2050: Population 8 Billion... but for how long?

[SeriousSam]

The Royal Society has announced that it is launching a major study into human population growth and how it may affect social and economic development in coming decades. It commenced on World Population Day and concludes sometime in early 2012.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10578484

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...on-growth.html

When it eventually comes out it will be interesting to see how they pitch the tone of the report, as this is a very contentious issue. On the one hand being able to procreate, however much you do so, is seen as an inalienable right and yet on the other doing so impinges on the rights of others as your “gene stock” consumes disproportionately more resources. There is also the economic question as “growth” ultimately relies on an increasing population, set against which are environmental issues such as deforestation, pollution and dwindling resources.

To me, and a growing number of naturalists and scientists, the answer is blindingly obvious; if we carry on as we are then all that awaits us is disaster, probably in the form of the apocryphal four horsemen.

Using 2050 as a reference point as it features in the latest predictions, the world’s population will reach a staggering 8 Billion people. To put this in perspective the equivalent amount for 1930 was 2 Billion, and not long after that we had the Second World War which put a significant dent in this figure. Therefore in 120 years we will add three times the amount of people to the world that it previously took over 5000 years to achieve. So, if you will excuse the pun, how on earth can we believe that this is good for our species in the long run?

If you look at the figures for the UK then our total population is predicted to increase to around the 70 million mark. Now our infrastructure and society is already creaking under the weight of 60 million, so how are we going to integrate another 10 million? The cost of services such as the NHS will increase markedly in response to this rise in population, as economy of scale ceases to be effective beyond a certain point. Then there is the issue of housing, as we are already building on land which is either unsuitable (flood plains) or we should be preserving as farmland or natural habitats. More critically however we are predicted to have energy and water shortfalls in the future at our current population, let alone for this higher level.

Scarily the last report I read relating to a “sustainable” UK population level put the estimate at 20-30 Million, and although commissioned by Friends of the Earth it was rather generous in some of its predictions regarding the availability of renewable energy and other factors. More tellingly it is entirely possible that without some significant advances in the science of sustainable agriculture, specifically replacements for fertilisers and pesticides, in the long term this figure could be nearer 8-10 million. So rather than letting our population increase we should be finding ways to slowly reduce it over time, in order to ensure that future generations also enjoy a reasonable standard of living.

The problem is that we don’t really have any idea about the scale of the challenge, only that at some point we will have to find away to only consume resources at a rate at which they can be replaced, or they will run out. Obviously the amount of resources required will be dependant on the size of the population, but without an accurate idea of how well we will be able to replenish them it is difficult to then calculate an upper limit. In addition, until we stop using them at a faster rate than they are renewed then we will have no idea of the final amount of resources we will have at our disposal. About the only thing we do know is that until we find replacements for fossil fuels, especially oil, our entire civilisation is on borrowed time.

Now some of you may be thinking that there is nothing to worry about and that we will be able to use technology to dig ourselves out of this hole. However, the longer it takes us to start tackling the associated problems, and at the moment there is minimal effort being made to solve them, the greater the likelihood that change will be foisted upon us in a rather unpleasant fashion. Yes there are significant efforts around energy production and alternatives to petroleum for transport, but what about everything else? If you look at the number of products dependant on oil it is pretty much ubiquitous, affecting every facet of our lives. Even just a cursory examination gives a list http://www.anwr.org/features/oiluses.htm that should give pause for thought. Ultimately though it is food which is the biggest global concern as modern farming, food manufacture and distribution currently could not function without it. But even this is a minor worry for some areas compared to the more pressing issue of water. I believe it is Mexico City where despite being in the top 10 richest cities in the world, upwards of 10% of the population in permanent housing, i.e. not shanty towns, are on rationed water delivered by trucks. There is also the inevitable fact that no matter what we do the amount of non-organic resources available to us are finite, and thus are not something we can ultimately rely on.

