It goes without question that our population has skyrocketed in the last two centuries. It took humans over 2 million years to reach 1 billion but only 200 more to reach 7 billion. Our population today tops 7 billion people and never before has such a large population existed on earth. It has been estimated that in 2040-2050, the world population will be about 8 to 10.5 billion and by this time, natural resources may perish. In contrast, the UN has forecast that the population will never reach 12 billion. These numbers make us contemplate our future: do we perish due to overpopulation or is this population explosion temporary?
One of the earliest theories proposed is by Thomas Malthus. His essay on population says that overpopulation is the root of many problems but is also a mathematical inevitability. It was observed that while resources grow arithmetically (i.e., grow a specific amount linearly), population growth is exponential. Hence, the human population left unchecked would eventually be more than what can be supported by the food available through agriculture. If it is true that ultimately humans will outgrow the capacity of ecosystems to sustain us, a more pressing concern for us is the capacity of the Earth to foster such a large and explosive population.
However, we find that Malthus’ predictions done in 1798 never came true. According to him, humans should’ve faced unavoidable famines, food shortages, and a subsistence standard of living. On the contrary, the human population 200 years later is much larger and much better off in terms of food availability per person and the standard of living of an average person. There hasn’t been a substantial increase in famines. There have been famines, but it has more to do with the political or local conditions rather than the earth’s capacity to sustain these people. Starvation is rarely a widespread concern today. What Thomas Malthus couldn’t predict was the sudden advent and abundance of pesticides or other technological advances we were going to experience.
Does this prove Malthus wrong? We have indeed been able to avoid starvation through technological advancement but with serious repercussions on the environment. Is technological innovation the answer to our oncoming catastrophe by overpopulation or has it merely overstayed it? An active debate is going on today between what was referred to as “apocalyptics” and “cornucopian”.
Apocalyptics or more generally, Neo Malthusians believe that technological intervention has merely delayed Malthus’ prediction and is only temporary as very soon we will run out of resources to innovate technology. Cornucopia, on the other hand, believes that continued progression in humankind can simply be met with continued advances in technology. Their fundamental belief is that there is enough on this earth to provide for the population of the world. To sum up, on the one hand, are optimists and on the other hand, those who see the increase in population in a pessimistic manner.
The World population has increased fourfold in the last century. So, what do we expect in the next century? To understand a pattern of population growth, a demographic transition theory has been propounded. This refers to a shift from high birth rates and high infant death rates to low birth rates and low death rates unfolding in four stages. This shift has already occurred in industrialized countries along with other countries catching up fast. This 4 step process is something the whole world is going through right now.
Let us take the example of 18th century Europe when the world was in the first stage of this transition. Europe was suffering from poor sanitation, poor living conditions, poor diets, and high infant mortality rates. In such a situation, the population hardly grew. But, upon the arrival of the Industrial Revolution, living conditions improved due to the advancement of mass-produced manufactured goods, transportation, medicine, and communication. This economic progress raised the standards of living of the poor population. This started the second stage of transition: a population explosion. Death rates dropped and the population of the UK doubled between 1750 and 1850. The reason for families to have lots of children was because only a few of them were likely to survive earlier. Since this had changed, a third stage started with a slowdown in the population growth as fewer babies were conceived. This eventually led to a balance between birth and death rates and Britain reached the fourth stage of the demographic transition upon stabilization.
This isn’t true only for the western countries; many of the world’s countries have made it to the fourth stage. Developed countries took about 80 years to reduce fertility from more than 6 children to 3 children on average but developing countries are catching up fast. For example, in Bangladesh in 1971, an average woman had 7 kids but a quarter of them would die before the age of 5 but in 2015, the mortality rate had decreased to 3.5 percent and on average a woman would have 2.2 kids.
If this scenario is true, why is the human population growing so fast? We need to look at the children born around the population explosion of the 1970s and 80s who are having children themselves now. This has led to a spike in the overall population but they are having fewer children on average than their parents were. Upon a further decline in fertility, the rate of population growth will slow down further. For this to work out, programs that help lower child mortality like the MDG 4: reduce child mortality by WHO and help develop poor nations need to be given utmost importance. Perhaps this is a time for a bit of optimism as the percentage of people living in extreme poverty has never been as low as it is today. With the increase in the development level, there will be an increase in the number of highly educated people and our population will help in the advancement of our species. The future of global population growth is not apocalyptic but a promise for an end to population growth.