Scientific Problems of Overpopulation
World population as of March 26, 2014, is estimated to number 7.16 billion
Population has continuously grown since the end of the Great Famine and the Black Death in 1350, when it was near 370 million
The fastest growth rates – global population increases above 1.8% per year – occurred briefly during the 1950s, and for longer during the 1960s and 1970s
Now, it is at over 7 billion, with no signs of slowing.
The United States has compiled a population clock to highlight this issue in both the United States and the world at large.
Population has continuously grown since the end of the Great Famine and the Black Death in 1350, when it was near 370 million
The fastest growth rates – global population increases above 1.8% per year – occurred briefly during the 1950s, and for longer during the 1960s and 1970s
Now, it is at over 7 billion, with no signs of slowing.
The United States has compiled a population clock to highlight this issue in both the United States and the world at large.
The Industrial Revolution
The Industrial Revolution marked a major turning point in Earth’s ecology and humans’ relationship with their environment. The Industrial Revolution dramatically changed every aspect of human life and lifestyles. From human development, health and life longevity, to social improvements and the impact on natural resources, public health, energy usage and sanitation, the effects were profound. These processes gave rise to sweeping increases in production capacity and would affect all basic human needs, including food production, medicine, housing, and clothing. Humans have been around for about 2.2 million years. By the dawn of the first millennium AD, estimates place the total world human population at between 150 – 200 million, and 300 million in the year 1,000. The population of the United States population is currently 312,000,000 (August 2011). The world human population growth rate would be about .1 percent (.001) per year for the next seven to eight centuries. The Industrial revolution broke through limiting factors and allowed human population to explode exponentially.
Here is an article on the effect of the Industrial Revolution on worldwide population growth and the environment.
http://www.ecology.com/2011/09/18/ecological-impact-industrial-revolution/
Here is an article on the effect of the Industrial Revolution on worldwide population growth and the environment.
http://www.ecology.com/2011/09/18/ecological-impact-industrial-revolution/
The Science of Overpopulation:
A Video by Hank Green
Out of the whole world, India and China make up more than 50% of the world's population, while most of the developed nations lag behind and do not even appear the pie chart.
With the population rising so rapidly, many of the people being born must find jobs, so they move to urban centers. This creates major overcrowding, and it is made even worse by the lack of many amenities in the developing world to help stop the spread of disease, pollution, and other side effects of overcrowding.
10 Cities With the Highest Population Densities On Earth
- Mumbai, India (29,650 people per km squared)
- Kolkata, India (23,900)
- Karachi, Pakistan (18,900)
- Lagos, Nigeria (18,150)
- Shenzhen, China (17,150)
- Seoul/Incheon, South Korea (16,700)
- Taipei, Taiwan (15,200)
- Chennai, India (14,350)
- Bogota, Colombia (13,500)
- Shanghai, China (13,400)
The article below outlines the major problem with overpopulation, resource scarcity, and the steps that we can take to try to solve the problem, which is surprisingly as "easy" as causing development in third-world countries.
EARTH'S BIG PROBLEM; Are there just too many of us? How can we ease population growth without taking draconian steps? By developing in ways that we should be anyway, experts say
The Spectator (Hamilton, Ontario), Feb 7, 2009.
Byline: Gregory M. Lamb
Are there too many people on Earth? That question is rarely raised today, in part because it conjures up the possibility of governments intruding into the most private and profound decision a couple can make. In a worst-case scenario, authorities could impose discriminatory policies that would limit births based on such criteria as race, ethnic origin, cultural background, religion or gender.
But with huge, vexing questions such as food security, poverty, energy supplies, environmental degradation and climate change facing humanity, some are asking whether aggressive measures to control population growth should be on the public agenda.
Politicians generally stay clear of suggesting population-control policies, recognizing the deep-seated concerns they raise. U.S. President Barak Obama did not mention the issue as part of his campaign last fall. But the new Obama administration has promised to take a fresh look at solutions to energy and environmental challenges and has brought in a new slate of scientific advisers. The United States remains the only developed country without an official population policy.
Might the new administration dare to raise the idea?
