It doesn’t get much publicity, but tomorrow is World Population Day. There are plenty of reasons to feel overwhelmed at how quickly our numbers are still growing, but we should also take heart at how rapidly birthrates have fallen in many parts of the world. The overpopulation problem won’t be solved overnight, but we – the generations now living – can accelerate the adoption of small family size that will give future generations a chance to enjoy a bountiful Earth.
Those who understand how critically important reducing and stabilizing the human population is must continue to be proactive in getting the population issue on the agenda of our leaders.
Significant challenges remain, and the window of opportunity seems to be narrowing. Our last release, for example, highlighted a new study co-authored by Paul Ehrlich that shows the extinction rate among terrestrial vertebrate species is significantly higher than prior estimates and that we might only have 10 to 15 years to prevent massive losses. Humanity is already deep into ecological overshoot. But we know what the solutions are, and to fail to actively promote them would increase the likelihood of worst case scenarios unfolding to the detriment of future generations and all other living things on Earth.
It’s Not An Intractable Issue
Thanks in large part to 20th century family planning programs, fertility rates have more than halved from a global average of over five children in the mid-1960s. This proves that it is possible to lower human numbers in a humane, non-coercive way. But it takes some will on the part of governments to promote smaller families, provide education about family planning and make it available to all. Very successful programs have been implemented, for example, in Indonesia, Iran, Thailand, and Bangladesh. The major impediment to reducing total fertility rates is not a lack of resources or birth control but a continuing desire for large families, female inequality, and harmful myths and misinformation about contraceptives.
As Joe Bish, the director of Issue Advocacy at Population Media Centre, wrote two weeks ago in his remarkable essay Addressing Population Challenge Is Not Impossible, “embracing intergenerational responsibility means opposing laissez faire demographic fatalism.” In other words, we can’t just let the demographics unfold as they would.
In his article, Bish notes that some experts suggest a population sized at approximately two people per arable hectare would be ecologically sustainable. If this is so (and it may be optimistic), then with 1.6 billion arable hectares, the planet could support 3.2 billion people in perpetuity. Of course, a maximum population is not necessarily an optimum population. A smaller population would make for a less crowded Earth with a more abundant biodiversity. While even a population of 3.2 billion might seem like an impossible goal, it is attainable in the long term if one- and two-child families become the norm throughout the world. If we continue on our current trajectory, the UN projects a human population of 10.8 billion by 2100 – a scenario we must strive to avoid.
Where Do You Come In on the Numbers?
Do you know what the Earth’s population was when you were born? Population Connection, the largest grassroots population organization in the US, makes it easy to find out. Why not take a look and see how quickly the numbers have grown since you arrived on the planet?
Please engage with us on Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn, where we do our best to educate and inform others about the consequences of overpopulation. We’d be glad to have you join us.
Sincerely,
Madeline Weld, Ph.D.
President, Population Institute Canada
Tel: (613) 833-3668
Email: [email protected]
www.populationinstitutecanada.ca |
We need an answer to one question. Why are absolute global human population numbers continuing to explode, despite declining total fertility rates worldwide? Although bearing witness to truth is always difficult in a world filled with alternative facts and narratives, we can do better than we are doing now by kindly reminding one another of the best available science we possess.
Few experts will talk about the uncontested ecological science of human population dynamics. Such willful muteness is tantamount to criminal negligence against humanity. The root cause of human population growth is being deliberately denied. Without an accurate ‘diagnosis’ of the human population growth problem there is little chance of a ‘cure’. http://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/article196770744.html
Hi Steve. You echo Russell Hopfenberg. As long as the food supply increases, the human population will also increase. PIC agrees that we have to reduce the “demand” side of the equation by reducing the human population. PIC promotes population stabilization and eventual reduction through the promotion of small families and the universal availability of family planning. Thanks for writing!
