Glimpse in the future - World 2050AD - 9 billion people!!!
No score for this post Zetaman
-------------------------------------------
Glimpse in the future - World 2050AD - 9 billion people!!!
Some good news regarding our already WAYYY overpopulated planet!!
-----
U.N. Reduces Global Population Estimate
By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer
UNITED NATIONS - The United Nations on Wednesday reduced its estimate of what the world's population will be in 2050 by 400 million, primarily because of the impact of the AIDS epidemic and lower than expected birth rates.
At the dawn of the new Millennium, the U.N. Population Division forecast that 9.3 billion people would inhabit the Earth at mid-century but a new revision of the estimate projects a lower population of 8.9 billion.
About half the 400 million drop is a result of an expected increase in the number of deaths, primarily from AIDS, the forecast said. The other half is due to a reduction in the projected number of births, mainly as a result of lower expected fertility rates.
"For the first time, the United Nations Population Division projects that future fertility levels in most developing countries will likely fall below 2.1 children per woman, the level needed to ensure the long-term replacement of the population, at some point in the 21st century," said the forecast.
By 2050, it projects that three out of four countries in less developed regions will have fertility levels below replacement levels.
The report, "World Population Prospects: The 2002 Revision," confirms key conclusions from previous revisions about population growth.
Despite expectations of lower fertility levels and increased death risks, global population is still expected to increase from 6.3 billion today to 8.9 billion in 2050, it said.
The Population Division warned, however, that the latest projections depend on ensuring that couples have access to family planning.
If fertility in all countries remained at current levels, it said, "the total population of the globe could more than double by 2050, reaching 12.8 billion."
But based on the new estimates, the forecast predicts that the population of more developed regions, currently at 1.2 billion, will change little during the next 50 years.
Thirty three countries are projected to be smaller at mid-century than today — Japan losing 14 percent of its population, Italy 22 percent of its population, and Bulgaria, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, Russia and Ukraine between 30 and 50 percent of their populations.
By contrast in less developed regions, the population is projected to rise steadily from 4.9 billion in 2000 to 7.7 billion in 2050, according to the forecast.
The populations of Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, Somalia, Uganda and Yemen, are projected to quadruple because of expected annual growth rates of more than 2.5 percent between 2000 and 2050, it said.
In the most populous countries, large population increases are expected even if fertility levels are projected to be low.
Between 2000 and 2050, the forecast said eight countries are expected to account for half the world's projected population increase — India, Pakistan, Nigeria, the United States, China, Bangladesh, Ethiopia and Congo.
The 2002 Revision indicates a worsening of the impact of the HIV /AIDS epidemic in terms of disease, deaths and population loss.
In the current decade, 46 million people are expected to die of AIDS in the 53 most affected countries, "and that figure is projected to ascend to 278 million by 2050," the forecast said.
-------
PS: Here are some cold hard facts. Planet Earth is already WAYYYY OVERPOPULATED since it can sustain only 200 million people max. We are in deep sh..t since the planets population will stabilize at around 2050 at around 10-12 BILLION (which is staggering 50 to 60 times OVER THE NATURAL LIMIT). We will make ourselves as humans (along with numerous other animal/plant species) through overpopulation, polution, natural resource exhaustion, etc. EXTINCT within half a millenium.
------
To show the situation more clearly this a a projected future of our Planet as seen through projections of populations in selected countries (facts are taken from World Almanac 2003, on net -- www.infoplease.com) and world as a whole.
year------number(in billions)------(10y growth rate)
1950-----------2.55-------------------(+19%)
1960-----------3.03-------------------(+22%)
1970-----------3.71-------------------(+20%)
1980-----------4.45-------------------(+18%)
1990-----------5.28-------------------(+15%)
2000-----------6.08-------------------(+13%)
