In a televised interview with Sir Trevor McDonald last week, the Duke of
Edinburgh cited “overpopulation” as the prime source of escalating food
prices. Another gaffe! “Overpopulation” dropped out of usage in the 1970s,
and the deluded old coot doesn’t seem to realise that the term is passé. Or
is it?
Helping to make “overpopulation” a buzz word of his era, Paul Ehrlich observed
in his 1968 bestseller The Population Bomb that by 8000BC it had taken the
human race about 1m years to double in number. Yet when he published his
alarmist book, world population was 3.5 billion, and the doubling time was
down to 35 years.
“If growth continued at that rate for about 900 years, there would be some 60
million billion people on the face of the Earth,” he warned. “This is about
100 persons for each square yard of the Earth’s surface, land and sea.”
Well, what a load of hooey. (Even Ehrlich then conceded that he was being
fanciful.) According to current United Nations projections, world population
is expected to reach 9.2 billion by 2050, peaking soon afterward at only 9.8
billion.
Expectations colour perception. Compared with the idea of sharing one square
yard with 99 of our closest friends, a world inhabited by “only” 9.8 billion
people seems perfectly pleasant. Yet that is nearly half again as much
company as we already enjoy. Try getting into a small lift with nine other
passengers and then asking “only” five more to join you. Try telling a host
who’s preparing a dinner for 10 that you’ve just invited “only” five more
guests, and you’ll probably get a pie in the face.
Most of us who remember Ehrlich’s book have long since dismissed it for
stirring hysteria. Yet in some respects he was almost right: he predicted
that world population would double in 35 years, and in 40 years it has
indeed almost doubled – from 3.5 billion to 6.7 billion in 2007. So why does
Prince Philip’s invocation of “overpopulation” seem so anachronistic, so
unfashionable?
Because the term no longer applies to the West. In the 1960s the threat of
“overpopulation” applied to virtually every country in the world, all of
whose populations were expanding – if at different rates. From 1971,
however, western fertility plummeted. Europe has been underreproducing for
decades: its total fertility rate (TFR) – the average number of children a
woman bears in her lifetime – is 1.5, well below the 2.1 required to replace
the people already here.
Meanwhile, with a current TFR of 2.9 , the population of poorer nations keeps
rising. Virtually all of the 2.5 billion extra people on our guest list will
arrive in the Third World (aka “undeveloped”, “underdeveloped” or
“developing” nations, or recently “the south” – when people keep shifting
their terminology, be sure that there’s something politically scary in the
vicinity).
Now viewed as a judgmental word that applies exclusively to nonwestern
countries, “overpopulation” has become racially, religiously and ethnically
sticky, and thus totally uncool. For decades no one in the population field
has touched the word “overpopulation” with a bargepole.
It’s time to come clean: I am a demography junkie. My perverse obsession began
when I was 16, when I spent a full semester of high school researching
population growth. I revisited the fascination in my fourth novel, Game
Control. In what I hope is a wicked satire, a demographic zealot plans to
nip runaway population growth in the bud by murdering two billion people
overnight. The premise may sound outlandish but the nonfiction underpinnings
of the text were carefully researched. Furthermore, the graph of human
population through the ages – meandering virtually horizontal at the bottom
of the page for hundreds of thousands of years and then spiking almost
vertically over the past century like a polygraph needle when the subject
tells a whopper – illustrates that, in population biology, fact itself is
more outlandish than anything I might make up.
Why have I been entranced by population, of all things? I have my theories. I
grew up in a religious, left-leaning American household that tyrannised my
childhood with guilt. Before we ate, we had to pray for hungry Chinese
peasants, and then we had to clean our plates for the starving Armenians
(long dead, but no one told me). Everything nice that we had we were
supposed to feel bad about; and I was required to give 10 cents of my 25c
weekly allowance (that’s about 12p) to charity. So I think I resented all
these poor people for whom I was supposed to feel sorry. They were a burden.
Then I discovered that there were going to be more and more of them. Just
because they had large families, I was going to have to feel even worse and
give away more of my allowance.