Despite this my main concern doesn’t actually relate to the issue itself, but moreover the fact that at present people are becoming increasing cynical about anything which has a negative impact on their quality of life. You only have to look at the response to the various forms of carbon taxation to realise that we see such things as just another way for those in power to siphon off our hard earned cash. I also think that the man made climate change lobby are actually doing more harm than good to the cause of continuing human survival. In reality it doesn’t matter whether it is our fault or not, as the climate changes with or without our help, and has done so more dramatically in the past. We as a species just have to learn to adapt the changes and live more in tune with our natural surroundings rather than trying to bend it to our will. The far bigger issue is that if we just continue to consume resources at an increasing rate we will fast find ourselves without any, and will be far less able to adapt to climate changes. In addition, the larger our population the harder it becomes to relocate people into habitable regions.

However, as we have to consume increasing amounts of resources in order to have economic growth, and as it is our new “deity” it will take something drastic to shake us out of our torpor and wake us up to the reality of our situation. Personally I don’t think that we will change until it is far too late, and millions if not billions of people are dying through war, famine and pestilence. We as a species learn from our mistakes rather than being smart enough to avoid them in the first place. Admittedly there is an argument to say that the best course of action is for us to just “live fast and die young” as the quicker our society collapses back to a pastoral level of existence the less the total amount of damage we will do to the planet. But that is easy for us to say as we won’t be the ones that have to deal with the consequences…

So the question remains, how do we solve the problem of overpopulation? In addition, how on earth do we create a unified global approach to it as quite a number of countries will refuse to co-operate for one reason or another.

[SeriousSam]

I used to be of the belief that Capitalism would do its job and that as things became more scarce then new technologies would become more feasible and things would balance themselves out, with a little bit of a bumpy ride but nothing too catastrophic. However, once you realise that although the system itself is capable of working it cannot do so due to a fatal flaw in its execution, you begin to realise that even market forces are powerless in this situation. The issue lies with us, as in our species, because we wilfully skew and preferentially constrain the rules plus data on which the system works. Most notably in terms of ‘worth’, i.e. how much we pay for goods and services.

As an example the price of a gallon of petrol is based on the cost of factors such as extraction, refining and transport. However, nowhere in the calculations does it take into account the cost of replenishing our stocks of crude oil. Imagine if a farmer didn’t take into account the cost of buying piglets for the price of his pigs at market, he’d soon go out of business. The fact that oil and other resources come from the earth and are currently in abundance is an irrelevance. They do not magically spark into existence for free and the more we use them on the cheap the greater the “debt” we rack up.

Now for some resources this isn’t much of an issue due to a combination of usage rate and that our ability to “reclaim” them back from their end use is well advanced. However, with the opposite being true for crude oil we have created a gargantuan “resource debt” in order to fund our lifestyle and sustain our ever increasing population. So unless we magically find a way to create crude oil or its many individual constituents* that we use in an economical manner, we will have to pay back the debt with the only coins we have at our disposal… human suffering and lives.

*Even Algal bio diesel which at first glance looks like a great idea is so far proving to be a non-starter due to its resource requirements

Exactly how all this will play it out globally is up for debate, and will in reality depend on decisions made over the next couple of decades. However, I wouldn’t want to be in a country whose economies are driven either by short lead time industries and / or perishable exports to the developed world. Air freight is going to become a lot more expensive, and companies will look to suppliers a lot nearer to home to get a better price. Interestingly this has already started in some manufacturing industries such as textiles, with production being brought back to the UK from the Far East.

As for us in the UK then as I indicated earlier, the sooner we start implementing policies designed to reduce our population the better. There have been reports today that the latest projections put the UK as having the largest population in Europe at 78million by 2050, whilst countries such as France and Germany will see reductions. Obviously you have to take the actual numbers with a pinch of salt as anything could happen between now and then, but the fact that our population is growing at a faster rate than other European countries is a cause for concern.