2010-----------6.85-------------------(+11%)
2020-----------7.58-------------------(+9%)
2030-----------8.25-------------------(+7%)
2040-----------8.85-------------------(+6%)
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762181.html
--
* 1 billion in 1804
* 2 billion in 1927 (123 years later)
* 3 billion in 1960 (33 years later)
* 4 billion in 1974 (14 years later)
* 5 billion in 1987 (13 years later)
* 6 billion in 1999 (12 years later)
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0778698.html
--
Location---------2000AD-------2050AD------(%change)
Earth--------------6.05b------9.32b-------(+54%)
Africa-------------793m-------2.000b------(+152%)
Asia---------------3.67b------5.43b-------(+48%)
Europe-------------727m-------603m--------(-17%)
Latin America------518m-------805m--------(+55%)
North America------314m-------438m--------(+39%)
Oceania------------31m--------47m---------(+52%)
http://esa.un.org/unpp/
----
Location---------2000AD-------2050AD------(%change)
Selected countries
Western Asia (arab,turkic and persian asia)
*Afghanistan--------21.8m------72.3m-------(+232%)
*Azerbaijan---------8.0m-------8.9m--------(+11%)
*Iran --------------70.3m------121.4m------(+73%)
*Iraq---------------23.0m------54.0m-------(+135%)
*Israel-------------6.0m-------10.0m-------(+67%)
*Jordan-------------4.9m-------11.7m-------(+139%)
*Kazakhstan---------16.2m------15.3m-------(-6%)
*Oman---------------2.5m-------8.8m--------(+252%)
*Saudi Arabia-------20.4m------60.0m-------(+194%)
*Syria--------------16.2m------36.4m-------(+125%)
*Turkey-------------66.7m------98.8m-------(+48%)
*Uzbekistan---------24.9m------40.5m-------(+63%)
*Yemen--------------18.3m------102.4-------(+460%)
South Asia (Indians)
*Bangladesh---------137.4m-----265.4m------(+93%)
*India--------------1009m------1572m-------(+56%)
*Nepal--------------23.0m------52.4m-------(+128%)
*Pakistan-----------141.0m-----344.0m------(+144%)
*Sri Lanka----------18.9m------23.1m-------(+22%)
Eastern Asia (Orientals)
*China--------------1275m------1462m-------(+15%)
*D.P.R.(North)Korea-22.3m------28.0m-------(+26%)
*Japan--------------127.1m-----109.2m------(-14%)
*R. (South)Korea----46.7m------51.6m-------(+10%)
Southeast Asia
*Indonesia----------212.1m-----311.3m------(+47%)
*Philippines--------75.7m------128.4m------(+70%)
*Thailand-----------62.8m------82.5m-------(+20%)
*Viet Nam-----------78.1m------123.8m------(+59%)
Location---------2000AD-------2050AD------(%change)
North Africa (arabic speaking region)
*Algeria------------30.1m------51.2m-------(+70%)
*Egypt--------------67.9m------113.8m------(+68%)
*Libya--------------5.3m-------10.0m-------(+89%)
*Morocco------------30.0m------50.4m-------(+68%)
*Sudan(1/2Bantu=black)-31.1m---63.5m-------(+100%)
*Tunisia------------9.5m-------14.1m-------(+48%)
Subsaharan Africa
*Burkina Faso-------11.5m------46.3m-------(+330%)
*Congo--------------3.0m-------10.7m-------(+257%)
*Côte d'Ivoire------16.0m------32.2m-------(+101%)
*D.R.Congo----------51.0m------204m--------(+333%)
*Ethiopia-----------62.9m------186.5-------(+100%)
*Ghana--------------19.3m------40.0m-------(+107%)
*Guinea-------------8.2m-------20.7m-------(+66%)
*Kenya--------------30.7m------55.4m-------(+80%)
*Mali---------------11.4m------41.7m-------(+266%)
*Niger--------------10.8m------51.9m-------(+380%)
*Nigeria------------114.0m-----279.0m------(+145%)
*Senegal------------9.4m-------22.7m-------(+141%)
*South Africa-------43.3m------47.3m-------(+9%)
*Uganda-------------23.3m------101.5m------(+336%)
*Tanzania-----------35.1m------82.7m-------(+136%)
*Zambia-------------10.4m------29.3m-------(+182%)
*Zimbabwe-----------12.6m------23.5m-------(+87%)
Northern America ('Anglosaxon' america)
*Canada-------------30.8m------40.4m-------(+31%)
*United States------283m-------397m--------(+40%)
Caribbean (Mulattos,Blacks,Whites-1/2Cuba,etc)
*Dominican Rep.-----8.4m-------12.0m-------(+43%)
*Haiti--------------8.1m-------14.0m-------(+73%)
*Puerto Rico--------3.9m-------4.8m--------(+23%)
Location---------2000AD-------2050AD------(%change)
Central America (Mestico/Amer.ind.)
*El Salvador--------6.3m-------10.9m-------(+73%)
*Guatemala----------11.4m------26.6m-------(+133%)
*Mexico-------------99.0m------147.0m------(+48%)
*Nicaragua----------5.1m-------11.5m-------(+125%)
South America (south & east - mainly europeans)
*Argentina----------37.0m------54.5m-------(+47%)
*Brazil(1/2 mullato)--170.4m---247.2m------(+45%)
*Chile--------------15.2m------22.2m-------(+46%)
*Uruguay------------3.3m-------4.2m--------(+27%)
South America (west and north - mesticos/amerind.)
