Outline: Population Growth in Perspective
I. Introduction
II. Current Population Awareness
III. History of Population Crises
IV. Presentation of Current Data on Growth
V. Analysis of the Predictions
VII. The Future
To anyone even remotely acquainted with the situation, the ever-expanding world population can easily be a cause of grave concern. Indeed, the simple realization that the total world population will most likely be doubling within the next century may seem to imply catastrophe. Considering the strain our current huge population puts on the world, is it not natural to presume that two times our number will spell disaster? While this is the view held by many prominent voices, there also is a less-noticed group of people who contend that the resiliency of the earth and the ingenuity of its people will keep the planet a decent place to live.
In this paper, I attempt to critically examine various theories on the
size of future population growth and consider what some of the possible
results of this growth might be. In the end, I conclude that although there
are significant development issues facing the world as a result of the expanding
population, the world is probably not headed for ruin.
The dramatic increases in world population over the last decades have not gone unnoticed. The media frequently covers issues related to population growth and control, making most people aware of at least some of the discussions surrounding world population. Many societal problems such as environmental destruction, the spread of virulent disease, and starvation are forecast as a result of the planet's increasing population. In fact, overpopulation is often perceived as the number one threat to the world because of its wide ranging effects.
Here at Goshen, overpopulation is a popular topic for Senior Seminar papers. Virtually every year, at least one person in the class has written about the subject. Most of the people have written their paper on the forthcoming crises related to overpopulation and some of these crises possible causes and solutions. Generally, people have operated under the assumption that the world was (or was on its way to being) overpopulated.
I began my research in this topic with the same outlook. I initially
wanted to research overpopulation because I was deeply concerned with its
implications. I wanted to understand the causes of population growth and
to learn what might be done to ameliorate the problem. Soon into the research,
however, I happened upon pieces of literature opposing the idea of an overpopulation
crisis and immediately respected certain aspects of their arguments. Quickly,
I was forced to change the scope of my question from "what will be
the consequences of overpopulation?" to "what exactly does overpopulation
mean?" and "does an overpopulation problem even exist?".
The seed of my doubt that an overpopulation crisis was imminent was planted
when I began to examine the historical record of population concerns. As
a history major, I have at least some respect for patterns in history. While
I recognize that new things can emerge, often a current event is a variant
on an earlier expressed theme.
Regarding population, the first documented concerns over population size
date from a Babylonian epic from 1600 BC (Cohen, 1995). More writings on
the topic across the globe have continued since then, themselves probably
increasing at a rate faster than the population has ever grown. In 200 AD,
the Roman General Tertullianus sounded a lament that is remarkably similar
to some that can be heard today:
Indeed it is certain, it is clear to see, that the earth itself is currently more cultivated and developed than in early times. Now all places are accessible, all are documented, all are full of business everywhere there is a dwelling, everywhere there is life. The greatest evidence of the large numbers of people: we are burdensome to the world, the resources are scarcely adequate to us; and our needs straiten us and complaints are everywhere while already nature does not sustain us. Truly, pestilence and hunger and war and flood must be considered as a remedy for nations, like a pruning back of the human race becoming excessive in numbers (Holland, 1993).
Not only are population issues a repeated theme in history, they are
somewhat inconsistent. While people have generally been most alarmed at
increases in population, in the 1930's the U.S. and Europe were most concerned
about their declining rates of growth. In 1932, J.J. Spengler, an Economics
professor at Duke wrote, "There is no longer practically any true increase
in the American population and deaths threaten to exceed births within 3
decades". He then adds, "The steady decline in the birth rate
threatens Western civilization both from within and from without."
(Spengler, 1932). Admittedly, it should be noted that he was concerned only
with the declining American birth rate, not with any decrease in growth
that was happening world wide. In fact, as can be readily inferred from
his extremely Euro-centric statement, he feared that the increasing populations
of developing countries would eventually overwhelm the ever-shrinking Western
nations.