In adulthood I’ve come to appreciate how many other problems are fuelled by
population growth, from environmental degradation to disease. All roads lead
to demography. Besides, there’s nothing boring about statistics if you have
an imagination and some sense of what they mean.
My interest was reignited in 2003 by an article in Population and Development
Review. The journal’s editor, Paul Demeny, compared the population
projections for Yemen – a Muslim country about the size of France – and
Russia, which is 30 times bigger. In 1950 Russia had 103m people, Yemen 4.3m
– meaning there were 24 Russians for every Yemeni. By 2000 Russia had 145m
people, and Yemen 17.5m – that’s about eight Russians for every Yemeni.
Proportionally, a few more Yemenis; no big deal.
Alas, Russian men drink too much. Their life expectancy is 60. Worse, Russian
women are not having many babies: by 2000 Russia’s total fertility rate was
a miserable 1.2. Demeny revealed that even though UN figures assumed Russian
fertility would rise by 50% – awfully optimistic – the country’s population
in 2050 was still expected to contract back to 1950 levels of about 104m.
Meanwhile, although UN figures also assumed that fertility in Yemen would
fall by half, Yemen’s population in 2050 was expected to rise to 102m.
That’s right: in a little more than 40 years, the population of Russia could
be met and overtaken by that of Yemen. Which has only 3% arable land and is
mostly desert.
If Russia versus Yemen is an extreme case, the broader picture is equally
sobering. Demeny went on to compare the populations of 25 European nations
to the 25 nations in what he called Europe’s “southern hinterland”: the
Asian and north African countries surrounding this continent. Check out the
UN population projections in 2000 (see panel).
Honey, I shrunk the continent: Europe is contracting. On the other hand, over
the course of only 100 years north Africa, western Asia and the Middle East
are set to multiply eightfold. Throw into the mix the fact that all those
countries are Muslim, and politically you have one sizzling hot potato.
Why should any of this matter to us? Well, let’s count the ways:
Immigration Legal or illegal, we haven’t seen anything yet. If we add
in all of Africa – from which significant numbers emigrate to Europe – we
can expect by 2050 to have 2.7 billion relatively poor, heavily unemployed
and perhaps increasingly desperate people on Europe’s doorstep.
Since most of them cannot afford a ticket on American Airlines, they will
migrate to wealthy countries nearby to which they can swim, walk or ride by
stowing away on a lorry. And never mind protecting European borders or
tightening the laws. Desperate people are resourceful people; just because
you’re poor doesn’t mean you’re not smart.
Food and fuel pricesThe recent spikes in both have admittedly been fed
by a variety of factors, but one of them is demand. That demand will keep
rising with increased population, and so will prices.
Climate change The addition of three billion people, many of whom may
aspire to a middle-class western lifestyle, will turn feeble
carbon-reduction efforts – recycling yoghurt pots, biking to work – into a
joke. If you care about green issues, ipso facto you should care about population.
Political instability and reduced social cohesion Inexorably high
immigration rates from neighbouring Muslim countries are likely to transform
the ethnic and religious composition of this continent. Happily, it may soon
be possible to get an excellent falafel on any street corner in Europe. But
if younger generations in countries such as Egypt continue to become more
fundamentalist and more politically radicalised than their parents,
terrorism could rise.
WaterThere isn’t enough of it. In his level-headed book How Many People
Can the Earth Support?, Professor Joel Cohen identifies water as the
ultimate limiting factor on human population. Even if it were evenly
distributed throughout the world – which it is not – the human race would be
expected to run out of fresh water when the global population reached about
nine billion – a figure we are now set substantially to exceed.
Power Europe initially rose to political and military dominance in
tandem with a rising population. With a dropping population, its influence
will probably wane.
Is this little more than racist, xenophobic claptrap? I don’t think so.
Current population levels are facts. Population projections are mathematical
extrapolations from facts. Certainly, you can fiddle with the assumptions
underlying the projections and come up with wildly different numbers, and
historically the accuracy of demographic prediction has been pretty dismal.
