This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Why do so many think that population growth is an important issue for the environment? Don't they know the facts of demographics?
We face many environmental challenges, but the foremost is the risk for a severe climate change due to CO2 emissions from fossil fuels.
I meet so many that think population growth is a major problem in regard to climate change. But the number of children born per year in the world has stopped growing since 1990. The total number of children below 15 years of age in the world are now relatively stable around 2 billion. The populations with an increasing amount of children born are fully compensated by other populations with a decreasing number of children born. A final increase of 2 billion people is expected until the world population peaks at about 9 billion in 2050. But the increase with 2 billion is comprised by already existing persons growing up to become adults, and old people like me (+60 years). So when I hear people saying that population growth has to be stopped before reaching 9 billion, I get really scared, because the only way to achieve that is by killing.
So the addition of another 2 billion in number constitutes a final increase of less than 30%, and it is inevitable. Beyond 2050 the world population may start to decrease if women across the world will have, on average, less than 2 children. But that decrease will be slow.
So the fact is that we have to plan for a common life on Earth with 7-9 billion fellow human beings, and the environmental challenge must be met by a more effective use of energy and a much more green production of energy.
The only thing that can change this is if the last 1-2 poorest billion do not get access to school, electricity, basic health services and family planning. Only if the horror of poverty remains will we become more than 9 billion.
So my question is: Are these facts known? If not, why?
It is important because placing emphasis on population diverts attention from what has to be done to limit the climate crisis.
Eric Anderson
Increased healthy lifespan, reduced HD, Cancer, Diabetis, AZ, PD, seem like a much better trade off than unsupported speculation about small incresed Muscle loss that may or may not be a morbidity or mortality factor. It may even help with aging! Why slavishly foolow unsupported claims about diet and protein? Where is the data? Please!!
In the matter of slavish imitation, man is the monkey's superior all the time. The average man is destitute of independence of opinion. He is not interested in contriving a opinion of his own, by study and reflection, but is only anxious to find out what his neighbor's opinion is and slavishly adopt it.
- Mark Twain's Autobiography
Eric Anderson
http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/3_foodconsumption/en/index.html
Easy to see the big change if those over 60 eat less protein (Say 7% of Kcal) and the health benifits would be great for those over 60. (Longer life, less disease, less food cost)
Eric Anderson
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0030223
http://www.impactaging.com/papers/v1/n10/full/100098.html
http://knol.google.com/k/ron-mignery/protein-cycling-diet/2s3nmvrwklbxs/1#
Debra Smith 200+
Jimena Duque
Having said that and replying to your specific question, I believe that the facts are there and known, how can they not, however, we tend to 'play', 'pick & choose' and sometimes even manipulate the data depending on the message we are trying to convey. I would also add that there may be an element of laziness where issues or topics are presented in a vacuum, ignoring the 'complete picture' and just exploring a 'pixel'.
Kait Kenel
If people were able to focus less on the things they could 'get' in certain societies, which helps fuel our destructive use of the earths precious and finite resources, it is probably true that the overall happiness and well-being of those people will increase.
On that same token, by educating people in developing areas of the world, especially women, it is affording them a freedom/independence that they may have never known before. This again, can reasonably result in an increase in the overall happiness, health and well-being of such people. Let it also be noted, that I do not believe it to be 'our' job as a western culture to force upon other groups ideologies that we prescribe to, but more the sharing of facts about health and science, to the best of our (continually growing) knowledge.
Sorry to go all psychology on this discussion, it just needed to be pointed out ;)
Kait Kenel
In terms of the developing world, it may be a good idea to be better educating people in general, and women especially in their rights as humand to choose to have (or not have) children. This is an area where this form of education, in light of a possible 'population crisis' may be effective.
I will also add that, the notion of a population crisis on the horizon may be an over-sensationalized and highly misunderstood idea, but I don't believe that it is inaccurate, entirely.
It is pretty obvious that the world is actively making changes to accommodate for the threat of this 'crisis', and that is exactly what we should be doing.
Therefore, population growth may not effect climate change like other factors, but that does not mean we lack effective ways to deal with it, and it is not what one group of people can do to make effective changes, it is what everyone as a WHOLE community MUST do to curb these effects. To me, it is all important, and change needs to happen everywhere.
Tamar Hoffman
Johnathan Williams
Steven Rader 20+
If this is in fact the case... and population is destined to continue on this trajectory, we will have some very difficult decisions to make about quality of life, resources, choice, human life, and human rights.
