluce population pyramids in High School, religiouse objectives could include Bioethics in all Seminars and so on. And of course the shadow of our human footprint is now being seen by more and more of us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConsumption is the other half of course. We need to talk about what build-out might look like, and how a steady state sustainable economy wpould work. And of course I do assume there will be a future from which to look back upon our coming to grips with these issues.
Carl Sagan said it sweetly & succinctly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd here we are, 20 years later, going right down that path.
Hold on to your seats.
The deleterious effect on the planet of overpopulation is so obvious as not to need argument. Short of global catastrophe the only things that might mitigate it are the empowerment of women and determined secularization of education to counteract the irrationality of religion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat overpopulation is a threat to the planet is so obvious as not to need argument. Absent a global catastrophe, the only way to control it would be the empowerment of women in deciding their own fertility and the determined secularization of all education to counteract the illogic of religion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem isn't population, per se. The problem is the current rate of consumption per capita. We're not going to be able to sustain more people with the way we currently operate. We are ALREADY unable to do so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe're going to have to restrict population eventually, or nature will likely do it for us, the hard way, with much suffering. Politics is no longer be relevant when our survival is on the line. Birth control will not be good enough. There will be a need for forced sterilizations and a serious look at eugenics.
I have a theory that the present global population of 7 billion is made possible solely by fossil fuels and their byproducts, including fuel for vehicles and electricity, lubricants, tires, fertilizer, pesticides, plastics, etc. It seems to me that the economy of the developed world is a fossil fuel economy. Nearly everything we produce and which enables our extravagant lifestyle is derived from fossil fuels. If we consider the year 1900 to be the end of the pre-fossil fuel era, the global population has grown by 500% since then, in just over 100 years. In the developing world, huge populations are being sustained by the green revolution, which is enabled by fossil fuels. Our consumption of fossil fuels globally is increasing exponentially. Have you noticed that the estimates of time until fossil fuels are exhausted keep getting shorter? Thirty years ago, I used to hear 300 years. Now I read 100 years. The experts say there are two reasons: the massive and growing rate of consumption; and overly optimistic estimates of the remaining supply, especially coal. Have you wondered what will happen when fossil fuels become scarce? Have you thought about the future of the desert nations in the Middle East? Their populations have exploded during the oil boom years. They import most of their food. They pump their water out of prehistoric aquifers, which are going dry. What is going to happen when the oil is gone? Now consider that the human population keeps growing relentlessly. I believe that the 7 billion population is a fossil fuel "bubble". I think we are setting ourselves up for planetwide disaster. Keep in mind that I am not invoking global warming anywhere in this argument. It's too iffy. I am talking about resource exhaustion. This is really simple to understand, and I believe the conclusion is inescapable using nice, simple linear logic. One can quibble about exactly when this will come to pass. We have run out of new frontiers to explore and new continents to conquer. We can't rely on other resources to buffer the fossil fuel crash, because we are exhausting all of our resources simultaneously. All of the Federal Reserve's cash will not save us. There will be nothing left to buy. Can you explain to me why a massive crash of the human population will not occur in the next 200 years?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2009, this subject has been most thoroly thrashed out.A 2 child family is the ideal.Some states in India have achieved. but i am seeing still families with 6 , i am surprised ! Size of family>food need> agri land> money> health> are interlinked. Then how come the families i see with 6 in my province with excellent family planning programs? The norms stay with the poor implementers.We have seen genocides, pandemics, world wars,but were those cures? que sera sera ? The al-mighty creative force primordial energy who has envisioned all this will take care of all fatalistic outcomes. We have done our best.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe I read that the entire population of the planet could be relocated to the state of Alaska and that each family of four would have about five acres to get by on. I don't know how accurate that is. If your five-acre parcel is on the permafrost you will have to subsist off crops that grow quickly in the 23-hr summer sun, or else use nuclear power and everybody has a lot of grow lamps.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFishermen would have to be allowed to roam the planet seeking fish protein. Certainly, if we throw in all of Canada this could be done and every family would have more than 20 acres, even if people have to live in homes on the ice. There probably wouldn't be many personal vehicles other than snowmobiles and boats.
Stretched frugally, Alaska and Canada would have enough fossil fuel for absolutely essential uses as well to support a population of 6 billion. Everyone would get to enjoy the northern lights!
Oh, and adequate fresh water as well, although we could use nuclear power to melt more water if we need it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn every developed country where old age pension has been introduced, people have voluntarily controlled the number of children they have. Indeed current western countries birth rates are too low. This proves that welfare policy provokes prosperity. So feed the world's poor and the population exploson will disappear. This goes against the thinking of most world leaders, so they should certainly think again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChina's One Child Policy was a piece of s*it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMinority groups are allowed to breed as much as they want (unlike the evil Americans who killed off most of their Native groups as soon as possible)
Rural areas usually still have 2-3 children per family.
The people of the cities are trying to get boys, so there is now a large imbalance.
What would work better is allowing a two-child family IF the first one is a daughter, since gender manipulation, or attempts to have boys, only work 60% of the time, this would result in a more balanced boy-girl environment.