"You've got to get a president who's got the guts to say, 'Patriotic Americans stop at two (children),' " says Paul Ehrlich, a professor of population studies at Stanford University. "That if you care about your children and grandchildren, we should have a smallerpopulation in the future, not larger." Ehrlich wrote the groundbreaking 1968 book ThePopulation Bomb, which predicted disastrous effects from unchecked population growth.
Earth's population is about 6.8 billion people today, or four times the population of a century ago. Even though birth rates are lower than during the 1960s and '70s, the world is adding 75 million to 80 million people per year and is expected to peak at more than 9 billion by midcentury -- far too many, say some population experts.
Whether this growth can be sustained and still provide a decent living standard for people is itself controversial. Some, including Ehrlich and Alan Weisman, the author of the best-selling book The World Without Us, argue that even today's population is too large to maintain without ravaging the environment and creating an inhospitable planet.
Weisman's book imagines a world in which humans are extinct and suggests that nature could bounce back relatively quickly from the burden placed on it by its billions of human inhabitants.
Demographers calculate that if suddenly every family on earth limited itself to one child, by 2150 the world's population would be 1.6 billion, exactly what it was at the beginning of the 20th century.
He's not arguing that that's a perfect number of humans. But "it would create a lot more space for (other) organisms to live ... a much healthier ecosystem for us all," he says.
Ehrlich and Weisman agree with critics who say population alone isn't the issue. Lifestyles in developed countries in North America and Europe consume a lot of resources. Everyone living in an industrialized nation puts a much heavier burden on the environment than does someone living in, say, Asia or Africa. Though family sizes in the developed world are smaller, the number of households hasn't shrunk commensurately.
"It's actually the number of households -- and not the number of people -- that has a bigger impact on the environment," says Matthew Connelly, a professor of history at Columbia University in New York and the author of Fatal Misconception: The Struggle To Control World Population.
"This is not a population crisis," Connelly argues.
"The crisis is us, the consumption patterns of the wealthiest people in the world. That's what's unsustainable." The problem in trying to control populations "is that we don't know how to do it," he says. "We don't have a good theory to explain, much less predict, why people have babies and why they have as many as they do."
Those arguing that a calamity awaits if population isn't reduced are looking at the past and trying to project it into the future, says Ted Nordhaus, an environmentalist and co-author with Michael Shellenberger of Breakthrough: From The Death Of Environmentalism To The Politics Of Possibility.
"They assume that technology and resources are static," Nordhaus says, and that breakthroughs and discoveries that could dramatically improve living conditions on earth won't be found.
"The greatest antidote to rapidly growing population is prosperity and development," Nordhaus says.
Despite the fears of some, rising living standards in the developing world don't mean that the environment will be devastated in the process, he says. The idea that Chinese and Indians will all be driving around in Humvees and flying in private jets is "not true," he says.
The concept of some environmentalists that humans are somehow an intruder or "a scourge on the earth" disturbing an otherwise harmonious nature, needs to be challenged, Nordhaus says.
Short of government limits on family size, both advocates and opponents of populationcontrol agree that many other useful steps can be taken that may lead to reducedpopulation growth. Among the most crucial are better education, economic opportunities, and access to contraceptive and reproductive health care services for women in developing countries with high birth rates.
As economist Robert Cassen put it in 1994, "Virtually everything that needs doing from apopulation point of view needs doing anyway."
World numbers
What effects will world population growth have by the mid-21st century? Joel Cohen, head of the Laboratory of Populations at Rockefeller University and Columbia University, makes the following points:
Emerging trends in global population
* In 1950, the less-developed (poorer) regions of the world had roughly twice thepopulation of the more developed (richer) ones. By 2050, the ratio will exceed 6 to 1.
* Human numbers currently increase by 75 million to 80 million people annually, the equivalent of adding another country to the world about every four years.
* At present, the average woman bears nearly twice as many children (2.8) in poor countries as in rich countries (1.6 children per woman).
* Some 51 countries or areas will lose population between now and 2050. Germany is expected to drop from 83 million to 79 million people, Italy from 58 million to 51 million, Japan from 128 million to 112 million and the Russian Federation from 143 million to 112 million.
