Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Civil Discourse Now Host Mark Small Clings to Long Discredited "Overpopulation" Myth While Looming Population Decline Represents Greater Threat

I was visiting Mark Small and his wife at his home a few months ago when I first heard Mark casually mention the danger of world overpopulation.  I checked the calendar on my smart phone.  I thought perhaps Mark's bathroom that I had just returned from visiting had acted as a vortex, transporting me back to the 1970s when fears of overpopulation (and global cooling) was cause célèbre.  After all, I thought it was at least 30 years since anyone seriously believed the long-discredited overpopulation myth.   But Mark is not just "anyone."  He is a special kind of person who clings fiercely to his cherished 1970s liberalism, never letting the inconvenient facts of the last four decades persuade him to update his view of the world.  While the realities of life cause most people to become more conservative as they grow older, Mark has fiercely resisted that political maturation process.

My recent story on the overpopulation sign in the Brazil, Indiana high school, prompted Mark to write on his Civil Discourse blog that I missed the point of the sign, which he says is really about the dangers of world overpopulation.  While it is doubtful that visitors from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and China, those few countries in the world where population increases have been dramatic, were visiting that Hoosier high school, I will take the "world overpopulation" bait and prove, once again, that Mark is wrong.

Mark blogs:
"UN population estimates put the World's total, by 2050, at between 8.3 and 10.9 billion. As one example, our oceans have been over-fished---an article in National Geographic, "Plenty of Fish in the Sea? Not Always," notes the devastation wrought on our oceans by commercial fleets of fish trawlers. People starve to death in Asia and Africa---and the United States, too. But more people means more use of global resources to keep people alive."
An article in Slate magazine, Forget Overcrowding. The World Population Could Start Declining, highlights that a declining world population is within the lifetimes of many of the people alive today:
The world’s seemingly relentless march toward overpopulation achieved a notable milestone in 2012: Somewhere on the planet, according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates, the 7 billionth living person came into existence.


A somewhat more arcane milestone, meanwhile, generated no media coverage at all: It took humankind 13 years to add its 7 billionth. That’s longer than the 12 years it took to add the 6 billionth—the first time in human history that interval had grown. (The 2 billionth, 3 billionth, 4 billionth, and 5 billionth took 123, 33, 14, and 13 years, respectively.) In other words, the rate of global population growth has slowed. And it’s expected to keep slowing. Indeed, according to experts’ best estimates, the total population of Earth will stop growing within the lifespan of people alive today.

And then it will fall.

This is a counterintuitive notion in the United States, where we’ve heard often and loudly that world population growth is a perilous and perhaps unavoidable threat to our future as a species. But population decline is a very familiar concept in the rest of the developed world, where fertility has long since fallen far below the 2.1 live births per woman required to maintain population equilibrium. In Germany, the birthrate has sunk to just 1.36, worse even than its low-fertility neighbors Spain (1.48) and Italy (1.4). The way things are going, Western Europe as a whole will most likely shrink from 460 million to just 350 million by the end of the century. That’s not so bad compared with Russia and China, each of whose populations could fall by half. As you may not be surprised to learn, the Germans have coined a polysyllabic word for this quandary: Schrumpf-Gesellschaft, or “shrinking society.”

American media have largely ignored the issue of population decline for the simple reason that it hasn’t happened here yet. Unlike Europe, the United States has long been the beneficiary of robust immigration. This has helped us not only by directly bolstering the number of people calling the United States home but also by propping up the birthrate, since immigrant women tend to produce far more children than the native-born do.

But both those advantages look to diminish in years to come. A report issued last month by the Pew Research Center found that immigrant births fell from 102 per 1,000 women in 2007 to 87.8 per 1,000 in 2012. That helped bring the overall U.S. birthrate to a mere 64 per 1,000 women—not enough to sustain our current population.

Moreover, the poor, highly fertile countries that once churned out immigrants by the boatload are now experiencing birthrate declines of their own. From 1960 to 2009, Mexico’s fertility rate tumbled from 7.3 live births per woman to 2.4, India’s dropped from six to 2.5, and Brazil’s fell from 6.15 to 1.9. Even in sub-Saharan Africa, where the average birthrate remains a relatively blistering 4.66, fertility is projected to fall below replacement level by the 2070s. This change in developing countries will affect not only the U.S. population, of course, but eventually the world’s.

Why is this happening? Scientists who study population dynamics point to a phenomenon called “demographic transition.”

“For hundreds of thousands of years,” explains Warren Sanderson, a professor of economics at Stony Brook University, “in order for humanity to survive things like epidemics and wars and famine, birthrates had to be very high.” Eventually, thanks to technology, death rates started to fall in Europe and in North America, and the population size soared. In time, though, birthrates fell as well, and the population leveled out. The same pattern has repeated in countries around the world. Demographic transition, Sanderson says, “is a shift between two very different long-run states: from high death rates and high birthrates to low death rates and low birthrates.” Not only is the pattern well-documented, it’s well under way: Already, more than half the world’s population is reproducing at below the replacement rate.


And in the long term—on the order of centuries—we could be looking at the literal extinction of humanity.

That might sound like an outrageous claim, but it comes down to simple math. According to a 2008 IIASA report, if the world stabilizes at a total fertility rate of 1.5—where Europe is today—then by 2200 the global population will fall to half of what it is today. By 2300, it’ll barely scratch 1 billion. (The authors of the report tell me that in the years since the initial publication, some details have changed—Europe’s population is falling faster than was previously anticipated, while Africa’s birthrate is declining more slowly—but the overall outlook is the same.) Extend the trend line, and within a few dozen generations you’re talking about a global population small enough to fit in a nursing home.
To see the rest of the lengthy article, click here.


Flogger said...

Mexico had a population of 38,420,000 in 1960, today it 114,940,00. Is Mexico better off and richer because of their population growth?? The US had a population of roughly 180,000,000 in 1960, and today an estimated 316,000,000.

Certainly, 316,000,000 people use up resources faster than 180,000,000. We have to drill more, dig deeper, and harvest more fish. With maybe a few exceptions wars are started because of resources or the lack thereof.

What harm would their be in Europe's population declining to 350 Million from 460 million??

If humanity goes extinct we will join a long list of species. If we do go extinct I do not think it will be because of lack of breeding.

Pete Boggs said...

Overpopulation of bureaucrats is the real problem; morbidly / inhumanely proportioned, blubber-ment.