Bursting point: the world’s unsustainable population
from the latest edition of Sustainability Magazine
by Graham Strouts www.zone5.org
“It is a simple logical truth that, short of mass emigration into space, with rockets taking off at the rate of several million per second, uncontrolled birth-rates are bound to lead to horribly increased death-rates. It is hard to believe that this simple truth is not understood by those leaders who forbid their followers to use effective contraceptive methods. They express a preference for ‘natural’ methods of population limitation, and a natural method is exactly what they are going to get. It is called starvation.” ~Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene
Population is a sensitive subject. It is not only political leaders who are reluctant to address it; most environmentalists also feel it is quite beyond their remit in working towards sustainability. It is often seen as an unmentionable subject, something only touched upon by racists and xenophobes –which is exactly why environmentalists need to engage in the debate.
For example, piecemeal responses to climate change which encourage individuals to save energy by changing light-bulbs or turning off appliances will likely be more than outweighed simply by the population increase. Simply stated, more people = more carbon emitters, but this obvious fact is entirely missing from most public debate about the issue.
Global over- population is becoming more and more pressing every day and needs to take centre stage alongside resource depletion and climate change as one of the great issues of our time.
Two Sides of the Human Footprint
The environmental crisis is essentially a result of the total human footprint on the Earth’s systems. This is a combination of both population and consumption rates. There is just one planet, and its ability to sustain life is being sorely tested by both our lifestyle and our numbers.
The world is divided like never before, polarized between an over-consuming Western minority and an over-populated poor majority, including 2 billion on the bread line.
According to the Worldwatch Institute, the 12 percent of the world’s population that lives in North America and Western Europe accounts for 60 percent of private consumption spending, while the one-third living in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa accounts for only 3.2 percent. At the same time, the World Wide Fund for Nature’s Living Planet Report reveals that humans already consume 20 percent more natural resources than the earth can produce.
Conventional environmental wisdom holds that as the poor increase their standards of living, especially the rights and education of females, they will naturally reduce their birth rates, as is happening in the West.
Unfortunately, while in some parts of the world this is happening, in others increased affluence is leading to a baby-boom first- as happened in Saudi Arabia over the last 20 years and is happening in Ireland now as people (perhaps belatedly) respond to the feel-good factor of the Celtic Tiger. Reduction of per capita consumption in some countries has been outweighed by sheer increase in numbers in others.
Immigration from poor to rich countries will naturally lead to those people increasing their consumption levels as they increase their economic opportunities, while in many countries increasing the population is still considered a good thing even if they are already consuming far more resources than is sustainable.
So the debate between those who feel we should challenge the rich world to reduce its pollution and consumption before asking the poor world to reduce its population is a false one: both must happen if we are to reduce the human footprint.
A Rising Tide
It took nearly the whole of human history for the world’s population to reach the first 1 billion human beings. This occurred around 1850, some 50 years after English economist Thomas Robert Malthus first warned that food production could not keep up with population growth.
The second billion was reached soon after the World War I, and by the mid 1950s, there were 3 billion of us. Paul Ehrlich wrote The Population Bomb in 1968 when world population stood at 3.5 billion. It had risen to over 4.5 billion when China began its policy of one child per family. At the turn of the century, the 6 billion mark was passed. The world’s population now stands at approximately 6.7 billion, and it is forecast to rise to 9.2 billion by 2050. The ecological and human impact of such an increase is almost unimaginable.
Each year, some 80 million more people are added to the planet, each one requiring food, shelter and clothing; each one with a legitimate right to increase their standard of living and seek a better material life; and each one likely themselves to reproduce and thus continue to contribute to the overall human impact on the planet.
Growth through the Oil Age
The role of fossil fuels in the exponential increase in human numbers over the last 150 years cannot be over-stated.
While for most of human history, total numbers had been restricted by much the same effects of nature that prevent the over-expansion of any other species, the exploitation of fossil fuels has let the genie out of the bottle.
In particular, oil has allowed humanity to cheat natural selection. It has fuelled the machinery and farming practices of modern agriculture, dramatically increasing produce yields, temporarily delaying the Malthusian prediction of famine. There are, however, warning signs that this Golden Age may be coming to an end.
As scientists battle to stay one step ahead of pests and viruses that could wipe out the monocultures that industrial farming favours, environmental destruction and climate change is reducing the amount of arable land globally, even as the world’s population continues its inexorable rise.
As we stand at the point of Peak Oil, the prospect of dwindling energy supplies looms. We can only assume that Mother Nature will step in to correct any imbalance in the Earth’s carrying capacity that fossil fuels have created. Our population will certainly peak and decline within the next 50 years, but we may still have a choice as to how this process takes place: -will this be from a series of famines and other catastrophic events? Or will we be able to move towards a truly sustainable culture that is able to regulate its population as well as its consumption?
The Post-modern delusion
The short era of cheap fossil fuels that has emerged in the last 150 years has created whole societies in the West that have been able to rid themselves of many of the worst aspects of hunger and poverty, and provide welfare for all. This has allowed a culture to emerge with a concern for the plight of those less fortunate. This concern, however, has carried with it a tragic and hopeless delusion: that goodwill can bring peace and prosperity to all regardless of the size of the population.
