New Population Projections Show Us Growing Unsustainably, But We Can Put on the Brakes

Pencil in October 31, 2011 on your calendar. It’s not just the one day of the year you get to dress like Edward Cullen without everyone thinking there’s something deeply wrong with you. According to the United Nations Population Division (UNPD)—the demographers who rule over all demographers—that’s the day when the 7 billionth person on the planet will be born.

But will population growth be a trick for the planet—or a treat? That still remains to be seen. The new UNDP numbers (PDF), released earlier today, project that global population could reach 9.3 billion by mid-century, and rise to 10.1 billion by 2100. That’s a revision upwards from earlier numbers, which had projected population to level off at about 9 billion by 2050. The difference? Unexpectedly high and continued population growth in Africa, where the UNDP now predicts population could rise from 1 billion today to an almost unimaginable 3.6 billion by the end of the century, at the highest estimates. Nigeria, already Africa’s most populous nation at 162 million, could grow to 730 million by 2100, while Malawi—a country smaller than Pennsylvania—could grow from 15 million to 129 million. Given the difficulties Africa finds today in feeding and supporting itself, more than tripling of the current population could cause havoc and misery—and that’s without even counting the impact of global warming, which could further stress agriculture and water, while worsening infectious disease. As John Bongaarts, a demographer at the Population Council, told the New York Times:

Every billion more people makes life more difficult for everybody — it’s as simple as that. Is it the end of the world? No. Can we feed 10 billion people? Probably. But we obviously would be better off with a smaller population.

Even as Africa continues to multiply, other low-fertility regions like Europe, Russia and Japan will actually decline in population, and age rapidly. (42% of the world’s population currently lives in areas where fertility is actually below replacement rate.) China—thanks in part to its one-child policy—will grow slowly to 1.4 billion (up from about 1.3 billion now) before eventually falling below 1 billion, while India will eventually pass it as the world’s most populous nation.

All in all, it’s looking to be a very crowded future—and since population is the great multiplier of all environmental ills, that would seem to be bad news for the planet. But any prediction made 90 years into the future should be taken with a whole mine’s worth of salt—and that’s especially true for population projections, as any reputable demographer will tell you. The predictions are made based on fertility data—how many children each woman plans to have—and the projections are incredibly sensitive to any changes. Increase fertility by just half a woman per child, and global population could rise to 16 billion by 2100.

Obviously, that’s not too likely to happen. But the most recent projections were revised upward today largely because fertility rates in much of the world—and especially Africa—have remained higher than demographers had expected. In high-fertility countries, fertility is still at nearly 5 children per woman, compared 1.6 per woman in low-fertility nations. The good news is that fertility can be controlled—and not in a controlling way. As countries get better off, fertility rates tend to drop, a phenomenon known as the fertility transition that’s been seen pretty much everywhere. But that requires the availability of contraception—and importantly, empowering women to actually use contraception. A quick and revealing stat: while three-quarters of married American women use a modern contraceptive, only a quarter of women in East Africa do, one in 10 in West Africa and just 7% on Central Africa.

Women in these countries need help from overseas, but aid for family planning—at $238 million in 2009—is far too low, and budget problems and social controversies mean the U.S. won’t be able to make up much more. That’s a shame—actually, it’s a tragedy. As Robert Engelman—a vice-president with the Worldwatch Institute—writes in an excellent journal article, unsustainable population growth isn’t inevitable, and population control doesn’t require authoritarian means. The key is education:

More than 40 percent of all pregnancies are unintended, with higher proportions in developed than in developing countries.

As these figures suggest, it might be possible to end and then reverse human population growth through a strategy aimed at elevating women’s status and increasing access to contraceptive services, so that essentially all births result from intended pregnancies. Preliminary calculations based on conservative assumptions suggest that global fertility would immediately move slightly below replacement levels, putting world population on a path toward an early peak followed by gradual decline. The success of such a strategy would have many other benefits, such as reducing disability and deaths among mothers and their children and freeing more women to earn money and participate actively in social affairs.