* If recent trends continue as projected to 2050, virtually all of the world's populationgrowth will be in urban areas.
* Everyone born in 1965 or earlier and still alive has seen human numbers more than double from 3.3 billion in 1965 to 6.8 billion in 2009.
* The peak population growth rate ever reached, about 2.1 per cent a year, occurred between 1965 and 1970. Human population never grew with such speed before the 20th century and is likely never to grow with such speed again.
From Statistics Canada:
* Estimated current Canadian population: 33,542,460
Current growth rate averages out to:
* One birth every 1 minute and 27 seconds
* One death every 2 minutes and 13 seconds
* A net migration gain of one person every 2 minutes and 1 second
* At this rate, the population of Canada will reach 33,698,817 by July 1, 2009.
* In large part, Canada depends on immigration for its population growth. From July 2005 to June 2006, two-thirds of the country's population increase was due to immigration, as Canada welcomed 254,400 immigrants.
* At the same time, the natural increase -- births minus deaths -- continued to drop.
CAPTION(S):
Photo: Shrabani Deb, the Associated Press / Newborn babies doze at a maternity clinic in India, the second largest country by population in the world. China is the largest.
Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2009 Torstar Syndication Services, a division of Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd.
Source Citation"EARTH'S BIG PROBLEM; Are there just too many of us? How can we easepopulation growth without taking draconian steps? By developing in ways that we should be anyway, experts say." Spectator [Hamilton, Ontario] 7 Feb. 2009: WR01.Global Issues In Context. Web. 10 Apr. 2014.
Byline: Gregory M. Lamb
Are there too many people on Earth? That question is rarely raised today, in part because it conjures up the possibility of governments intruding into the most private and profound decision a couple can make. In a worst-case scenario, authorities could impose discriminatory policies that would limit births based on such criteria as race, ethnic origin, cultural background, religion or gender.
But with huge, vexing questions such as food security, poverty, energy supplies, environmental degradation and climate change facing humanity, some are asking whether aggressive measures to control population growth should be on the public agenda.
Politicians generally stay clear of suggesting population-control policies, recognizing the deep-seated concerns they raise. U.S. President Barak Obama did not mention the issue as part of his campaign last fall. But the new Obama administration has promised to take a fresh look at solutions to energy and environmental challenges and has brought in a new slate of scientific advisers. The United States remains the only developed country without an official population policy.
Might the new administration dare to raise the idea?
"You've got to get a president who's got the guts to say, 'Patriotic Americans stop at two (children),' " says Paul Ehrlich, a professor of population studies at Stanford University. "That if you care about your children and grandchildren, we should have a smallerpopulation in the future, not larger." Ehrlich wrote the groundbreaking 1968 book ThePopulation Bomb, which predicted disastrous effects from unchecked population growth.
Earth's population is about 6.8 billion people today, or four times the population of a century ago. Even though birth rates are lower than during the 1960s and '70s, the world is adding 75 million to 80 million people per year and is expected to peak at more than 9 billion by midcentury -- far too many, say some population experts.
Whether this growth can be sustained and still provide a decent living standard for people is itself controversial. Some, including Ehrlich and Alan Weisman, the author of the best-selling book The World Without Us, argue that even today's population is too large to maintain without ravaging the environment and creating an inhospitable planet.
Weisman's book imagines a world in which humans are extinct and suggests that nature could bounce back relatively quickly from the burden placed on it by its billions of human inhabitants.
Demographers calculate that if suddenly every family on earth limited itself to one child, by 2150 the world's population would be 1.6 billion, exactly what it was at the beginning of the 20th century.
He's not arguing that that's a perfect number of humans. But "it would create a lot more space for (other) organisms to live ... a much healthier ecosystem for us all," he says.
Ehrlich and Weisman agree with critics who say population alone isn't the issue. Lifestyles in developed countries in North America and Europe consume a lot of resources. Everyone living in an industrialized nation puts a much heavier burden on the environment than does someone living in, say, Asia or Africa. Though family sizes in the developed world are smaller, the number of households hasn't shrunk commensurately.
