Consequences of Overpopulation
Overpopulation occurs when the human population exceeds the carrying capacity, which is estimated to happen around 2050 BCE. There are many dire consequences we face due to overpopulation. For example, resources we depend on greatly will be depleted, including fossil fuels, clean water, arable land, and forests. In addition, disease will spread more easily in crowded areas and we face the risk of pandemics and epidemics. Overpopulation worsens environmental and social problems such as pollution, poverty, malnutrition, and lack of access to clean water and medical care, decreasing the life expectancy and quality of life.
Many species of wildlife, like the passenger pigeon and the golden toad, have gone extinct within the past century due to human activity. As the population increases, and if we don’t figure out a sustainable way to maintain our current lifestyles, we will continue to clear cut forests and over fish the oceans, which will lead to many more species’ extinctions.
Many species of wildlife, like the passenger pigeon and the golden toad, have gone extinct within the past century due to human activity. As the population increases, and if we don’t figure out a sustainable way to maintain our current lifestyles, we will continue to clear cut forests and over fish the oceans, which will lead to many more species’ extinctions.
Loss of Fresh Water
![Picture](/uploads/9/4/8/6/9486339/screenshot-2017-11-06-at-10-17-04-pm_orig.png)
Since 1900, more than 50% of types of wetlands have disappeared. In many parts of the world, 30 to 40% of our fresh water goes unaccounted for due to water leakages in pipes and canals and illegal tapping. 780 million people lack access to clean water and 2.5 billion lack adequate sanitation services; most of these people live in the poorest countries. Currently, an estimation of around 80% of people do not have access to adequate drinking water live in sub-Saharan Africa. Sanitation coverage in developing countries, around 49%, is only half that of the rest of the developed world, around 98%. Agriculture takes up the vast majority of freshwater, around 70%. Unfortunately, the water is often used for the thirstiest crops of all, like rice, cotton and sugar.
According to UN water, 75% of planet Earth is covered in water. 97.5% of that is ocean and 2.5% is freshwater. 70% of freshwater is divided into glaciers and ice caps, the remaining 30% goes to land surface water, such as rivers, lakes, ponds and groundwater. Most of the freshwater resources are either unreachable or too polluted, leaving less than 1% of the world's freshwater, or about 0.003% of all water on Earth, readily accessible for direct human use. It is estimated that by 2025, by the Global Outlook, that more than half of the world population will be facing water-based vulnerability. Human demand for water will account for 70% of all available freshwater. A report in November 2009 by the 2030 Water Resources Group mentions that by 2030, in some developing regions in the world, water demand will exceed supply by 50%. Two dozen UN bodies formulated a report that states that "by 2030, nearly half of the world's people will be living in areas of acute water shortage." The planet is in the midst of what the UN is calling a "Global Water Crisis." Freshwater is the most fundamental finite resource with no substitutes for most uses, yet humankind continues to consume fresh water at least 10 times faster than it is being replenished in regions like northern Africa, the Middle East, India, Pakistan, China, and the U.S.. According to the World Resources Institute, "Freshwater ecosystems – the diverse communities found in lakes, rivers, and wetlands – may be the most endangered of all… In extent, freshwater ecosystems are quite limited, covering only about 1 percent of the Earth’s surface. Yet, they are highly diverse and contain a disproportionately large number of the world’s species." As human populations grow, so will the problem of clean freshwater availability.
Sources:
1. http://www.everythingconnects.org/overpopulation-effects.html
2. http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/about_freshwater/importance_value/
According to UN water, 75% of planet Earth is covered in water. 97.5% of that is ocean and 2.5% is freshwater. 70% of freshwater is divided into glaciers and ice caps, the remaining 30% goes to land surface water, such as rivers, lakes, ponds and groundwater. Most of the freshwater resources are either unreachable or too polluted, leaving less than 1% of the world's freshwater, or about 0.003% of all water on Earth, readily accessible for direct human use. It is estimated that by 2025, by the Global Outlook, that more than half of the world population will be facing water-based vulnerability. Human demand for water will account for 70% of all available freshwater. A report in November 2009 by the 2030 Water Resources Group mentions that by 2030, in some developing regions in the world, water demand will exceed supply by 50%. Two dozen UN bodies formulated a report that states that "by 2030, nearly half of the world's people will be living in areas of acute water shortage." The planet is in the midst of what the UN is calling a "Global Water Crisis." Freshwater is the most fundamental finite resource with no substitutes for most uses, yet humankind continues to consume fresh water at least 10 times faster than it is being replenished in regions like northern Africa, the Middle East, India, Pakistan, China, and the U.S.. According to the World Resources Institute, "Freshwater ecosystems – the diverse communities found in lakes, rivers, and wetlands – may be the most endangered of all… In extent, freshwater ecosystems are quite limited, covering only about 1 percent of the Earth’s surface. Yet, they are highly diverse and contain a disproportionately large number of the world’s species." As human populations grow, so will the problem of clean freshwater availability.