Dan F 50+
It seems to me the dynamics of not just of the explosion of the human populations in modern times is mind boggling, but also the dynamics of the explosion of the cultural evolution and how that has effected how we have thrived in numbers and improved the standard of living around the world. All this has resulted in an extended and more delicate reliance on man made or designed products, ideas and the exploitation and alteration of natural resources for our benefit. The question in my mind is whether the quality of life is bound for extensive unpleasant outcomes.
Not just the world and countries, but large modern mega city of hundreds of thousands and even millions of residences relies on incredibly sophisticated political, economic, social, biological, etc., systems to function and operate as planned. Am I the only one that senses how things could really degrade if cooperation turns more toward survival in these densely populated urban areas?
The assurance that aspects of the world population trends give reason for optimism because it is peaking out misses the central issue in my mind. I don't dispute these trends just the assumption of the stability of the current and projected general human population situation.
Cause and effect can spoil models and often do. When it comes to such matters there is often a lag affect between the things that can and do bring about correction(s). We have plenty of warnings in a variety of areas that suggest that it's only possible to claim so far so good.
I am not a doomsayer, but one who thinks the miserably index for vast numbers of people could go up - way up!
Yolanda Rider
I am particularly interested in your misgivings about cities... In fact, I should think that it is easier to provide services for people when they congregate in high density population centers: schools, hospitals, public transport, libraries, housing, sanitation... If anything I think that cities are part of the solution not the problem.
Ana María Pérez 200+
Gabriel .C 20+
This makes me wonder if the Gapminder Foundation has considered a more political role for its genius display of data. How would political debates look like if every claim made by a statesman were to be accompanied by Mr. Rosling with a pointing stick, a graph, and an allusion to his beloved Sweden? :)
Rhetoric is dangerous because it can be both beautiful and entirely fallacious at the same time. I wish foundations such as these were incorporated into a larger system of completely objective fact-checking, easily available to the masses if not forcibly thrust upon them. Now that would make for some first class debating.
Guneet Narula
But thanks to you, we have a much better understanding of whats really happening.
I personally think that earth's carrying capacity has not been reached or crossed yet. We do have enough resources for all the people. I remember reading a statistic by the UN that in 1999 we had more than enough food for everyone. I'd blame our established systems of economics and trade (and even society) for all the suffering.. and only if there's a global revolution, very soon, opposing the fundamentals of our current system, will we be able to keep the population less than 9 billion.
Jeffrey Wise
The various technologies that have supported the "green revolution" are numerous and wonderful, but we have become dependent upon them as our population has swelled. I'm afraid that a significant diminishing of supplies of nitrogen-based fertilizers, pumped irrigation water, top soil, oil for transporting food, etc., will strain our ability to support the people we have, especially in the poorer areas of the world. What chance do we have to end poverty world wide and thereby limit the population to 9 billion without rapidly depleting our resources to critical levels - and/or overheating the planet? If we can pull this off, how can we sustain such a population for the unlimited future?
Before the technologies of the 20th century, the Earth supported something under 2 billion people. Can anyone tell us how we can protect the 5 billion people beyond that level alive today, or the 2 more billion expected as we move past "peak oil" and into an age of depleted aquifers, eroded top soil, etc.? How many people can modern technology support once we have depleted our resources and overheated the planet?
I certainly don't have these answers. Can anyone help out? I may be overly pessimistic, but this is why I think the population problem is already here; the growth has already happened! Over-extension followed by collapse is not a new phenomena in human history. Can we avoid another boom-bust cycle - this time world scale?
Leslie Scott
Paul Van der Werf
I think the issue is the other way around. The environment is an issue for our population and its growth. Leslie has pointed this out well as does some recent environmental or natural disasters. Floods in AU, earthquakes in NZ, drought in China, volcano in Iceland, severe winter in EU, highest recorded summer temperatures in the northern hemisphere and the list goes on. Each of these interrupt food production locally which put more pressure on global food production.
The environment and our population are very connected and the more reactive and unpredictable the environment becomes, the more at risk our population is.
Chris Berrie
For every apparently substantive "fact" offered, a counter fact is posited that seems just as reasonable. Within the threads of these very comments is much opinion and contradictory or obscure information. Amidst all of the noise and confusion, how does the average person make sense of it all? How can the "masses", who drive our conventional wisdom and common endeavor, make informed, socially responsible choices? How can they not be overwhelmed and paralyzed by indecision and fear?
