#153 The Road to 7 Billion: Should We Limit Human Population?

Adventures in Sustainable Living Podcast

Episode 153

The Road to Seven Billion: Should We Limit Human Population? 

I bet you never really thought of an animal as being a consumer? And yet they are. They graze or hunt on a place, eat and consume what they need or what is available and then they move on. But the key word here is available resources because that is an important factor that keeps a given population in balance.  

It is no secret that humanity is consuming resources at a far greater rate than what can be naturally regenerated. It is also no secret that we are truly at a tipping point. Our population continues to grow at an unprecedented rate. But to keep things in balance there has to be an end point. So join me for E153 where I am going to discuss a very controversial topic about limiting the human population. 

Welcome back everyone to the Adventures in Sustainable Living podcast. This is your host Patrick and this is E153 which is called The Road to 7 Billion/Should We Limit Human Population? 

Now you must know that in this episode I am going to touch on a very sensitive subject. This is a controversial and highly opinionated topic that pushes the limit of impinging on people’s basic rights. But, I also think this is some thing we truly need to consider. 

But before we get to that let’s first start out with the good news story of the week, which come out of Norway.  

Good new story of the week

Norway Re-wilds Arctic Coal Mining Town in the Largest Operation of It’s Kind, Give New Hunting Ground for Polar Bears Hunting Ground for Polar Bears

In the largest project in its history, the Norwegian government just completed an enormous re-wilding project on the island of Svalbard. This island was the site of coal mining operations for over 100 years. At its peak, this industrial community had a power station, wharf, water supply and everything that was needed to house the 300 workers needed to run mining operations. 

The Norwegian parliament decided in 2017 to wind down operations in order to clear the area and return it to its natural state. The project was designated to remove all traces of human activity since mining began in 1910. The only thing to remain intact were cultural monuments and buildings from before 1946. 

The project had a budget of 2.5 billion Norwegian krone, which is approximately $230 million USD. However, it was completed for $83 million USD. 

Polar bears, deer, seabirds, as well as other wildlife are now moving back into the area. The completion of this project is a perfect example of a long-term and consistent Norwegian policy to preserve wilderness areas on Svalbard. The island now has 7 national parks and 23 nature reserves making it one of the most well preserved island ecosystems in the Arctic. 

The restoration of this ecosystem is a great example to the rest of the world of what is possible. If you want to read the original article I do have a link in the transcript of this episode. 

Go to the original article here.

Okay, now let’s move on to this weeks episode which is called The Road to 7 Billion/Should We Limit Human Population? 

Now I know this is going to be a very controversial, highly debated subject. But I think it is worth discussing because many experts believe that the human race, and our global community, is quickly approaching a tipping point. 

With all I have learned over the past couple of years of researching topics for this podcast I tend to agree. But I also truly believe that we are not past the point of no return. However, we are past the point of easy. That means if we are going to build a sustainable future we have some difficult decisions to make. 

At this point I want to do a very quick review of something I covered in E99 Earth Overshoot Day, which is a direct reference to our over consumption of resources. 

Now to reduce this concept to a personal level, you have to compare our consumption of resources to your monthly budget. The concept of living within a budget means that your monthly expenses stay with the confines of your monthly income. That is called living within your means.  If you cannot live within your means, you are living with a financial deficit every month. If you do this long enough you will go bankrupt. 

Very similar to that the Global Footprint Network compares a population’s demand for resources against what their ecosystem can supply. According to the Global Footprint Network, if a population’s demand for ecological assets exceeds their supply, they have to import goods and services because they have an ecological deficit. They also have to liquidate their assets, which means over fishing, harvesting timber at a rate that exceeds the forest’s ability to regenerate.  We also have to increase carbon emissions, we start to accumulate waste, and we have to find ways to maximize food production regardless of the affect on the environment. 

When this ecological deficit happens on a global level, there is no way to compensate for it since there are no net imports to our planet. And this is the focus of Earth Overshoot Day. It marks the date when humanity’s demand for resources and services in a given year exceeds what our planet can regenerate for that year. 

What we do know is that on a global scale we have been exceeding our ecological budget since the 1970s. The result of that is degradation of our ecosystems. This is evident through soil erosion, over grazing, deforestation, reduced productivity of crop lands, species extinction, depletion of fisheries, and global warming. 