Sources:
1. http://www.everythingconnects.org/overpopulation-effects.html
2. http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/about_freshwater/importance_value/
Habitat Loss
Rain forests:
The growing human population is a driving force behind the loss of major ecosystems, for example rainforests, coral reefs, wetlands, and Arctic ice. Rain forests once covered 14% of Earth’s land surface. Now, they barely cover 6%. These remaining rainforests are also estimated to be completely consumed in less than 40 years, based on the current rate of deforestation. During the 1990s, the net loss was around 2.4% of total forests cut down. 70% of deforested areas were converted to agricultural land. Tropical forests also are said to contain at least half of Earth’s species, the rate of clearing of these ecosystems is a dramatic loss.
Coral Reefs:
Warming temperatures and the acidifying of oceans through pollution have caused around 30% of the oceans reefs to vanish since 1980. The reefs included half of the reeks from the Caribbean, and 90% from the Philippines. Australia’s well known Great Barrier Reef is estimated to die by 2050, and by the end of the century, all coral reefs are estimated to be gone. Coral reefs are estimated to house a quarter of marine species. These reefs also provide an annual global value of $375 billion. Food and resources are also provided for over 500 million people in 94 countries.
Ice Sheets:
Increasing temperature also cause the melting of the Earth’s ice cover. They are estimated to decline at a rate of 11.5% per decade (from 1979 to 2000). This trend shows that is as soon as 4 to 30 years, the Arctic summers will be ice free. As the ice retreats, polar bears have less access to seal populations – and supplies of blubber. Sea ice loss could also affect the populations of Arctic fox and wolf – because the loss of ice will increase genetic isolation. The warming of the land surfaces in the Arctic also is beginning to alter the vegetation which provides consequences for caribou and other grazers.
Sources:
1.http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/species/problems/habitat_loss_degradation/
2.http://www.everythingconnects.org/overpopulation-effects.html
3.http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2011/06/13/losing-our-coral-reefs/
4.http://www.dw.com/en/polar-ice-sheets-melting-faster-than-ever/a-16432199
5.http://www.climatecentral.org/news/arctics-rapid-sea-ice-loss-threatens-wildlife-16331
The growing human population is a driving force behind the loss of major ecosystems, for example rainforests, coral reefs, wetlands, and Arctic ice. Rain forests once covered 14% of Earth’s land surface. Now, they barely cover 6%. These remaining rainforests are also estimated to be completely consumed in less than 40 years, based on the current rate of deforestation. During the 1990s, the net loss was around 2.4% of total forests cut down. 70% of deforested areas were converted to agricultural land. Tropical forests also are said to contain at least half of Earth’s species, the rate of clearing of these ecosystems is a dramatic loss.
Coral Reefs:
Warming temperatures and the acidifying of oceans through pollution have caused around 30% of the oceans reefs to vanish since 1980. The reefs included half of the reeks from the Caribbean, and 90% from the Philippines. Australia’s well known Great Barrier Reef is estimated to die by 2050, and by the end of the century, all coral reefs are estimated to be gone. Coral reefs are estimated to house a quarter of marine species. These reefs also provide an annual global value of $375 billion. Food and resources are also provided for over 500 million people in 94 countries.
