November 3, 2011--Malthus
There is a controversy raging, or at least agitating population specialists.
According to United Nation's demographers, the earth's population earlier this week reached 7.0 billion. But the United States Census Bureau claims that their population clock will not hit 7.0 billion for another four months. This disagreement is because of the way the two agencies estimate the growth in the number of people who live on earth. And the margin of error.
Why these different numbers?
The two agencies begin with data from 228 countries and non-national entities and then they project birth and death rates (the former minus the latter) and attempt to calculate migration and refugee patterns. So, for example, if Mexico says its population was x million in 2010 and during 2011 y Mexicans migrated to the United States and z returned to Mexico because they can't find work or are intimidation by immigration authorities, all of this has to be included in the estimate.
Thus, if there is a worldwide margin of error of only 1 percent, considering the world's total population, this means that one or the other bottom line estimate can vary by as much as 30 million. More than the population of Saudi Arabia.
Specifically, the Census Bureau's global population clock projects that 255 people are born every minute (this adds up to 367,000 a day) while 106 die (153,000 each day) and at that rate the earth's human population grows by about 78.5 million a year, more than the entire population of England or France.
In other words, we're talking very big numbers either according the the U.N. (which sees things moving along faster) or the United States.
While the experts poke at each other by touting the strengths of their models (and the weaknesses of their rival's), as indicated, the world's population is adding the equivalent of another France or England each year. Nonetheless we have either reached a global population of 7.0 billion already or are about to. And we will add another billion, reaching 8.0 billion by either 2026 (the U.S. estimate) or 2025 (according to the U.N.). This is only 15 or 14 years from now.
What is insufficiently addressed in this back and forth about the differing estimates (see linked New York Times article as an example) are the consequences of this acceleration in population growth. Simply put, considering the globe's resources and the affects of such a huge population on the environment, this is unsustainable and ultimately disasterous.
When projections of this kind were first articulated--most famously by Thomas Malthus toward the end of the 18th century--they were largely ignored and when confronted poo-pooed.
It was blithely claimed that progress in agriculture, technology, and science would overcome all population challenges. Our resources were seen to be infinite and our ability to solve all problems was proof that there was nothing to be concerned about. If all else failed, epidemics and starvation brought about by droughts would periodically trim the population. At worst, this was Nature's way. Cruel to be sure, but efficient.
But Malthus was not convinced. In 1798, in An Essay On the Principle of Population, he wrote:
More than 200 years ago he was right but ignored. And so now we are headed toward a global population of 8.0 billion. It's time to trot Malthus out again and, if we're smart, this time pay heed.
According to United Nation's demographers, the earth's population earlier this week reached 7.0 billion. But the United States Census Bureau claims that their population clock will not hit 7.0 billion for another four months. This disagreement is because of the way the two agencies estimate the growth in the number of people who live on earth. And the margin of error.
Why these different numbers?
The two agencies begin with data from 228 countries and non-national entities and then they project birth and death rates (the former minus the latter) and attempt to calculate migration and refugee patterns. So, for example, if Mexico says its population was x million in 2010 and during 2011 y Mexicans migrated to the United States and z returned to Mexico because they can't find work or are intimidation by immigration authorities, all of this has to be included in the estimate.
Thus, if there is a worldwide margin of error of only 1 percent, considering the world's total population, this means that one or the other bottom line estimate can vary by as much as 30 million. More than the population of Saudi Arabia.
Specifically, the Census Bureau's global population clock projects that 255 people are born every minute (this adds up to 367,000 a day) while 106 die (153,000 each day) and at that rate the earth's human population grows by about 78.5 million a year, more than the entire population of England or France.
In other words, we're talking very big numbers either according the the U.N. (which sees things moving along faster) or the United States.
While the experts poke at each other by touting the strengths of their models (and the weaknesses of their rival's), as indicated, the world's population is adding the equivalent of another France or England each year. Nonetheless we have either reached a global population of 7.0 billion already or are about to. And we will add another billion, reaching 8.0 billion by either 2026 (the U.S. estimate) or 2025 (according to the U.N.). This is only 15 or 14 years from now.
What is insufficiently addressed in this back and forth about the differing estimates (see linked New York Times article as an example) are the consequences of this acceleration in population growth. Simply put, considering the globe's resources and the affects of such a huge population on the environment, this is unsustainable and ultimately disasterous.
When projections of this kind were first articulated--most famously by Thomas Malthus toward the end of the 18th century--they were largely ignored and when confronted poo-pooed.
It was blithely claimed that progress in agriculture, technology, and science would overcome all population challenges. Our resources were seen to be infinite and our ability to solve all problems was proof that there was nothing to be concerned about. If all else failed, epidemics and starvation brought about by droughts would periodically trim the population. At worst, this was Nature's way. Cruel to be sure, but efficient.
But Malthus was not convinced. In 1798, in An Essay On the Principle of Population, he wrote:
"The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man."
More than 200 years ago he was right but ignored. And so now we are headed toward a global population of 8.0 billion. It's time to trot Malthus out again and, if we're smart, this time pay heed.
posted by Steven Zwerling at
5:04 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home