We have gone from living within our means to living in a constant deficit. This is often seen as cultures begin to development, people have an increased standard of living, people buy more, use more, and demand more services. This is quite obvious if you look at the rise of the economy in any developed country. China is now a perfect example of this.

And as I always like to ask, how did we get here? Is it solely the result of population growth? Or is it the result of our over consumptive habits? Or is it both. 

Well, the time line of human population growth is as follows. Approximately 10,000 years ago the total global population is estimated to be somewhere between 1 million and 15 million people. By 1804 the United Nations estimated the population to be 1 billion. By 1927, our population was  2 billion. So it only took 123 years for the global population to double. Then in another 33 years we were at 3 billion in 1960, 4 billion in 1974, 5 billion in 1987, 6 billion in 1999, 8.5 billion in 2020 By 2050 global population is expected to be 8.9 billion.  

Now it is worth noting that many of the world’s most prominent scientist think that the carry capacity of the Earth is 9 to 10 billion people.  So the question is whether or not we should somehow place limits on the human population. Or is it solely a matter of numbers? 

So what exactly happens in the animal kingdom when population exceeds the carrying capacity of an ecosystem?  And just so we are clear, carry capacity simply means the maximum population size of a species that an environment can sustain indefinitely, given the food, habitat space, as well as other necessities available in the environment. 

When animal populations exceed the carrying capacity of their particular ecological niche, you will see malnutrition, dehydration, spread of disease, and death. If population continues to grow unchecked, there is environmental degradation, deforestation, soil erosion, and species extinction. 

It should therefore be no surprise that we see the same  exact thing with human overpopulation. You don’t have to be a math whizz to realize that more people means we use more resources and create more waste. It is now becoming painfully obvious that there are limits to essential global resources such as fresh water, forests, fisheries and fertile land. At our present rate of consumption, the rain forest will be gone by the end of this century and the entire planet with be devoid of trees in another 300 years. 

So that begs the question of how many people are too many? It may surprise you to know that this debate dates back hundreds of years. In 1679 the microbiologist Anton van Leeuwenhoek calculated that limit to be 13.4 billion. He based his estimate on the population density of his native Holland and the size of the county relative to the rest of the planet. In more modern times, such estimates are equally unscientific. Estimates range from one billion to one trillion. One thing is certain. As of October 2011 the seven billionth person was born and our population continues to grow at a rate of about 80 million people per year. So, how much is too much. In many ways, the answer comes back to resource consumption. 

It has long been known that people around the world consume resources unevenly. The average American consumes 3.3 times the subsistence level of food and 250 times the subsistence level of clean water. If everyone on the planet consumed resources like an American the carrying capacity of the planet may be as little as 2 billion. However, if everyone only consumed what they needed, the carry capacity would be much higher. 

Furthermore, the world’s richest 500 million people produce nearly 50% of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. The poorest 3 billion only produce 7 percent. The average American uses a full 88 kilograms of stuff everyday. We consume 25% of the world’s energy and we only make up 5% of the global population. Industrialized nations as a whole produce 222 million metric tons of food waste annually. And when our global population doubled  the economy grew by 15 times, cars by 16 times and fertilizer use by 6 times. So it is quite obvious that we are consuming more than we need. And there is no end in site as the rate of consumption is emulated by people around the globe. 

But we also have to look at another parameter regarding our resources. What if the Earth could hold a trillion people? What would our quality of life be like? Would we be scraping for every available bit of our allocated resources or would we still have the opportunity to lead an enjoyable life? 

So this brings us to the concept of ecological balance. This is defined as a state of dynamic equilibrium within a community of organisms in which genetic, species and ecosystem diversity remain relatively stable subject to gradual changes through natural succession. The most important concept here is that the ecosystem balance must be maintained. This of course resembles nothing like our human population. 

But, unnoticed by anyone our troubles started brewing in our early origins in a very subtle way. The word “consumer” has Latin origins from the word “consumere”, which means to destroy, wear away, to kill, extinguish, wear down, exhaust, devour, to take, use up, expend, swallow up, merge, waste or squander. Now this sounds a bit more like the humanity that I know. 

What we have to realize is that our unquenchable thirst for more stuff is an outdated model of economic success. We now see the global consequences of our unbridled consumption. Success can no longer be framed in terms of the more consumption the better. Our long-term future depends on finding ways to reduce our consumption of resources and maybe even limit our population growth. 