This leads us to the sometimes-heard accusation that population control is just a way for Western nations to preserve their stronghold over developing countries. While I would not go so far as to completely agree with this assertion, I do think there is an element of racism in this issue which should not be ignored.
Another powerful idea I was forced to confront when researching this topic
was the idea that most civilizations like to believe that they will be the
last people to live on earth. At almost every era in history, people are
convinced that some imminent cataclysm is on the verge of destroying the
world. Depending on the society, this mammoth event has been expected by
the hand of something like a god, aliens, or a nuclear bomb. Today, our
threat is a world overwhelmed by people which succumbs to disease, destruction,
and starvation (Bailey, 1993).
I am not trying imply here that people's concerns about population issues
are entirely a fabrication of minds searching for doom. However, I do think
that most people and most civilizations are self-centered and are inclined
to believe that they stand at a point of unprecedented importance in human
civilization.
Now that I have set up a context with which to view interpretations of the current status of world population, lets look at what is occurring, what is projected to occur, and what different people believe the results of this will be.
The size of world population is far greater that it has ever been before.
From 1900 to 1997 the population jumped from 1.6 billion to 5.7 billion.
It is expected to continue to rise to around 12 billion people by the middle
or end of the next century before it levels off (Lutz, 1994). The rates
of growth are far higher in developing countries then in developed nations,
some of which, like the Austria, Denmark, Germany, and Switzerland have
experienced periods of negative growth (Bailey, 1995). The current worldwide
rate of annual population growth is 1.6%, which is down from the all-time
high of 2.0% in the late 1960's. Overall, the average rate of growth is
just 0.4% for developed countries but is 1.9% for developing nations (Bailey,
1995). Of the developing nations, Sub-Saharan Africa has by far the highest
rate of growth. The bulk of this increase in growth has happened since 1950,
when extensive public health measures became available (Lutz, 1994).
Despite the still high current rates of growth, it is important to note
that they have been dropping over the last 40 years. Worldwide, the total
fertility rates per woman have fallen from 5 children in 1950 to 3.1 children
in 1990 (Bailey, 1995).
Therefore, massive population growth is not a new occurrence first facing
our decade. The modern publications regarding population growth already
had soon emerged after growth rates took off in the fifties. By 1960, the
issue was of enough national concern that on January 11 TIME magazine ran
a cover article called, "That Population Explosion". In this article,
the editors show an amazing sense of balance and insight that was somehow
soon lost in the ensuing years of the decade. TIME reports:
The only safe generalization about long-range population predictions
is that they have always proved wrong. When Malthus foresaw mass starvation
in Europe unless its people stopped breeding, he failed to reckon with the
industrial revolution and the agricultural potential of the Americas. Latter-day
players of the Malthusian numbers game, who foresee global economic ruin
in one, two, or six centuries usually fail to reckon sufficiently on the
unknown potentialities of science and the unpredictable turn of events (1960).
Abandoning this style of careful research, books proclaiming environmental
catastrophe due to a burgeoning world population soon proliferated. The
most influential of all these books was The Population Bomb, first published
in 1968 by the Stanford biologist, Paul Ehrlich. He painted a picture of
immediate and unavoidable worldwide disaster due to the growth in population,
opening his book with the now famous lines, "The battle to feed all
of humanity is over. In the 1970's and 1980's hundreds of millions of people
will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now."
(Ehrlich, 1968). Additional persons such as Lester Brown of the World Watch
Institute proclaimed an equally dire future.
Since we have now successfully made it to 1997, we must now address the
question: why did the predictions like Paul Ehrlich's not materialize? Indeed
population is growing like he and everyone else predicted, but it is at
least possible to consider that world situation is not deteriorating. As
an example of world improvement, "At the beginning of the 1970's, 35%
of people in developing nations had inadequate access to food according
to the Food and Agricultural Organization, but by 1990/92 only 21% of people
in the developing world had inadequate access to food" (Web 1).
