Archive for the 'Population' Category

Essay distributed to two large groups of experts

Tuesday, November 14th, 2017

I am happy that an essay I wrote was distributed by the IUSSP (International Union for the Scientific Study of Population). It was then picked up and redistributed to the PERN (Population-Environment Research Network). Through the miracle of digital communications several thousand people have been able to read this–without a single piece of paper being used!

The essay was written in response to one that was published by IUSSP and written by a wonderful person, David Lam. David is optimistic about the future of the planet to support 4 billion more people. I am concerned that we have already caused so much damage and believe that the degradation will worsen unless we slow our population growth rate, and decrease our consumption. Dr. Lam’s essay is available at: http://www.niussp.org/article/the-worlds-next-4-billion-people-will-differ-from-the-previous-4-billion/

My essay is below, somewhat shortened by excluding information about a wager that Dr. Lam has with another friend, Stan Becker. The complete essay is available at: http://www.niussp.org/article/the-world-in-which-the-next-4-billion-people-will-live/

The world in which the next 4 billion people will live

I was pleased to read Professor David Lam’s N-IUSSP essay “The world’s next 4 billion people will differ from the previous 4 billion” (Lam 2017). He outlines past, present and projected future population growth. He points out that much of the population growth will occur in Africa, and that a higher proportion will be older, if current trends continue. He also wonders “…whether the world can absorb another 4 billion people.”

As a demographer, it is appropriate that Lam should focus on humans. However, I fear that he has largely ignored the environment in which we live when he wrote this essay. I have difficulty accepting his statement: “An important source of optimism about the world’s ability to support an additional 4 billion people is the success in supporting the previous 4 billion.” My concern is that the past 4 billion have degraded natural world upon which we depend, and that this degradation will make the world much less welcoming to the next 4 billion.

A changing world (not always for the better)

I agree that the next 4 billion people will differ from the previous 4 billion as professor Lam explains, but so will the world in which those people live. Dr. Norman Borlaug understood this when he stated, in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech of 1970: “The green revolution has won a temporary success in man’s war against hunger and deprivation; it has given man a breathing space. If fully implemented, the revolution can provide sufficient food for sustenance during the next three decades. But the frightening power of human reproduction must also be curbed; otherwise the success of the green revolution will be ephemeral only. Most people still fail to comprehend the magnitude and menace of the ‘Population Monster’. …Since man is potentially a rational being, however, I am confident that within the next two decades he will recognize the self-destructive course he steers along the road of irresponsible population growth….”

Borlaug’s three decades have passed and we have seen the side effects of the “green revolution”—decreasing soil quality, decreasing forest coverage, increasing pollution (including huge anoxic ocean dead zones), rapid loss of species and, perhaps worst of all, climate change. The “green revolution” has allowed us to feed more people so that, finally, fewer people go to bed hungry. However, more food has made it possible for our human population to grow at a faster rate, despite monumental increases in reproductive health and family planning.

How can we quantify human impact?

The formula popularized by Ehrlich and Holdren (1974) gives an idea of our human impact on the earth: I = P x A x T (I = impact; P = population; A = affluence (or consumption); T = technology). Let’s look at these factors in the opposite order. We are starting to develop technology to decrease our impact, such as solar panels and more efficient vehicles, but the benefit so far from new technology is relatively small. As for the A factor, affluence, I have met very few people who actually wish to decrease their consumption. There is too much social pressure for people to increase their consumption. Furthermore, leading an affluent life is more comfortable so it has become the goal of billions of people.

Slowing population growth, on the other hand, is the “low hanging fruit” to reduce human impact P. An estimated 225 million women worldwide wish to avoid pregnancy but are not using effective contraception (Singh et al. 2014). Moreover, having fewer offspring has been shown to be the most effective way of reducing impact, using greenhouse gas emissions as a measure of impact (Murtaugh & Schlax 2009).

How can we determine to what extent human activities are degrading our planet? The best measure of planetary sustainability is the Ecological Footprint. This shows that humans are already overtaxing the planet. Indeed, it would take 1.6 planets Earth to support our human population sustainably the way we are currently living (Figure 1). Unfortunately, there is only one Earth.Schermata 2017-11-12 alle 15.11.12

This degradation of our life support system will become a grave problem as the next 4 billion people are added. There will be more people to share the resources and more people to contaminate the world with their waste products. The most visible of the latter is the climate change caused by carbon dioxide from our use of fossil fuels, but there are many other examples. Already food production systems are stretched to keep up with the addition of about 80 million people each year. With global warming, the outlook for increases in food production in some African states is poor. Feeding even 9 billion by midcentury will clearly be a major challenge.

We have been fortunate to live in this era, but I fear that the next 4 billion people will live in a world that is very different, and not so enjoyable. Current inhabitants must think more about preserving the earth for future generations.

REFERENCES:

Ehrlich P.R., Holdren J.P. 1971. Impact of Population Growth. Science 171 (3977): 1212–1217. doi:10.1126/science.171.3977.1212

Lam D. 2011. How the World Survived the Population Bomb: Lessons From 50 Years of Extraordinary Demographic History. Demography, 48(4): 1231-1262.

Lam D. 2017.  The world’s next 4 billion people will differ from the previous 4 billion. (N-IUSSP July 24, 2017)

Murtaugh P.A., Schlax M.G. 2009. Reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals. Global Environmental Change 19: 14–20.

Singh S., Darroch J.E., Ashford L.S. 2014. Adding It Up: The Costs and Benefits of Investing in Sexual and Reproductive Health. New York: Guttmacher Institute.

Becker S. 2013. Has the World Really Survived the Population Bomb? Demography. 50(6): 2173-2181.