*Bolivia------------8.3m-------17.0m-------(+105%)
*Colombia-----------42.0m------70.1m-------(+67%)
*Ecuador------------12.6m------21.2m-------(+68%)
*Paraguay-----------5.5m-------12.6m-------(+129%)
*Peru---------------25.7m------42.1m-------(+64%)
*Venezuela----------24.2m------42.2m-------(+74%)
Oceania
*Australia----------19.1m------26.5m-------(+39%)
*New Zealand--------3.8m-------4.4m--------(+16%)
*Papua New Guinea---4.8m-------11.0m-------(+129%)
Location---------2000AD-------2050AD------(%change)
Eastern Europe ('Slavic' Europe)
*Belarus(W.Russia)--10.2m------8.3m--------(-19%)
*Poland-------------38.6m------33.4m-------(-14%)
*Russia-------------145.5m-----104.0m------(-29%)
*Ukraine------------49.6m------30.0m-------(-40%)
South Europe ('Grecoroman' Euroasia)
*Bulgaria-----------7.9m-------4.5m--------(-43%)
*Croatia------------4.7m-------4.2m--------(-11%)
*Cyprus-------------0.8m-------0.9m--------(+12%)
*France-------------59.2m------61.8m-------(+4%)
*Georgia------------5.3m-------3.2m--------(-40%)
*Greece-------------10.6m------9.0m--------(-15%)
*Italy--------------57.5m------43.0m-------(-25%)
*Portugal-----------10.0m------9.0m--------(-10%)
*Romania------------22.4m------18.1m-------(-19%)
*Spain--------------40.0m------31.3m-------(-22%)
*R.Macedonia--------2.0m-------1.9m--------(-5%)
*Yugoslavia---------10.6m------9.0m--------(-15%)
North Europe ('Germanic' Europe)
*Germany------------82.0m------70.8m-------(-14%)
*Netherlands--------15.9m------15.9m-------(0%)
*Norway-------------4.5m-------4.9m--------(+11%)
*Sweden-------------8.8m-------7.8m--------(-11%)
*United Kingdom-----59.4m------58.9m.------(-1%)
____________________
Illyria Forums
http://pub18.ezboard.com/bbalkans
_________________________
Responses
-----------------------------
Zetaman
Is earth overpopulated!!
Is earth overpopulated!!
In the 19th and 20th centuries humans discovered radical new ways to get large amounts of new energy supplies, invented ingenious new machines to make use of this energy and found ways to cut down pollution and disease so that life spans increased and death rates declined dramatically. Just as the agricultural revolution brought a hundred fold increase in population, so this industrial revolution brought another giant leap in human population. Instead of five or six hundred million human beings, as the 3rd milliennium dawns, there are six billion human beings living on Planet Earth. And their numbers are still rising.
Is this good or bad?
Scientists and citizens sharply divided in their answer to this question.
Many scientists, political leaders, environmentalists and ordinary citizens -- perhaps a majority -- are united in saying it is bad. Not only bad, but very bad. The world, they claim, is seriously overpopulated today and the situation is getting worse rather than better. Some predict this overpopulation will lead to wholesale catastrophe for all life on Planet Earth in the third millennium.
On the other side a growing number of scientists, economists, political leaders and citizens are challenging this view. These people admit that more people bring more problems, but they point out that more people also bring more hands and more brains to take advantage of the opportunities that the wealth of the post-industrial world is providing.
Who is right?
In this report we will attempt to fairly summarize these two sharply opposing viewpoints. The next millennium -- perhaps even the next few decades -- will help decide which viewpoint is the more accurate.
On the side of the doom predictors we have the following facts, observations, theories and guesses.
Ecology teaches us that no organism can outgrow its own food supply and natural resource base. Put a few fairy shrimp in a glass aquarium, give them food and let them multiply. In a very short time they will multiply so much that they will devour all the available food, will pollute the water they are living in with their wastes and the population will crash as fast as it multiplied.
Human populations have a larger aquarium (the biosphere of earth), a more varied food supply and resource base, but eventually the same thing must and will happen. If their numbers are left unchecked, humans will outgrow their food supply, exhaust their resource base, and their population numbers will crash. An economist in England named Thomas Malthus pointed this out over a hundred years ago, and many humans think it is as valid today as it was then.
Overpopulation is not just a problem, these critics point out, it is for both rich and poor countries alike, the problem. The problem that makes all other problems unsolvable unless something is done about it, and soon..
Contrary to the common belief, say these thinkers, the problem is most acute in the rich countries of North America, Europe and Japan. It is true that population numbers are growing fastest in the poorer countries of Asia, South America and Africa. But it is also true that each child born in the United States, for instance, will use a hundred times more energy and natural resources than a child born in Tanzania or Brazil or Thailand or India. This means, they claim, that adding another child in the United States is a hundred times more harmful to the earth's biosphere than adding another child in India.
Industrial societies are adding millions of tons of dangerous new chemicals to the air, earth and water every day. Some of these chemicals, like carbon dioxide and other gases are adding to the greenhouse effect which means the earth as a whole is warming. In the 21st century, say some scientists, the earth may warm by as much as three or four degrees. This would drastically alter rainfall patterns around the world and by melting some of the ice caps at the north and south poles would raise the level of the oceans. Some coastal cities might find themselves underwater! Some islands would simply disappear!
In humankind's rush to industrialize the entire earth, they are in grave danger of not only seeing their own population reach a dangerously high level -- and then experience a disastrous decline -- but they are destroying the ecosystems that support uncounted other living species. More of these species are becoming extinct in the 20th and 21st century than in any previous millennia of earth's history. In effect, say the most extreme of the partisans of this point of view, humans are witnessing the end of nature.