WHY IS BIRTH CONTROL IMPORTANT????
BECAUSE IT IS BETTER TO NEVER HAVE BEEN AWARE YOU EXISTED THAN TO STARVE TO DEATH IN SQUALOR as the world population explodes and food supplies dwindle. What would the unborn embryo think, if it could, would it choose to suffer for a few years, constantly malnourished, often ill, starving regualrly, and finally dying of starvation or disease, or would the embryo choose to just have it all end before it began?
If embryos (before their brain forms and heart starts beating) could think, I believe we figured out where a lot of miscarriages came from, unwillingness to be born into poor conditions (such as drug-taking celeb parents?)
I do not believe in terminating a pregnancy after the brain forms and heart starts beating, that is wrong, for they think, therefore they are (Descartes or whoever it was "I think, therefore I am")
Well, Okay, welfare works too, after all, the main reason for having lots of kids is support when you grow too old to work, sorry, I didn't read that comment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBirth control may also cause an aging population if it is immediately after a baby boom (e.g. India right now and most other developing countries, even China has trouble with it.)
During our tour of China last year a Chinese tour guide offered an interesting perspective on the one-child policy. As someone noted, the one-child policy was not enforced out in the boonies. The important exception was for farming families (almost everyone in rural areas) and it allowed that if a couple did not have a boy as their first child they could continue having children until they got a boy to work their land. If they kept coming up girls they could keep on having babies as long as they wanted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn today's China, however, it is often not economical to work tiny plots of land, so these large families tend to move into the cities. Such mobility is strictly against other Chinese laws which for centuries, perhaps millenia, strictly forbid immigration from the countryside to cities without approval.
Flaunting these old laws has become very widespread and results in China's own class of "illegal immigrants" having sprung up in major metropolitan areas. Because they are illegals these people can't get the higher-value jobs, but they can open small labor-intensive businesses, such as restaurants and their children become their instant staff.
China doesn't have much in the way of minimum wage laws or anti-child labor enforcement, so the small restaurant business has basically been taken over by illegal rural immigrant families. Enforcement of those laws in the first place was most often done by the local communist party mentors for a neighborhood, who are often retired government employees holding nominal positions in a neighborhood whose main responsibility is to vet their neighbors and issue permissions for small projects, new businesses, marriages, pet control, etc.
The wonderful thing about these positions for the retirees is that they create a steady income through taking bribes.
The Chinese have a wonderful sense of pragmatism or common sense, if you will, which leads me to believe that highly idealistic climate agreements will not be honored by anyone unless real factual negative consequences can be perceived in the streets. Consequences that might actually be positive will very quickly evolve their own supportive constituencies.
It is but it can't be implement or it's impossible to. So there is only one way to reduce is to let the weak suffer and the strong survive. Just compare dinner at Ethiopia with most industrialized countries family dinner, got it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course increasing population is the basis of our problems, not just environmental, but also economic and political. As long as there are two independent minds in the world, there will be conflicts. As we became too successful as a species, our survival instincts changed to greed. Crowding leads to the need for central control. We evolved from the "law of the jungle" to free enterprise, where we're not supposed to rob or kill (at least those who look like us) to get our way. In lieu of sufficient government control, this evolved to capitalism, where the rich get richer, far beyond their social value or contributions. This leads to elitism, then to fascism and eventual collapses on various levels, if we don't move to a new paradigm in time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn that respect, we should replace "Be fruitful and multiply" with "Make love, not babies, and doublely reduce the causes of war." We need birth control, of ALL forms, easily available and encouraged, birth taxes instead of deductions, emphasis on keeping productive people healthy over birth services and life-extension. (I say this as a senior.) "Right to Die" (and assistance) laws should be available to all. I could go on, but you'd like it even less.
Men, how committed are you to birth control? I'm told that in 'primitive' tribes, even in early Rome, some men, or their doctors, would cut a small hole in the bottom of the penis, near the scrotum, as an alternative exit for semen. The Romans had plugs, made of gold, to close either hole. I think this would be preferable to condoms, and also prophylactic.
By the way, DNA evidence shows that humans in the past have had many episodes of various strains of HIV, for which we evolved immunity. Columbus' crew may have gotten syphilis from native Americans, for it's first recorded occurrence in Europe. The only way we'll get completely beyond each outbreak is to evolve immunity, which some people probably already have, until another strain comes along.