There are very few truly win-win policies out there, but female education and access to contraception is one of them. Demography is destiny, it’s true—but we can control our demography.

More from TIME on population:

Population: Is the World Ready for 7 Billion People?

Related Topics: Africa, China, contraception, demographics, female, fertility, fertility rate, Japan, population, U.S., UNDP, Population
  • Latest on Ecocentric

    Alexander Demianchuk / Reuters

    Global Warming: An Exclusive Look at James Hansen’s Scary New Math

    A new analysis by the NASA climatologist for the first time ties specific weather events to human-induced climate change

    Victor Fraile / Getty Images

    By Sea, Land and Air: Hong Kong Inventor Leads Charge in War Against Pollution

    One Hong Kong engineer puts the city’s surf and turf to work toward a cleaner future

    Paul Souders

    Can Polar Bears Keep Their Heads Above Water in a Warming World?

    Polar bears are classified as marine mammals, like a seal or a walrus, which might come as a surprise given that they’re usually pictured on land. But polar bears spend a lot of their time in the waters of the Arctic, fishing or swimming among the sea ice. They may look awkward in the water, but no creature with paws is a better swimmer.

  • vasumurti

    Dave Gardner distributes Endangered Species Condoms, in conjunction with the Center for Biological Diversity.

    On USENET in either 1987 or 1988, I pointed out via e-mail to pro-life student John Morrow at Rutgers that we never see anti-abortionists distributing condoms on campuses, to bring down the abortion rate (what to speak of addressing the threat of “overpopulation”!).

    The pro-life response? In 1990, CNN ran a news story about “entertainers” distributing condoms on campuses!

    This led me to conclude that pro-lifers (thinking themselves as “sexually liberated” as pro-choicers; deriding followers of other religions, where there is no dating or boyfriends or girlfriends) find it impossible themselves to be open and honest about contraception!

    Distributing condoms is fine, but the real cause of environmental destruction is not “overpopulation,” but overconsumption: our meat-centered diet.

    It makes sense to eat lower on the food chain! Dudley Giehl writes in his 1979 book, Vegetarianism: A Way of Life:

    “The pacific sardine lives along the coasts of North America from Alaska to southern California. Sardines, once a major part of the California fishing industry, are now considered to be “commercially extinct.”

    “Another species classified as “commercially extinct” is the New England haddock. Ecologists have also been concerned about the significant reduction in finfish, the Atlantic bluefin tuna, Lake Erie cisco, and blackfins that inhabit Lakes Huron and Michigan.

    “Over 200,000 porpoises are killed every year by fishermen seeking tuna in the Pacific. Sea turtles are similarly killed in Caribbean shrimp operations.

    “Some animals are killed because, as carnivores, they compete with the human predator for the right to kill other animals for food, including wild game and domesticated species raised by livestock ranchers.

    “Alaskan hunters are eager to reduce the wolf population in their state because this animal is a predator of moose.

    “Cougars, coyotes and wolves are considered a menace to the cattle and sheep industries, and livestock ranchers have engaged in a large-scale campaign to exterminate them.

    “Two species of wolves are now endangered, and very few wolves can be found in the United States except in Alaska and northeastern Minnesota.

    The relatively small number of eagles in the U.S. is largely due to the destruction of this species by livestock ranchers, particularly those in the sheep business.

    “Herbivorous animals that inhabit rangeland areas are also killed by the livestock industry because they compete with cattle and sheep for food.

    Large numbers of kangaroos are being exterminated in Australia, while in the United States livestock ranchers seek to destroy wild horses, wild burros, deer, elk, antelope and prairie dogs.”

    “All Things Are Connected,” the concluding chapter to John Robbins’ Pulitzer Prize nominated Diet for a New America (1987), begins with a quote from (reincarnationist) Christian mystic Edgar Cayce:

    “Destiny, or karma, depends upon what the soul has done about what it has become aware of.”

    Author John Robbins provides these points and facts in his Pulitzer Prize nominated Diet for a New America (1987):

    Half the water consumed in the U.S. irrigates land growing feed and fodder for livestock. Huge amounts of water wash away their excrement.