To prevent these catastrophes, say the doomsayers, the time is already late but at a minimum we should take immediate steps to reverse population growth in all countries of the world, especially in the industrialized ones that use such a large share of the earth's resources and generate such a large share of her wastes.
Along with reducing our populations, we need to take immediate steps to cut back our use of fossil fuels and thus our production of greenhouse gases. We need to encourage, some say force, people to live a simpler life style, use fewer resources and generate fewer wastes. What wastes we do inevitably make we need to recycle as nature herself does.
We also need to take vigorous action immediately to halt the destruction of ecosystems like the tropical rain forests of Brazil and Southeast Asia, the temperate old-growth forests of Washington, British Columbia and Alaska, the plains of sub-saharan Africa, the islands of the South Pacific, the coral reefs of the Caribbean, the wetlands of Maryland, Louisiana, Wisconsin -- in fact, everywhere in the world where there are wetlands since one the greatest of the natural resource problems is a fast diminishing supply of fresh water.
---
In all countries of the world, also, the growth of population has not been initiated by higher birth rates, but by lower death rates. In fact, everywhere in the world the birth rates have declined dramatically. In Europe, North America and Japan the rate of reproduction has already dipped below that needed to replace the present populations.
---
But what about the environment? What about the depletion of natural resources? The destruction of ecosystems? The end of nature.
The one problem that is not so easily solved however, if it can be solved at all, is species extinction. The Panda bear eats only bamboo and his native range is getting smaller and smaller. The Galapagos tortoise is slow to mate, small in numbers and its native range is threatened with poachers and with tourists.
Many of the plants and animals that have evolved over many millennia in the tropical rain forests of the world are threatened with extinction unless the wholesale destruction of the rain forest can be slowed and eventually stopped.
http://www.hawkhill.com/764s.html
------
Man is "a species out of control" according to Maurice Strong, a prominent Canadian and the Secretary General of the recent Earth Summit. Environmentalist Paul Ehrlich concurs, saying that man is a "cancer" on the earth. David Grabner, a research biologist for the U.S. Parks Service also says that man is a cancer and "until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along." Ted Turner, the owner of CNN, also offers his wisdom: "Right now, there are just way too many people on the planet." According to Turner, we need to cut the world's population from the current 5 billion to no more than "250 million to 350 million."
The experts have spoken: there are simply too many people consuming too much. Population is a "bomb," an "explosion," and a "plague." We are drowning in people, and, even worse, the environment is suffering. The answer? The Earth Summit 's "Earth Charter" called for $7 billion to be spent on "demographic activities," i.e., let's spend a bunch of money to sterilize the undesirables of the world.
Environmentalists and population-control advocates share a fundamental premise: fewer people would make for a better world. They are both implicitly pro-death. The environmentalist says that nature (read: his enjoyment of nature) is more important than human life and thus economic activity must be restrained to ensure "sustainable development." Presumably we had this blissful state before the Industrial Revolution. Not coincidentally, in the pre-industrial England of 1724 we also had 74.5% of all children dying before the age of five. Ah, weren't those the good old days.
The population control advocate says that there are too many people around and we should stop them from reproducing (its getting so hard to find a parking spot these days!). He will tell you that the very survival of the world depends on it. Many western academics and politicians agree, and they applaud the forced birth control and abortion policies such as those in China and Indonesia.
http://www.u-turn.net/1-2/peoppol.html
----
Question 1: Why should Americans be concerned about population growth in other parts of the world?
Answer: The environmental and social impact of population growth know no national boundaries and affect us all. Population growth anywhere in the world ultimately has an impact on the entire planet's environment. Many environmental problems, such as air and water pollution and global climate change, are borderless. As our population grows, demands for resources increase, adding to pollution and waste. More energy is used, escalating the problems of global warming, acid rain, oil spills and nuclear waste. More land is required for agriculture, leading to deforestation and soil erosion. More homes, factories, and roads must be built, reducing agricultural land still further as well as habitat for other species, leading increasingly to their extinction. One example of the interconnectedness of our planet's environment is the depletion of tropical rainforests. Rainforest destruction is not only causing a grave loss of biodiversity, it is also upsetting the atmosphere's climate control capabilities. Sometimes called the "lungs of the Earth," rainforests are obviously vital to all of us. Americans can also be affected by political conflicts that arise from environmental refugees fleeing overpopulated and environmentally degraded areas in search of more benign conditions, or from concerns over the rights to finite natural resources like oil fields, water resources, or land.
Question 2: Why should we be concerned about population growth rates of 1, 2 and 3 percent a year? Doesn't that mean that population is growing very slowly?
Answer: Small percentages of very large numbers add up quickly. For example, the world's current population is estimated to be 6 billion, with an annual growth rate of 1.31 percent. Yet, at this rate, 78 million people (more than the population of Vietnam) will be added to the population this year alone. (1)
Another way to see the impact of growth rates is to consider the doubling time of a population. In Saudi Arabia, for example, the population is growing at the rate of 3 percent and if this rate continues, it will double in just 23 years. That isn't much time to build roads, houses, schools and sanitation facilities to accommodate twice as many people. At the world's present growth rate of 1.31 percent, the Earth's population will double in just 53 years. (2)
(Note: In order to calculate the doubling time of a population, divide the annual growth rate into 70. For example, 70/1.31 = 53 years [doubling time for world population]. The"magic number" 70 is derived from a logarithmic equation.)
1, 2 1999 World Population Data Sheet, Population Reference Bureau
Question 3: Why are developing countries experiencing rapid population growth while developed countries are either growing more slowly or not at all?
Answer: While both developed and developing countries have experienced significant declines in their death rates, developing nations continue to have the highest birth rates. A country's birth rate is strongly linked to the extent of industrialization, economic development, availability of quality medical care and family planning services, the educational level of the population and the status of women. The Industrial Revolution in Western Europe and North America improved living conditions through advances in medicine, sanitation and nutrition. These changes led to declines in death rates, especially among infants and small children, many more of whom survived their early years than before. Birth rates remained high, however, and soon the population swelled.
Question 4: Isn't it true that the entire population of the world could fit inside Texas?
Answer: If you divided the world's 6 billion humans into Texas's 261,914 square miles, each person could claim .028 acres of land. It is obvious, however, that the land in Texas, (or even the land in North America for that matter), would not be able to sustain these people. Resource experts say a minimum of 0.17 acres of arable land is needed to sustain a person on a largely vegetarian diet without the intense use of fertilizers and pest controls.
An estimated 253 million people currently live in countries with scarce arable land --which have on average no more than 0.17 acres available per person -- and this population is expected to at least triple by 2025 if current trends continue. Only 11 percent of the Earth consists of arable land, and that area is rapidly diminishing due to erosion, salinization and a decline in the practice of fallowing land. (3)
3 Conserving Land: Population and Sustainable Food Production, Population ActionInternational, 1995.
Question 5: Isn't overpopulation only a problem in areas where population density is high?
Answer: "The key to understanding overpopulation is not population density but the numbers of people in an area relative to its resources and the capacity of the environment to sustain human activities; that is, to the area's carrying capacity. In short, if the long-term carrying capacity of an area is clearly being degraded by its current human occupants, that area is overpopulated," according to Paul and Anne Ehrlich in The Population Explosion.
In areas where density is high, some effects, such as traffic and air pollution, are readily apparent. But other consequences of overpopulation are less visible. For instance, people in cities often forget that certain resources and services, such as oil, food and water, are provided by transporting the items from outlying areas. It is generally agreed that overpopulation exists if the activities ofthe current population are depleting the capacity of the environment to provide for the future. By this standard, according to the Ehrlichs, "virtually every nation is overpopulated" because natural resources, such as forests and soil, are being depleted. According to recent statistics provided by the Population Reference Bureau, the Netherlands can support 1,180 people per square mile, but that country is a major importer of resources such as minerals and food. "Saying that the Netherlands is thriving with a density of 1,180 people per square mile simply ignores that those 1,180 Dutch people far exceed the carrying capacity of that square mile," the Ehrlichs write.
Question 6: Don't we have enough food resources to feed many more people?
Answer: Already, more than three-quarters of a billion people suffer from malnutrition. Although much of the world's hunger problem stems from uneven food distribution, to feed future populations, agricultural output levels must keep pace with the exponential population growth. While increased investment in agricultural research and technology may result in increased yields, unless population growth is slowed, food production shortages and environmental degradation will persist.
"For just how long can we feed this many people? Too little is known about the long term consequences of soil and water degradation and species extinctions to be confident the earth's resources can be relied on to feed indefinitely any specific number of human beings, even today's 5.7 billion," according to a report issued by PopulationAction International in 1995. (4) This poses a challenge since the report also states that between 1945 and 1990 "food production and other human activities" degraded nearly three billion acres of vegetated land, "an area equal to China and India combined." This means this land has lost its capacity to hold and supply nutrients to vegetation. Two thirds of the most degraded land is in Africa and Asia. (5) Arable land diminishes as a result of soil erosion, which deprives farmers of plant nutrients, and irrigation, which deposits salts and other minerals that interfere with root growth. Soil conservation measures have been, in large part, underfunded and unproductive. Global soil losses are estimated to be 25 billion metric tons annually, or 4.5 tons per person worldwide. About 10 percent of all irrigated land -- about 50 to 75 million acres -- is "severely salinized," while another 150 to 200 million acres are affected by some problems related to salinity and waterlogging. (6)
4, 5, 6 Conserving Land: Population and Sustainable Food Production, Population ActionInternational, 1995.
Question 7: Is religion an obstacle to population stabilization?
Answer: Not always. Many religious leaders understand the consequences of rapid population growth and the need to stabilize it. Although the Vatican's position on reproductive choice is a critical barrier to solving population problems, many Catholics around the world do not heed the Church's official ban on modern methods of birth control. In fact, two predominantly Catholic countries, Italy and Spain, have the smallest average completed family size (1.2 children per couple) in the world. (7)
In Muslim societies, there are many diverse views on Family Planning. In World War III. Michael Tobias writes that many Muslims "insist that family planning is inherent to the Qur'an itself" and that birth control is approved of in Islamic religious texts, although abortion is not mentioned in the Qur'an.
Thus Islam's influence over a person's reproductive choice depends on that particular culture's views on family planning and, to a great extent, a woman's status. Studies have shown that fertility rates are higher among Islamic countries, such as Algeria and Pakistan, where education and jobs are less accessible to women than in other Muslim nations, such as Tunisia and Turkey.
Urbanization, higher levels of education, expanding economic opportunities for women and availability of contraception generally have more bearing on a person's family planning decisions than religious doctrine. Also, research has shown that socioeconomic factors may outweigh religion when it comes to reproductive choices.
7 1999 World Population Data Sheet, Population Reference Bureau
Question 8: How does improving the status of women affect population growth?
Answer: In many societies, women are valued primarily for their role in reproduction. In general, throughout the world, women hold little or no political or economic power, have lower earnings than men and are provided inadequate schooling and health care. Combining family planning practices with programs that improve women's health, social status, educational opportunities and economic well-being are effective ways to lower fertility rates. The empowerment of women is a key to providing them with choices about their reproductive health.
For instance, although the state of Kerala, India is economically poor, its low fertility rate is comparable to that of many industrialized nations, including the United States. Because women and men equally share a nearly 100 percent literacy rate, affordable and accessible health care, including family planning, and educational opportunities, women have the number of children they want, usually two. And while many Asian countries tolerate sex selection and infanticide, resulting in a dearth of women, in Kerala there are more women than men, about 1,036 women per 1,000 men. The rate for India, as a whole, is 927 women per 1,000 men.
Micro-lending has enabled thousands of women, especially in developing countries, to begin a micro-enterprise and to become financially independent. One famous example is the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, which lent to poor women, and received a payback rate of 99 percent in two years.
Question 9: Will AIDS "solve" the overpopulation problem?
Answer: The main demographic impact of AIDS will be to lower life expectancy through increased infant and young adult mortality. Additionally it will burden health systems, increase the orphan population, change the social structure, and impede economic development, which may threaten economic and political stability in some areas. (9) The Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) estimates that 33.4 million people worldwide were infected with the human immunodeficiency virus, as of December 1998. While AIDS will have a devastating impact in specific countries, mostly in Africa, U.N. demographers project that in demographic terms, the effect will be limited on the global scale. (10)
9,10 UNAIDS and the World Health Organization, 1998.
Question 10: Is population growth no longer a concern in the U.S., now that we are averaging two children per family?
Answer: According to modest projections by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. population could increase almost 50 percent to more than 390 million by the year 2050 -- the equivalent of adding a city with the population of Chicago to every state in this country. (11)
Contrary to what many people believe, the population of the United States is expanding every day. Currently at 274 million, the U.S. population is growing by about 2.5 million people each year, making the United States one of the world's fastest-growing industrialized nation. Births in the U.S. were nearly four million last year. The U.S.fertility is currently at 2.0, up from 1.8 in 1988.
It is misleading to think that a country's population is stabilized once the total fertility rate reaches the "replacement level" of 2.1. Due to "demographic momentum" a nation's population will continue to grow for another 50 to 60 years if a large sector of the population has yet to enter its reproductive years once replacement level fertility is achieved. The United States has been experiencing an "echo boom" as the large population of baby boom children have children of their own. Furthermore, the projected stabilization of a country's population assumes that the total fertility rate will remain at or below replacement level on a long-term basis. For instance, demographic projections made in 1988 when the total fertility rate in the United States was 1.8 no longer hold now that the rate is 2.0. In addition to the population growth caused by natural increase (births minus deaths), immigration adds at least another 800,000 people annually to our nation's population. If we wish to continue our tradition as a diverse nation of immigrants, we will need to balance immigration and births in order to stabilize our population. (12) (Note: The estimated 1999 birth rate in the United States is 15 births per 1,000 people, while the death rate is projected to be 9 per 1,000 people. Growth due to natural increase alone is about 6/1,000 or 0.6 percent, doubling our population in about 116 years.)
11 U.S. Bureau of the Census, 12 Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1997.
http://www.earthowners.net/population_faqs.htm
------
HOW MANY PEOPLE CAN THE EARTH SUSTAIN?
A dramatic decrease in the death rate, especially amongst infants and children, without an accompanying decline in the birth rate has resulted in a worldwide population explosion. The human population has been increasing geometrically, that is, it is doubling in shorter and shorter time intervals. When humans began farming, about 40,000 B.C., the world population was about 1.5 million; when the Great Pyramid of Cheops was built, 8000 B.C., it was 10 million; and when Julius Ceasar was assassinated in 44 B.C., the population had grown to 200 million. In 1825, the population clock ticked one billion, two billion in 1930, three billion in 1960, four billion in 1975, five billion in 1987, and six billion in 1999. The world population now stands at 6.3 billion people, with a new person being added every eight seconds.
