Everything I wanted to say about global population (short version)

Now is the time for posting the full, albeit abridged, overview on changes in world population.  Previous posts here were snippets on the subject, foreshadowing the present content.
  
I presented the full version as a talk, and it was a lot of fun.  I handed out numbered questions on slips of paper before the talk, and then asked for the questions to be read by the person holding the paper.  I also used full-size cutouts of T3 and TX from Terminator 3 as stand-ins.  An imaginary string became a timeline. 

My wish is that you enjoy the contents as much as I enjoyed putting it together.

Here is the link:
Population: The Unmentioned Elephant in the Living Room



         "How long has THAT been there?

Credit to Debbie Tomassi for the cartoon:  http://www.debbietomassi.com/index.html

But do we really have a population problem?

In a report from the Cato Institute a few years ago (May 9, 1999) and echoed by some others in the time since, the claim is made that quote 'there is no population problem. Population growth is the result of the plunging death rate and increasing life expectancy worldwide. That is progress.'end of quote

These nonbelievers in a population problem say that population numbers will correct themselves and nothing needs to be done.

Most everyone looking at population numbers seems to agree that the growth will stop -- that is, a correction will occur one way or another. So the big question is not whether a correction will occur, but what happens as population correction occurs.

Links:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5457

Why the lack of discussion about world population?

My response to this question represents personal opinion. I don’t have ten reasons like David Letterman, but I have two reasons for explaining this to myself.

First is an avoidance of awkward discussions. The anxious human mind converts thoughts about world population into thinking about personal family even though they are not the same.

It’s like converting thoughts about saving an ocean into thinking about a glass of water. They are not the same.

A discussion about world population is a discussion at risk of falling into an emotional debate over family planning or bringing children into the world or maintaining future generations of the family, or defending deep-felt religious beliefs. So people avoid the subject.

A second reason has to do with feelings of powerlessness, such as ‘Anything I do won’t make a difference in the size of the world population.’ -- So people don’t bother with the subject.

Population: Elephant in the Living Room

‘Elephant in the living room’ is a figure of speech referring to an obvious truth that is not being addressed. If someone had an elephant in their living room, they would certainly see it; but if they ignore the elephant, they are likely talking about other matters of lesser importance.

When environment, energy and social issues are discussed, the elephant has too often been in the room. That elephant is the growing world population. The subject of world population is too often ignored, even when it is profoundly affecting other important matters under discussion.

We are experiencing a world human population that is over 6.5 billion. 6.5 billion -- It’s almost craziness to think about what that number means. It’s like trying to think about the dollar numbers for deficits and expenditures of the U.S. government or the equivalent by other governments.

Many people have the personal opinion that the current and growing size of the world’s human population on the earth is a serious problem for the future, but as with any complex topic, all should recognize that world population is a subject for further debate and discussion.

Links:
http://www.populationelephant.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_in_the_room

Collapse of the Population Bubble

We are not yet done with world-wide collapsing bubbles, such as seen in the housing and financial arenas. The warning signs are up about a not-too-distant collapse of the population bubble. This bubble has been apparent in the soaring world population. If the housing bubble and the financial bubble were seismic shocks, the collapse of the population bubble may be an earthquake to rock the world.

The fallout from bursting of the housing and financial bubbles has had major consequences almost everywhere in the world. The insidious nature of these bubbles is that the root causes are difficult to recognize and sort out, even when efforts are taken. Moreover, the timing of collapse is very unpredictable. No one can say for sure what the outcome would have been with the housing and financial collapses if more efforts had been taken to understand and ameliorate the bubbles before the collapse, but in hindsight it seems as though more trying would have been worth the effort.