    U.S. livestock produce twenty times as much excrement as the entire human population, creating sewage which is ten to several hundred times as concentrated as raw domestic sewage.

    Animal wastes cause thrice as much water pollution than does the U.S. human population; the meat industry causes thrice as much harmful organic water pollution than the rest of the nation’s industries combined.

    Meat producers, the number one industrial polluters in our nation, contribute to half the water pollution in the United States. The water that goes into a 1,000 lb. steer could float a destroyer.

    It takes 25 gallons of water to produce a pound of wheat, but 2,500 gallons to produce a pound of meat. If these costs weren’t subsidized by the American taxpayers, the cheapest hamburger meat would be $35 per pound!

    Subsidizing the California meat industry costs taxpayers $24 billion annually. Livestock producers are California’s biggest consumers of water.

    Every tax dollar the state doles out to livestock producers costs taxpayers over seven dollars in lost wages, higher living costs and reduced business income.

    Seventeen western states have enough water supplies to support economies and populations twice as large as the present.

    Overgrazing of cattle leads to topsoil erosion, turning once-arable land into desert. We lose four million acres of topsoil each year and 85 percent of this loss is directly caused by raising livestock.

    To replace the soil we’ve lost, we’re destroying our forests. Since 1967, the rate of deforestation in the U.S. has been one acre every five seconds. For each acre cleared in urbanization, seven are cleared for grazing or growing livestock feed.

    One-third of all raw materials in the U.S. are consumed by the livestock industry and it takes thrice as much fossil fuel energy to produce meat than it does to produce plant foods.

    A report on the energy crisis in Scientific American warned:

    “The trends in meat consumption and energy consumption are on a collision course.”

    Nor can fish provide any help here, notes Keith Akers in A Vegetarian Sourcebook (1983). There are signs that the fishing industry (which is quite energy-intensive) has already overfished the oceans in several areas.

    And fish could never play a major role in the worlds diet anyway: the entire global fish catch of the world, if divided among all the world’s inhabitants would amount to only a few ounces of fish per person per week.

    The American Dietetic Association reports that throughout history, humans have lived on “vegetarian or near vegetarian diets,”; meat has traditionally been a luxury.

    Nathan Pritikin, author of The Pritikin Plan, recommended not more than three ounces of animal protein per day; three ounces per week for his patients that already suffered a heart attack.

    Providing the entire world with a meat-centered diet is absurd. But what about providing only the affluent with a meat-centered diet?

    According to Keith Akers, if the world population triples in the next 100 years, and meat consumption continues, then meat production would have to triple as well. Instead of 3.7 billion acres of cropland and 7.5 billion acres of grazing land, we would require 11.1 billion acres of cropland and 22.5 billion acres of grazing land.

    But this is slightly larger than the total land area of the six inhabited continents! We are desperately short of forests, water and energy already.

    Even if we resort to extreme methods of population control: abortion, infanticide, genocide, etc…modest increases in the world population would make it impossible to maintain current levels of meat consumption.

    On a vegan diet, however, the world could easily support a population several times its present size. The world’s cattle alone consume enough to feed 8.7 billion humans.

    According to the editors of World Watch/, July/August 2004:

    “The human appetite for animal flesh is a driving force behind virtually every major category of environmental damage now threatening the human future–deforestization, topsoil erosion, fresh water scarcity, air and water pollution, climate change, biodiversity loss, social injustice, the destabilization of communities and the spread of disease.”

  • http://gculling.wordpress.com gpcnyc

    “As John Bogarts, a demographer at the Population Council, told the New York Times:”

    The name is John Bongaarts.

  • http://vaengineer.wordpress.com vaengineer

    it’s all quite simple- the higher the peak population gets, the more catastrophic the collapse. If most scientists who study the matter say that the world’s sustainable population is about 2-3 billion, what other result can come by increasing our already overburdened planet with a few more billion people?

blog comments powered by Disqus