You could start by phasing out benefits relating to children, including housing provisions, until they only pertain to one child. That way there is no financial incentive to having more than one child, and consequently if you want a second or third child you have to be able to afford them yourselves. Unfortunately this voluntary measure on its own won’t even come close to reducing our population by the amounts we need as initially it will merely slow the rate of increase. Worse still it will probably exacerbate our increasing problem of how we afford to support the elderly, with 25% of our population predicted to be over 65 by 2020, let alone 2050.

Using China as a comparison for calculation it means that rather than having a 78million population in 2050 it will be around 75-76million. So short of going all “Logan’s Run” we would ultimately have to start implementing more controversial measures such as;

1. Requiring a licence to have a child with all males being fitted with contraception (the Australians are working on a reversible method using “cable ties”)
2. Setting criteria for what constitutes a worthwhile investment of national resources for health care, especially where excessive consumption plays a significant part
3. Implementing a “points system” whereby if you drop below zero your right to life in the UK is revoked, and yes that does mean exile or the death penalty
4. One in one out immigration policy with right of asylum abolished and only those who would provide benefit to the country being let in

I know many won’t like the idea of this because it will both devalue the “worth” of human life and in all likelihood disproportionately affect those at the bottom of the social ladder. However, unless you believe that “God” will magically save us all from oblivion then our primary objective becomes survival of the species. Achieving that will be much more likely with a managed reduction rather than a collapse through war and disaster, during which it is likely that we would irretrievably lose some of the better parts of our society and planetary ecology. There is also the less palatable fact that without the existence of a “God” then we are here due to happenstance rather than as part of some greater purpose and consequently we are actually worth squat in the first place.

Once you get your head round this then you begin to understand that what actually is important is not being “fair” but ensuring that our species has the highest chance of survival. This means specific skills and knowledge will inherently be more “valuable” than others, with the revival of a lot of pre-industrial revolution occupations being vital. That doesn’t mean we have to eschew technology all together, as it will still have a pivotal role to play in our long term survival. However, we have to become far less dependant on it and its apparent energy / time saving from non renewable sources.

Of course irrespective of our population level we still have to reduce our resource footprint both individually and as a country. Though this doesn’t mean shifting all our “dirty” industry abroad as it is about how much we consume and waste not how much we use in order to produce. Top of the list has to be food as currently the amount of excess production and waste going to either landfill or incineration is obscene. Considering the amount of energy required to produce it in the first place and the amount of land required to “store” it, even a mere 5% reduction would have a massive effect. Still this is just the tip of the iceberg in regards to the ultimate aim of reversing our current disposable lifestyle and only buying / creating things when we actually need them, e.g. to replace something broken.

There are a number of areas, some of which I have listed below, in which progress can be made incrementally without the need for instant draconian measures.

1. Phasing out the production and sale of certain types of processed foods e.g. ready meals and implementing education programs to teach people about how to make the maximum use of ingredients and foodstuffs
2. Creating “reuse” schemes for electrical goods etc. which benefits both those handing them in, whoever then uses it and ultimately the original manufacturer
3. Restricting advertising, especially that which promotes goods which are frivolous or wasteful of resources
4. Requiring that all new builds meet increasingly stringent resource criteria, e.g. sustainability of materials, solar energy usage (both electricity & water)

None of these will be popular or in fact be easy, though perhaps finding an economic model to manage contraction will be somewhat of a challenge considering that we can’t even get “growth” right. Personally I believe that the current stock market and shares system will have to go, as it fosters a culture of short term thinking which is an anathema to long term sustainability. I’m also sure that there are lots of other areas which will need a radical overhaul in order to create focus on sustainability rather than wealth generation.

On the other side of the equation then setting up areas of “minimal technology” would be useful in order to start investigating ways to live far more sustainably, as well as training younger generations in traditional skills that will come in rather handy for the future.