I'm not sure that it is a good idea for government to get involved, but perhaps the best method would be simply to provide birthcontrol to women in countries with large populations. By putting women in control of thier own reproductive organs, perhaps fewer children will be born. I understand that there is a culture gap there, but if women were not put in a position that thier only worth came from thier ability to produce children, perhaps the problem would solve itself. Regardless of the method, our population will decrease; there will come a point when we will have exhasted our resources, and therefore will start to die off... that is unless global warming kills us off first.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe (the whole world) need more population control and family planning. Everyone needs to have birth control alternatives available so that, not only will women have more control over their reproduction, but they can have a better quality of life. Less people would certainly allow us to live more comfortably. I think that there are definitely too many of us now. I believe people should have limits on how many children they can have. No more than say, 2 per person. I think there should be a moratorium on all procreation in some places for a little while. Furthermore, there should be requirements similar to adoption before someone can even procreate. *ducks stuff being thrown* I know my views are very controversial, please keep that in mind if you reply, its just my opinion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Lancet editorial mentioned is mis-quoted ("is birth control policy and access the answer to the environmental challenges of our time? So argues an editorial in The Lancet"). The editorial referred to primarily discusses a paper in the Bulletin of WHO, of which I am a co-author. Our paper primarily discusses the benefits of slowing rapid population growth to low income people at risk from climate change. This is a rather similar point to that made by Steven Sinding, discussed later in this article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe conclusion is puzzling ("the real problem may be consumption"). The author has reviewed lots of evidence suggesting that population growth is a major problem (even if the Lancet discussion is slightly wrong). Few deny the importance of consumption, for which there is a vast literature (eg I=PAT), though little is explicitly reviewed here. But why stress consumption in the conclusion? To do so seems like an attempt to argue that, contrary to the evidence reviewed, population is no so important after all.
The Lancet editorial mentioned is mis-quoted ("is birth control policy and access the answer to the environmental challenges of our time? So argues an editorial in The Lancet"). The editorial referred to primarily discusses a paper in the Bulletin of WHO, of which I am a co-author. Our paper primarily discusses the benefits of slowing rapid population growth to low income people at risk from climate change. This is a rather similar point to that made by Steven Sinding, discussed later in this article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe conclusion is puzzling ("the real problem may be consumption"). The author has reviewed lots of evidence suggesting that population growth is a major problem (even if the Lancet discussion is slightly wrong). Few deny the importance of consumption, for which there is a vast literature (eg I=PAT), though little is explicitly reviewed here. But why stress consumption in the conclusion? To do so seems like an attempt to argue that, contrary to the evidence reviewed, population is no so important after all.
No throwing from here, but I would challenge you to start thinking outside the box (I know I hate that cliche as well - but it fits). Population Control is an easy answer that requires no critical thinking. Man has advanced from the evolutionary Eve (Supposedly in Sub-Saharan Africa about 250,000 years ago) to almost 7 billion souls. politics, wars and despots prevent all 7 billion from living "comfortably" as you put it, but the resources are there. They were not there 100 or 1000 years ago.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisit is not over population, but it is man's inhumanity to himself that is the problem. The planet can support more humans, but the human condition will not improve as long as we allow the inhumanity to remain.
Quentin: "Many developing countries are in the same position as we were 100 years ago -- although each one will vary. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this----------------------------------
No, they are not.
100+ years ago there no technologically advanced and benevolent "neighbors," who ensured the survival of the majority of the 8+ offspring, by medical know-how transfer, immunization drives, food-aid, etc..
The population explosion in the developing world is driven mostly by the high survival rates among populations which benefit from the transfer of advanced knowledge from the "First" World, but without the family-planning acculturation, which used to go hand-in-hand with such advanced knowledge and technology.
Religion certainly plays a major role in all this, but so do short-sighted political aspirations (as in Ceausescu's Romania, and in places like India.) Throw in illiteracy, ignorance and sometimes sheer stupidity, and we have all the ingredients for paving (crudely) the planet over in the next 50 years.
So ultimately the author asks us to go back to the Stone Age, and to pay child support to irresponsible 3rd worlders.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe world needs effective populations controls. Or nature will control population in diverse and painful ways. We may be on the way to solving overpopulation through GREEN activities. I had four children, coming out of the depression psychology. Eldest had one child; 2nd had two; 3rd, a medical doctor, had two and one mistake for three; 4th had two boys and husband is also an MD. I expect the next generation will have only replacement or fewer offspring. We need abortion rights to help people work toward GREEN.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvolvingApe,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"100+ years ago there no technologically advanced and benevolent "neighbors," who ensured the survival of the majority of the 8+ offspring, by medical know-how transfer, immunization drives, food-aid, etc.."
Great point! One of those "Doh!" moments when you do not think about it until someone spells it out for you.
No question but that human population growth will destroy the planet. As of today, there are an estimated 7 billion people on the planet. By 2050, an estimated 9 billion. In 1960 there were 3 billion people. See a trend here that is unsustainable? We need to implement an immediate worldwide "one child" polidy for all nations. The alternative is environmental collapse, increased wars, mass famines, and hundreds millions more deaths from lack of fresh drinking water.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisinformation well and good ... I like your way of thinking about pregnancy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for sharing
<a href="http://www.mybabydoc.com/">Tubal Reversal</a>
It is true that the world population is higher. But in commenting some families are baring more children than their family capacity. I wish if a legal married family should bare up at least 1-2 children. To control over population it should be at the level of family planning. Some families do not hold children. Their they will suffer at the old ages of life. If the family is the tree children are the fruits. But I understand undeveloped families are over populatated and then no enough caring and becomes social polluters.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this