It is significant to recall TIME's comment from 1960 - technology can
provide resources previously unimagined. This is exactly what Ehrlich and
company missed. In this case, it was the "Green Revolution", led
by the Nobel-Prize winning work of Norman Borlaug. Improved crop varieties
drastically increased food production, allowing, for example, India to double
its wheat harvest in just seven years from 1965 to 1972. (Brown, 1994).
Worldwide, grain production increased 2.6 fold between 1950 and 1984, which
was much greater than the world increase in population over the same period.
(Brown, 1994). While it is true that if the population had grown with no
simultaneous increase in food people would have been starving as Ehrlich
predicted, the effects of technology cannot be disregarded.
Concomitant with a rise in population is an assumed increase in demand
on resources. Many arguments that proclaim the ill-effects of population
focus on the fact that most of our natural resources will soon be depleted
and that there are absolute limits to what we can produce. While this may
be true in the very broadest sense, in general humanity has been far from
reaching any of these ultimate boundaries.
As an example of a technological development suddenly emerging and improving
the world situation, lets look at the situation in Great Britain in the
late 1600's and early 1700's. At this time, Great Britain was laying the
foundations of what was to become the Industrial Revolution. One necessary
component of industry is iron. The early methods for smelting iron required
a vast amount of hardwood charcoal, so much that already by the late 1600's
most of the hardwood forests in Britain had been chopped down. Iron smelters
were leaving the business because charcoal was so expensive and scarce that
producing iron was not profitable.
However, between 1709 and 1713 an ironsmith named Abraham Darby discovered
how to use coal to produce iron. From this cornerstone, the Industrial Revolution
was born (WB 1996).
I see in this series of events many parallels to the world situation
today. First, in its demand for charcoal, Great Britain had destroyed most
of its forests and production was at a standstill. This can be compared
to the clearing of forests today for subsistence crops and grazing land.
Once coal's use was discovered, however, trees were not utilized and then
eventually grew back. Meanwhile, the new technology - coal, was causing
its own sets of problems in the form of smog and water pollution. This parallel
can be seen today in pesticides - while they make agriculture much more
efficient and are probably beneficial overall, they do undeniably come with
negative effects as well. Their effects on birds, waters supplies, and human
health are only too apparent.
Over time, coal was eventually replaced by cleaner and cheaper sources
of energy. Today, Britain has more forests than it did 300 years ago and
is a cleaner place to live than 150 years ago. The progression of events
will hopefully be true for our current use of pesticides in feeding the
world - we will continue to get the job done for increasing numbers while
decreasing the effect on the environment.
I use this example as a cautious suggestion that a world situation that
appears to be headed for destructive stagnation can suddenly and unexpectedly
be changed into a drastically different and optimistic outlook. I should
not make it appear though that the destruction of Britain' s forests in
the 1600's had no long term effects. In fact, the loss of these old-growth
forests did lead to the disappearance of numerous species, most notably
the wolf. The fact remains, though, that as a result of this long series
of events, Britain is still a viable place to live today, even if it is
slightly less biologically diverse.
This example brings me to a broader qualifier about this paper. Although
I may seem to be anti-environment, I actually have a deep concern about
world development. As I have said, my fear of the consequences of overpopulation
was largely what motivated me to begin research in this topic in the first
place. I write this paper from this point of view simply to emphasize that
to have a greater understanding of how to most effectively confront this
issue, people must look at all aspects of it.
There clearly are a huge range of opinions on this subject, from someone
like Lester Brown who says the end of the world is near to Julian Simon
who says that things have never been better. Therefore, to make the topic
more manageable, I wanted to see if I could answer the simple question,
"Does the world face imminent catastrophe?". As you have seen,
my answer to this is no. However, I am not trying to ignore the numerous
problems that do exist in the world. I just believe that no matter how undesirable
pollution and the general increase in population may be, it is unlikely
that the world will be destroyed.
Of course, now could be the ultimate moment - now could be the actual time that a predicted apocalypse materializes. There is no way of disproving that. However, if we look at human concerns of the last 3500 years, we see that this is an often-repeated theme that has somehow always been worked out.
