World Population—What of the Future?
RUN-DOWN housing, unsanitary conditions, scarcity of food and clean water, disease, malnutrition—these and numerous other hardships are a day-to-day reality in the lives of a major part of the world’s population. Yet, as we have seen, most people living under those conditions somehow manage to cope with them and carry on with their daily life. What, though, of the future? Will people have to go on enduring such harsh realities of life indefinitely? To complicate matters, what about the doom and gloom that environmental scientists and others are forecasting as a result of the continued population growth? They tell us that we are fouling our own nest by polluting the air, water, and soil we depend on. They also point to the greenhouse effect—emission of gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons (refrigerants and foaming agents), that will result in warming of the atmosphere and changes in the global weather pattern, with dire consequences. Will this finally bring about the demise of civilization as we know it? Let us examine more closely a few of the key factors. Are There Too Many People? First of all, will the world’s population go on expanding indefinitely? Is there any indication as to how far it will go? It is, of course, a fact that the world population is growing in spite of efforts at family planning. The annual increase is now about 90 million (equivalent to another Mexico every year). It appears that there is no immediate prospect of halting it. Looking ahead, however, most demographers agree that the population will eventually level off. The question in their mind is at what level and when. According to projections of the UN Population Fund, world population may reach 14 billion before leveling off. Others, however, estimate that it may peak at between 10 billion and 11 billion. Whatever the case, the crucial questions are: Will there be too many people? Can the earth accommodate from two to three times the present population? From a statistical point of view, 14 billion people worldwide would average out to 269 persons per square mile [104 . . . sq km]. As we have seen, Hong Kong’s population density is 14,483 persons per square mile [5,592 . . . sq km]. Currently, the Netherlands’ population density is 1,140 [430], while Japan’s is 848 [327], and these are countries that enjoy above-average living standards. Clearly, even if the world population should grow to the extent predicted, the number of people is not the problem. Will There Be Enough Food? What, then, about the food supply? Can the earth produce enough to feed 10 billion or 14 billion people? Obviously, the world’s present food production is not enough to care for such a population. In fact, we often hear about famines, malnutrition, and starvation. Does this mean we are not producing enough food to take care of the population now, let alone two or three times more? That is a difficult question to answer because it depends on what is meant by "enough." While hundreds of millions of people in the world’s poorest nations cannot get enough food to maintain even a minimum, healthful diet, people in the rich, industrialized nations are suffering from the consequences of an overly rich diet—strokes, some types of cancer, heart disease, and so on. How does this affect the food picture? By one calculation, it takes five pounds [5 kg] of grain to produce one pound [1 kg] of beefsteak. As a result, the meat-eating quarter of the world’s inhabitants consumes almost half of the world’s grain production. As far as the total quantity of food produced is concerned, note what the book Bread for the World says: "If present world food production were evenly divided among all the world’s people, with minimal waste, everyone would have enough. Barely enough, perhaps, but enough." That statement was made in 1975, over 15 years ago. What is the situation today? According to the World Resources Institute, "over the past two decades, total world food output expanded, outpacing demand. As a result, in recent years, prices of major food staples in international markets declined in real terms." Other studies show that the prices for staples like rice, corn, soybeans, and other grains dropped by half or more over that period. What all of this boils down to is that the problem of food lies not so much in the quantity produced as in the level and the habits of consumption. New genetic technology has found ways to produce varieties of rice, wheat, and other grains that can double the present output. However, much of the expertise in this area is concentrated on cash crops, such as tobacco and tomatoes, to satisfy the appetite of the rich rather than to fill the stomachs of the poor. What About the Environment? More and more, those who are keeping a close eye on the subject are coming to realize that population growth is only one of the factors posing a threat to mankind’s future welfare. For example, in their book The Population Explosion, Paul and Anne Ehrlich propose that the impact of human activity on our environment can be expressed by this simple equation: Impact = population × level of affluence × prevailing technologies’ effect on the environment. By this standard, the authors argue that countries like the United States are overpopulated, not because they have too many people, but because their level of affluence depends on a high rate of consumption of natural resources and technologies that exact a heavy toll on the environment. Other studies seem to bear this out. The New York Times quotes economist