Is the world really overpopulated? If each and every individual now on the planet was alotted an area of four square meters to stand in the center of, how much space on the surface of the earth would be required to hold today's population? The squares would have dimensions of two meters, so that it would almost be impossible for a person in one square to physically touch the people in adjacent squares. To currently hold the entire world population, 6.3 billion of these squares would be required. This would correspond to a square of approximately 80,000 people squares wide and 80,000 people squares long. Since each people square has dimensions of two meters, this square would have dimensions of 160,000 meters or 160 kilometers. Therefore, 25,600 square kilometers of land would be required to hold the world's population, if each person was given four square meters to stand in. The province of Ontario has an area of approximately one million square kilometers. Therefore we only need to use one fortieth of the area of Ontario to hold the world's population, or conversely, Ontario could comfortably hold just under 250 billion people. The world is really not that crowded then!
In 1798, Thomas Malthus, in his essay on the principles of population, believed that the population crisis was defined when the growth of the human population far exceeds its ability to increase food production at the same rate. He believed that there had to be some sort of control, either natural or artificial, like famine or war, was required to curb this explosive growth. However these controls have not worked, given the numerous famines and destructive wars experience by humankind over the last two centuries. The population continues to grow exponentially. Why?
Instead, the population explosion has been fuelled by scientific and technological innovations, that have lowered death rates without lowering birth rates, and increased food production by using less land and labour, but more energy, capital, and chemicals. Thus food production has kept pace with the population growth. Better land use, the development of chemical fertilizers, the industrialization of farm equipment, more capital, better communication and transportation networks, improvements in canning and refrigeration, and genetically engineering plants and livestock have all contributed to increased food production. As long as food production outpaces population growth, there is no crisis. But how long can this race continue?
However, the dilemma with rapid scientific and technological innovations is that with the appearance of each new invention or improvement of an existing technology, there are usually several unexpected side effects or by-products. For example, with the mechanization of nearly all agricultural functions and processes, emissions of carbon dioxide have increased. And with the growing demand for meat, livestock production has increased threefold over the last twenty years, resulting in increased levels of methane being discharged into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide and methane gas are greenhouse gases, and their increased emissions into the atmosphere is causing the earth's mean temperature to rise - the so-called greenhouse effect. This will affect agricultural production, for those areas now used for agriculture will become drier and hotter and those areas that will have the favourable climatic conditions will have less suitable soil conditions. And the most productive and fertile lands, along the seacoasts, will be inundated as sea levels rise. For human population growth to remain unchecked, scientific and technological ingenuity must not only be applied to increased food production, but it must also counter the unwanted side-effects that materialize. Otherwise, 6.3 billion people are too many people for the earth to sustain!
http://electron.cs.uwindsor.ca/~taylor9/pagenine.html
------
Conclusion
We must make the connection that our population size is accountable for many unnecessary deaths, the depletion of our environment, the exhaustion of valuable resources, and the loss of top soil and water. This should spark up conversation and meaningful dialog on how to obtain solutions to the problem. We can not lie to ourselves anymore, we must come up with a workable solution, otherwise the problem will take care of itself by nature wiping out the surplus. Family planning has had some success in the past but needs more funding. The developed countries must becomes partners with the developing countries in order to overcome the overpopulation problems. The United Nations International conference on population met in Cairo in 1994 and devised a Programme of Action to deal with overpopulation. This delegation recognizes the complexity of the issue and its urgency to come up with solutions. With the population at its current growth rate, it is expected that by the year 2050, more than 10 billion people will populate the earth. Paul R. Ehrilich and Anne H. Ehrlich of Stanford University, are authors of many books dealing with population. They write "Human numbers are on a collision course with massive famines...If humanity fails to act, nature will end the population explosion for us-in very unpleasant ways-well before 10 billion is reached" (Bongaarts 36). This is a problem that will have to be dealt with more than likely in our life time. Who will rectify the problem humans created, will it be nature, more powerful than humans, or will it be humankind that fixes the problem.
http://www.goshen.edu/bio/Biol410/Biol410SrSemPapers/YoderAndrew.html
-----
The Earth's limited supply of natural resources will only be able to sustain 2 billion humans by 2100, bad news for a world that already feeds 5.9 billion. The optimum human population, or carrying capacity, for the U.S. is projected to be 200 million, which is millions fewer than the current population. Disappearing stocks of fertile land, fresh water, fossil fuel energy, plants and animal life will control human population the old-fashioned way-through starvation and disease-if we cannot reduce our numbers voluntarily.
A SMALL WORLD AFTER ALL
The Earth and its resources may be too small for all of us to share. Even if we learn how to make the most of a limited supply of land, energy, water, and biota, Cornell ecologists have calculated that by the year 2100, the planet will be able to provide for only 2 billion humans-almost 4 billion less than today's world population-with a modest but comfortable standard of living. Only 200 million humans can be sustained by the natural resources of the United States, making the current population 33 percent over its eco-budget.
http://www.ecofuture.org/pk/pkcapcty.html
------
Pre-agricultural human density was 1 to 1.5 people for each square mile. Expanded to the entire Earth, that totals about 200 million top population “carrying capacity.”
http://www.saczoo.com/3_kids/11_earth/_population.htm
---------------
...