(Case in point: only four years after Demeny published his comparison of
Yemen and Russia, the UN nearly halved its projected 2050 population for
Yemen from 102m to 58m. Yet, Demeny tells me, “there are many more Yemens”:
the population of Egypt will exceed Russia’s well before 2050.)
Numbers do not have prejudices. Europe is dwindling. Its immediate Muslim
neighbours are still having large families, and their populations are
continuing to grow. Make of that what you will. It is not BNP propaganda;
it’s just the way things are.
The Duke of Edinburgh may not have employed the trendiest vocabulary but he’s
not suffering from undiagnosed dementia. Whatever you call it, the threat of
overpopulation is back and here to stay – because it never really went away.
This could be a good time to start learning Arabic.
The PostBirthday World by Lionel Shriver is published by HarperCollins
Who is making a us and them situation?
Its a fact that many other cultures have large families naturally and indicated by there religions
its a fact that birth rate as decreased in Europe
its a fact that immigrant populations are increasing populations increase in uk
fact the planet cant cope
tony trebilcock, manchester, uk
Let's not dehumanise other cultures with this us and them mentality. The difference between population increase in different cultures is due, if anything, to lack of education/awareness and contraception. The same is true in our inner-cities (where I teach) whether black, white, christian, muslim.
henry oakley, bristol, United Kingdom
I have been watching this issue--for all my life basically, and right now the point I want to make is this...if I can find someone to help me cover the cost and make the most of the publicity possibilities I'm prepared to have my womb surgically removed to make a political point.
Lisa Simcock, London, England
Increasingly with time, I only see one clear-cut solution - another world war.
Because who in the developed world is willing to significantly sacrifice their lifestyle for long term (i.e. beyond their life) planetary gains? Similarly, those in the developing world aspire to live the life we have become accustomed to.
Howard, Manchester,
"“Overpopulation” dropped out of usage in the 1970s." Well in that case the delusion is with all those who dropped it. Who thinks that the ever dwindling natural resources and exploding population is not a recipe for disaster?
Justin Hamper, Hemel Hempstead, United Kingdom
What is the motivation for reducing your peoples birth-rate if you are punished with extinction for being successful? Groups with high fertility will continue to push for high fertility as long as they think they can take over other peoples lands by doing so, their leaders have said as much.
Matthew, Prince George, Canada
Re Chris in Ireland
Millions of square miles of Russia, Argentina etc are fertile and empty!! The world will touch 9 billion and then start a decline anyway. The problem with humans is we are all cramming into cities and not spreading evenly.
Dominic, London,
.....And that's just from the boom in babies from the Royal family's of Europe !!!!
Ian Payne, WALSALL,
The prospect of breeding to serve some discredited notion of white-Anglo national unity is indeed depressing. Surely, more intelligent management of border controls is the only antedote to this kind of insidious social imperialist paranoia? I intend to reproduce myself in novel form, like Lionel.
Karen Jemmett, Torquay, United Kingdom
Whether there are fewer WASPS and more Muslims in Europe doesn't concern me. The prospect of nine billion people starving to death does.
If population can be discussed in a humane, constructive atmosphere, communities may come up with their own responses. Don't demonise particular groups!
Mark D, Cornwall, United Kingdom
I don't know how many people the resources of Earth can sustain, but surely an ever increasing population and demand by each individual means that, at some point, we will reach the limit.
Do present massive hikes in oil and other raw materials such as copper prices indicate we are approaching it?
Carlos, Derby, UK
Bruno You are confusing feminism with consumerism and libertarianism. The economy has needed us to have poor self control and to have a long wait before reaching adult status. We need to support the first two children well but give no support for more children. Educated Mums are better Mums.