Daniel Hamermesh as saying that ‘greenhouse emissions are more closely related to the level of economic activity than the numbers of emitters. The average American generates 19 times as much carbon dioxide as the average Indian. And it is entirely possible that, say, an economically vibrant Brazil with slow population growth would burn down its tropical forests more rapidly than an impoverished Brazil with rapid population growth.’ Making basically the same point, Alan Durning of the Worldwatch Institute observes: "The richest billion people in the world have created a form of civilization so acquisitive and profligate that the planet is in danger. The lifestyle of this top echelon—the car drivers, beef eaters, soda drinkers, and throwaway consumers—constitutes an ecological threat unmatched in severity by anything but perhaps population growth." He points out that this "wealthiest fifth" of mankind produces nearly nine tenths of the chlorofluorocarbons and over half of the other greenhouse gases that are threatening the environment. The Real Issue From the above discussion, it becomes apparent that blaming population growth alone for the woes facing mankind today is missing the real point. The issue facing us is not that we are running out of living space or that the earth is incapable of producing enough food for a healthful diet for everyone or that all the natural resources will be used up anytime soon. These are merely the symptoms. The real issue is that more and more people are aspiring to a higher and higher level of material consumption without considering the consequence of their actions. This insatiable desire for more is taking such a heavy toll on our environment that the earth’s carrying capacity is fast being exceeded. In other words, the basic problem lies not so much in the number as in the nature of humanity. Writer Alan Durning puts it this way: "In a fragile biosphere, the ultimate fate of humanity may depend on whether we can cultivate a deeper sense of self-restraint, founded on a widespread ethic of limiting consumption and finding non-material enrichment." The point is well-taken, but the question must be asked, Is it likely that people everywhere will voluntarily cultivate self-restraint, limit consumption, and pursue nonmaterial enrichment? Hardly. Judging by the self-indulgent and hedonistic life-style so prevalent today, the opposite is more likely to occur. Most people today seem to live by the motto: "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we are to die"
Daniel Hamermesh as saying that ‘greenhouse emissions are more closely related to the level of economic activity than the numbers of emitters. The average American generates 19 times as much carbon dioxide as the average Indian. And it is entirely possible that, say, an economically vibrant Brazil with slow population growth would burn down its tropical forests more rapidly than an impoverished Brazil with rapid population growth.’ Making basically the same point, Alan Durning of the Worldwatch Institute observes: "The richest billion people in the world have created a form of civilization so acquisitive and profligate that the planet is in danger. The lifestyle of this top echelon—the car drivers, beef eaters, soda drinkers, and throwaway consumers—constitutes an ecological threat unmatched in severity by anything but perhaps population growth." He points out that this "wealthiest fifth" of mankind produces nearly nine tenths of the chlorofluorocarbons and over half of the other greenhouse gases that are threatening the environment. The Real Issue From the above discussion, it becomes apparent that blaming population growth alone for the woes facing mankind today is missing the real point. The issue facing us is not that we are running out of living space or that the earth is incapable of producing enough food for a healthful diet for everyone or that all the natural resources will be used up anytime soon. These are merely the symptoms. The real issue is that more and more people are aspiring to a higher and higher level of material consumption without considering the consequence of their actions. This insatiable desire for more is taking such a heavy toll on our environment that the earth’s carrying capacity is fast being exceeded. In other words, the basic problem lies not so much in the number as in the nature of humanity. Writer Alan Durning puts it this way: "In a fragile biosphere, the ultimate fate of humanity may depend on whether we can cultivate a deeper sense of self-restraint, founded on a widespread ethic of limiting consumption and finding non-material enrichment." The point is well-taken, but the question must be asked, Is it likely that people everywhere will voluntarily cultivate self-restraint, limit consumption, and pursue nonmaterial enrichment? Hardly. Judging by the self-indulgent and hedonistic life-style so prevalent today, the opposite is more likely to occur. Most people today seem to live by the motto: "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we are to die"
Earth’s Dwindling Resources
“In nature everything is connected, and we are now being held accountable for our past blunders.”—African Wildlife magazine.