Ice Sheets:
Increasing temperature also cause the melting of the Earth’s ice cover. They are estimated to decline at a rate of 11.5% per decade (from 1979 to 2000). This trend shows that is as soon as 4 to 30 years, the Arctic summers will be ice free. As the ice retreats, polar bears have less access to seal populations – and supplies of blubber. Sea ice loss could also affect the populations of Arctic fox and wolf – because the loss of ice will increase genetic isolation. The warming of the land surfaces in the Arctic also is beginning to alter the vegetation which provides consequences for caribou and other grazers.
Sources:
1.http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/species/problems/habitat_loss_degradation/
2.http://www.everythingconnects.org/overpopulation-effects.html
3.http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2011/06/13/losing-our-coral-reefs/
4.http://www.dw.com/en/polar-ice-sheets-melting-faster-than-ever/a-16432199
5.http://www.climatecentral.org/news/arctics-rapid-sea-ice-loss-threatens-wildlife-16331
Carbon Dioxide Emissions
![Picture](/uploads/9/4/8/6/9486339/screenshot-2017-11-05-at-8-45-36-pm_orig.png)
As our population grows ever larger, the impacts of carbon emissions become increasingly worrisome. Unsurprisingly, more industrialized nations and nations with high population tend to leave the biggest carbon footprint on our planet. Currently, China is the largest producer of carbon dioxide due to its high population and many factories. Historically, China has not been very keen on environmental protection. Many factories in China polluted the air and water without much thought. Although China has passed stricter environmental laws in recent years, the effects of their unsustainable habits can still be seen today.
Currently, comparing the carbon dioxide emissions, both total and per capita, with the populations of various countries, from the graphs, more populous countries, in particular China and India, have higher total carbon dioxide emissions, their per capita emissions are much lower than countries like Australia or Saudi Arabia which do not necessarily rank as high in total emissions. In addition, some developing or newly developed countries like India, Brazil, Indonesia, and to a smaller extent China have lower per capita emissions, while many richer countries like the US, Australia, and Russia have much higher per capita emissions. Still, population increase will in general increase the total amount of carbon dioxide emissions, especially as countries begin to develop and consume more resources.
One of the main factors in the production of CO2 emission is culture. The culture of a population plays an abundant role in the amount of carbon dioxide emissions that a country produces, stemming from their living standard ideals. For example, in the United States, most people expect a lot of space due to the abundance of land, which in turn results in bigger houses that require excessive electricity and heat generation- the main contributor to our carbon dioxide emissions at 41%. In addition to bigger houses, this living standard also requires more methods of transportation. Having a personal motorized vehicle is considered standard as well as a symbol of wealth, which causes transportation to be the second biggest contributor to CO2 emissions at 22%. Also, the market demand for cheap goods has pushed the world towards an industrial focus, which is the third greatest leading factor of CO2 emissions. These three factors are all interconnected- a greater demand calls for increased industrialized production requires various methods of transportation to distribute goods, which raises the living standard. Another aspect of culture is history, which is most clearly shown in India. It is the 4th leading producer in CO2 emissions despite being recently classified as an underdeveloped nation. Due to its history of imperialism and foreign influence, India houses a multitude of factories which contribute to the CO2 emissions. Focusing on an alternative point of view, it is important to note the interdependence of the world economy. While it is true that China is currently the carbon dioxide gas emitter, a large majority is used to create products for the United States and Europe. This connection shows that one nation alone cannot solve problems stemming from carbon dioxide emission alone, and all emissions are a product of the mutual and vital dependence in the commercial economy.
Rising carbon dioxide levels and climatic changes cause changes of crop water use and water resources for the United States. Many call the climatic changes Global Warming. The ocean levels are rising which increase flooding risks in low-lying communities. Higher spring and summer temperatures, and earlier spring snow-melt result in forests that are hotter and drier for longer periods of time, priming conditions for wildfires to ignite and spread.While hurricanes are a natural part of our climate system, recent research indicates that their destructive power, or intensity, has been growing since the 1970s. Places like the Philippines which has suffered from the 10 deadliest typhoon since 1947. More worrisome is the fact that 5 of the 10 have happened since 2005. The Global Climate Risk Index 2015 listed the Philippines as the number one most affected country by climate change, using 2013’s data. This is thanks, in part, to its geography. The Philippines is located in the western Pacific Ocean, surrounded by naturally warm waters that will likely get even warmer as average sea-surface temperatures continue to rise. To some extent, this is a normal pattern: the ocean surface warms as it absorbs sunlight. The ocean then releases some of its heat into the atmosphere, creating wind and rain clouds. However, as the ocean’s surface temperature increases over time from the effects of climate change, more and more heat is released into the atmosphere. This additional heat in the ocean and air can lead to stronger and more frequent storms – which is exactly what has happened in the Philippines over the last decade. Climate change also has significant implications for human health. Rising temperatures will likely lead to increased air pollution, a longer and more intense allergy season, the spread of insect-borne diseases, more frequent and dangerous heat waves, and heavier rainstorms and flooding. All of these changes pose serious, and costly, risks to public health.