Debate is critical, but how do we translate all of the debate into real world solutions?
Harald Jezek 50+
I would say it is not. Any system has only that much of a carrying capacity. Once this carrying capacity is reached population growth comes to a halt, because the system, inevitably runs out of one or more essential resources.
This is true for bacteria, plants and animals as well.
So, why should humans make an exception ? We can discuss what the carrying capacity of our planet is (and numbers vary widely), but in any case there will be an upper limit to a human population. If we are resourceful and use our natural resources wisely we might even be able to push this upper population limit a bit.
P C
It's true that violence might occur, especially in an ecological collapse scenario. Easter Island gives a stark illustration. We know that we need to realign our economic and political systems to reflect ecological reality. The smaller the time-frame in which this realignment occurs, the worse will be the violence. Over the long-term we need to achieve economic and ecological sustainability by having populations constrain their size to local carrying capacities (or projected 25-50 year level), constrain food trade in terms of nutrition parity (grains for grains, meat for meat, and fruit for fruit), and only permit parity-based immigration (prevents moral hazards and the externalization of population-related ecological impacts). If we bolster this long-term strategy with gradual short-term increases and public education, it'll have a lower probability for violence.
Policies need to be aligned with reality or nature will mercilessly do it for us.
E G 10+
loop johnny 30+
I have a better alternative. Let women decide if they want a child or not.
E G 10+
Anna Hoffmann
Kristi Droppers
William Peterson
Now, the main question is "why do so many think this kind of population growth is such a problem?". Well, they were scared into worrying about population growth some years ago and can't let go of the notion. Now, they are being slowly scared into being concerned about global warming, and they don't seem to be enjoying the concern of extra items in their lives. Give them a basic course in demography and MAYBE they'll start to put problems in perspective.
Ted Howard
I disagree with many contributors who think we are running out of resources.
We have plenty of resources, all the energy and matter we could conceivably need, we just have less than optimal systems in place around those resources.
Part of problem relates to the technologies we use, which are typically expanding exponentially, and could expand a lot faster is they were not constrained by the need to recoup investment in the previous generation of products.
The other part of the problem relates to the the social systems we use, most of which are based around money as a system of valuation.
Using money as a system of valuation has a serious negative effect on a significant minority of all societies, because money is a measure of exchange value, and exchange is based on scarcity. Most people value abundance, but there is no monetary value in general abundance (abundant goods are free). Thus monetary systems have an inbuilt incentive to create scarcity, which results in a significant fraction of any society experiencing scarcity, when we actually possess the resources and technology to produce general abundance of many goods and services.
In terms of energy, sunlight delivers an equivalent of 6 inches of oil over the entire planet every year. Plenty of energy. Yet because it is decentralised, and abundant, there is no economic incentive to develop technologies to harness it (too much profit being made from existing technologies - oil and coal). For a more detailed discussion of the concept see http://tedhowardnz.wordpress.com/money/
Having recently (10 months ago) changed my diet to vegan (after 55 years of carnivorous diet), it seems clear to me that we could sustain a population of 9 billion at a conservative density of 2 people per acre (very easy for vegans) using only 12% of the land area.
It is actually quite easy to sustain 3 people off a half acre section in temperate climates.
Rudolf von Deluge
I wrote elsewhere: "We all know that our ecosystem if facing a harsh future, and to a certain extent (a very large extent I suppose) is due to land and resource overuse. This isn't likely to change if we continue to a) reproduce without control or regulation and b) continue to perpetuate the modern hedonist lifestyle, requiring more material entitlements and spoils c) spread the modern lifestyle to the novel burgeoning economical powers in Asia where people already bred like mad (India and China, both of these countries suffer from overpopulation). The unprecedented demand for luxurious and material spoils in the western civilized world is, after all, what causes both land overuse and resources overuse. Our piggish demand for the spoils of modernity also explains why the prices of oil, wheat and corn have skyrocketed in recent years; the ecosystem can't cope with the growing demanded for spoils. The liberal mindset, deprived of any reasonable consideration of consequentiality and characterized by a denial of behavioral causality is what led us to this situation, in allowing people to act exactly for this materialistic self-gratification. It doesn't sound reasonable or conceivable to bring the west's morbidities to third world countries, does it?
For more information: www.amerika.org/globalism/global-warming-is-a-consequence-of-globalism