Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on November 5, 2014
Panicked by Population Hysteria?
A steady stream of headlines are hyping a new journal article that claims that the world population is a terrifying goliath resolutely stomping towards human destruction. Written by two environmental scientists in Australia, Corey Bradshaw and Barry Brook, and edited by Paul Ehrlich, (a Stanford zoologist famous for his sensationalist claims about population growth in the 1970s) the article is the academic equivalent of a sensational tabloid article.
We here at the Population Research Institute have read both the journalistic commentary and the original article. We created the following primer to walk you through the smoke and mirrors to the actual facts.
Quote 1: “Roughly 14% of all the human beings that have ever existed are still alive today.”
Facts: Bradshaw commented on this statistic in his article saying, “Global population has risen so fast over the past century that roughly 14 per cent of all the human beings that have ever existed are still alive today – that’s a sobering statistic.” The statistic is not sobering, but elating; humans are “still alive” who would not have been a hundred years ago. In other words, there are so many people because we are living so much longer. Over the last 50 years, the average world life expectancy has increased by over 20 years.
Quote 2: “One of the problems is that there is still a large unmet need for more expansive and effective family-planning which has been previously hindered by . . . premature claims that rapid population growth has ended.”
Facts: The claims that rapid population growth has ended are not premature, but timely and factual. The world fertility rate halved over the past 50 years, from a world average of about 5 children to today’s world fertility rate of 2.4. Half of the world population lives in a country with total fertility rate below replacement level (2.1). Unless trends reverse, half of the world’s population lives in countries that will experience negative natural growth rates in the next 50 years. The full-effects of current low-fertility are only starting to become visible; most countries with below-replacement fertility haven’t started shrinking yet only because previous generations haven’t died from old age yet.
Quote 3: “The most striking aspect of the ‘hypothetical catastrophe’ scenarios was just how little effect even these severe mass mortality events had on the final population size projected for 2100. . . [The] projections all produced between 9.9 and 10.4 billion people by 2100.”
Facts: This part of the paper is receiving the most media attention, because doomsday predictions always sell. The authors of the article created population projections to estimate population numbers after a catastrophe, and concluded that even a war with 2 billion casualties wouldn’t dent population numbers.
However, when Bradshaw and Brook created their projections of a post-apocalyptic population, they made some sketchy assumptions. When describing their methodology for creating apocalyptic population projections, they write: “Although potentially exaggerated . . . we (arbitrarily) assumed that fertility would double.” Their presumed apocalyptic disaster didn’t shrink the population by 2100 because the authors arbitrarily (their words, not mine) presumed that world fertility would double.
Quote 4: “Enforcing a one child per female policy worldwide by 2045 resulted . . . in a rapid reduction to 3.45 billion by 2100.”
Facts: Population numbers respond slowly to changes in fertility, but—after a lag—even slight changes in fertility rates drastically shape population sizes. If world fertility fell by another 1.4 children (from its current 2.4), the next generation would grow old in a world that has half as many people as it does today.
It’s unlikely that the average world fertility rate will fall all the way to a world average of only one child by 2045. But world fertility rates are indeed plummeting. Demographers have coined a new term to describe current phenomenon: “lowest-low fertility” to describe the multitude of countries where women are having an average of 1.3 children or fewer. Approximately 10 countries currently fit this description. Another 100 countries have fertility rates below 2.1 children.
Population policies need to be based on facts, not hysteria and bad science. Demographers know that world population growth is plummeting, and human rights advocates know that population control programs are responsible for more systematic human rights abuses than any other policy this past century. Yet Brook and Bradshaw are fanning the fact-free fire of population hysteria. Let’s put out the fire and end the myths that pave the way for human rights abuses.
16 Comments on "Panicked by Population Hysteria?"
JuanP on Wed, 5th Nov 2014 9:39 am
Please do not read this crap! Reading stuff like this is bad for your mind. Skip this one!
Davy on Wed, 5th Nov 2014 9:41 am
Pop.org, its too late I am sorry you can’t accept that. Why not focus on mitigation strategies and population collapse education. You are wasting valuable time and money preaching hopium. It does not matter that there is some population growth optimism. The over shoot is real and the potential energy that is ready to be released is too great to handle.
If liquid fuels and climate change were not real and current predicaments we may have had the time and money to navigate through these population predicaments. The case is otherwise. There is no hope for a happy ending to population because population, liquid fuels, climate change, and food insecurity are predicaments now.
Population must fall for its current levels to 1BIL in a generation. We should prepare for that best we can. Yet, preparations will have little impact because nature will have to be let to run her course. I am saying this in a way that we have to accept the fact that nature will run her course. Nature has her own laws and ways. It is best to orientate to her as best we can. We live only by nature’s acquiescence.
penury on Wed, 5th Nov 2014 9:43 am
I don’t know but, after the elections overnight to try and assimilate this much BS at one sitting appears to be upsetting my normally placid aura.
