“The Coming Population Crash”: The overpopulation myth

Salon: "The Coming Population Crash": The overpopulation myth

How feminism and pop culture saved Earth from getting too crowded — and are helping to avert planetary catastrophe.

People have been worrying about the world’s pending overpopulation for more than two centuries. Robert Thomas Malthus sounded the alarm in 1797 with "An Essay on the Principles of the Population," which predicted mass starvation and went on to influence the likes of Charles Darwin and Margaret Sanger. Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 book, "The Population Bomb," forecast a similar fate; if the population kept rising unchecked, Earth’s resources would buckle. Many of today’s environmental thinkers, such as broadcaster (and "Planet Earth" narrator) David Attenborough, have called for drastic measures  to limit the planet’s population before it’s too late.

But according to the veteran environmental writer Fred Pearce, they’re all wrong. In his latest book, "The Coming Population Crash: And Our Planet's Surprising Future," Pearce argues that the world’s population is peaking. In the next century, we’re heading not for exponential growth, but a slow, steady decline. This, he claims, has the potential to massively change both our society and our planet: Children will become a rare sight, patriarchal thinking will fall by the wayside, and middle-aged culture will replace our predominant youth culture. Furthermore, Pearce explains, the population bust could be the end of our environmental woes. Fewer people making better choices about consumption could lead to a greener, healthier planet.

Salon called Fred Pearce in his London office to talk about the reasons behind our population peak, the high cost of our aging world, and how TV helped save the planet. …


Comments

8 responses to ““The Coming Population Crash”: The overpopulation myth”

  1. I’ve long argued that overpopulation is not the issue. For too long, people have used “overpopulation” to shift the responsibility for the earh over to developing nations, who are percieved to have the “most” people.
    But simple numbers don’t tell the story, because it is a select few rich people using up the most resources. Consumption is the issue, not population.
    But even if population growth rates decilne, consumption of raw materials could still increase, if the population gets richer. So we’ve no casue for complacency.

  2. Phil, that addresses the demand side of the equation but there is a supply side too. As cost of nonrenewable resources rise, the pressure is greater toward using renewable resources. As Donald Hay pointed out twenty years ago there are renewable alternatives for nearly everything use. Just as demand changes over time so does the supply. I think combinations of less wasteful consumption, declining population, technology, and market forces, will all play a role toward a more widely prosperous yet sustainable world.

  3. But will they do so in time?

  4. Which begs the question of how much time is enough.
    When driving down the road we can ask how far before we have to stop for gas. To answer the question we look at the fuel gage and estimate how many miles we can get per gallon left.
    Economically speaking, the markets and prices are the fuel gage. Even with the spikes in commodity prices a few years ago we are still magnitudes below the cost of these materials cost just a few decades ago. There is enough gas in the ground to supply the world for many decades even with emerging nation growth. Most spikes come from inability to meet demand due to lack of production facilities and to political maneuvering.
    One thing is for certain, without a fuel gage we are driving blind.

  5. I meant more the threat of climate change, not peak oil.

  6. I see what you’re saying.
    Well, I’m not sure there is much agreement on how whether gradual reduction over a few decades is sufficient or if radical near term transformation is required.
    As accomplishing radical global change in a short term scenario is almost certainly impossible, IMO, I think it is more likely that gradual change with efforts toward adaptation are possible. I know some scientists are working processes to seed the upper atmosphere with matter that will reflect some of the sun and as a stop gap to by time as we work on CO2 solutions.
    And, as you know, I still have considerable reservations about the purported level of threat.

  7. ProfBob Avatar
    ProfBob

    I find in reading those sites that say that population problems are a myth that their evidence is very sparse and inconclusive. Recently I read Book 1 of the free e-book series “In Search of Utopia” (http://andgulliverreturns.info), it blasts their lack of evidence relative to their calling overpopulation a myth. The book, actually the last half of the book, takes on the skeptics in global warming, overpopulation, lack of fresh water, lack of food, and other areas where people deny the evidence. I strongly suggest that anyone wanting to see the whole picture read the book, at least the last half.

  8. The assumption made by many is that world population is growing out of control and that global collapse is just around the corner. The point being made here is that population growth is slowing rapidly and by mid-century we will see population decline.
    While some areas of the world are still under growth pressures, others have population decline problems. It appears likely that this will be a big problem around the world by century end. It is in that sense that population “growth” is not the problem it is advertised to be.

Leave a Reply to Michael W. KruseCancel reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading