My essay of October 2006, Stranger than Fiction, discussed, in part, the impending collision
of the Andromeda and Milky Way galaxies, but there was a problem which I was
not aware of at the time. Where I had
discussed the two galaxies as passing through each other, later modeling
released in May 2007 showed that they would circle each other for a period of
about 3 billion years before merging into one massive elliptical galaxy. My essay, Colliding
Galaxies, made the correction. Both
essays included detailed references.
The October essay was lengthy, with a variety of science
subjects, including some speculation on the future. On page 14, I discussed 21st
century “seed-technology” as a possible means of solving distant problems, such
as the collision of the two galaxies. In
reviewing this approach, I had this to say about a second problem:
“But there is a more urgent reason for today’s world
scientists to contribute “seed-technology.”
When Stephen Hawking wrote of the possibility, the probability, of
future Earth becoming uninhabitable, he was considering Earth experiencing an
event of such calamity that humanity would be forced to leave the planet or
perish. Unfortunately, a more subtle
disaster is currently affecting Earth, which can be just as devastating, not in
millennia, but in centuries, possibly decades.
I refer to population growth.
“When World War II ended, the political and scientific
leaders of our planet returned to their normal pursuits, other than
reconstruction. Part of this effort was
devoted to a census and population growth.
It soon became apparent that the world’s population was growing at an
alarming rate, such that a future total was projected at 4 billion, a previously
unprecedented number. Concerns were expressed
that the world’s agriculture base was not capable of supporting such
growth. Fortunately, concurrent with the
establishment of the Marshall Plan, the United States was able to increase
its agriculture output sufficient to feed the population increase. That was then. By 1985, the continued growth of the world’s
population had reached 4.8 billion, an increase of 20% in less than forty
years. Of this total, 3.6 billion of the
population resided in less developed countries.
Efforts to establish controls on growth were unsuccessful, though China, for one,
was able to restrict the number of births per family. New projections to 2025 forecast an alarming
growth of as little as 7.4 billion to as much as 9.1 billion. Increases of 56%, 73% and 92% for the low,
medium and high growth rates, respectively, over forty years. Compare these projected rates of growth to
the 20% for the previous forty years.
Alarming! But the most disturbing
part of the forecast is the slope of the population trend lines (See Fig.
9), caused entirely by the growth rate of less developed countries. The reluctance of these countries to control
growth is due primarily to economics where the number of children a family
raises reflects the wealth of the family.
It takes little imagination to see that the continuation of growth at
these rates will be a catastrophe of the first order if not reduced, but
cultural realism will be a deterrent to any changes. In the next forty years our world population
will have more than doubled if we use only the medium curve.
“What does this mean?
Each new birth will require food, water, housing, clothing, energy and
all the other basics needed to exist.
While the needs of the individual will vary with climate and culture,
the total needs of the increasing population as we travel up the trend curve
will ultimately be unsupportable. The
world cannot support population increases that more than double every forty
years. And therein is the
problem….”
Having already stated my position on the population
explosion in 2006, why resurrect the problem in a new essay? A reasonable question.
On June
20, 2008 Stephen Ohlemacher of the Associated Press filed a news
story on a worsening population growth based on a new government
projection. Noting the Population
Reference Bureau reported that the world population didn’t reach 1 billion
until 1800 and took 130 years to reach 2 billion in the 1930s, he reported that
there are 6.7 billion people in the world today with a projected increase to 7
billion by 2012. Since the world’s
population surpassed 6 billion in 1999, it will take only 13 years to add a
billion people.
Carl Haub, a demographer at the Population Reference Bureau,
said that medical and nutritional advances in developing countries led to a population
explosion following World War II. There
are countries in Africa, Asia
and the Middle East where the average woman
has more than six children in her lifetime.
In Mali
and Niger,
two African nations, women average more than seven children. By comparison, women in the United States
average about two children, which essentially only replaces the
population. Much of U.S. population
growth comes from immigration.
Currently, the five most populous countries are: China, India, United States, Indonesia and Brazil. At present growth levels, by 2050 India will
replace China
as the leading country. The Census
Bureau estimates the world population growth at about 1.2 percent per year, but
projects a decline by 2050.
Never-the-less, the lower growth rate operating on the immense growth of
the population base will continue growth of the base to the detriment of all. While there is some discussion of the
population growth cresting as early as the mid-21st century due
primarily to decreasing birth rates, the more commonly accepted projections are
for growth to continue to 10 or 11 billion in 2050.
The attached packet of information from Wikipedia adds much
interesting additional information. On
page 6 of the packet is shown an estimate of the United Nations for projected
population growth from 2010 through 2050 in five year increments. Not unexpectedly, Asia
and Europe show a decline of about 2-3%, Latin America, United States and Canada show a modest
decline of about 0.1% and Oceania is
unchanged. Africa,
however, continues to increase at in excess of 6% or at five times the
projected rate for the entire world.
Based on 1996 data, the Population
and Development Review of New York
City expressed its concern by publishing an article Impact
of Population Growth on Food Supplies and Environment, prepared by David
and Marcia Pimentel, Xuewen Huang and Ana Cordova:
“As the world population continues to grow geometrically,
great pressure is being placed on arable land, water, energy, and biological
resources to provide an adequate supply of food while maintaining the integrity
of our ecosystem. According to the World
Bank and the United Nations, from 1 to 2 billion humans are now [1996]
malnourished, indicating a combination of insufficient food, low incomes, and
inadequate distribution of food. This is
the largest number of hungry humans ever recorded in history. In China about 80 million are now
malnourished and hungry. Based on
current rates of increase, the world population is projected to double from roughly
6 billion to more than 12 billion in less than 50 years. As the world population expands, the food
problem will become increasingly severe, conceivably with the numbers of
malnourished reaching 3 billion.”
The article goes on:
“More than 99 per cent of the world’s food supply comes from
the land, while less than i per cent is from oceans and other aquatic
habitats. The continued production of an
adequate food supply is directly dependent on ample fertile land, fresh water,
energy, plus the maintenance of biodiversity.
As the human population grows, the requirements for these resources also
grow. Even if these resources are never
depleted, on a per capita basis they will decline significantly because they
must be divided among more people.
“At present, fertile cropland is being lost at an alarming
rate. For instance, nearly one-third of
the world’s cropland (1.5 billion hectares) has been abandoned during the past
40 years because erosion has made it unproductive. Solving erosion losses is a long-term
problem: it takes 500 years to form 25 mm of soil under agricultural
conditions.”
The article concludes:
“…Several studies have confirmed that to maintain a relative
high standard of living, the optimum population should be less than 200 million
for the U.S.
[now in excess of 300 million] and less than 2 billion for the world [now in
excess of 6.7 billion]. This assumes
that from now until an optimum population is achieved, strategies for the
conservation of land, water, energy, and biological resources are successfully
implemented and a sound, productive environment is protected.”
To hope and expect that these assumptions will ever be
achieved by the human race, even in the extended long term, is to believe in
the tooth fairy. History does not
support any such assumptions.
June 2008
LFC
No comments:
Post a Comment