Currently, comparing the carbon dioxide emissions, both total and per capita, with the populations of various countries, from the graphs, more populous countries, in particular China and India, have higher total carbon dioxide emissions, their per capita emissions are much lower than countries like Australia or Saudi Arabia which do not necessarily rank as high in total emissions. In addition, some developing or newly developed countries like India, Brazil, Indonesia, and to a smaller extent China have lower per capita emissions, while many richer countries like the US, Australia, and Russia have much higher per capita emissions. Still, population increase will in general increase the total amount of carbon dioxide emissions, especially as countries begin to develop and consume more resources.
One of the main factors in the production of CO2 emission is culture. The culture of a population plays an abundant role in the amount of carbon dioxide emissions that a country produces, stemming from their living standard ideals. For example, in the United States, most people expect a lot of space due to the abundance of land, which in turn results in bigger houses that require excessive electricity and heat generation- the main contributor to our carbon dioxide emissions at 41%. In addition to bigger houses, this living standard also requires more methods of transportation. Having a personal motorized vehicle is considered standard as well as a symbol of wealth, which causes transportation to be the second biggest contributor to CO2 emissions at 22%. Also, the market demand for cheap goods has pushed the world towards an industrial focus, which is the third greatest leading factor of CO2 emissions. These three factors are all interconnected- a greater demand calls for increased industrialized production requires various methods of transportation to distribute goods, which raises the living standard. Another aspect of culture is history, which is most clearly shown in India. It is the 4th leading producer in CO2 emissions despite being recently classified as an underdeveloped nation. Due to its history of imperialism and foreign influence, India houses a multitude of factories which contribute to the CO2 emissions. Focusing on an alternative point of view, it is important to note the interdependence of the world economy. While it is true that China is currently the carbon dioxide gas emitter, a large majority is used to create products for the United States and Europe. This connection shows that one nation alone cannot solve problems stemming from carbon dioxide emission alone, and all emissions are a product of the mutual and vital dependence in the commercial economy.
Rising carbon dioxide levels and climatic changes cause changes of crop water use and water resources for the United States. Many call the climatic changes Global Warming. The ocean levels are rising which increase flooding risks in low-lying communities. Higher spring and summer temperatures, and earlier spring snow-melt result in forests that are hotter and drier for longer periods of time, priming conditions for wildfires to ignite and spread.While hurricanes are a natural part of our climate system, recent research indicates that their destructive power, or intensity, has been growing since the 1970s. Places like the Philippines which has suffered from the 10 deadliest typhoon since 1947. More worrisome is the fact that 5 of the 10 have happened since 2005. The Global Climate Risk Index 2015 listed the Philippines as the number one most affected country by climate change, using 2013’s data. This is thanks, in part, to its geography. The Philippines is located in the western Pacific Ocean, surrounded by naturally warm waters that will likely get even warmer as average sea-surface temperatures continue to rise. To some extent, this is a normal pattern: the ocean surface warms as it absorbs sunlight. The ocean then releases some of its heat into the atmosphere, creating wind and rain clouds. However, as the ocean’s surface temperature increases over time from the effects of climate change, more and more heat is released into the atmosphere. This additional heat in the ocean and air can lead to stronger and more frequent storms – which is exactly what has happened in the Philippines over the last decade. Climate change also has significant implications for human health. Rising temperatures will likely lead to increased air pollution, a longer and more intense allergy season, the spread of insect-borne diseases, more frequent and dangerous heat waves, and heavier rainstorms and flooding. All of these changes pose serious, and costly, risks to public health.
