Population growth - at last!

[Rum]

From the BBC at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_ ... 578484.stm


Global population study launched by Royal Society

The UK's Royal Society is launching a major study into human population growth and how it may affect social and economic development in coming decades.

The world's population has risen from two billion in 1930 to 6.8 billion now, with nine billion projected by 2050.

The society acknowledges it is delving into a hugely controversial area, but says a comprehensive and scientific review of the evidence is needed.

It is led by Nobel laureate Sir John Sulston of Human Genome Project fame. It is likely to have a greater impact on the future of humanity than some of the other issues we talk a lot about

Jonathon Porritt Forum for the Future Earth is too crowded for Utopia

"This is a topic that has gone to and fro in the last few decades, and appears to be moving back up the political agenda now," he told BBC News.

"So it seems a good moment for the Royal Society to launch a study that looks objectively at the scientific basis for changes in population, for the different regional and cultural factors that may affect that, and at the effects that population changes will have on our future in term of sustainable development."

The burgeoning human population is acknowledged as one of the underlying causes of environmental issues such as climate change, deforestation, depletion of water resources and loss of biodiversity.

The working group includes experts on the environment, agriculture, economics, law and theology drawn from a mix of rich and poor countries including the UK, China, Brazil and the US.
Green growth

In the 1970s, with disastrous food shortages routine in regions of Asia and Africa, the world's apparently dwindling capacity to feed its rapidly growing population was an issue high on the political agenda.

New crops developed during the Green Revolution and other advances in agriculture, combined with economic progress, seemed to allay these fears in subsequent decades.

In addition, some people in developing countries argued that western nations raised the issue as a means of distracting attention from the rising and unsustainable consumption in the west.
Deforested Kalimantan Population growth is an often unspoken driver of trends such as deforestation

Recently, however, population has started to re-emerge as an issue of discussion among people working on environment and development issues.

High-profile champions such as Sir David Attenborough have spoken of its importance and the threats it may pose.

However, some economists and policymakers consider population growth a good thing, as it produces a swelling workforce capable of producing more goods and continued economic growth.

Jonathon Porritt, founder and director of the UK think tank Forum for the Future and a member of the Royal Society's working group, suggested the review could shed some objective light on the issues under dispute.

"What it can do is shed some light on the different interpretations that people draw from the underlying trends," he said.

"Why do some people say it doesn't matter and is all welcome, while others such as me say it is likely to have a greater impact on the future of humanity than some of the other issues we are talking a lot about?"

Policymakers needed such objective studies, he said, in order to make effective choices - for example, deciding whether and how to support family planning policies in the developing world.

The Royal Society's study is launched on World Population Day, and is expected to conclude in early 2012.

[Farsight]

Good stuff. Overpopulation has been the "elephant in the room" issue that has not received adequate attention. Various individuals have offered their own take on the situaiton, suc as this: http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Population.html. IMHO it's time we faced up to it.

[Azathoth]

There will be a good virulent plague sooner or later to sort things out.

[Farsight]

That's actually a far bigger risk than climate change, which IMHO gets more attention than it deserves.

[Faithfree]

That's actually a far bigger risk than climate change, which IMHO gets more attention than it deserves.

The anthropogenic component of climate change is a symptom of human population, so it's really the same problem.

[Farsight]

It just isn't the same problem Faithfree. Pandemic is in a different league. With something like bird flu, mortality rates have been as high as 81%. Have a look at this: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/118187.php. I find the prospect of some new influenza variant a lot more scarey than climate change. Three-quarters of the people around you or me could be dead in a week, and you or I could be one of them. Hence whilst I'm no fan of the previous UK government, I get hacked off when they get criticised for overreacting to last year's swine flu.

But hey, look on the bright side (and at this point the cynic in me comes to the fore). It'll fix AGW at a stroke.

[Feck]

Good stuff. Overpopulation has been the "elephant in the room" issue that has not received adequate attention. Various individuals have offered their own take on the situaiton, suc as this: http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Population.html. IMHO it's time we faced up to it.