Lou, Edgeware, UK
I have always propounded overpopulation along with religion as being the two main causes of so much of the world's social and political ills. What positive "green" effect driving a Toyota Prius instead of a Jag in the face of such a population onslaught other than salving one's own conscience
John Dabney, Ostuni, Italy
15 billion people?! at what cost dominic,and in the same paragrapgh you attempt to condem domestic flights! the affects on the envoriment duepeople will be catastrophic . people need to ask themselves whats more aceptable,a world of 15billion starving to death or of 6 billion living decently
chris, dublin, Ireland
"It is not BNP propaganda; it’s just the way things are." So, the BNP have in fact been right all along? It wasn't propaganda at all in fact, rather brilliant political foresight. All the more reason to continue to vote BNP - the only Party with any answers.
P. Williams, London, England
Western nations are encouraging their women to have more babies so how can we turn around to the third world and denounce them for having to many! The earth can easily support 15 billion people if natural resources were carefully protected and used, why do we have domestic flights in the UK for eg.
Dominic, London,
Strewth! That is SOME un-cersored article!
At last the blinding truth, that has been deliberately distorted for decades, is fially coming out.
Let us hope this snowball rolls on and on and gets bigger and bigger.
bernard, Reigate, UK
Russia would have hundreds of millions of people by now if their rulers of the last few centuries hadn't been moronic twisted individuals who killed millions of their own. Stalin probably reduced the population of today by 100m alone! And the corrupt regime of today is just causing emigration -sad
Graham , london, uk
"And never mind protecting European borders or tightening the laws. Desperate people are resourceful people; just because you’re poor doesn’t mean you’re not smart. "
But not bulletproof.
Giorgio, Bologna, Italy
This is a fascinating analysis. Americans are still obsessed with the infiltration of "Them Catholics from the South" flooding our porous borders and those Shameless Mormons who somehow manage to have money as well as huge broods. Will it be Religion or Money that wins?
Melanie , Rohnert Park, USA
A large population of backward people is the invitable consequence of not making the UK a secular nation and making secular education mandatory for ALL.
kevin, Lincoln, UK
Fran So what do you think would /wil happen if there were/are no efforts made at all to restrain population growth? Even in poor countries population is an issue perhaps more so.
Richard, Cardiff, UK
Excellent article, but again, neither the author or any of the commentators below it are ready to state the obvious :
feminism kills civilisation..and it will certainly have killed ours within another (lack of) generation or two.
Bruno, London,
Muhammad, I know and understand where you are coming from but increased birth rate means more mouths to feed and eventually more consumerables to be produced to satisfy their needs. At this moment it is becoming a considerable problem to handle, which in time will only get worse.
John, Bayern, Germany
The birthrate in Europe has controlled itself, mainly because the people demand a better standard of living which is possible with only one or two children. If Muslims and others want to be taken seriously then they should accept the fact that with only one wife and one child, they would be.
John, Bayern, Germany
"is 1.5, well below the 2.1 required to replace the people already here."
So in a few years there will be less old people and so less taxes to pay for pensions but only if the government curb immigration or we'll be paying more for immigrant pensions. Interesting.
Graeme, Edinburgh,
The problems of over population was stated in the early 1800's by one Mr. Malthus. His theory stated that while food production grew in an arithmetic progression population was growing in a geometric progression.
D. Barrowclough, Burnley, Lancs.
China employs an extremely barbaric policy of child murder up to full-term pregnancy & actual birth. Capitalist led systems generate self-imposed culling via birth control/abortion in the name of physical gratification, materialism & avarice which is the main cause of indigenous European decline.
Fran, Kings Norton, United Kingdom
I asked a Hindu friend of almost 40 about this subject and he told me that his family came here to get away from Muslims because they outbred the other cultures in his country. He told me they will do the same thing here because our politicians are frightened to tackle the ever looming problem
tiny, Birmingham, England
But in developing nations they have more children because they die easily. i.e. they have 10 children hoping that 3 will survive to adulthood. Does the writer also take into account the deaths rates of children? It's all very well saying 10 babies were born but if ony 3 survive, does that not count?
kim, barney,
Social Darwinism is a fact of life no matter how unpleasant. Populations get replaced when they lose in the competition. Europe will be Islamic in your lifetime unless it is challenged militantly and reproductively. European women should be worried.
keith Bentham, wigan, uk
It is part of Islams philosophy to encourage child birth to help spread Islam. We increasingly have to cope with the immigration consequences of this philosophy. Yet another reason to tighten our borders and encourage countries that do not control their population according to their means to do so
David Cartright, Birmingham,
Muhammed, as someone who lived in Sub-Saharan Africa for 24 years, the continent can feed itself if it wanted to but racism has forced out the white farmers in Zimbabwe and the same is occurring in South Africa. The next we will hear are demands for food as "we are responsible for global warming".
