Are There Just too Many People in the World?

This is a post I don't want to write. Its subject is ugly; it makes me instinctively recoil. I have chastised people who bring it up at environmentalist meetings. The people who talk about it obsessively have often been callous about human life, and consistently proved wrong throughout history. And yet... there is a grain of insight in what they say.

The subject is overpopulation. Is our planet over-stuffed with human beings? Are we breeding to excess? These questions are increasingly poking into public debate, and from odd directions. Phillip Mountbatten -- husband of the British monarch Elizabeth Windsor -- said in a documentary screened this week: "The food prices are going up, and everyone thinks it's to do with not enough food, but it's really [that there are] too many people. It's a little embarrassing for everybody, nobody knows how to handle it." He is not alone. A strange range of people have voiced the same sentiments over the past few months, from the Dalai Lama to Hu Jintao, from Conservative mayor Boris Johnson to Democratic Governor Bill Richardson.

They start by listing the sums, which are indeed startling. Every year, world population grows by 75 million people -- equivalent to another Britain and Ireland whooshing fully-populated from the oceans. At the turn of the 18th century, there were 600 million people on earth. At the turn of this century, there were 6.6 billion. By the time I am in my sixties, there will be more than nine billion -- at which point there will be more people alive simultaneously than in the first 17 centuries after Christ combined.

The overpopulation lobby say this will inevitably leave more and more people chasing after a diminishing amount of resources on an ecologically-ravaged planet. At their most pessimistic, they say human beings will, in the long sweep of planetary history, look like a big-brained version of a locust cloud. They eat everything in sight and multiply fifty-fold -- until they have consumed everything, when they turn in desperation on each other, munch off their siblings' heads, and then fall out of the sky dead.

They say with a frown that this global swarming is driving global warming. How can you be prepared to cut back on your car emissions and your plane emissions but not on your baby emissions? Can you really celebrate the pitter-patter of tiny carbon-footprints?

Yet this subject seems to leech out all the dark toxins of environmentalism -- a movement I believe is the most urgent and important in the world. There has always been an element of green thinking that viewed humans as a parasitic infestation, wrecking the Eden of planet earth. The philosopher John Gray calls our species "homo rapiens." The founder of Earth First!, Dave Foreman, called us "Humanpox" and wrote: "The Aids epidemic, rather than being a scourge, is a welcome development in the inevitable reduction of human population... If [it] didn't exist, radical environmentalists would have to invent [it]."

If environmentalism sounds -- or is -- misanthropic, we will lose the argument. Most human beings will never think the world would be better off without us. Nobody thinks they are the surplus human being who should not have been born. These strident arguments hand a huge gift to the anti-greens, who always said we were anti-human beneath the surface.

It also looks like displacement. The places where population is growing fastest -- sub-Saharan Africa, rural China and Bangladesh -- have virtually no carbon emissions, and pitiful food consumption rates. The gap is so huge that to be responsible for as many gas emissions as one British person, a Cambodian woman would need to have 262 children. Can we really sit in our nice homes, with a fridge-full of food we will mostly chuck away and an SUV in the drive, and complain that she is the problem?

Once this gut-reaction has kicked in, I then think of the horrible history of overpopulation predictions. Most famously, the 18th century demographer Thomas Malthus said mass starvation was inevitable because population increases geometrically while food production grows arithmetically. He didn't anticipate the coming of the Industrial Revolution. His successors in the 1960s, like Paul Ehrich and the Club of Rome, similarly didn't see the Green Revolution that was galloping around the corner of history.

So it is tempting to say now that the overpopulation argument will smack into some new technological development. It's not quite true to say there is a diminishing amount of resources, because the genius of human beings is to find new ways to use what is there. Two centuries ago, nobody could have conceived that the sun's rays or the waves in the ocean were a resource to be used -- but solar and tidal power make it so.

And yet, and yet... why do my own arguments leave me echoing with doubt? A dark voice in my head says: you would accept that, to pluck an absurd number, 100 billion people would be too many. You don't think human genius is infinitely expansive; there is a limit to what it can solve. So isn't the question just where you draw the line? If 100 billion is too much, why not nine billion?

Hmm. You should always take on the best arguments of your opponents, not the worst. There are good people -- a world away from the British royals or the human-hating fringes -- who are sincerely concerned about population levels: people like Professors Chris Rapley and John Guillebaud. They argue that although the swelling billions are not now emitting large amounts of greenhouse gases, they will see that we are doing it and will (totally understandably) want to join in the carbon bonfire.

But if this is a problem, is there a solution that isn't abhorrent? Some people seem to reach instinctively for authoritarian answers. The government of China has bragged that its "greatest contribution" to the fight against global warming has been its policy of punishing, imprisoning or sterilising women who have more than one child. Some environmentalists -- a small minority -- eye this idea jealously.

