Forum Topic

Reducing the population the best solution?

I have been thinking that maybe a solution for ‘Earth out-of-control’ is to halve the population, then we can better live within our resource means and maybe rebuild them. Also it would give us more psychological space. What about a target of halving the population to 3 billion and live within our means? The government’s economic logic of ‘we must have population growth to sustain our economies’ seems a dangerous model. I had a search for information on overpopulation and found this site which has some useful stats.http://www.overpopulation.org/There seems to have been a lot of talking about this problem over the past 30 years and little progress made, apart from awareness in some quarters, which is a start.The population has doubled from 3bn to 6bn today from 1960, so the world I was brought into as a child had ½ the people fighting for the same resources.I also found this fascinating calculation:http://www.carbon-info.org/carbonnews2/carbonnews2_081.htm"July 2007While not advocating genocide, the new head of the Science Museum has an unusual view about how global warming should be dealt with: get rid of a few billion people.Chris Rapley, who takes up his post on September 1, is suggesting that by improving contraception, education and healthcare it will be possible to stop the world's population reaching its current estimated limit of between eight and 10 billion.'That in turn will mean less carbon dioxide is being pumped into the atmosphere because there will be fewer people to drive cars and use electricity.Researching Mr. Rapley's point, Carbon-info.org has discovered that surprisingly short timescales are involved in reducing the population.It is possible to calculate the time (t) it will take for the UK's population to shrink from 60 million to 25 million based on the number of women, who decides to have 1 child or 2 children.While a controversial subject, the calculations shows that if 40% of women have 2 children, 40% have 1 child and the last 20% no children, then it will take about 34 years before the UK population reaches the 25 million target.It is therefore theoretically possible, by offering incentives to women and families, to reduce the UK population to 25 million in about 1.5 generations!The calculation can also be applied to the world population. And while clearly a very difficult thing to achieve in practice, it is potentially a cheap and quick way of reducing the world CO2 output, if it could be implemented on a voluntary basis."--So things can be done fairly quickly.

Duncan Walker ● 6506d16 Comments

The most important determinants of fertility rates are per capita income and the welfare structure of a given economy. Basically you are going to have high birth rate in countries where people ultimately see their children as necessary for care in their old age. Contraception, healthcare and education are not going to change this imperative for people in poorer countries.It is totally impractical, not to say immoral, to ask developing nations to curb their population growth to deal with a problem that we have created. Also the practical problems with such a drastic reduction in population growth would rule it out. If you try to engineer a decline in global population you will end up with a disproportionately old population dependent on a relatively small productive younger population. You would end up in a spiral of decline in which the global economy was strangled by the requirement to raise huge taxes to support the elderly (which of course being in the majority they would vote for). A more workable solution to control population would be a kind of 'Logan's Run' in which you were only entitled to a set time on the planet. Rather than 30 as in the film this could be say 50. This would be fairer on the developing world where life expectancy was lower and would probably provide a net benefit to the global economy as a far higher percentage of the population would be productive.Or rather than cooking up daft impractical ideas about population control we should have a bit more confidence in mankind's ability to tackle the problems that the future might present. Everyone is aware of the depletion of fossil fuels, the overuse of water resources and the emission of CO2 into the atmosphere. It is inconceivable that when the circumstances demand it the technology will not be developed to tackle these problems. Much of it is already available but just uneconomic to mass produce.

