Mon 5 Apr 2010
What would be an optimum global population?
Posted by South Africa / Madeleine under Balkers
[15] Comments
If you reached this Balkingpoints.com article by direct external link, stop by the front page for an incredible satellite view of the earth in rotation!
On a previous blog I raised the point about global population, but this attracted very little attention. Since it seems to me a crucial point, I’m raising it under a new heading.
The point of departure before was that an ageing population is an unmitigated and irretrievable disaster. I am saying that (1) it’s not necessarily as bad as that and (2) bad or not, we’ll have to bite the bullet or face a really irretrievable disaster.
One often hears that Earth is not overpopulated at all: if things were properly arranged, there would be enough for everybody. But even if Earth is not overpopulated now, eventually it must be. And human nature isn’t going to change. The powerful (by endowment or by nature) will claim a greater share than the weak and powerless.
Another myth is that of ‘replacement’. As long as each couple produces only two children – in other words, reproduce themselves – numbers cannot get out of hand. But (even if this replacement thing could be enforced) most people reproduce long before their own parents have died. Three or even four generations are alive at the same time; and there is a drive on the part of the medical profession and others to extend life at all costs, regardless of its quality. I have two children, five grandchildren; the youngest is only 19 now, and none of them have started reproducing yet.
In theory, the birth rate can start falling at once. We’re told that in the West it is already falling (I don’t know: I was shocked to see a comment by an educated English person that a falling birthrate would reduce the nation’s power and international standing). In practice, I don’t see how the global birth rate can be reduced below the death rate, which is what it amounts to.
So there we are. Resources are running out (oil, water, arable land); other species are being crowded out by ourselves and our animals and crops; the ecological balance slips further out of control every day. So does pollution. Oh, we’re very clever, but we’re not really convinced or motivated. We still imagine that the earth and the oceans are big enough to absorb our impact.
If we could arrest the birth rate right now, we would have an ageing population for a while. How bad is that? People remain active much longer than they used to; in part it balances out. But in any case, it’s not as though young populations are problem-free. A young population may cost more in education and job creation, an older one in health care. The young may have to support the old. But in an emerging country like my own, you have high unemployment and a low tax base; a similar situation, but we look forward to better days.
If we can start arresting the birth rate now, attention could shift to a better quality of life. Education and other social services could start catching up. Better technology would enable us to repair the ravages to our planet.
What Say You?
What would be an optimum population for Planet Earth and how do we achieve it?
Well done Madeleine – the optimum topic, for Balkingpoints.
The planet is destined to deal with the reality of human population, whether it goes high, low or steady over time. In that sense it differs for me from the global warming issue, which may or may not be a major factor in our future.
(Actually, the sun will go Red Giant eventually, vaporize the earth and then nothing that ever happened here will matter… ;^)
But we may be able to colonize the galaxy before then. So, there are always cards to play in our situation…
(And that serves as a nice, high-tech solution for an overcrowded planet, as well… ;^)
I’m 49 and remember the population boom warnings from the 1970′s – very similar to today’s dire global warming predictions. Scientists were aligned, and it was a looming threat to humankind. Then, it pretty much went away.
In that time however, we’ve gone from 3.7 to 6.9 billion persons. So maybe we only looked away.
Technological advance being flat, I would agree that the ecological balance and drain upon natural resources would eventually present major problems. But of course it is not flat, so effectively what we’re left with is a race between the two.
And of course it will largely be by the greater dissemination of information on all these moving parts (itself on the back of media technologies), that we’ll ever approach more balanced or sustainable procreation. Most governments wouldn’t try to restrict childbirth by law, nor as free people should we let them…
To directly answer your question, I’d say about 3-4 billion. Here’s why:
Other species. Before human beings came along, other species – of plants, birds, animals, dinosaurs, reptiles, insects, fish, and all those little tiny things – populated our planet. A species would pop up, live for a while, then die off – or transform itself into one or more different species. This was evolution in action. Our planet was alive and healthy.
Think about population size. For any single species (of anything, plant or animal), for most of its existence (except for the beginning and end), its numbers were more-or-less constant. The quantity of members of the species might rise a bit in good times, fall in bad; but, over the long run, its population size was steady. If a species increased too substantially, it eliminated its food supply (or some other necessary resource) and died off. If a species decreased in numbers for too long, it faded out of existence. A species that survived for a long time did so because it was in balance with other species around it. This balance served it well, and even allowed many species to survive for millennia and beyond. (Keep this fact in mind; we will return to it.)
Our relationship with other species. Then we arrived on the scene, and planet earth began reeling. Our species – homo sapiens – has messed things up considerably. Beginning in pre-historic times, we caused a dramatic increase in the rate of evolution of other species – especially at the dying end. We killed off species we could eat, like woolly mammoths and dodos and passenger pigeons. We killed off predators that competed with us as hunters. We destroyed or markedly changed habitats, making it extremely difficult or impossible for some species to continue (including huge numbers of species of small things that could not adapt to the rapid environmental changes that we caused). We radically altered the nature of some species, such as strawberries and cows and flu viruses.