This ideology has fuelled decades of programmes of aid to Africa and other famine-torn regions of the world. This goodwill aid has entirely failed to meet the goal of eradicating hunger. This is partially due to the fact that the population continues to increase in these regions.
According to one UN report, The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2005, the number of undernourished people in the world declined only slightly from roughly 824 million in 1990-92 to around 815 million in 2000-02. The West must face the bitter reality that the provision of famine relief aid in the absence of population control strategies will only lead to more starving people.
. What Can be Done?
“Mounting population pressure does have a potential safety valve: recognition and rational analysis of the danger, leading to remedial action (birth control worldwide), but for half a century the valve has been tightly closed by a taboo. The subject is so ‘sensitive’ that few people are prepared to face it. Birth control is, however, humankind’s best hope for a less painful future.”
~William Stanton, The Rapid Rise in Human Population 1750-2000
Environmental educators and activists can help create a more sustainable world by addressing the world’s population crisis. Practical actions can be taken. Here are a few suggestions:
1) Start the conversation. Everyone interested in sustainability needs to incorporate the population issue into their work, however challenging this may be. If population is not considered, environmental work in other areas may be futile.
2) Inform and educate others. Increased understanding of the issues surrounding population growth will lead to a culture in which everyone recognises the need to voluntarily limit human numbers by having less children, creating a sustainable population with a reasonable standard of living for all. Coercive population control strategies are not helpful.
3) Support relevant organisations. The Optimum Population Trust (http://www.optimumpopulation.org), for example, offers educational material, and it runs campaigns for greater awareness around sustainable population issues. Those who wish to support charities in the Third World should consider Marie Stopes International (http://www.mariestopes.org.uk/), which works to provide better birth-control options and sexual and reproductive health resources in the developing world.
References
William Catton (1980) Overshoot
Paul and Anne Ehrlich (1990)- The Population Explosion
William Stanton (2000) The Rapid Rise in Human Population 1750-2000
Hi Graham,
Glad to see an article on a problem that urgently needs to be addressed. There is a very good lecture by Prof. Albert Bartlett available online at
http://globalpublicmedia.com/lectures/461
which discusses population growth and I highly recommend it. Our collective lack of appreciation for the seriousness of this problem is frightening. I have not witnessed it myself, but I’ve been told that there is a group that continue to protest outside the Family Planning Clinic in Cork City every week!
Eoin
Thank you, Graham, for grasping the nettle with this very well argued article. I wish more environmentalist would, as it is THE most important issue, I believe. As you know, I have written about it too, also from the woman’s point of view, but would like to add a point about the myth of ‘two would only be replacement’, a policy a lot of people adopt, thinking their breeding would be population neutral. It would only be population neutral if the parents dropped dead the moment the children (it would have to be twins) were born, but with an average lifespan, the parents would expect to live to see grandchildren, and even great-grandchildren, who will have their own ideas about how many children they want, and what kind of consumer life-style they will lead. Even if each generation had just the two ‘replacements’, the population will have quadrupled before the oldest generation dies off. The reality probably looks a lot worse. My parents only had two more than ‘neutral’ and during their lifetime their number has increased from two to sixteen, despite the fact that a disproportionate number of us have no children at all. Even if you take into account the partner’s ‘allocation of two’ it is still a great increase in the population, and nowhere near neutral. Of course to my parent’s generation population was not an issue (lack of information/education, and a smaller population), but we have the facts, ignore them at our peril!
I’m neither a sociologist nor economist. I am a greenie/socialist by nature, so let me preface this comment with “I don’t really know but”…
Let me play devils advocate for a second and say that IMO there is a single very good mechanism for population control, it is simple, effective, and won’t have human rights groups picketing your office.
It’s going to be controversial here, because, while it might slow, or even reverse population growth, but it does cause a lot of other issues:-
It’s called a western free market economy.
My argument is this: Kids are expensive.
In a modern western economy, raising children means either the loss of an income, or paying for child care, then clothing, then education, all of which cuts into the parent’s personal income and freedom, pretty much indefinitely. From this what does the parent gain? Obviously the ability to pass on one’s genes is no small thing, but once you’ve had one, maybe two kids, with today’s mortality rates, then your genetic heritage looks secure. Besides that however, well there isn’t a lot. Modern adults are expected to have the means to look after themselves well into their dotage, with only the slimmest amount of token help from their offspring.
More than two and you get diminishing returns. Each child only adds to the cost, while only increasing your odds(which are already pretty good) of passing on your genes only marginally.
Compare this to an agrarian society with little or no education. There a child is relatively cheap to raise, as you are already growing food, and have no education expenses to speak of. Child mortality is high, and children are expected to look after parents in their old age – children are the parents pension. In that case it make sense for somebody to have as many children as they can, thus population boom.
As for proof, well let me give you this: if you show me a western economy(with a few possible exceptions, and Saudi Arabia doesn’t count, sorry), then I will show you a country that without immigration, or government bribes to have children, can’t maintain its replacement rate, or at least is very close.