Possible Solutions
Education of Women
![Picture](/uploads/9/4/8/6/9486339/editor/screen-shot-2017-11-05-at-8-50-35-pm.png?1509933068)
As shown on the table, many people have thought of many ideas for solving the problem with population. Unfortunately each have their pros and cons, some worse or better than others. Education is usually seen as the prime method of solving the population crisis, but it fails to take immediate effect. Education for women, not only on population and sex but also STEM and Humanities. It is shown that the higher education women tend to receive the more likely they are to have children later in their lives. Husbands as well no longer can stand in the stereotypical place of "authority" and decide how many kids he wants. On the other end of the spectrum are options like genocide, forced sterilization and more. Each have their own obvious moral issues, but they also raise a really important question to the problem of overpopulation. Who gets to decide who dies? And are those that are "chosen" to die rightfully chose? Others say to use technology to the worlds advantage and expand whether its onto water, underground, or even off of Earth. Is it even possible in the future? Maybe, but they may worsen our already suffering environment.
One solution that would reduce the growth rate of the human population would be greater education for women. The more highly educated women become, the fewer children they have, and thus the less the global population grows. This would be apparent especially in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, where many women remain uneducated and fertility rates are as high as 4-5 children on average. A 1997 study of Yemen showed a 33% decrease in fertility rates of women who attended secondary school, and a study of Mali showed that women who did not attend school had on average 7 children, while higher-educated women had only about 3 children on average. The data graph below shows a strong negative correlation between education and fertility rate. This is likely due to a combination of causes, including economic prosperity. Income increases by about 10-25% per extra year of schooling for women, having higher impact on quality of life as well as fertility rate. Higher income would cause women to try to develop better prospects for a smaller amount of children, rather than having many children in hopes of some of them surviving to adulthood. If more resources were put into higher education rates, both primary and secondary, especially of women, fertility rates would decrease, an estimated 26% in developing countries. Although it would not take effect immediately, even small changes in fertility rates can impact the future population greatly, magnified by the approximately exponential growth of the world population. Secondary education in particular would inform women academically and increase their prospects economically and socially, empowering them and their communities, even while curbing the significant issue of population growth.
The effects of overpopulation are felt most strongly by developing countries because they do not have enough resources or funds to keep up with the growing population. Because there is a lack of access to educational and medical services, the fertility rate is extremely high. As a result, one way to help the problem of overpopulation is to give aid to these developing nations to create more housing for the population, as well as educational opportunities and access to healthcare and contraception. While this is almost an impossible task, a way to begin to do this would be to more heavily tax the populations of developed countries in order to aid developing nations. The drawback is that it is very unlikely that developed nations would agree. Many would argue that they are in debt and don´t have money to spare, and citizens would be angry that they are forced to give up some of their paychecks. In addition, there is no guarantee that the there will be enough money raised or that it would be used efficiently enough to make a difference.
Sources:
1. https://www.hcs.harvard.edu/hghr/online/secondary-education-women
2. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/07/how-education-can-moderate-population-growth/
3. http://www.earth-policy.org/data_highlights/2011/highlights13
4. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/feed_the_world/2014/04/educate_women_and_save_babies_how_to_control_population_and_end_hunger.html
One solution that would reduce the growth rate of the human population would be greater education for women. The more highly educated women become, the fewer children they have, and thus the less the global population grows. This would be apparent especially in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, where many women remain uneducated and fertility rates are as high as 4-5 children on average. A 1997 study of Yemen showed a 33% decrease in fertility rates of women who attended secondary school, and a study of Mali showed that women who did not attend school had on average 7 children, while higher-educated women had only about 3 children on average. The data graph below shows a strong negative correlation between education and fertility rate. This is likely due to a combination of causes, including economic prosperity. Income increases by about 10-25% per extra year of schooling for women, having higher impact on quality of life as well as fertility rate. Higher income would cause women to try to develop better prospects for a smaller amount of children, rather than having many children in hopes of some of them surviving to adulthood. If more resources were put into higher education rates, both primary and secondary, especially of women, fertility rates would decrease, an estimated 26% in developing countries. Although it would not take effect immediately, even small changes in fertility rates can impact the future population greatly, magnified by the approximately exponential growth of the world population. Secondary education in particular would inform women academically and increase their prospects economically and socially, empowering them and their communities, even while curbing the significant issue of population growth.