SOME call it the ecological footprint. It is a measure of mankind’s consumption of natural resources compared with the earth’s ability to replenish them. According to the World Wildlife Fund, the global ecological footprint has been running a deficit since the 1980’s. But that is just one indicator of the immense strain being placed on our environment.
Another gauge is the condition of earth’s ecosystems. The term “ecosystem” refers to the complex interaction of all organisms within a natural environment, including living and nonliving matter. The overall health of these ecosystems—revealed by the number of forest, freshwater, and marine species they support—makes up what the World Wildlife Fund calls the Living Planet Index. Between 1970 and 2000, this index plunged about 37 percent.
Is There Enough to Go Around?
If you live in a Western land where store shelves are fully stocked and round-the-clock shopping may be possible, it is hard to imagine that there could be a looming shortage of natural resources. Nevertheless, only a minority of earth’s inhabitants enjoy an affluent life-style. Most are locked in a daily struggle for survival. It has been estimated, for example, that more than two billion people live on three dollars a day or less and that two billion have no access to affordable commercial energy services.
Some people blame the trade practices of wealthy nations for the poverty of developing lands. “In a variety of ways,” says Vital Signs 2003, “the world economy is rigged against the interests of the poor.” As more and more people scramble to grab an ever smaller and more costly piece of the environmental “pie,” those who are economically disadvantaged cannot afford to compete for their fair share. That, in turn, leaves more natural resources for those who can afford them—namely, the wealthy.
Disappearing Forests
It is estimated that 80 percent of the inhabitants of Africa use wood for cooking. In addition, “Africa has the highest population growth rate [and] urban growth rate in the world,” says South Africa’s Getaway magazine. As a result, the territory around some large towns in the Sahel, a wide belt of semiarid land on the southern edge of the Sahara Desert, has been stripped of trees for over 60 miles [100 km] in all directions. Those trees were not felled for capricious reasons. ‘The overwhelming majority of Africa’s citizens destroy their own environment simply to survive,’ says Professor Samuel Nana-Sinkam.
The situation is quite different in South America. In Brazil, for example, there are nearly 7,600 registered logging companies in the rain forest. Many of them are owned by well-funded international conglomerates. A mahogany tree is worth about $30 to a logging company. However, by the time brokers, traders, and manufacturers make their profit, that same tree can have a value of upwards of $130,000 before hitting the furniture showroom. Little wonder that mahogany has been called green gold.
Much has been published about the destruction of Brazil’s rain forest. Satellite images show that more than 7,000 square miles [20,000 sq km] of Brazilian forest were destroyed each year between 1995 and 2000. “This frightening rate of destruction means that an area of forest the size of a soccer field disappeared every eight seconds,” reports Brazil’s Veja magazine. Interestingly, the United States alone is reported to have imported more than 70 percent of Brazil’s mahogany in the year 2000.
Deforestation in other parts of the world tells a similar story. For instance, half of Mexico’s forests and jungles have disappeared in the last 50 years. The loss of Philippine forests has been even more pronounced. That country loses some 380 square miles [100,000 ha] of forest every year, and back in 1999 it was estimated that at that rate nearly two thirds of the nation’s forests would be eliminated within a decade.
It can take from 60 to 100 years for a hardwood tree to reach full maturity but only minutes for it to be felled. Should it surprise us that our forests cannot keep up?
Vanishing Land
When soil is stripped of vegetation, the bare topsoil soon dries out and is blown away by wind or washed away by water. This process is called erosion.
Erosion occurs naturally and is generally not a serious problem—unless man accelerates the process through poor land management. For example, the magazine China Today says that sandstorms, along with other factors such as deforestation and overgrazing, “have accelerated the expansion” of desert areas. Unusually arid conditions in recent years have left China’s western and northwestern provinces susceptible to the cold Siberian winds that sweep across the land. Millions of tons of yellow sand and dust have been displaced, some reaching as far as Korea and Japan. Approximately 25 percent of China’s landmass is now desert.