In most of the world, it is only within the past few decades that we finally began to realize that eliminating or significantly changing other species is not necessarily a good thing – not only for them, but also for us. So now we have numerous groups – government, inter-government, non-profit, and private – trying to save certain species and slow down or reverse our habitat destruction. This is a good thing – but it is not enough.
Our species’ history of population size and growth. Now consider our species’ population size: compare it with successful species. For most of our pre-history, the number of human beings in the world increased extremely slowly. Population density in any one area didn’t change much, since any excess people didn’t stay put, but went off exploring to ‘new lands’. Our population size was in balance with the world around us.
In early historical times, we ran out of new lands, but learned how to put more people in the old lands by growing crops and domesticating animals rather than gathering and hunting for our food. So human population began to grow – still relatively slowly, since natural disasters and diseases killed off most of the weakest people, the children. Again, our population size was more-or-less in balance.
During the past couple of centuries, however, this situation changed dramatically. Our species learned two crucial things that had never existed on a large scale in prior human history:
• How to move food to places experiencing food deficit (by developing communication/transportation links and trade mechanisms), and
• How to reduce the impact of disease (by improving the quality of drinking water and developing immunizations).
These two factors alone enabled our population to soar at an unprecedented rate. There are now nearly seven billion of us, and the numbers keep growing. For the past century, the population of homo sapiens has been increasing at a rate faster than that of any species in the entire history of the world. (Re-read this sentence and think about it: it is crucial to your children’s survival.)
We are now out of balance and need to return to an appropriate relationship with the world around us. There is no reason to believe that the laws of nature are any different for us: homo sapiens will follow the same evolutionary path as all other species. That means that unless we find the more-or-less constant population that is ‘just right’ for our place on this planet, we will die off.
There are now so many of us humans that the momentum of our very existence makes it extremely difficult to find suitable space to allow other species to flourish. We use far too much of the best land on this planet – and that territory grows every year. To repeat, the most important conclusion our species faces: we need to reestablish a balance with the world around us.
A very specific suggestion for the US (and appropriate for April): In order to emphasize that the US needs to contribute its part to the reduction of world population, we should remove the tax deduction for all children after the first two.
I suspect there is a case to make about national power and birth rates. Iran as an example has some half of it’s 72 million population under age 35, rendering the concept of ground invasion by the United States, absurd.
Indeed it is quite the subject to bandy about. To be sought as well is a separation of ecological balance and Darwinism, if at all possible. Yet another aspect is to consider the relationship of education to birthrates. Educated populations birth less children, whatever cauldron of causes may be behind that fact. Perhaps it serves as an answer for the “how” part of the question.
A quick comment at the end of a tiring day.
Thanks, USA/dchauls – I resonate with every word. I’d really appreciate other equally informed and balanced elaborations on my post, which was necessarily a summary of various relevant points.
RoyG, I hesitate to raise this one; it’s a balk in itself. I don’t want to stray from the current one; we’ve hardly started, I’m hoping for many constructive comments on how the birth rate can be reduced in time to make a difference. But may I touch on this one briefly? Later, perhaps, we can discuss it at greater length under a separate heading.
It’s about your hint in passing as to colonising the galaxy. I hope like mad that nothing remotely like this happens until the human race has learnt some wisdom … We’ve messed up one beautiful planet; I’d hate us to get our hands on any others for a long time yet.
For how to reduce world birth rates it’s going to fall into only a few categories.
Except for genocidal events, which anyone sane already has ruled out! Laws can make it illegal to have more than 1 child. I only know of China which tried that and I think later on relaxed it. That really isn’t viable or likely to gain much traction.
Countries can discourage births by the tax codes, taking away child credits or even levying new taxes for too many children. (but who decides that limit?!)
That method would also bring about criticisms over not supporting all children that do get born equally. It’s still kind of heavy handed government also. Some would object just on that.
Martin; I think you identified something that does have a chance in the furture, in that educated people have less children. Maybe the race is not as much between technology and population growth, as it is between upgrading the 3rd World and pop growth.
It seems fair enough to me: tax credits for the first two children only. I don’t like the idea of one child per family: only children are lonely children. As I said in my blog, ‘replacement’ is a myth, but it’s better than nothing.
As long as wanton child-bearing doesn’t have social or financial advantages, we might actually see people deciding not to have children … Several people I know have told me they would have preferred not to have any.
I agree that education is probably Measure #1. Even the simple self-esteem it confers will help people, especially women, decide for themselves about having children and how many.
We also need more acceptable and foolproof contraceptives. If contraception were reliable and universally available, we’d be getting somewhere.
But when it comes to religious and ideological notions about reproduction .,, no names, no pack drill … Well, education doesn’t seem to make any difference!
One look at the rotating map of lights and one knows Australia is as much a dark continent as Africa. There is plenty of room for expansions and I hear Canada is of the same mindset. Of course that isn’t acutally the point here of this topic, I realise. But so.
just looking at gender rights around the world would go a long way, completely agreed there. It would be wonderful if the Catholic church would modernise to simply get off the contraceptives crusade. They’ve lost that one I say.