There is a far better way -- and it is something we should be pursuing anyway. It is called feminism. Where women have control over their own bodies -- through contraception, abortion and general independence -- they choose not to be perpetually pregnant. The UN Fund For Population Activities has calculated that 350 million women in the poorest countries didn't want their last child, but didn't have the means to prevent it. We should be helping them by building a global anti-Vatican, distributing the pill and the words of Mary Wollstonecraft.

So after studying the evidence, I am left in a position I didn't expect. Yes, the argument about overpopulation is distasteful, often discussed inappropriately, and far from being a panacea -- solution -- but it can't be dismissed entirely. It will be easier for 6 billion people to cope on a heaving, boiling planet than for nine or 10 billion -- and we will only get there by freeing women to make their own reproductive choices. To achieve this green goal, it's necessary to mix some oestrogen into the environmentalist palette.

Johann Hari is a writer for the Independent newspaper. To read more of his articles, click here or here.

Comments

[clashcitysupermarket]

I think the short answer to your title question is, unfortunately, yes. And yes, almost all the social science indicates that educating and empowering women is the key as a sustainable way to curb both overpopulation and poverty.

[FairTalk]

Should all people have reproductive rights given this pressure of sustainable population?

Perhaps the world should do what resterants, stadiums, and National Parks must do, have limits on how many folks are admitted?

Oh, my!

How would we decide who could reproduce?

Would we base it on money? Only those with means can have children? Or perhaps only those who own land? Should we discriminate based on race? Perhaps those races who have a greater population would have their reproductive rights severly limited, while we have affirmative reproductive rights for those under-represented races.

Even up the earth's playing field?

[PaPaPeng]

The G20 grouping at last weekend's Washington Meeting is telling in that the G20 is responsible for 85 to 90 percent of the world's wealth production. It can be assumed that the remaining G172 member countries of the UN produce only 10 to 15 percent of the world's wealth. It is pretty obvious that they will never become rich nations and it is as obvious that they cannot aspire to the lifestyles of a modern technology driven citified society. This limitation also applies to countries the likes of China and India where a majority of their population should remain agrarian and produce enough food for themselves and for the rest of the population. To aspire to Western style consumption will be the ruin of the world. The economic and environmental solution for the majority of the world's countries is therefore to study Cuba's methods where she had to deal with the American embargo and live within her means. The poor G172 should adopt whatever can be applied to their own countries. Cuba may not be much in material wealth. But her people have enough to eat, her environment is pristine, her public health services exemplary, there is political stability, continuity and much more. In light of the present problems and fears ordinary Americans and G7 peoples are facing and the even worse disasters that will befall the G172 the Cuban life seems a pretty good place to be in.

[Danejohnson36]

I hope the problem is solved soon. It is disconcerting for me to think about those wealthy wall street and hollywood stars that have aquired some of the most pristine lands for their private refuge having to live within sight of the common man encroaching on their space. They have done so much for our cause.

[adamsmith3]

As globalization keeps occurring, the more prosperous poor African and Asian countries will eventually become. With globalization comes increased standards of living and education and many of these populations will reach a sustainable birth rate as much of Europe and the U.S. have done. I detest authoritarian ideas such as China's imposed maximum child/family law. All we can do is spread education. This isn't a problem that will explode in our faces if nothing drastic is done through the government. It will most likely be a problem that eases naturally over the next century or two. Humans love growth and increased standards of living, but among anything else we adapt and self-preserve. If overpopulation truly becomes a dire problem, most individuals will make an effort to not have kids that they cannot support.

[bluegrasstafarian]

what in god's name are you talking about? Globalization rapes these poor countries of their resources through the exploitative practices of transnational corporations leaving the already weak governments huge unpayable debts all in the name of "progress." Do you really believe that growth can be endless and exponential? Have you not realized that there are limits to growth, and that our oil economy is inevitably finite? "Cheap" energy is what drives "development" and economic growth, and the masters of the universe speculate how much oil is underneath the ground and create capital based on that speculation...so it is essentially imaginary money that will blow up in our faces once we realize the oil ain't there. Not to mention the austere rape of the ecological soundness and diversity that we are still a part of whether or not we care to mention it.

Economy is part of ecology...root word (Gr.) "oikos" - home, hearth...

AGREED that education is a good thing...but you seem to hinge every problem on a single solution of a top down international education revolution, which if anything like the neo-liberal economics you find so wonderful, will be nothing but an uneffecient, inequitable attempt of standardization and centralization.

Globalization is not the answer, but the problem.