According to this Ireland has a replacement rate of 1.9 ish – anything under 2 is a decreasing population. I Think that their population expansion must be driven by immigration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate
Why doesnt Saudi Arabia count? Surely for your point to be valid you would need to demonstrate that the “transference of affluence” thesis which my article is challenging is applicable in the countries with currently the highest population growth. My point is this will not happen because the wealth of the west depends to a large part on appropriating the wealth of the majority world; in other words, the world as a whole will never reach the consumer lifestyles that the west has. But even if some areas were to reach a comfortable level which would lead to the process you are describing, it will take a generation or so before this shows up in a decline in birth rate. We are up against the clock and demographic momentum ensures that population will continue to rise globally regardless. We are already at bursting point in population just at the time we are also hitting peak oil and a decline in many other areas of the natural resource base. Again, I have also tried to tie together the two issues of population and consumption- a rise in affluence may lead to a decline in birth rate but an increase in resource consumption.
There is no doubt that the population increase in this world is getting to the point of where the only solution is a WW3. This would cut down on the poor, the unfortunate and those who least deserve to be eliminated. WW1 was a starter, WW2 was almost successful. WW3 is just around the corner. Why do I (hate) to believe it? Water shortage, Oil shortfall, relative few obscene super rich control the “not so well off” Billions. One cannot control these situations with military power forever. Einstein was asked “What do you think the kind of weapons will be used in WW3″. His answer: I don’t know, but the wars after WW3 will be fought with sticks and stones. BTW. I am a pacifist, I do not believe in killings, torture and other extreme measures. W.
IF THE SUBJECT ISNT ABOUT OVERPOPULATION NOT WORTH DISCUSSING. GOOD STUFF- I’VE BE ON IT FOR 40 YEARS AND IN 07 NOBODY WANTS TO EVEN TALK ABOUT IT. CONTINUE TO CONTAMINIATE YOUR BED AND SOME NIGHT YOU WILL DIE IN YOUR OWN WASTE. THE END OF LIVING THE BEGINNING OF SURVIVAL. PEAK ALL- DUE TO POPULATION OVERSHOOT. GOOD LUCK ALL!
Saudi Arabia doesn’t count because while it is affluent, culturally it is light years from a western free market economy. Its affluence is due to its role as oil exporter, and that has allowed it to be affluent, but not change culturally, for example in the role of women: these days most western families have poth parents work (to a degree) simply because it’s hard to pay the mortguage if they don’t.
My key point is that I am not suggesting that population decreases as affluence increases. I am suggesting that population decreases as the cost-benefit to the individual of having a child increases, something that naturally happens in the west.
As for wars, no war has ever really reduced popluation. WW2 killed 80 million people, but that’s a drop in the bucket compared to the 2billion odd who were alive at the time, and was far outweighed by the baby boom once the war was over.
I’m not suggesting that it’s a perfect solution, although it is better than anything else. Certainly it is better at popluation control than war or famine.
So what to do?
1) Try to change western society to gain better efficiencies, and ultimately become environmentally neutral. It’s going to be tough. I won’t deny it.
2) Keep working to improve health and education and welfare in the third world. (If child mortality falls then, people have less need to have children, if there is an adequate social security, then people don’t need to have children to look after them in thier old age.
The worst possible outcome for the environment would be if the west were to slip back to an agrarian culture: then it would once again make sense to have a lot of children, and to slash and burn to make as much food as possible.
I agree population control is a key issue and don’t disagree with Graham’s points. I am however not entirely convinced its a taboo subject avoided because of fear of being branded racist, xenophobic or imperialist. I think the problem is simpler than that, it’s avoided because of the enormity of the problem, just how do you limit population? It is pretty much a done deal in most of the west, if we didn’t have immigration populations would be falling. How do you go about getting other countries to control their population growth. If they don’t take action what do you do? I know we have the same problem with consumption of resources but the issue is just far more personal than how your food is grown. For me this is the reason I don’t often discuss population, if you can’t persuade a country it is in it’s best interest to control population growth what do you do next? Sanctions, ban all immigration (stop the outflow of educated slow breeders), stop aid, proscribe organisations that promote uncontrolled reproduction?
Hi Graham another great discussion. You appear to ask the question Why is population growth not up for discussion. Does anyone seriously believe that the pope, Israel, the Palestinians, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia or the United States of America are willing to listen to arguments for voluntary or mandatory population control, the simple answer is no, so what is there to discuss. The world could not afford for us in the west to get rich enough to go through demographic transition so the idea that the third world will achieve it is absurd. We are indeed in overshoot and crash will soon follow discussions about limiting population growth are facile and we should limit our discussions to what we can hope to influence. In the next decade or two climate change will create many millions of refuges most of which will be knocking at our (first world) door, and at the same time energy decent will be undermining our carrying capacity. Given how we react now to a few thousand economic migrants while we are living high on the energy hog the questions we must ask ourselves is what these pressures will do to our political and social institutions when there is not enough hog to go around. The transitory depression of the 1930’s gave the world Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Franco and imperial Japan what will energy decent give us.
Absolutely outstanding.