I did mention the fact that recycling your tea-bags and growing rhubarb in your earwax wasn't going to 'save'the planet if you keep breeding in another thread ,but strangely my opinion wasn't well received .

[nellikin]

That's actually a far bigger risk than climate change, which IMHO gets more attention than it deserves.

The anthropogenic component of climate change is a symptom of human population, so it's really the same problem.

It's not really the same problem, though they are linked. Greenhouse gas emissions started to be significantly emitted with the start of the industrial revolution. Post WWII when cars, fridges and washing machines became a part of life for many people in the western world, coinciding more or less with the automation of many industrial processes and production lines. The population of the world was around 2 billion at this time. At around the same time, demographic transitions in western societies meant that the population of the industrialised world grew, but not keeping pace with the populations of the non-industrialised and industrialising world. Yet the vast majority of emissions have come from us in the west. These days, with a heavily industrialised China, emissions there are enormous too, but what has already been emitted mainly came from us, much of it unlinked to population growth in non-industrial nations. If people in the underdeveloped world want to have their fair share of the luxuries of modern life, it is possible that this could be achieved without huge carbon emissions, as long as the relevant technologies (which for energy productino already exist) are funded and implemented. Politically, this isn't happening. As to the extent of current climate change, we already have implementable strategies for stopping it. Currently they aren't regarded as feasible because established industry and business heavyweights would go broke if we did. Ironically, their implementation would produce economic growth, as new renewable industries evolve. Politics are what's getting in the way of climate change...

Population growth is linked with sustainability. Sustainability does not equal climate change, though these days it is often reported as such - sustainability is intricately more complex. The earth only has limited resources. Recycling is possible for many, but once again economics limits viability. Still, that's only a matter of money - not processes (though we're losing a lot of resources to the ocean by dumping them there, when one day they will be of value, same goes for landfill). Then there are resources that aren't renewable. Land is a major one - we can't create more space, not matter how hard we try (except maybe on a minute scale, which won't help us with overcrowding). Water, although renewable, is poorly distributed, so without unlimited energy supplies (which could be available...) water is essentially a limited resource. And probably most importantly is soil (aha - my topic!).

Soil takes thousands of years to develop and become fertile, yet we can destroy fertile land in just a few years. This happens via land-use change (e.g. mining, industrialisation, urbanisation) and poor land-management leading to erosion of soil by wind and water. Loss of soil fertility has always been a major threat to agriculture. However, because of the invention of the Haber-Bosch-Process for making inorganic nitrates out of atmospheric nitrogen and the discovery of phosphate-rich minerals which are mined to produce super-phosphates, agricultural productivity has grown faster than loss of soil fertility in the past 60 years or so. Unfortunately, phosphates cannot be produced - they must be mined, and the worlds supplies are dwindling fast. I've heard one prediction that within 20 years, supplies will be gone. This will mean the end of agriculture as we know it - phosphate is a vital plant nutrient, and along with nitrogen, often the limiting factor in natural and agricultural systems. With an ever growing population, ever more fertilisers are required to produce ever more food. Due to the loss of soil world-wide, the available agricutural land has to become more productive to sustain the world's current population, and ever more productive to sustain a few population of 9-14 billion. I suspect this is not possible. Even with genetic modification of plants, lack of fertilisers will mean a breakdown in productivity, sending us back to pre-agricultural revolution levels, and the ability to sustain less people than there are currently on earth...

[FBM]

There will be a good virulent plague sooner or later to sort things out.

That, along with climate change itself.

Good stuff. Overpopulation has been the "elephant in the room" issue that has not received adequate attention. Various individuals have offered their own take on the situaiton, suc as this: http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Population.html. IMHO it's time we faced up to it.

I did mention the fact that recycling your tea-bags and growing rhubarb in your earwax wasn't going to 'save'the planet if you keep breeding in another thread ,but strangely my opinion wasn't well received .

I'm with you there, bub.