After not having their predictions of starvation and chaos occurring during
the 70's and 80's, it is curious to hear what Paul Ehrlich and Lester Brown
have to say about the situation now. In his 1994 book, Full House, Brown
concedes the obvious - a massive increase in food production did occur and
famine never set in. He argues though is that in the 60's there was large
backlog of unused technology that was able to be easily called upon when
needed. Now, however, he believes we are using every bit of information
that we have and that progress we not be able to occur at the rates it did
in the 60s-80s. He says that now is the time when the earth's carrying capacity
has finally been reached. He remarks, "If the FAO (Food and Agriculture
Organization) and World Bank projections of relative abundance and a continuing
decline of food prices materialize, then governments can get by with business
as usual. If, on the other hand, the constraints incorporated into the Full
House projections are reasonable, then the world need to fundamentally reorder
priorities" (Brown and Kane, 1994).
While in theory he could be right now, if his prediction making skills are
anything like they were 30 years ago he is probably not accurately looking
at all aspects of the situation.
In summary, I would like to reiterate what I have learned about the issue
and the conclusions I draw from them . The world is increasing by 90 million
people per year (Cohen 1995) and within a century is expected to rise to
a minimum of 8-9 billion people, with a much more likely sum being around
12 billion (Lutz 1994). The fact that all the new people will need to be
fed and that they will put a huge strain on the environment and human ingenuity
is clear. The evidence that the population will increase to a size so much
larger then ever before in history is intuitively very disconcerting.
However, we must not allow ourselves to look at this issue simply at
face value. First, we must recognize that humanity has faced resource problems
throughout history. Consistently, solutions have always evolved to each
problem. Secondly, in our concern about overpopulation, there are aspects
of the issue not directly related to population size that may infiltrate
our thinking. Some examples of these are the racist and apocalyptic biases
that affect people's judgment.
In the book, Population and Development, Robert Cassen cites three primary
causes of controversy in population discussions. He says:
First, there is a widespread lack of clarity about the aspects of development
that population growth is claimed to affect. Second, the available evidence
from empirical studies does not clearly show that population growth exerts
a negative influence on development. And third, difficulties arise from
ethical perspectives and in policy issues: especially the North-South debate,
issues concerning sexuality, reproduction, relationships between men and
women, and questions relating to family planning itself (Cassen 1994).
As Christians, I believe we have a moral responsibility to care for the
earth and all of its inhabitants. There are many issues such as exploitation,
environmental destruction, and gender inequality that must be addressed.
Many of these injustices are directly tied into the problems surrounding
an increased population.
While these are things we must work at, we should not become overwhelmed by fear that the world as we know it will soon be destroyed as a result of population growth. Undoubtedly, a smaller population would be better for the world. However, even given the uncertainties in population predictions it can be assumed that the world will rise by at least 4 billion people. Despite this terrifying increase, we are probably not doomed to disaster. With hard work and proper management, life can continue in an ever more technology-dependent world.
Works Cited
Bailey, Ronald. Ecoscam. St. Martin's Press, New York 1993
Bailey, Ronald. Ed. The True State of the Planet. Free Press, New York. 1995
Brown, Lester and Kane, Hal. Full House. W.W. Norton and Company, New
York.
1994
Cassen, Robert. Population and Development: Old Debates, New Conclusions.
Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick. 1994
Cohen, Joel. How Many People Can the Earth Support?. W.W. Norton and
Company,
New York. 1995
Ehrlich, Paul. The Population Bomb. Ballantine Books, New York. 1968
Holland, 1993, as quoted in How Many People Can the Earth Support?
Lutz, Wolfgang. The Future of World Population. Population Reference
Bureau,
June, 1994
Spengler, J.J., as quoted in Population: A Clash of Prophets, ed. Edward
Pohlman.
Mentor Books, New York, 1973
"That Population Explosion", TIME magazine, January 11, 1960
World-wide web site:
Web 1: http://www.carnell.com.overpopulation.html