JuanP on Wed, 5th Nov 2014 9:47 am
Read this, http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2014/10/no-way-stop-human-population-growth
JuanP on Wed, 5th Nov 2014 9:50 am
Or this, http://www.newsweek.com/even-pandemic-wouldnt-create-sustainable-population-study-says-280338
Northwest Resident on Wed, 5th Nov 2014 9:54 am
Awesome Wednesday morning humor! That somebody actually believes and advocates this crap is proof positive that humans are capable of intense stupidity even if they are clever enough to read, write, do some basic math and other things that separate them from the apes. But I personally believe that an ape has more common sense than the writer of this article.
JuanP on Wed, 5th Nov 2014 9:56 am
Or this, http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/humanitys-inexorable-population-growth-is-so-rapid-that-even-global-catastrophe-wouldnt-stop-it-9821601.html
Sometimes I wonder how the articles here get selected. This is a bad article.
adamc18 on Wed, 5th Nov 2014 10:56 am
I just checked up on and it seems to be the population denial equivalent of Lord Lawson’s ‘Global Warming Policy Foundation’ which is central to the denial of climate science. Cranky bedfellows!
turningpoint on Wed, 5th Nov 2014 2:23 pm
JuanP on Wed, 5th Nov 2014 9:39 am
“Please do not read this crap! Reading stuff like this is bad for your mind. Skip this one!”
?
I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, your post got me thinking.
I disagree with this article. The population time bomb is one of the most pressing issues. It’s the crux of many of our other problems. It’s part of our growth disease that could make terminal decline a bigger nightmare. If we had a world population of one or two billion people, peak oil would just be an inconvenience.
Having said that, I’m not sure how reading material that’s wrong or that I disagree with is a bad thing. One of the many problems we face in this country (the U.S.), is that most of us only recieve news and information we agree with. If you prefer Fox “News,” you can get all you news from that channel. If you prefer “MSNBC news,” you can ignore all other channels, or you can even just tune into Talk Radio. Anytime you hear viewpoints from the other side, it’s always ridiculed and naturally, usually the person being interviewed is not as articulate or bright as the interviewer. They cherry pick in order to make the other side looks bad. You’d rarely, if ever hear any viewpoints expressed on this thread from those news sources.
Personally, I miss the days when people had to hear, or read opinions they didn’t necessarily agree with. At least they were exposed to different viewpoints. Now everyone gets to hear and read whatever they want to hear and read. Most everyone lives in their own little limited news bubble.
I’m not afraid of seeing or reading information I disagree with. I’m more afraid of information I’m not getting but should be getting.
turningpoint on Wed, 5th Nov 2014 2:28 pm
JuanP on Wed, 5th Nov 2014 9:56 am
“Or this, http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/humanitys-inexorable-population-growth-is-so-rapid-that-even-global-catastrophe-wouldnt-stop-it-9821601.html
Sometimes I wonder how the articles here get selected. This is a bad article.”
I miss TOD.
turningpoint on Wed, 5th Nov 2014 2:29 pm
There’s no doubt in my mind we’ll keep growing until we collapse. We’re no smarter than yeast, I guess.
redpill on Wed, 5th Nov 2014 8:04 pm
“Every sperm is sacred…”
MPFC was ahead of its time.
Makati1 on Thu, 6th Nov 2014 1:29 am
“Go forth and multiply…” (or the equivalent in your religion) started it all, but reality will have the last word.
Richard Ralph Roehl on Thu, 6th Nov 2014 4:30 am
Juan does not want any of us to peruse empirical data or scrutinize scientific studies that clash with his myopic preconceived Catholic beliefs that Jeeezass is coming and coming and coming and coming…
JuanP on Thu, 6th Nov 2014 8:04 am
Richard, I am amazed at how little you know me, and how much you think you do! 😉
JuanP on Thu, 6th Nov 2014 8:16 am
Turning, You misunderstand where I am coming from. The human mind does not distinguish true information from false information, it will absorb all the info you feed it. That’s just the way the brain works, not a matter of opinion.
I am all for arguing and seeing different perspectives, but some things are so, so bad that it is better for you not to read them at all.
I am giving free friendly advice, I expect most people to ignore it, not understanding the consequences.
Guys, I don’t give a frigg about 99.9999999% of people. People who don’t like facts should ignore my coments. My comments are written for people who voluntarily want to suffer the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, regardless of the consequences.
If you are looking for comfort, peace of mind, or friendship, read someone else’s comments. You won’t find any on mine!