Of course, not everyone has ignored the population bubble. A little over 20 years ago, (1985) 40 countries gave the United Nations a signed document which said:

"We believe that the time has come now to recognize the worldwide necessity to stop population growth within the near future and for each country to adopt the necessary policies and programs to do so'--provided that those programs are "voluntary' and "maintain individual human rights and beliefs.' The document was from parliamentary heads of state of countries representing more than half of the world's population, including the People's Republic of China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, the Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, South Korea, Morocco and Kenya. The United States did not sign the statement and neither did the majority of developed nations."(*)

Population has continued to increase since this 1985 document, but no one knows when a worldwide population collapse might occur. Tomorrow? 20 years? 40 years? Huge numbers of human lives are at stake in this new bubble, not just homes and livelihood. As with the other bubbles, many people remain in denial. Too many say nothing can be done. Ignoring and denying the problem are the themes of the day in some quarters, with consequences remaining to be reaped.

On the face of it, the population bubble is more complicated than previous bubbles, and resolution after collapse will take much longer than with other bubbles. Resolution will involve the numbers of people living out their life and dying , and numbers of babies being born. Resolution means returning to an earth-sustainable population level. How long before a collapse we don't know. Tomorrow? Decades? A century?

After collapse of a bubble, 'hand-wringing' is customary, and with the current financial collapse is probably appropriate. For example, the following is a quote from Jim Wallis about the financial situation:

"If we learn nothing from this crisis, then all the pain and suffering it is causing will be in vain. But if we can learn new habits of the heart, perhaps that suffering can even turn out to be redemptive."(**)

He is on-point here with what is needed, namely an attitude adjustment to the extent humans may be capable of doing so. This attitude adjustment needs to extend beyond financial and housing concerns to encompass the situation with the population bubble.

Surely humans have the intelligence and the capacity to do something, if their attention can be brought to bear broadly enough. Even so, humans may not have the requisite ability to accomplish any substantive changes before the population bubble collapses. Nevertheless, if enough is said now and parallels with other bubbles are understood, perhaps fewer people will again be able to say 'I didn't believe,' or 'I didn't know,' or 'There was nothing I could do.' Maybe, just maybe, some steps will be taken on a global scale to moderate or reverse population growth before a collapse takes place.

Quotation sources:
(*) http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_v128/ai_4009821 (Science News)
(**) Jim Wallis, 01.29.2009; Founder of Sojourners, speaker, author, activist; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-wallis/the-wrong-question_b_162397.html

The Earth is a Giant Clown Car

Science tells us that the land area on the earth is today 58 million square miles. Over 6.5 billion of us live there. If we have these numbers correct, on average a little over 100 humans live on a square mile of the earth's land.

Humans are almost everywhere. They are remarkably adaptable, living in a wide range of climates from freezing artic to tropics, from deserts to jungles, from lowlands to mountains, and from elegant to humble. This capability to make any place a home is contained in the verse from 150 years ago by John Howard Payne, "Be it ever so humble, there's no place like home."

Humans now have a challenge that is an outgrowth of their success at abundantly increasing in numbers. They must cope with being constrained to the finite size of the planet earth. Seeing how many people can fit on the earth is the planet equivalent of seeing how many people can fit into a phone booth or into a car. A clown car in the circus surprises us to see how many people can be contained. Nevertheless there are limits.

References:

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/DanielChen.shtml

http://www.convertworld.com/en/area/

Humans are not the population problem!

Humans are not the population problem, it is the overwhelming NUMBERS of humans in the world that is the population problem.

Overpopulation and increasing population are difficult subjects that involve complicated issues. Issues of family values, social norms and cultural norms modulate individual attitudes. Additionally, attempting to comprehend a picture of human population within the whole world is only possible as an abstraction. Never mind that all these issues change with time, most human attitudes are in the context of here and now.

Humans have adapted remarkably to change in their environment and circumstance. At the same time, a fear lurks in the background that humans in general lack the mental capacity to come to grips with population issues. Too many abstractions are involved with comprehension. And also, humans tend to put on blinders with anything that may limit sexual activity and reproduction. This disposition has served well for the success of humans, but is a disadvantage when humans are at risk of overpopulating the earth.

