Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on April 14, 2012
Population growth isn’t really our problem
In the course of preparing for a panel here at the Conference on World Affairs, I ran across a 2009 editorial by environmental journalist Fred Pearce, in which he explains why current global population trends aren’t as horrific as they’re often made out to be. I thought you should read it.
Global population is going up, Pearce writes, but that’s not the same thing as saying that birth rates are going up. And, in the long run, that distinction matters. Around the world—not just in the West—human birthrates are decreasing. And they’ve been decreasing for a really long time.
Wherever most kids survive to adulthood, women stop having so many. That is the main reason why the number of children born to an average woman around the world has been in decline for half a century now. After peaking at between 5 and 6 per woman, it is now down to 2.6.
This is getting close to the “replacement fertility level” which, after allowing for a natural excess of boys born and women who don’t reach adulthood, is about 2.3. The UN expects global fertility to fall to 1.85 children per woman by mid-century. While a demographic “bulge” of women of child-bearing age keeps the world’s population rising for now, continuing declines in fertility will cause the world’s population to stabilize by mid-century and then probably to begin falling.
Far from ballooning, each generation will be smaller than the last. So the ecological footprint of future generations could diminish. That means we can have a shot at estimating the long-term impact of children from different countries down the generations.
What I really like about this essay, though, is how well Pearce articulates the real problem, which is over-consumption. Population and consumption might appear to be intrinsically linked, but they’re not. As Pearce points out, global consumption is increasing far faster than global population and the average American family of four uses far more land, far more water, far more energy and produces far more emissions than an Ethiopian family of 11.
This is important. I’ve heard many, many Americans express their fears about population growth over the years. Pearce’s essay makes it clear that, when you do that, you’re pretty much being a concern troll. The population problem, while still real, is well on its way to solving itself. The consumption problem, not so much. Population growth is a problem of the poor. Consumption growth is a problem of the rich (which, from a global perspective, includes pretty much everyone in the United States). So when you ignore consumption and pin the blame for global sustainability issues on population, what you’re doing is blaming the 99% for the mistakes of the 1%.
Read Frank Pearce’s entire essay on Yale Environment 360
11 Comments on "Population growth isn’t really our problem"
DC on Sat, 14th Apr 2012 5:57 am
Another denialist moron. The argumement that poplulation doesnt matter, only consumption patterns do, is favored by guilty whites that just cant wrap there heads around a simple concept.
Namely, that ‘we’ in the west are destroying the enviroment with our brutish, primitive industrial age technology, but with fewer of us doing the damage. While in the third world, they are fighting over scarce resouces, water, food, land, over-grazeing, driveing species extinction, spreading diesease and war, you name it, through sheer numbers.
The teeming hordes in india and africa dont NEED cars, or an ijunk in everyones back pocket to ruin there lands, weight of numbers is doing the job just fine tyvm. Yes ‘we’ over-consume, and it is the global elites fault popululation is out of control. They steal resources, destroy entire countries and ship them to the US so oil-exectutives can make 50million a year in ‘bonuses’. All true. But pretending 5,6 or 7 billion 3rd worlders cramed into there hell-hole countries wont strip there own land to the bone, then look to ‘us’ to save them, is also absurd.
If you look at history, high technology is not a pre-requisite for over-popluation and the eventual collapse that follows. Many times in history we see low tech, yet advanced civilizations outgrow there food supply and then fall apart. Its the norm in human history, not the exception is it.Once the oil goes away, or becomes far too expensive, so will the surplus billions, no matter how much they feel they are entitled to a gas-burner, a house in the burbs and 5 flat-screen tvs to call their own.
Reduce consumption AND population. Doing one and not the other is futile, and pointless as well.
Norm on Sat, 14th Apr 2012 9:09 am
what he said.
BillT on Sat, 14th Apr 2012 11:31 am
I triple your comment DC. We in the US are 4% of the world’s population but consume over 33% of the worlds resources. We have been doing that for over 100 years. We polluted the air far more when we had all of the coal burning industries, steel mills, and houses heated with coal. Now that China wants to improve their condition using the very same means we did, we want them to stop. Arrogance and greed is going to kill the Us…and soon.
rebecca on Sat, 14th Apr 2012 2:30 pm
Well put DC. Now I don’t have to write my own detailed response. Yours will do just fine. Thanks!
ken nohe on Sat, 14th Apr 2012 2:38 pm
Population growth isn’t really our problem? Probably not, there will be so many other urgent “problems” in the coming years that such a long term one will not really register. Still, the statement is pathetic. Already millions of people are moving to escape “crisis” natural and man-made. The trend is exploding but fine: Population should stabilize in Somalia before 2050!
Kenz300 on Sat, 14th Apr 2012 4:16 pm
Too many people and too few resources. The world added a billion people in the last 12 years and continues to grow every day. In various parts of the world we have a food crisis, a water crisis, an oil crisis, an energy crisis, a fish stocks crisis, a financial crisis and a jobs crisis. Every problem is made harder to solve with the ever growing world population. This is unsustainable and will only lead to more poverty, suffering and despair.
Kenz300 on Sat, 14th Apr 2012 4:18 pm
Every country needs to develop a plan to balance population, resources, food, water, energy and jobs. Those that do not will export their populations to those that do.
old bear on Sat, 14th Apr 2012 4:38 pm
Gods you Americans, just can’t get past the fact that not everything revolves around your anus. the whole point is that there is not need for drastic,spastic population controls, getting basic health services will do just fine, The human population will gently recede to around 3 billion in a hundred years or so. There may be a doom, but Soylent green it ain’t.The dead hand of the market is already dealing with the rising price of carbon fuels, so sit back, junk your cars, insult your homes, and stop drinking fertilizer (fizzy pop,phosphate). Maybe the world will keep right on turning.
old bear
Bob Owens on Sat, 14th Apr 2012 10:12 pm
This article, while technically true, really just leads to the conclusion that if we just do nothing the problem will solve itself. Wow. That seems to be the answer for every problem we have in the world. Unfortunately we just can’t solve our problems by leaving the world on full automatic; it just won’t work. The population needs to be reduced by 90% ASAP. Not leveled off in 2100. We will shake apart way before then; we are coming apart now. See prior comments by others.
kervennic on Sat, 14th Apr 2012 10:34 pm
This is wrong. On the same site (yale e360) you find the opposite opinion at least on two different more recent article by top population scientists.They pretend that the problem is not solving itself and that UN forecast are pure BS.
Demography is the driving force of all human change and technoological change.
Technology is always a fix necessitated by exhaustion due to overpopulation. And paradoxically it leads in turn to a new surge of population that causes even more damage and require more technology.
This is called the vicious circle principe as coined by a guy called Craig dilworth.
We are far too many in the west and we are maintained artificially by oil. When oil will run dry, we will massively die, because this time there will be no fix to replace such an amount of resource.
This is overpopulation in europe that led to colonialism and mass murdre in the Americas. Spain add to get rid of its increasing rural population and was desperate to find new ground, then France and Britain and the one million irish.
Besides you just have to hear about the desperate calls of top finance guy (like mathieu pigasse in france) to have more immigration and poppulation growth in Europe to understand how important is the global demographic growth to sustain western delirious way of life.
This is all connected.
Rick on Sat, 14th Apr 2012 11:40 pm
Over population, is the problem, period! BTW, I never had kids. Glad of it!
This planet would be sustainable with around a billion people, until the sun burns out, which it will, in about another 3 billion years.
But, too many could not kept their pencil, in their pants. For stupid and religious reasons. Now look at the mess we have. Most humans are stupid!