B J Deller, Marbella, Spain
Population growth isn't the problem, every dies. The question is who's being born?
john, bristol, england
The overpopulation proposition certainly was not 'cool' at the (left wing) university I attended in the 1960's. My essay for Population Economics went down like the proverbial lead balloon with recommendations like limiting benefits (to the extent of imposing taxes) to discourage large families.
Alan Gooch, Honiton,
"Most of us who remember Ehrlich’s book have long since dismissed it for stirring hysteria".
Those of us who are innumerate, scientifically uneducated, and prone to wishful thinking, yes. The rest of us are capable of seeing plain facts when they stare us in the face.
Tom Welsh, Basingstoke,
Population growth is projected at 77million per year... And who loses out? Every living creature on the planet- including humankind.
Maybe rather than LiveAid we should have CondomAid
Time Black
TMJ Black, Southampton, U.K.
'Population-controllers always end up revealing their racial prejudices and authoritarian politics' (Justine)
Yes, and the pro-immigration lobby always always throw around accusations of racism to deflect attention from over-population issues.
J Davis , Sydney, Australia
In 1979 I completed an undergraduate thesis on the economic prospects for Algeria. My conclusion then was that rampant population growth allied to lack of opportunity was a recipe for the increased radicalisation of young men. Some Islamic populations double every twenty five years.
Arnold Ward, Weybridge, Surrey, UK
Population-controllers always end up revealing their racial prejudices and authoritarian politics. Just give them enough rope ...
Justine, London, UK
Over population is the price we pay for World Peace. As humans we are programmed for war, we are evolving and floundering. Hitler was mad and evil but there were glimpses of sanity in his philosophy.
We have cut out World War, we strive to cut disease, both natural deterrents to over population.
Anne Kent, Dorset,
This needs to be said more often and much more loudly. The West should start linking any kind of aid to the developing world to population control measures. And someone should twist the Catholic Church's arm to finally get them behind condoms. We can't afford to sleepwalk into this disaster.
Sam, Colorado, USA
Thats right Roger China has faced up to it and we should too. Yet MPs are trying to ban abortion. British babies then must swell the numbers and consume more than those in poorer countries.NOT! Actually quite a few countries have population policies but the UK does not. Shame on us!
Hamish, Newcastle, UK
One wonders if the Burmese military junta is hampering disaster relief efforts only because it feels its own power could be threatened, or because it sees an opportunity for population control. One recalls Pol Pot in Cambodia.
Arik Silverman, Milwaukee, USA
What always happens when the world becomes overcrowded - a World War of course.
This time around the world has the tools to achieve dramatic culling at the touch of a few buttons.
Richard, Bucharest,
The UK needs a population policy . Foreign Aid should be linked to birth control. What you left out is war. 60 of 67 places of conflict have youth bulges. Palestine has a very high birth rate. Population restraint is necessary for all, The poor can be responsible too. We have the technology.
Berenice, London, UK
Population is not the issue here but consumption. Population is the secondary argument when you look at all your arguments. If you use the population figures of 40 years ago all the arguments listed above will still apply. Population only makes it worse, so it is wrong to focus onpopulation.
Muhammad, Northamptonshire,
The third countries including sub saharan Africa are all growing faster than the developed countries, hence increased consumption and demand. Consumption rates are still a tiny fraction of rates in developed countries. No blame should be on the them until consumption rates of resources is the same.
Muhammad, Northamptonshire,
A growing world population is a problem for everybody on the Earth, only China has faced up to it with it's one child policy.
roger, london,