Andy Jones ● 6499d

I’ve been digging into Wikipedia and reading more of the overpopulation information and I can see as the world population increases, it will put more demand on the depleting world resources and each country will have its own particular challenges.So first I can see a considerable growth in population:A table of population growth estimates by country are on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rateWhere Growth rate = [(births + immigration) – (deaths + emigration)] / populationThe growth rates are largest in North and Central Africa; followed by a grouping in Afghanistan/Pakistan/India/Middle East/Ireland; then the Developed countries last.“The United Nations states that:• Almost all growth will take place in the less developed regions, where today’s 5.3 billion population of underdeveloped countries is expected to increase to 7.8 billion in 2050. By contrast, the population of the more developed regions will remain mostly unchanged, at 1.2 billion. The world's population is expected to rise by 40% to 9.1 billion. • During 2005-2050, nine countries are expected to account for half of the world’s projected population increase: India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Bangladesh, Uganda, United States of America, Ethiopia, and China, listed according to the size of their contribution to population growth. • The population of 51 countries or areas, including Germany, Italy, Japan and most of the successor States of the former Soviet Union, is expected to be lower in 2050 than in 2005. • During 2005-2050, the net number of international migrants to more developed regions is projected to be 98 million. Because deaths are projected to exceed births in the more developed regions by 73 million during 2005-2050, population growth in those regions will largely be due to international migration. • By 2050 (Medium variant), India will have almost 1.7 billion people, China 1.4 billion, United States 400 million, Indonesia 297 million, Pakistan 292 million, Nigeria 289 million, Bangladesh 254 million, Brazil 254 million, Democratic Republic of the Congo 187 million, Ethiopia 183 million, Philippines 141 million, Mexico 132 million, Egypt 121 million, Vietnam 120 million, Russia 108 million, Japan 103 million, Iran 100 million, Turkey 99 million, Uganda 93 million, Tanzania 85 million, and Kenya 85 million, UK 65 million. • 2050 o Africa - 1.9 billion o Asia - 5.2 billion  o Europe - 664 million o Latin America & Caribbean - 769 million o North America - 445 million (Source: Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nation. World Population Prospects: The 2006 Revision.)”This population growth would be fine if it wasn’t for our limited resources.“The resources to be considered when evaluating whether an area is overpopulated include clean water, clean air, food, shelter, warmth, and other resources necessary to sustain life. If the quality of human life is addressed as well, there are then additional resources to be considered, such as medical care, employment, money, education, fuel, electricity, proper sewage treatment, waste management, and transportation. Negative impacts should also be considered including crowding stress and increased pollution. If addressing the environment as a whole, the survival and well-being of species other than humans must also be considered. We are starting to see the onset of an impaired quality of life, serious environmental degradation, and long-term shortages of essential goods and services.” These pressures on our resources are increasing and we are already seeing a furious rush for raw materials, such as China buying companies and trading rights to hydrocarbons and minerals in Africa.But I think it is the scarcity of water which will cause the major problem for those in drought areas and the impact on their capability to produce food, which will more and more be imported and drive up the food prices.“Water deficits, which are already spurring heavy grain imports in numerous smaller countries, may soon do the same in larger countries, such as China or India. The water tables are falling in scores of countries (including Northern China, the US, and India) due to widespread overpumping using powerful diesel and electric pumps. Other countries affected include Pakistan, Iran, and Mexico. This will eventually lead to water scarcity and cutbacks in grain harvest. Even with the overpumping of its aquifers, China is developing a grain deficit. When this happens, it will almost certainly drive grain prices upward. Most of the 3 billion people projected to be added worldwide by mid-century will be born in countries already experiencing water shortages. Unless population growth can be slowed quickly by investing heavily in female literacy and family planning services, there may not be a humane solution to the emerging world water shortage. Desalination is a real world, humane solution to the problem of water shortages, although probably not effective.After China and India, there is a second tier of smaller countries with large water deficits — Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Mexico, and Pakistan. Four of these already import a large share of their grain. Only Pakistan remains self-sufficient. But with a population expanding by 4 million a year, it will also likely soon turn to the world market for grain.”Australia is now experiencing a severe water shortage, which is threatening their ability to support its population.I suppose the effects we are experiencing in Brentford, London and UK are more about the shortage of space with the high density of people. This causes the expense of housing; strain on the transport system, health, education, and welfare systems. We are also experiencing higher costs of raw materials such as hydrocarbons, and lately wheat. Now all of that adds up to some significant challenges for us all.I'm going for a cup of tea before the water runs out!

Duncan Walker ● 6505d