Best regards, Madeline
I believe that the root of the problem that Steve is looking for is abundantly clear. It’s not food. It’s religion. “Go forth and multiply” the bible says. Every religion want dominance. Dominance increases the power and reach of the clergy. It’s hard to change the message of the holy men but it must be the starting point.
Hi John. It would be great if the holy men would change their pronatalist message (and some of them have, but unfortunately not all). But experience has shown that even if the holy men don’t change their message, women are happy to ignore it if given the opportunity when it comes to contraception. Despite the Roman Catholic Church’s stance on birth control, the very Catholic countries Italy and Spain have among the lowest total fertility rates in the world (both under 1.5). And fertility rates in most Latin American countries are rapidly falling toward or even below replacement. Brazil’s TFR is 1.7. And it’s not just in Catholic countries that women want to plan their families. Muslim countries, such as Bangladesh, Iran, and Indonesia have had successful family planning programs. It’s important to educate people about the benefits of smaller families and to provide affordable options for everyone. Madeline
Wrong. Read Salomony’s article that he linked.
Saudi Arabia is an ultra-religious state yet has less people than gigantic Canada. How could this possibly be? It’s because like animal species human population numbers are subject to natural environmental conditions.
It’s funny how for many overpopulation is no longer a “politically incorrect” issue to talk about, but the cause of it still is.
It’s not clear from your message what part of our release you think is wrong. From previous comments, we think you are saying that as long as the food supply increases, the human population will increase. It’s true that animal and human populations grow and shrink based on the food supply. This is exemplified in the consequences of the Green Revolution, when the massive increase in food production resulted in a massive increase in population (as the father of the GR, Norman Borlaug, feared would happen). However, unlike other animals, humans can make deliberate decisions on their fertility. And while the food supply is very abundant in industrialized countries, the total fertility rate is for the most part very low. Our organization has always promoted and continues to promote the idea that, with an enormous and rapidly growing global population (now approaching 8 billion), small families are better for individuals, society and the environment. We can’t guarantee that the idea will take root everywhere before collapse, but we can keep on promoting it.
Not sure either about your point on Saudi Arabia versus Canada. But both have low fertility rates. Canada’s at about 1.6 is well below replacement and Saudi Arabia’s is rapidly falling to replacement levels. But we disagree about “gigantic Canada” as far as population is concerned. Canada is geographically huge but so is Antarctica, and the latter has no permanent human population (the inhabitants of research stations don’t “live” in Antarctica) for a very good reason. Antarctica is not suitable for human habitation. Neither is most of Canada – much of it covered by the rocky Canadian Shield and is also freaking cold. Most of Canada’s population lives within 150 km of the US border for good reason. The parts of Canada suitable for human habitation are already densely populated.
I just discovered this wonderful and courageous site and wish to thank all involved. I am the author of “Stress R Us”, available for free on the net, and proposing the data based theory that nearly all of our modern “diseases of civilization” are caused by “population density stress”. Would our current pandemic of COVID-19 have happened if we were a much smaller self-sustaining population? Then why is it springing up initially in densely populated urban centers? Contemporary living migratory Hunter-Gatherers with limited contact, if any, with our modern urban culture, have almost none of our “diseases of civilization, currently killing us by the millions. Richard Lee found no evidence of heart disease in his iconic anthropological study of the !Kung San in the Kalahari years ago. There are many similar citations in my book, which are rarely to be found in the MSM. Thanks, again, for the article and thoughtful comments. We will not change our ways until we are convinced that overpopulation is killing us NOW. Stress R Us
Thank you for your kind, encouraging comments towards our organization and our website! And we couldn’t agree more, Greeley! In addition to the stress of the crowding, noise, and hecticness of modern life, we humans are exposing ourselves to novel diseases when we invade wildlife habitat, and our dense living conditions promote the transmission and mutation of disease-causing agents. Unfortunately, the MSM promotes the growth – forever paradigm that benefits the few to the detriment of most humans and all life on Earth!