[adamsmith3]

Growth is limitless because human innovation and problem solving is limitless. I'm sorry you're so bummed about globalization since it is inevitable and, I think, a natural course of history. I am not talking about top-down world education. I am talking about the spread of a higher standard of living and the improved technology that comes with it. I am someone who is ultimately optimistic about the course of human history despite all of its atrocities. A replacement of oil will come before it runs dry because whoever successfully does so will be the new corporation making record profits. The profit-driven system of capitalism ensures that wherever there is a problem in high demand of needing solving, somebody wanting to make a lot of money will solve it. I think that's the beauty of capitalism....it tends to solve the problems that it creates and improves the quality of our lives in the process.

[phlashba]

Gay marriage.....part of the solution....not part of the problem. That's all.

[FilthyHarry]

To the 'population control' crowd:

Yes, population control is a conceivable answer (despite it never actually being done) however the important thing to remember is our global culture's mindset rejects ideas of limiting our growth while on the other hand embracing anything that encourages our growth. As long as this is the predominant mindset of our culture, population control will always be something people talk about but never actually do.

[KillTheMessenger]

You keep repeating yourself but your "arguments" are not getting any better. See my response below.

:-)

[FilthyHarry]

This is how you can tell there are too many people: In a given locale, are there more people living there than the local ecology can support? If the answer is yes then you've set up the conditions for famine, disease, etc... Now this isn't to say that technology can't forestall or alleviate these potential problems, but nonetheless, the threat exists because their are too many people.

[gabbinjane]

Yes, there are. And it's going to get worse. And short of massive nuclear war, an incredible natural disaster, or a pandemic murderous disease, nothing is going to change that. Read Malthus!

[KillTheMessenger]

The preconditions for Malthus' thesis are not met. Humans do not multiply according to some arbitrary mathematical model and there is no reason to assume that we can not control population well below the physical limits of this world. Indeed, there is evidence to the contrary. Current population growth indicates that the world will level off at 11-12 billion humans around the year 2100. That is not much more than we have today and indeed can be sustained at a level well above subsistence. Not everybody will be driving SUVs, of course, but everybody can have a good education and a reasonable job, health insurance and the life expectancy to live out a full life mostly free of fear.

[fightorleave2]

Kill the Messanger, did you read your comment before you posted? You say that 'humans do not multiply according to some arbitrary mathematical model.' Uhm, yes we do. It is completely arbitrary, or a better word is chaos, as to when and where a women becomes pregnant. Also, you say that the global 'population will be 11-12 billion around 2100, which is not much more than we have today.' Uhm, yes it is. It is almost double. Current world population is around 6.5. I would say double is substantially more.

[FilthyHarry]

Population control is always named as something that can be done to curb our growth but it NEVER happens. Population growth is a annual event you can bank on. Population control never is. Its always something that happens in the future.

Also I believe the current population growth numbers show we'll hit 11-12 billion at some point, however it says nothing about it 'leveling off'.

[lianna]

You are not living in the real world.

[bluegrasstafarian]

that's double...which is a lot if you think about it

[JohnFromCensornati]

Yes, there are.
Blessed are those that are against birth control for they shall inherit the earth (and destroy it).

[lianna]

I once calculated that to understand the population density of Bangladesh, take every single US resident, including the megacities of LA and NY, and place them in the state of Florida. ( A place I already consider densely populated.) This would equal the density of Bangladesh...mind-boggling. Haiti is a country with the resources and land mass to support 3 million people. The population of Haiti is 7 million. Haiti is constantly in the news because of poverty, hunger, violence, and natural disasters. If anyone thinks overpopulation does not cause problems, please think again.

So how do we empower women we don't even know? How do we change religious doctrine, starting with the Pope himself? If you have any ideas or answers, please let us know!!

[KillTheMessenger]

"So how do we empower women we don't even know? How do we change religious doctrine, starting with the Pope himself?"

You show them that they have choices. That's usually done by education. Help to build schools, get a bunch of kids out of poverty, let them start businesses to support themselves and others. And over time (within 50-100 years) these societies can develop to help themselves. It's not as hard as it seems. We just have to let go of the hope that this can happen within our lifetime. It can't and it won't. But within the lifetime of our grandchildren, it might be feasible.

[fightorleave2]

This is really beyond the pale, Kill the Messanger. You pretend as if people haven't been trying for years to help the poor and yet there has been no change. What do you think the US has been doing for the past 60 years? Talk about a bunch of b.s. republicanism. Pakistan has a population of around 160 million and is home to an unknown number of madrassas. Some say at least 50,000 madrassas. But, it's not the number of schools, but what is being taught in them, and 'starting businesses' is not what should be taught either. Rather, what should be taught is that the rich, and there are plenty of rich in many poor countries, need to give up that wealth (usually land and resources) so that all prosper. This should start particularly in the Christian countries. They should start to apply actual Christian principles.