The destruction of African soil has similar causes. “By clearing forest to plant cereal crops,” says Africa Geographic, “farmers have irretrievably destabilised the thin soils.” It is estimated that after a plot has been cleared of bush, within three years it loses up to 50 percent of its fertility. Thus, the magazine adds: “Millions of hectares are already beyond recovery and millions more are heading that way as agricultural yields in some areas decline year by year.”
It is said that Brazil loses 500 million tons of soil every year to erosion. In Mexico the Department of Environment and Natural Resources says that 53 percent of the scrubland, 59 percent of the jungles, and 72 percent of the forests are affected by soil degradation. All told, says a report by the United Nations Development Programme, “land degradation affects perhaps as much as two thirds of the world’s agricultural land. As a result, agricultural productivity is declining sharply, while the number of mouths to feed continues to grow.”
Water—Free, yet Priceless
A man can live about a month without food, but he will die in about a week without water. Hence, experts claim that declining supplies of fresh water will be a source of increasing tension in coming years. According to a 2002 Time magazine report, worldwide more than a billion people do not have easy access to clean drinking water.
Water shortages occur for a variety of reasons. In France, pollution plays a role and is a growing source of concern. “French rivers are in a very poor state of health,” says Le Figaro. Scientists have traced the problem to nitrate-rich runoff, which comes primarily from fertilizers used for farming. “French rivers discharged 375,000 tons of nitrates into the Atlantic in 1999, almost twice as much as in 1985,” states the paper.
The situation is similar in Japan. In order to provide a steady supply of food in that country, “farmers had no choice but to rely on chemical fertilizers and pesticides to meet society’s demand,” says Yutaka Une, head of a nonprofit farm safety organization. This has led to underground water pollution—which Tokyo’s IHT Asahi Shimbun calls “a major problem across Japan.”
In Mexico, 35 percent of illnesses “have their origin in environmental factors,” reports the newspaper Reforma. Furthermore, a study by the secretary of health revealed that “1 out of every 4 inhabitants does not have a sewer; over 8 million get their water from wells, rivers, lakes, or streams; and over one million obtain water from tanker trucks.” Little wonder that 90 percent of Mexico’s diarrhea cases are attributed to contaminated water!
“Rio’s beaches offer more than hot sun, white sand, and blue sea,” states Brazil’s Veja magazine. “They also harbor high levels of fecal coliforms and occasional oil spills.” That is because more than 50 percent of Brazil’s sewage flows directly into rivers, lakes, and the ocean without being treated. The result is a chronic shortage of clean water. The rivers around Brazil’s largest city, São Paulo, are so heavily polluted that drinking water is now brought in from some 60 miles away.
On the other side of the globe, much of Australia’s water shortage stems from a process called salinization. For decades landowners were encouraged to clear their land in order to plant crops. With fewer trees and shrubs to soak up the groundwater, water tables began to rise, bringing with them thousands of tons of subterranean salt. “Some 2.5 million hectares [6.2 million acres] of land are already affected by salinity,” says Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). “Much of this is Australia’s most productive agricultural land.”
Some believe that if the Australian legislators had not chosen profit over public interest, the salinity problem might have been avoided. “Governments were told from as early as 1917 that Wheatbelt soils were especially prone to salinity,” says Hugo Bekle of Edith Cowan University in Perth, Australia. “The impact of clearing on stream salinity was publicised by the 1920’s, and its effect on a rising water table was accepted in the Agricultural Department by the 1930’s. A major report was undertaken for the [Australian] Government by the CSIRO in 1950, . . . yet governments persistently ignored these warnings, dismissing scientists as prejudiced.”
Survival Threatened
Without doubt, many of man’s actions have been well intended. But as is so often the case, we simply do not know enough about the environment to predict the consequences of our actions accurately. The results have been devastating. “We’ve so upset the balance of life here that we threaten the very land that supports us and, through that, our own survival,” says Tim Flannery, South Australian Museum director.
What is the solution? Will mankind ever learn to live in harmony with the environment? Indeed, can planet Earth be saved?