There are some other interesting pieces of commentary on the BBC website about this topic, here;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4584572.stm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10682516

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8854653.stm

[DeludedGuy]

Good post, I pretty much concur with everything said. I can one day see people mugging other people for food instead of mobile phones. I probably wont be here when it comes to that, I hope it never does.

[stavroshamster]

Over-population is a much bigger threat to us than climate change IMHO (and I think climate change (regardless of whether you think it's human-induced or not) has the potential to be a massive problem BTW), and of course there's a link (if you believe it to be human-induced, which I do).

One of the problems is that its a massive taboo to talk about population control and therefore it hardly gets any coverage in the media and isn't researched properly, and so people don't think about it. And, as usual, it's not us in the developed world who are going to suffer the most as we are going to be able to cope for much longer (we will be able to import food while other's can't grow enough for themselves - in fact this is already happening).

A unified international approach is needed, as you say, but there is no way it will. At least, not in time or to the extent needed. We still haven't got proper commitments to reducing global carbon emissions more than 20 years after they should have been implemented, and as I say over-population is an even bigger and more complex problem.

Basically, life as we know it is screwed in one way or another (our excessive consumption cannot continue at this rate). My approach is now to try and reduce the impact I have so that I don't feel so guilty about it. Then I just feel guilty that I am in a position where I can make those life-style choices, whereas many aren't

Anyway - back to work to write about overfishing...

[Lee H]

The more I hear about the population booming putting severe constraints on the food supply in the future, the more I reckon the matrix was right where people will be eating a gloop made in vats consisting of essential fats, amino acids and required minerals etc.

Fingers crossed I'll be long gone and recycled back in the carbon cycle a fair few times before this ever happens though.

[TheAnimus]

People complain about population controls in China. They are unfair.

People are given more support (money, housing, food) for the more children they have in the UK. Whilst I'm not suggesting its the visage the Daily Mail paints it is true that if you have more children there is a legal obligation to stop over crowding, which often results in larger accommodation.

Sadly there are many people who are great at been productive on an economic aspect, but that choose to have one or two children at most. This is very dangerous if we have a dwindling economically active population supporting a growing inactive population.

I think we need to be honest when it comes to aid and benefit. Basically we know right now that loosing 1bn people would be highly beneficial to a majority, so long as its the right billion. The thing is its completely morally reprehensible to pro-actively decide who are the right ones. Only allowing them to die by inaction.

As the OP said, we are all inherently selfish. We can argue that if you don't put your children first, odds are genetically you wouldn't be here. Does that begin to allow for genocide?

I complain about been in the 50p bracket. If we were to fairly allocate wealth, I don't think anyone would be doing anything but complaining if they are in the UK, everyone would loose out.

So at the moment we tolerate inaction, the almost civilised form of Genocide, it allows us all to agree that Something Must Be Done which is positive, whilst knowing that in honesty it can't be.

However, nature has a habbit of solving these things, as population density increases illness spread faster, natural famines cut deeper due to higher crop gearing. Despite this probably killing more people, it will be the preferred action, because it frees us from having to make any difficult decisions.

[Salazaar]

If a country were to enact a proactive population control policy, what exactly do you do to enforce it?

We live in an age where we regard every child as being entitled to certain rights. So how does a country enforce, say a one child limit, without compromising the welfare of children who have been born (through no fault of theirs) outside of that policy? Do you penalise the parents, and therefore put the children at risk? Or do you take the children away from the parent, at great cost to the state? Maybe some kind of deferred penalty is needed... Have more than 2 kids and go to gaol/pay a huge fine after the last one's grown up...

[neonplanet40]

Didn't David Attenborough do a television show on this? The life series or something. It was very informative and really did make you realise how bad things will become.

[mmh]

as i see it, in my fairly sheltered life, theres 2 ways out of overpopulation...

Total nuclear devestation... china strikes off, america/us fight back... global nuclear winter occurs...

or Zombies... (dont get me wrong, i know how silly it sounds, but stick with me) It would only take a virus like rabies to mutate to human form, get airbourne and natural selection will take course!