[lianna]

I have read every single comment and want to say thanks for all the insight. This problem has been completely ignored by mainstream US media recently because I have been looking for articles and this one is the first I have found. I remember as a child in the 70's that population control was a commonly discussed issue...around the same time that the lovely, stoic Native American (then called Indian) had tears running down his cheek because of the littering of his once natural habitat. This was also the same time everyone drove at 55 MPH to conserve gasoline. So what happened?? No one talks about the importance of population control and gas-guzzling vehicles overtook the roads, especially here in the Southwest. I guess what happened was capitalism at its worse...the same culprit that caused the current financial disaster. For capitalism to thrive, it needs growth at any cost. We even measure our economy in terms of growth. Maybe we need new ways to measure progress, such as health of the population or health of the environment. Maybe capitalism needs to be re-examined as it may not be so great in the long term.

[KillTheMessenger]

Why are you looking for solutions in the "mainstream media"?

Wouldn't science

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=world+population&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search

or the UN which cares deeply about the problem

http://secap480.un.org/search?q=world+population&Submit=Search&ie=utf8&site=un_org&output=xml_no_dtd&client=UN_Website_English&num=10&proxystylesheet=UN_Website_English&oe=utf8

be better places?

[lianna]

of course, but unfortunately most people don't read science or UN reports and this is a problem which needs everyone's participation to solve.

[jbatch]

Johann:

I think the best way to think about population is in the context of carrying capacity. The world could sustain 1 billion living at "western" levels of consumption quite nicely. At 3 billion, it begins to strain our atmospheric and ocean sinks, as well as our resource base. At 6 billion, even with a sizable proportion existing at the meanest levels (nearly a billion live on less than $2 a day) the world's ecosystems and resource base are overtaxed and on the way to being permanently impaired.

Another way to look at this is to consider that Americans use more than 20 times as much energy per person as India and 10 time as much as China. If you were to raise the standard of living of those 2.8 billion people and they consumed energy and emitted carbon at US levels, that would be the equivalent of adding 44 billion people to the world from just those two countries -- clearly not sustainable. Do the same for the world, and we've effectively reached an equivalent of 100 billion people, the figure you dismiss as absurd.

Thus, we are already -- at 6.3 billion -- at a level which requires gross inequities between countries.
So, the choice then becomes do we want a relatively few people living with prosperity in an equitable economy with a sustainable environmental and resource base, or do we want relatively more living in an inequitable global economy with a failing ecosystem?

[hollybork]

Yes, there are too many people. To realize what natural process of attrition kick into gear in such a situation with a biological population, you need only review studies on animal behavior among overcrowded colonies of rabbits or rats. They end up losing fertility, with increased inter species violence, and higher mortality rates from disease. We are already seeing some of these effects in human populations. CB

[KillTheMessenger]

Except that we are not rabbits or rats. As far as I know neither species has managed to build nuclear power plants, solar panels or has even developed the ability to plant cabbage.

[bluegrasstafarian]

we're still of the same primordial soup... we are teetering on the edge my friend. peak oil and water will bring us to our knees and have us all taking up arms as we squabble over the remaining resources in a crashing globalized economy. "A hungry mob is an angry mob" said a wise man ( a prophet, if you will).

Our industrial food system depends on cheap petrochemicals, and oil economy, and economy of scale. This is going out the window fast.

[DuganS1]

The total number of people in the world is not the problem because a large percentage of those folks live at the subsistence level. The increase in the world population also has nothing to do with global warming. The earth has warmed and cooled tremendously over its life, and much more so than in the last 150 years, without the burning of any fossil fuels.

[Cogitoe]

Billions living at a subsistence level IS A PROBLEM. It may not be a problem for you and I today, but someday in the future that population pressure will cause all of us serious problems (e.g. a pandemic). You also don't have to believe in global warming to be concerned with the effects of higher populations on the quality of air, water and the land itself. I would even throw in light polution and noise as also reducing the quality of life on Earth. With better technology maybe one day we can sustain 10-20 billion people on Earth, but we are not there yet.

[KillTheMessenger]

DuganS1, in this case, actually has a point, although he messes it completely up with his boneheaded denialism. It's not the number of people that count but their ecological footprint. And while, yes, poverty is a problem in the world, in terms of global effect WE, the rich people, are the culprits.

I would file light pollution under "minor inconvenience", unless you are an optical astronomer. We won't have to sustain 20 billion people on Earth. Realistic forecasts point to the human population leveling off at 11-12 billion. And that is entirely sustainable, even at the level of industrialized countries, if we do it right.