But that presents a challenge from the very start. No one likes being told what they can and cannot do. Stepping on your toes is one thing. Infringing on your basic right to start a family and how many children you want to have is a much different topic.  This seems to be the sacred cow of every culture and maybe every person on Earth. But I would suggest that we look past this sacred cow and be realistic. 

Increases in human population right along with increased economic activity directly correlate with increased carbon emissions. Scientific models have long proven that population growth is one of the most important drivers to emissions due to fossil fuel combustion. Furthermore, it has been repeatedly shown that limiting population growth is among the cheapest and most effective means of helping societies adapt to climate change. Yet we continue to throw money and technology at our problems instead of changing our behavior. 

But, let’s look at this from a little bit of a different perspective instead of getting uptight about infringement on our rights. We do know that the greatest population growth tends to be in poorer, less developed countries. That being said, I would contend that perhaps participation in modern economics is an easy fix to limiting our population growth. 

Journalist Fred Pearce said in his book The Coming Population Crash, which was published by Beacon Press in 2010, that increased opportunity has driven fertility declines in many countries of the world. So what this means is that if girls and women are given the opportunity to generate income and jobs, there is a rapid decline in fertility. He also notes that in many respects population growth is being diffused by women because they want to. 

Mr Pearce also notes it’s not just economic opportunity. Education also plays a role. Almost universally women with a higher education have fewer children. And the great part is that it is estimated that it would cost only $70 billion USD to provide universal education to every young person on the planet right now.  That may sound like a lot but to bring that into perspective, in 2022 the US government spent on average almost $17.2 billion dollars a day. 

Warnings about human over population date back as early as 1798. British economist Thomas Malthusian in his Essay on the Principle of Population warned against the consequences of simultaneous exponential growth of the population and the over use of resources. 

Concerns at that time were centered mainly around the depletion of natural resources. By the 1970’s we focused our attention on pollution. But in today’s world we tend to focus on our environmental impact based on greenhouse gas emissions. In 2022 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that “per capita gross domestic product and population growth have remained the main drivers of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion over the past decade.”

Now that we are faced with the reality of global climate change and its devastating effects, climate ethicists have joined the voices of many other scientists who support addressing limits to population growth. There appears to be a strong consensus supporting the value of choice-enhancing policies that reduce human fertility such as universal access to modern contraception and providing equal rights and opportunities for women. Governments can also offer incentives for having smaller families. 

That being said, the Chinese government has been strongly criticizes for mandating limitations on the number of children per family. I don’t think anyone would like the government telling them how many children they can and cannot have. But to quote the words of philosopher Colin Hickey “Climate change is among the most significant moral problems contemporary societies face, in terms of its urgency, global expanse, and the magnitude of its attending harms,” and that “population plays an important role in determining just how bad climate change will be.  

There is no denying that our rapid development has had some significant impacts on the planet. Over population in both humans and animals has some negative repercussions. In animals it results in habitat loss, hunger, and disease perhaps resulting in extinction. In humans it results in hunger, poverty, war, health issues, and various other crisis. 

Furthermore our inefficient use of our resources and our waste creation is worsened by the fact that the Earth has a limited supply of resources to sustain life. This implies that there are boundaries to how much each person can consume. 

And while it appears that limiting population growth is part of the answer in our warming world, it remains to be seen whether or not our societies can manage to apply those answers in a just and fair manner and with social integrity.  

Well folks that’s about it for this week. I know this is a very controversial topic. But I also know that it is something we must consider. I truly believe that humanity is not past the point of no return. But I also believe that we are past the point of easy. We are going to have to make some tough choices and perhaps limits to our population is just one of those.

It is quite obvious that we are now operating completely outside of any sort of ecological balance. And truly if we are all going to make a difference we are going to have to change how we live and the day-to-day choices that we make. And just maybe we need to emulate the Norwegian government a little bit and make the effort to restore the environment to a natural state and starting tipping our situation back toward some sort of balance. And if limiting our population growth is what we have to do then there are ways that can be done in a just and fair manner. The question is whether or not we can manage to pull it off with some sort of social integrity. 

Now I want to close this episode with a quote form Mahatma Ghandi. He said, “The world has enough for everyone’s need, but not enough for everyone’s greed.” 

So that should give you something to think about until next week when I hope you will join me again. Until then, always remember to live sustainably because this is how we build a better future.