Reducing the numbers of humans strikes home to each person in a personal way, and can be an inflammatory subject of discussion. It is easier to talk about less controversial subjects for 'saving the earth' such as increased recycling or reduced waste or a green environment.

Consider the problem of population size on a personal scale. If you are a family of four, you might possibly not be happy to increase your family to eight people living there in your home. Or if you have eight in your family, you might not be happy with sixteen showing up at home.

Doubling the number of people in your home is a major adjustment. In the same way doubling the number of people on earth is a major adjustment. As population continues to increase in the future, the adjustments could become impossible. If not impossible, then unbearable, or if not unbearable, then unpleasant.

Image source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/trojanguy/2527429724/

Population increase: Is it human progress or human failure?

Some are convinced that continuing increases in world population are a human failing that will have disastrous consequences for the future. They believe that major destruction of global life and society will occur. They foresee an apocalypse. You know those movie scenes set in a murky and almost deserted city. Or a barren desert wasteland with occasional life-support oases overrun by despotic criminals preying on the helpless.

At the other extreme, some don't believe there is a problem with overpopulation and don't believe it will lead on to a diminishing quality of life on earth. In a report from the Cato Institute(*) a few years ago, the lead comment was that there 'is no population problem. Population growth is the result of the plunging death rate and increasing life expectancy worldwide. That is progress.' Perhaps the writer was trying to be polemic. Whatever the case, nonbelievers say the problem of population increases will self-correct.

These are two quite different scenarios for the decades ahead -- progress to self-correction or sinking into disaster. Which scenario do you think will take over for life on earth? Notice that even now isolated pockets can be found around the earth for each scenario; that is, areas of population self-correction and also of apocalyptic disaster.

Even if self-correction eventually is the outcome, there are many paths to this outcome? The correction may result through disaster rather than through progress. For example the population might reduce as part of apocalyptic events.

Population correction can be reached by good means and by bad means. A likely bad way is to ignore the population problem and seek no adjustments in human behavior. To use an analogy, do we ignore hungry people because either they will find food or they will go away? Do we say that there is no need to worry about a hurricane, because eventually it will pass?

We should all try to be on a good path to population correction. We should all try to be part of a good solution and not just part of the problem. Our job is to find a good path.

(*)Reference: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5457 (May 9, 1999)

The Problem with Success in Reducing the Human Carbon Footprint

Suppose that 6.5 billion people on the planet did as they were asked and reduced their carbon production. The claim is that human CO2 production is contributing to disastrous global warming.

Let's suppose that each individual person's contribution to the earth's CO2 is cut in half on average. That is excellent! It sounds almost impossible, but suppose anyway.

And now suppose that the number of people living on earth doubles to 13 billion. -- Half the carbon footprint on average per person, but twice as many people. Unfortunately, we are then right back where we started with the same amount of carbon loading to the earth by humans.

According to the United Nations, we could actually be at double the present population in eighty years, although leveling off at 7 or 9 billion are seen as possible alternative scenarios. Success will require that the population numbers come in on the lower side. We can hope!

Reference: http://www.carbonrationing.org.uk/file/images/act-on-co2-logo

Did Martin Luther King say this about overpopulation?

Here is a quote from Martin Luther King that might come as a surprise.

Unlike plagues of the dark ages or contemporary diseases we do not understand, the modern plague of overpopulation is soluble by means we have discovered and with resources we possess.

What is lacking is not sufficient knowledge of the solution but universal consciousness of the gravity of the problem and education of the billions who are its victim. (-Martin Luther King, Jr.,1929-1968)

Unsourced References:
Overpopulation - Wikiquote; Population Paraphenalia - World Population Awareness

Martin Luther King electrified people with his 'I have a Dream' speech, but the essence of what he said about overpopulation is perhaps less well known.

World population is over 6.5 billion and still growing.

Source: U.S. and World Population Clocks - POPClocks