China Club Discussions
December 8, 2010
“World Population and the implications of alternative projections”
Larry Lesser and I have chosen 'World Population" as the topic for discussion at
the December 8th, 2010 China Club meeting.
It seemed to us that many solutions to many political problems that we discuss
frequently would change dramatically depending on whether the world's population
to grow exponentially, stabilize around a higher total, or even decline in the future.
So we are offering you some detailed information about this topic in advance.
People have been worrying about the world’s pending overpopulation for more two
centuries. Robert Thomas Malthus sounded the alarm in 1797 with "An
Essay on the Principles of the Population," which predicted mass starvation and
was influential with Charles Darwin and Margaret Sanger.
(Malthus must have had something like the concept of 'carrying capacity' in mind.
The technology optimists argue that there is always going to a fix for whatever
problem we confront. Others think that the earth as Gaia is a finite resource and
that at some point limits can be exceeded. Here's a link to a discussion of the idea
Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 book, "The Population Bomb," forecast a similar fate; if the
the population kept rising unchecked, Earth’s resources would buckle.
Many of today’s environmental thinkers, such as broadcaster (and "Planet Earth"
narrator) David Attenborough, have called for drastic measures to limit the
planet’s population before it’s too late.
But according to the veteran environmental writer Fred Pearce, they’re all wrong.
In his latest book, "The Coming Population Crash: And Our Planet's Surprising
Future," Pearce argues that the world’s population is peaking. In the next century,
we’re heading not for exponential growth, but a slow, steady decline.
This, he claims, has the potential to massively change both our society and our
planet:
Children will become a rare sight, patriarchal thinking will fall by the wayside, and
middle-aged culture will replace our predominant youth culture.
Furthermore, Pearce explains, the population bust could be the end of our
environmental woes. Fewer people making better choices about consumption could
lead to a greener, healthier planet.
Is Fred Pearce a Bjorn Lomborg?...the Skeptical Environmentalist... or is he
perhaps right about a population decline sooner than anyone ever thought.
Fred Pearce is not a professional demographer but a credible science and
environmental writer.
If you, like I, enjoy reading the comments of readers who purchase books from
You probably will accept the notion that the population of Earth determines its
destiny.
Consider some basic facts;
While it took around 130 years (1800 to 1927) for the world's population to go
from 1 billion to 2…only 33 years more to go to 3 billion,… then 15 years to 4
billion…another 12 years to 5 billion,… again 12 years to 6 billion in 1999… and
then an estimated 14 years to 7 billion in 2013 …are we doomed to unsustainable
levels of the population?
For example, how are these billions to be fed and how are they to be provided
energy and to be governed? Will we continue to muddle through?
While the impetus of population growth is mainly new births, life expectancy has
doubled since 1950…so the net increases are greater….so populations measured
at any one point in time will have grown from previous measurements at both
ends…babies are born and older people live longer. Will we continue to achieve
through science additional increases in longevity?
While only 7 billion of the total of 100 billion who have ever lived is alive today,
close to 1/2 the people who have ever reached the age of 65 are alive today.
What are the consequences of a proportional increase in the above-65 population?
Faced in his time with the seeming inexorability of the growth of population and a
'limit' on agricultural production, Malthus predicted pandemic, war, and famine.
And while wrong, he was terribly influential for a long period of time...the
concerns he raised are still being debated.
For example, his views determined the British response to the Irish famine during
which a million died ...while beef was being exported to Britain from the 'ranches'
of wealthy English landholders.
Darwin's ideas were cited as evidence that only the fittest must survive and were
used to justify to some the decision to allow the Irish to starve or to immigrate….
to do otherwise it was argued, would have been to simply postpone the inevitable…
and some argue that Malthus' theories gave birth to the toxic eugenics movement…
the predecessor to environmentalism and to the birth control movement ….there's
some irony there....for example, Planned Parenthood (previously American Birth
Control League) and Margaret Sanger its founder were relevant because of the
concerns raised by Malthus.
Gunnar and Alva Myrdal were well-known advocates of eugenics…smart people
who when confronted with the demographics became convinced of the necessity of
very drastic actions to 'cull' the population of the unfit.
( I had never considered this relationship between fear of population explosion and
eugenics, conservation, population control, and eventually the 'right to choose.'
What about you?)
And to many, there is a concern that modern science has reduced the efficacy of
the process of 'survival of the fittest' that produced today's ecosystem...what
threat does man's intervention in 'evolution' present?
But...what about this fact... world fertility peaked in the 1950s at about 6
children/woman.
During that period 15% of the population was under 5 years old.
Today an average woman has 2.6 children and the fraction of the world's
population under 5 is 10%. One-half of the women in the world today are having
2 or fewer children… not just in Europe, especially Russia,…. but in Iran, India,
Burma, Brazil, and South Africa.
The growth rate of the world's population peaked at 2.1%/yr in the late 1960s
primarily due to longer life expectancy rather than increasing birth rates…
and today the average age is 30 but at the death of that average person, the
average age maybe 50.
In some countries, there are already less than 2 workers supporting each retiree.
Europe is in negative momentum already…that is fewer girls are born than in the
generation before. If each generation produces only 1.6 children to replace two
adults, then 5 women are producing only 4 women for the next generation…
Fred Pearce, the author of "The Coming Population Crash and our planet's
surprising future" predicts that by 2050 the world's population may be declining.
He argues that the population will decline before 2050 principally because women
are able to choose to have fewer children.
Fred Pearce may not be right …but his arguments can be persuasive.
So for the purposes of our discussion on December 8, 2010 discussion, let's
assume that he is.
What, then, are some of the impactions of a future declining population?
1. An increase in the average age of the population is a given.
2. Less young people to work and to pay for the support of the older population...
will countries resort to 'managing population?...as an example, France already
'encourages' larger families through its tax system.
3. The likely necessity, therefore, that everyone works longer...but will there be
jobs for both the elderly and the young?
4. The impact of the influence of this aging population on politics …more
peace-loving or not?…wiser or not?
5. Since women will continue to outnumber men at all ages except at birth where
boys still outnumber girls 1.05 to 1 (nature's means of accounting for the earlier
deaths of males?) , will the influence of women on politics increase….is a
matriarchy in the future?
6. The importance of immigration…countries whose populations decline most
rapidly will need emigrants and will welcome them instead of attempting to keep
that out as is the case today. (as an aside…the repatriation of wages earned by
immigrants to their home countries and families remain to some experts the
most effective means of 'foreign aid' yet identified.)
7. A decline in the demand for housing since fewer young people will need housing
in relation to the existing housing stock.
8. A need for greater productivity of workers in order to continue an economy that
can maintain a high standard of living...a greater reliance on technology as the
means of increasing productivity?
9. An increase in the use of robots as one technological means of increasing
productivity...and replacing human workers not to be born.
10. In the extreme, demand for the creation of 'beings' with diminished sensitivity
as a substitute for unborn 'workers,'
11. a dramatic increase in surrogate birth as a means of increasing birth rates.
12. some form of a 'brave new world.'