I have every confidence, much to my distaste that either of these will happen within my lifetime... we cant go on the way we are, and with oil the way it is, it wont be long before america forces thier way into other countries with nuclear powers too...

man this is depressing

[stavroshamster]

Didn't David Attenborough do a television show on this? The life series or something. It was very informative and really did make you realise how bad things will become.

He has spoken about it quite a lot and is the patron of this: http://www.optimumpopulation.org/

[Salazaar]

What we need is a new top predator, something to knock us off the top spot of the food chain and force us all to compete at a more primitive level

[TheAnimus]

What we need is a new top predator, something to knock us off the top spot of the food chain and force us all to compete at a more primitive level

The Welsh?

[matty-hodgson]

What we need is a new top predator, something to knock us off the top spot of the food chain and force us all to compete at a more primitive level

We should all live at a more primitive level. How much more fun would life be? Chasing animals and stabbing them and stuff.

And no stupid idiotic governments telling me what I can and can't do.

[peterb]

We should all live at a more primitive level. How much more fun would life be? Chasing animals and stabbing them and stuff.

And no stupid idiotic governments telling me what I can and can't do.

Yes, its called anarchy and its fine until a bigger version of your animal comes round chasing you - with no government or law enforcement system to protect you! But then that is survival of the fittest.

But back on topic - and excellent post and is something that poliyticians gloss over. It is far more comfortable to talk about "limited resources" and "carbon tax" than it is to talk about over-population.

There are a number of natural disasters waiting in the wings to cull the occupants of planet earth. the caldera under Yellowstone Park in the US will blow at somepoint - the estimate is about every 600,000 years (IIRC) and the last one was over 600,000 years ago. That would/will take out a large proportion of the US, and its food production capacity, and the effects on climate wiould affect food production for all the population.

We are so heavily dependent of electicity for our way of life that if that was cut off, it would have a significant impact on society, which would probably affect the number of humans.

And extinction is part of the evolutionary cuycle, and it seems amazingly arrogant to think that human beings are the pinnacle of evolution - and that we are immune to the effects of evolution. We have a unique ability to modify outr environment to a limited degree, but is it enough to survive a major cataclysmic disaster - not only the disaster itself, but teh changed environment after it?

[Andeh13]

There isn't money to be made from over population so the governments won't give it a second thought. Global warming on the other hand...there are green taxes to be reaped so will continue to be the biggest global threat ever!


I fully agree, over population is a massive issue that is being successfully ignored!

[SeriousSam]

The Animus
I agree that actively choosing is entirely the wrong thing to do, though more from the perspective of it being illogical as we have no way of knowing which criteria would be of long term benefit. We can, as I outlined in my second post, be a bit more proactive than trying to let “natural wastage” solve the problem. It will as you say require honesty about aid and benefit, especially in terms of no longer allowing people to avoid the consequences of their own actions.

However, I think it actually goes beyond that as we are also conveniently ignoring the fact that we are actively making the situation far worse for developing countries and the third world. How can we expect them to know how to use technology responsibly when even we that invented it haven’t really the first clue about it either? All it has done is created a situation where all these extra “consumers” are really just famine, disease and war statistics waiting to happen. The best thing we could do is write off their debts, stop all “monetary aid” and phase out government assistance for private companies investing in these areas. Now I’m not going to say that we shouldn’t give “aid” in terms of knowledge about sustainable practises etc. but ultimately it has to be their decision about whether or not they want to do it.

As an aside one of the things that annoys me most is that if we, as in the UK, actually got our act together and put into action a 50+ year plan to sort out our population and go “sustainable” then we would have one of the best chances of long term survival. Admittedly it would mean sticking our fingers up to the EU fairly soon, which is no bad thing, as well as making things harder for ourselves in the short to medium term. However, being an island with a moderate climate and good soil is one heck of an advantage… especially in terms of growing crops for Beer