Improving the availability and quality of family planning services in developing countries will deliver many benefits, and I support it. But it’s misleading to imply that this alone is enough to solve any pressures arising from population growth.

This article says that the UN’s higher fertility estimates are “largely because many governments are no longer making family planning a high priority.” I saw no reference to this in the actual UN report – can someone point me to the page number, or is this the author’s interpretation?

If unplanned pregnancies are about the same in developed and developing countries, doesn’t this mean that making better family planning available will not make a large difference to unwanted pregnancies, much less reduce them to zero.

The author says, “The demographers of the United Nations seem not to be on speaking terms with their scientific colleagues who study climate change and the planet's ecosystems and natural resources.” If this is true, and the demographers are wrong, then the problem solves itself. The increase in life expectancy that the demographers assume will not materialise, and in combination with the projected slowing birth rates, population growth will be slower than the projections suggest.

Atman is right – there is an internal inconsistency in the article’s argument.

Curmudgeon
The projections still suggest declining fertility in developing countries, but the decline is slower and from a higher base:

“… in the less developed regions as a whole [fertility] is expected to drop from 2.69 children per woman in 2005-2010 to 2.29 in 2045-2050 and to 1.99 in 2095-2100.”

So global population sill levels out, but a bit later and at higher levels than previously projected.

Peter Strachan you stated "The evidence suggest that we can. In about 42 countries, the human population is stable or declining. Fertility rates of well below Australia's 1.9 are common, so with its intellect, this species Homo Sapiens, is capable of choosing to live within its limits."

Sound's great, the problem for the broader species is we are not living within the limits.

I could list just too many issues that are proof humans are wreaking havoc on the planet, but what's the point, as I stated earlier we are an innate being and as such we will keep on doing what we do.

End result, obvious.

As to those that espouse technology as the solution, keep on dreaming, it just won't happen.

Geoff of Perth, you are absolutely correct. Population growth is just one of the pieces in the consumption jigsaw. Population stabilisation or even decline is by no means a silver bullet, nor as you intimate, is technological advance.

The world is already seeing the effects of limits to growth and scarcity driving conflict. Egypt is battling to secure dwindling water supplies and it imports 50% of its food. Does that situation make conflict more or less likely? Syria experienced 2 or 3 years of severe drought prior to the current turmoil which has so far led to the deaths of over 100,000 people. Was that food scarcity the trigger for dissent? (I was there 5 years ago and fertility rates in the poor north were over 5!)

The other major factor is affluence, or the propensity to consume which as we see, despite the best efforts of conservationists, continues to rise.

My point is that continued population expansion makes any attempt to reverse the environmental overshoot caused by over-consumption that has already occurred, virtually impossible. Any advances brought on by technology or a reduction in affluence are quickly swallowed up by more hungry mouths.

Its a multi-pronged, complex problem. I am not prepared to sit by, sniping from the sidelines and watch it happen, even if it seems to be inevitable. This is why I am standing for the WA Senate for the Stable Population Party (www.populatonparty.org.au)to create awareness & give people who are concerned about environmental overshoot, caused by population growth and over-consumption, to show their concern and vote for policies designed to avoid the worst impacts of population growth.

*Humans are a successful species which will continue to increase in numbers for the forseeable future, regardless of what environmentalists say.*

Well yes, its happening as Darwin predicted it does, in his "Origin of Species". When the resources do run out, the crash is usually swift, messy and rather painful to all concerned. Given that we now operate globally, it will probably be global or large parts of it. Just a shame that we have to do it the hard way and wreck large parts of the planet in the process. Clearly we aren't smart enough as a species, to go against nature. Silly things like religion get in the way.

Peter Strachan
thanks .. I'm sure what you say is correct and the rate of increase has retreated to 1 per cent. On present trends they expect the world's population to peak some time later this century.

The problem with trying to construct a disaster scenario out of this is that most of the indicators of hunger and poverty have reversed in recent years, and they have reversed largely because countries like China and India have dumped much of the old socialist doctrines. Before that surge which boosted food prices, there was no indication that food production was outrunning production.

If you want to look at a scenario which may be close to reality check out this report by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics and Science.. http://www.daff.gov.au/abares/publications_remote_content/publication_topics/agricultural

This gives food prices out to 2050 and estimates that they may rise by 11 per cent or so (presumably in real terms). That's serious enough but, of course, not the disaster projected by some..

Curmudgeon,
ABARES has a terrible record for predictions. A former head of the organisation predicted that if the price of eggs rose sufficiently, even the roosters would begin to lay! Strangely, six months latter they let him go!

Just three life spans ago there were less than 1 billion people on the planet and now there are 7.1 billion with more than 1 billion starving. That's more people with not enough food than were alive in total just 212 years ago. On top of that, there are another 1.2 billion living on less than $2 per day.

Cornucopian views on the ability to feed +7 billion will not prove helpful over the medium term. You can map the occurrence of food riots v.s. the price of food, which has seen a couple of large spikes since 2005. Currently food prices have fallen, as good seasons replenish stocks and weak economic conditions reduce demand (yes poor hungry people eat less when they are even poorer - see Greece).

The world's population will certainly peak. My concern is that it will come about because of a spike in deaths and not a moderation in births. As humans, we should be aiming to avoid that spike in deaths, predicted by the Limits to Growth in 1972 and updates more recently.

http://www.mnforsustain.org/meadows_limits_to_growth_30_year_update_2004.htm