The effects of overpopulation are felt most strongly by developing countries because they do not have enough resources or funds to keep up with the growing population. Because there is a lack of access to educational and medical services, the fertility rate is extremely high. As a result, one way to help the problem of overpopulation is to give aid to these developing nations to create more housing for the population, as well as educational opportunities and access to healthcare and contraception. While this is almost an impossible task, a way to begin to do this would be to more heavily tax the populations of developed countries in order to aid developing nations. The drawback is that it is very unlikely that developed nations would agree. Many would argue that they are in debt and don´t have money to spare, and citizens would be angry that they are forced to give up some of their paychecks. In addition, there is no guarantee that the there will be enough money raised or that it would be used efficiently enough to make a difference.
Sources:
1. https://www.hcs.harvard.edu/hghr/online/secondary-education-women
2. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/07/how-education-can-moderate-population-growth/
3. http://www.earth-policy.org/data_highlights/2011/highlights13
4. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/feed_the_world/2014/04/educate_women_and_save_babies_how_to_control_population_and_end_hunger.html
Access to Contraceptives
Giving women access to contraceptives may be one of the best and easiest preventative measures for overpopulation. Contraceptives allow women to get pregnant when they choose, leading to an obvious decrease of childbirth and in extension, population growth. As of April 2017, China has the highest rate of contraceptive use, with 89% of sexually active women taking contraceptives. This has resulted in a relatively low population growth rate of about 0.4%, which is a fairly large contrast to Mauritania, the country with the lowest rate of contraceptive use, where the population growth rate is at around 2.8%. However, this is not an indication that contraceptives are a definite solution to overpopulation. Contraceptives are not infallible, and people may simply stop using them if they so choose. For these reasons, contraceptives should be used in conjunction with other methods of population control to be more effective. A good example would be, once again, China. Government policies limiting the number of children per family has led to the widespread use of contraceptives in the country. If governments encouraged the use of contraceptives, or even simply allowed for easier access to the technology, population growth rate would be (at least slightly) decreased as accidental pregnancies would be prevented. In addition to curbing population growth, contraceptive access can lead to reduced government healthcare costs, since abortions would not be necessary and the spread of sexually transmitted infections would decrease. This means less money spent on expensive operations and drugs against STIs.
Sources:
1. http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-with-the-highest-rates-of-contraceptive-use.html
2. http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/china-population/
3. http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-with-the-lowest-rates-of-contraceptive-use.html
4. http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/mauritania-population/
Sources:
1. http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-with-the-highest-rates-of-contraceptive-use.html
2. http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/china-population/
3. http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-with-the-lowest-rates-of-contraceptive-use.html
4. http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/mauritania-population/
Another Perspective
Another perspective on this issue is that overpopulation may not actually occur. Population growth is decelerating overall, even in countries which have high fertility rates. As countries become more urbanized and women are educated, the fertility rate drops drastically. In less developed countries, the fertility rate has dropped from 6.1 to 3.0. In many developed countries, the fertility rate has actually fallen below the replacement level, which is generally accepted as 2.1 children per woman on average. Spain has the lowest fertility rate at 1.15, and Europe with an overall fertility rate of 1.42 is predicted to lose over 100 million people by 2050. Clearly, the trend is decreasing population.
Many scientists associate this decrease of fertility rate with the increasing urbanization trend. Families that live in rural areas when the main economic source is through farms, it makes sense to raise a large family. In the past few centuries, there is an indisputable amount of urbanization happening all over the world. Cities tend to have better healthcare facilities, meaning child mortality rate is decreased, giving parents less incentives to have more children. Families in urban areas then tend to be on the smaller side. Children, in urban settings also tend to be “costly impediments on material success. People who are well adapted to this new environment will tend not to reproduce themselves. And many others who are not so successful will imitate them,” as Philip Longman, a demographic expert says in his book The Empty Cradle. Additionally, according to the UNPD, population growth will continue to slow down over the next few decades. In fact, if current trends persist, our growth will halt right around 8 billion by 2045. After that, our numbers will start to fall off, slowly at first, and then faster.
Space is also not a problem. Some researchers have argued that lack of space on the globe is not a problem. They prove it using simple math. The world population is around 7 billion. The landmass of Texas is around 270,000 square miles or 7.5 trillion square feet. If you were to manage to fit the entire world population in Texas then each person would receive 1000 square feet per person. On average each person receiving 33 by 33 feet plot of land. Each household could receive 66 by 66 feet. Of course totally unfathomable, but it just proves that there is plenty of vacant room on the earth. There is the issue of space for other ecosystems and their species, but the idea of plentiful space is nonetheless relevant.
Even if space was an issue, humankind could increase the use of existing technology that could increase land productivity and make it possible to sustain a growing population. Developing new technologies could both decrease resource use and increase the carrying capacity. Human populations can engineer ecosystems that can sustain populations well beyond the capacity of of an unaltered ecosystem. Humans and the earth are nothing like bacteria on a petri dish. “Humans are niche creators.” We transform ecosystems using the technology available to ourselves to sustain our populations. Our planet’s human-carrying capacity emerges from the capabilities of our social systems and our technologies more than from any environmental limits. Overpopulation is not the problem because technologies allow humankind to create new ways to extend resources. Instead, the real danger is how we distribute those resources and how humans interact with each other.
Sources:
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/14/opinion/overpopulation-is-not-the-problem.html
2. chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https://uwaterloo.ca/waterloo-research-institute-in-insurance-securities-and-quantitative-finance/sites/ca.waterloo-research-institute-in-insurance-securities-and-quantitative-finance/files/uploads/files/03-02.pdf
3.https://overpopulationisamyth.com/episode-5-7-billion-people-will-everyone-please-relax/
Many scientists associate this decrease of fertility rate with the increasing urbanization trend. Families that live in rural areas when the main economic source is through farms, it makes sense to raise a large family. In the past few centuries, there is an indisputable amount of urbanization happening all over the world. Cities tend to have better healthcare facilities, meaning child mortality rate is decreased, giving parents less incentives to have more children. Families in urban areas then tend to be on the smaller side. Children, in urban settings also tend to be “costly impediments on material success. People who are well adapted to this new environment will tend not to reproduce themselves. And many others who are not so successful will imitate them,” as Philip Longman, a demographic expert says in his book The Empty Cradle. Additionally, according to the UNPD, population growth will continue to slow down over the next few decades. In fact, if current trends persist, our growth will halt right around 8 billion by 2045. After that, our numbers will start to fall off, slowly at first, and then faster.
Space is also not a problem. Some researchers have argued that lack of space on the globe is not a problem. They prove it using simple math. The world population is around 7 billion. The landmass of Texas is around 270,000 square miles or 7.5 trillion square feet. If you were to manage to fit the entire world population in Texas then each person would receive 1000 square feet per person. On average each person receiving 33 by 33 feet plot of land. Each household could receive 66 by 66 feet. Of course totally unfathomable, but it just proves that there is plenty of vacant room on the earth. There is the issue of space for other ecosystems and their species, but the idea of plentiful space is nonetheless relevant.
Even if space was an issue, humankind could increase the use of existing technology that could increase land productivity and make it possible to sustain a growing population. Developing new technologies could both decrease resource use and increase the carrying capacity. Human populations can engineer ecosystems that can sustain populations well beyond the capacity of of an unaltered ecosystem. Humans and the earth are nothing like bacteria on a petri dish. “Humans are niche creators.” We transform ecosystems using the technology available to ourselves to sustain our populations. Our planet’s human-carrying capacity emerges from the capabilities of our social systems and our technologies more than from any environmental limits. Overpopulation is not the problem because technologies allow humankind to create new ways to extend resources. Instead, the real danger is how we distribute those resources and how humans interact with each other.
Sources:
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/14/opinion/overpopulation-is-not-the-problem.html
2. chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https://uwaterloo.ca/waterloo-research-institute-in-insurance-securities-and-quantitative-finance/sites/ca.waterloo-research-institute-in-insurance-securities-and-quantitative-finance/files/uploads/files/03-02.pdf
3.https://overpopulationisamyth.com/episode-5-7-billion-people-will-everyone-please-relax/