"It's actually the number of households -- and not the number of people -- that has a bigger impact on the environment," says Matthew Connelly, a professor of history at Columbia University in New York and the author of Fatal Misconception: The Struggle To Control World Population.
"This is not a population crisis," Connelly argues.
"The crisis is us, the consumption patterns of the wealthiest people in the world. That's what's unsustainable." The problem in trying to control populations "is that we don't know how to do it," he says. "We don't have a good theory to explain, much less predict, why people have babies and why they have as many as they do."
Those arguing that a calamity awaits if population isn't reduced are looking at the past and trying to project it into the future, says Ted Nordhaus, an environmentalist and co-author with Michael Shellenberger of Breakthrough: From The Death Of Environmentalism To The Politics Of Possibility.
"They assume that technology and resources are static," Nordhaus says, and that breakthroughs and discoveries that could dramatically improve living conditions on earth won't be found.
"The greatest antidote to rapidly growing population is prosperity and development," Nordhaus says.
Despite the fears of some, rising living standards in the developing world don't mean that the environment will be devastated in the process, he says. The idea that Chinese and Indians will all be driving around in Humvees and flying in private jets is "not true," he says.
The concept of some environmentalists that humans are somehow an intruder or "a scourge on the earth" disturbing an otherwise harmonious nature, needs to be challenged, Nordhaus says.
Short of government limits on family size, both advocates and opponents of populationcontrol agree that many other useful steps can be taken that may lead to reducedpopulation growth. Among the most crucial are better education, economic opportunities, and access to contraceptive and reproductive health care services for women in developing countries with high birth rates.
As economist Robert Cassen put it in 1994, "Virtually everything that needs doing from apopulation point of view needs doing anyway."
World numbers
What effects will world population growth have by the mid-21st century? Joel Cohen, head of the Laboratory of Populations at Rockefeller University and Columbia University, makes the following points:
Emerging trends in global population
* In 1950, the less-developed (poorer) regions of the world had roughly twice thepopulation of the more developed (richer) ones. By 2050, the ratio will exceed 6 to 1.
* Human numbers currently increase by 75 million to 80 million people annually, the equivalent of adding another country to the world about every four years.
* At present, the average woman bears nearly twice as many children (2.8) in poor countries as in rich countries (1.6 children per woman).
* Some 51 countries or areas will lose population between now and 2050. Germany is expected to drop from 83 million to 79 million people, Italy from 58 million to 51 million, Japan from 128 million to 112 million and the Russian Federation from 143 million to 112 million.
* If recent trends continue as projected to 2050, virtually all of the world's populationgrowth will be in urban areas.
* Everyone born in 1965 or earlier and still alive has seen human numbers more than double from 3.3 billion in 1965 to 6.8 billion in 2009.
* The peak population growth rate ever reached, about 2.1 per cent a year, occurred between 1965 and 1970. Human population never grew with such speed before the 20th century and is likely never to grow with such speed again.
From Statistics Canada:
* Estimated current Canadian population: 33,542,460
Current growth rate averages out to:
* One birth every 1 minute and 27 seconds
* One death every 2 minutes and 13 seconds
* A net migration gain of one person every 2 minutes and 1 second
* At this rate, the population of Canada will reach 33,698,817 by July 1, 2009.
* In large part, Canada depends on immigration for its population growth. From July 2005 to June 2006, two-thirds of the country's population increase was due to immigration, as Canada welcomed 254,400 immigrants.
* At the same time, the natural increase -- births minus deaths -- continued to drop.
CAPTION(S):
Photo: Shrabani Deb, the Associated Press / Newborn babies doze at a maternity clinic in India, the second largest country by population in the world. China is the largest.
Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2009 Torstar Syndication Services, a division of Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd.
Source Citation"EARTH'S BIG PROBLEM; Are there just too many of us? How can we easepopulation growth without taking draconian steps? By developing in ways that we should be anyway, experts say." Spectator [Hamilton, Ontario] 7 Feb. 2009: WR01.Global Issues In Context. Web. 10 Apr. 2014.