Population and Sustainability: Can We Avoid Limiting the Number of People?

June 24, 2009 • Daily Email Recap

Thanks to Bob Engelman and Mark O’Connor for this article from Scientific American.

In this article, Bob argues that: “… until the world’s population stops growing, there will be no end to the need to squeeze individuals’ consumption of fossil fuels and other natural resources. A close look at this problem is sobering: short of catastrophic leaps in the death rate or unwanted crashes in fertility, the world’s population is all but certain to grow by at least one billion to two billion people. The low-consuming billions of the developing world would love to consume as Americans do, with similar disregard for the environment—and they have as much of a right to do so. These facts suggest that the coming ecological impact will be of a scale that we will simply have to manage and adapt to as best we can. Population growth constantly pushes the consequences of any level of individual consumption to a higher plateau, and reductions in individual consumption can always be overwhelmed by increases in population. The simple reality is that acting on both, consistently and simultaneously, is the key to long-term environmental sustainability. The sustainability benefits of level or falling human numbers are too powerful to ignore for long.”

To post a comment go to http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=population-and-sustainability#comments or write to editors@sciam.com at Scientific American. It’s suggested that you keep letters short (below 150 words) and be sure to include your name, address and phone numbers.

Population and Sustainability: Can We Avoid Limiting the Number of People?

In an era of changing climate and sinking economies, Malthusian limits to growth are back¬ and squeezing us painfully. Whereas more people once meant more ingenuity, more talent and more innovation, today it just seems to mean less for each. Less water for every cattle herder in the Horn of Africa. (The United Nations projects there will be more than four billion people living in nations defined as water-scarce or water-stressed by 2050, up from half a billion in 1995.) Less land for every farmer already tilling slopes so steep they risk killing themselves by falling off their fields. (At a bit less than six tenths of an acre, global per capita cropland today is little more than half of what it was in 1961, and more than 900 million people are hungry.) Less capacity in the atmosphere to accept the heat-trapping gases that could fry the planet for centuries to come. Scarcer and higher-priced energy and food. And if the world’s economy does not bounce back to its glory days, less credit and fewer jobs.

For full article, visit:

Current World Population


Net Growth During Your Visit