A nostalgic note in passing. It can never, never be implemented – it’s not remotely practicable – but the ultimate criterion for birth control is simply: No one should have children who is not parent material. That includes financial adequacy but so much more. How many parents do you know who are either dreadful role models, lax and lazy, or irritable and even outright cruel? Again, education and reliable contraception are the best answers. (This may just be part of the story, but Ruth Rendell has described a social programme in Britain whereby unpromising mothers (a not-too-bright teenager in this case) are assigned a lifelike doll baby for a week or so to show them what parenthood is like. This occurs in Harm Done.)
This would be a useful addition to general education. A lot of people imagine they want children and discover too late that parenthood is not what they thought; though even then they persuade themselves they are model parents.
But we can’t stop wrestling with this problem. Even if we get the population numbers right, we still have to work for a balanced, happy society.
A parting thought. You need a license to drive a car. But anyone can have a baby.
Only the ignorant will offer a direct answer to your question. Big picture issues such as this are far too complex to be answered with any degree of accuracy.When this was a front page issue in the sixties I examined the evidence and the arguments and decided they had merit. My response was to have a vasectomy in 1969 at the age of twenty nine. This decision had as much to do with my assessment of myself as a not very good parent as it did with population control. One thing I am absolutely convinced of is that we as a species will never respond to over population rationally. This is the conundrum. I am a huge fan of freedom and democracy, while realizing that our form of government is supremely irrational, and as such is unable to respond effectively to such existential threats. Also, in America, our economic system cannot survive without growth and as a result those with the heaviest investment in Capitalism will fight any attempt to limit growth. I found the above comments very thoughtful and comprehensive.
@theotherjimmyolson: I am awed by your post. I didn’t know there were people like you. We shall need many more … What particularly makes my day, of course, is that someone actually applied my impossible criterion to his own life. I hope it’s been a good life and will continue to be so.
I agree that democracy is imperfect, though it’s the best we have. Again, you need a license to drive a car but anyone with the necessary powers of persuasion (and, in practice, enough money) can qualify for government … Perhaps I’m cynical, but many South Africans don’t feel our expectations (or Nelson Mandela’s) of democracy are being met. But I digress, as I often do.
About your comment that the American economic system (or any other capitalist system) can’t survive without growth: Have you read that grand SF story by Pohl and Kornbluth – The space merchants? I recommend it to anyone who is dubious about the growth cult. And to anyone who isn’t, for that matter.
Sorry for the delayed response, but I believe that if you have nothing to say, you shouldn’t. I read the wiki summary of The Space Merchants, and it seems that although I have never heard of the novel, I might well have written it,so closely does it mimic my own opinions. As to your original question, “what is the ideal population level, the question itself prompts all manner of questions in response. At what level of existence. The world may well forever support 20 billion people living as they do in the Congo, but would it support 20 billion people living as they do in Westport Connecticut? One thing I hope we can all agree on is that the exponential nature of the increases in population cannot continue. If , in fact all do agree, then the next question may be do we allow the situation to self correct, as surely it must, or do we try to formulate a response to forestall this self correction. I have already decided to formulate my own response.Although I live in a rural area where most people depend on the liberal use of an auto to live their lives,I have always arranged to work close to home,or at home.I make no frivolous trips (by auto). I constructed my own home to consume 1/4 the energy of a comparable dwelling,growing as much of my food as possible in this northern climate(44 Degrees Lat.)To put it another way, there is nothing wrong with trying to implement your current vision of an ideal existence, while at the same time, continuing to educate yourself by inquiry as to the ideal.
I also would like to heartily endorse your post#5. The very idea that some privileged elite would extract the last resources of a polluted planet to rocket off to a virgin unspoiled planet leaving the rest of humanity behind, is…….. do I have to say it?
Missing the point!!! The ongoing problem all over the world can be equated to one factor…OVERPOPULATION!!! We are reproducing at a fast rate and the earth as it exists now can not replenish itself fast enough.
Interesting question — The optimum global population according to whom? The optimum number is whatever it is an any given time. But if you are looking for a maximum sustainable level I’d say we are pretty close to it. If we hit 10 or 15 billions that would be close to the maximum. 15 is a lot more than 6 but really it is only 2.5 times.
Could the optimum number be zero? It may not be the end of our lineage, I hope not but our genome is under serious chemical attack. Even if we stopped manufacturing and using carcinogens now the stockpile of toxins already in existence would continue to irreversibly change all the genes on the planet for thousands of years. Did you know the BP accident in the Gulf is not the biggest oil disaster yet? Sure it is bigger than Exxon Valdez but so far it is still smaller than the Kuwait war spills or Ixtoc I oil spill.
Without this pressure to mutate we have already been around a while. These extra pressure on our species are bound to accelerate evolution one way or another.
Do we really think we can outsmart life itself?
Don’t flame the messenger
…Copernicus already established that we were not the center of the universe.
Why do we hold this strange notion that we are going to live forever. Dolphins look like they may very well be wiser than we are