Re: Glimpse in the future - World 2050AD - 9 billion people!!!
Ok, I was too lazy (or just didn't want to) read for 10 hours so you can get your point across...
but I agree.
The world population is already overpopulated and the worst has yet to come.
What must be done?
The U.S. (it starts at home) should take steps to discourage large families with many children. Hey, it sounds tough... but it must be done, live with it.
---------------
Zetaman
sustainable global population levels
perfect solution to overpopuation would require two stages over a long period of time (say 100y max)
1) Reduction from 6b to 2b
2) Reduction from 2b to ~0.35b
(The numbers take into account the location and size of the given country, fertility of the land, presence of desert or jungles, sequence order etc)
>>>>>>>2.000b>>>>350m
N.America--300----50
*Canada----30----10
*USA------200----30
*Mexico-----40----5
*rest--------30----5
S.America---200---50
*Brazil-------100--20
*Argentina---40---10
*Colombia----30---5
*rest---------30---15
Africa--------200---40
*Nigeria------40----5
*SAR---------40----5
*Egypt--------20---5
*rest---------100---25
Europe--------300---60
*UK-----------30----5
*Italy---------30----5
*Germany-----40----10
*Spain--------30----5
*France------30----5
*Poland------30----5
*rest--------110---25
Euroasia-----200---50
*Russia------120---40
*Ukraine------30----5
*rest---------50----5
Asia----------800--100
*China-------400---40
*India--------200---20
*rest---------200---40
---------------
Brett R
Re: Glimpse in the future - World 2050AD - 9 billion people!!!
Did you know that rain caused by the natural environment is responsible for nearly 100% of the flooding around the world. These floods have led to mass deaths as mudslides and ruined crops have devestated poor people around the world.
The source of this devestation is an excessive amount of water in our oceans. Despite all man's efforts to use as much of this water as possible it still persists in our atmosphere raining destruction down upon us all.
These same oceans lead to tidal waves that devestate our coasts and hurricanes that level entire cities wiping out crops, livestock and whole families. Joseph Dumpruff PhD at WestEastern college says that ecologists are clear that if we don't do something today to rid ourselves of these oceans humans may disappear from the earth forever.
Despite the evidence nothing is being done! Greedy environmentalists aligned with special interests like National Geographic are thwarting every reasonable human effort to rid us of these oceans.
Nonetheless leading scientists at over 100 major institutions have developed a plan to save humanity from salt water. Their plan while ambitious is doable within 10 years. The intention is to build a series of intergalactic spaceships each capable of holding over 200 million gallons of water. The spaceships will use anti-matter powered fuel cells to pump the water from the oceans. The cargo will then be carried into deep space and ejected.
Together we can save the earth!
PS
And its just about as sensible as killing off 95% of the earths population so you can have the entire west coast of north america as your organic vegetable garden and spotted owl petting zoo.
---------------
...
Re: Glimpse in the future - World 2050AD - 9 billion people!!!
Haha. That may be true, but still there is an ever-growing overpopulation problem... I mean come on, if you can't see it than one day it's gonna catch us by surprise and we'll have to deal with it then.
The point is, we're going to have to deal with the problem of overpopulation in the world someday and waiting until it gets worse won't help. I think the time is now - we don't want to have to start dealing with this problem when it's already too late.
But, I don't know what can be done to battle overpopulation besides discouraging more than let's say 2 children in each family... whatever one can think of to slow birth rates, it would be Unconstitutional...
Any ideas?
Or do you not think this is a big issue.
--------------
Brett R
Re: Glimpse in the future - World 2050AD - 9 billion people!!!
First the purpose of the response was to point out that the article made its point in much the same way I did. If you found my satire absurd you should have found the article absurd. No I do not see much of a problem regarding population.
The united states has a population density of 80 or so people per square mile. Extrapolate that to the 58 million or so square miles of land on the planet and if the planet was populated to the same degree as the US you would have a bit under 5 billion people.
Keep in mind the US is very sparsely populated as anybody who has flown cross country and looked down could tell you. We also produce way way more food than we need, and could produce much much more if there was a demand.
That tells me that the odds of exhaustion of the food supply are virtually nill. In terms of other natural resources the reality is as those resources are used and become scarce the cost of those resources increase discouraging consumption. At that point it becomes profitable to find ways to reduce the amount of raw materials in various applications. People use less of stuff the more expensive it gets, and they find ways to produce more of it the more expensive it gets. That is why despite all the dire predictions about running out of oil by now it hasn't happened and isn't even close to happening.
Does anything need to be done in the US? I would say that is a big fat no. Even if you think population is a problem growth in the US is minimal and alot of that comes from immigration.
We do use more resources than third world countries but we are also the ones finding the ways to use fewer resources to accomplish the same results. Farming is the classic example in that due to modern agricultural technology we produce 5 times as much milk with the same number of cows and the same amount of food with less farmland.