Sources:

Figure 1Global Footprint Network, 2017.

Look Where We Need Family Planning the Most

Thursday, April 27th, 2017

“As we crawled through the city, we encountered a crowded slum area. The temperature was well over 100, and the air was a haze of dust and smoke. The streets seemed alive with people. People eating, people washing, people sleeping. People visiting, arguing, and screaming. People thrusting their hands through the taxi window, begging. People defecating and urinating. People clinging to buses. People herding animals. People, people, people, people.”   Ann and Paul Ehrlich in Population Bomb, 1968

Impact = Population x Affluence (consumption) x Technology

                                                Ehrlich and Holdren, 1971

 

Close your eyes for a moment and conjure up an image of overpopulation. Did you picture hundreds of people hanging off a train in India? or dark-skinned crowds in a street in a poor country?

Yes, family planning is important in those scenarios. Voluntary access to modern contraception is important for humanitarian reasons in the global south. You probably know the litany of its benefits: decreased maternal mortality, healthier children, economic savings, progress in standard of living and education, local environmental protection.

However, the need for effective, universal access to family planning and to safe, legal abortion is much more important in rich countries in the global north. This is because of the issue of consumption.

What! you might be asking. The average woman in many African countries has 5 or more children. Niger tops the list; the total fertility rate there is over 7! Surely the population explosion there must be causing problems. Yes, Niger is one of the lowest ranked countries in the UN’s Human Development Index. Repeated drought has caused famine; population pressure and overgrazing cause environmental degradation.

Let’s compare two countries in the Western Hemisphere—the USA and Haiti. They are, respectively, one of the richest and one of the poorest in the world. The carbon footprint of an average person in the USA is about 20 tons of CO2 per year, while that of a Haitian is 0.2 tons—one hundredth of ours! Thus it would take a hundred Haitians to equal the climate damage done by one of us.

Another way to compare the impact of a single person in the two countries is with Ecological Footprint. The ratio between the two countries is 16 to 1. Thus 16 kids of a really large Haitian family would have the same impact of a single-child family in the USA. I have to admit that there are several problems with this comparison: it doesn’t include the two parents, the average Haitian family size is just a little over 3 so I doubt that there are many as large as 16. The legacy of a large family grows over generations. In Niger, if each generation has 7 children, the number of grandchildren would be 49!

The two measures of impact are different. The carbon footprint is global, since carbon emissions into the atmosphere spread over the whole planet. The Ecological Footprint includes carbon emissions, but it also includes effects that are localized, such as damage to the local environment. In any case, the impact of a person in the USA is much greater than one in Haiti or Niger, and it is spread over the planet.

There is good news! The unintended pregnancy rate (this includes mistimed and unwanted pregnancies) has dropped significantly in the USA. Whereas this rate has hovered at about 50% for years, the latest information is that it has dropped to 45%. The news is especially good for young women, when an unintended pregnancy can be devastating. This decrease is due to increasing use of effective contraception. It is very concerning that the new administration threatens women’s reproductive health and may make contraception and abortion services either unaffordable or totally unavailable.© Richard Grossman MD, 2017

Let Her Decide

Monday, February 27th, 2017

          “Father slapped his hand on the table. ‘If Sarah was a boy, she would be the greatest jurist in South Carolina!’” This quote is from Sue Monk Kidd’s popular novel, The Invention of Wings. It is inspired by Sarah and Angelina Grimké, whose family were slaveholders in the first half of the 19th century. These sisters moved from South Carolina to Philadelphia where they joined the abolition movement and the Religious Society of Friends. They were condemned because Quakers didn’t allow women to lecture in public at that time. Speaking as a Quaker, I am pleased that one of our religion’s current core beliefs is equality, including equal status of men and women.

In Nobel Prize winner Orhan Pamuk’s A Strangeness in My Mind, one of the characters waited tables at the Bounty Restaurant in Istanbul, Turkey. A reflection of the status of women in 1984 is that the owner’s idea of success “…was for a woman to come in with a group of men and be able to have a pleasant evening… without being subjected to innuendo and arguments all night, and to enjoy herself enough to come again, though in all the Bounty Restaurant’s checkered history, this had sadly never happened.”

The status of women in many countries is terrible, as it was in the early history of the USA. Fortunately women’s status is slowly improving globally, but there have been setbacks. Some of the worst have to do with access to reproductive health. While the science of birth control and abortion has improved, restrictions have made it more difficult and more expensive for women to receive the services they desire.

First came the Helms Amendment in 1973, the year that abortion was legalized in the USA. Appended to the Foreign Assistance Act, this amendment prevents federal money from being used abroad to provide abortions or even information about abortion.

The Helms Amendment kills women. It is estimated that 11,000 women die annually because they do not have access to safe abortions. Each year there are 20 million unsafe abortions world wide, mainly in poorer countries, that kill 47,000 women. Remember that the abortion rate is paradoxically higher where it is illegal! Sadly, many of these women are mothers of large families. Many lives could be saved if the USA would encourage safe abortion services.

Passed 3 years later, the Hyde Amendment prohibits federal Medicaid funding for abortions in the USA. There are three exceptions to this, fortunately—for cases of rape or incest, or if the pregnancy presents a risk to the woman’s life. Some states use non-federal funds to pay for abortions; New Mexico does, but Colorado does not. Both of these amendments regrettably target the poorest of women, especially women in rural areas with limited access to health care.

Nicknamed the “Global Gag Rule”, the Mexico City policy was announced in 1984. Many overseas organizations get their funding from multiple sources, including from the federal government. This Rule prohibits any recipient of federal funds from any counseling or provision of abortion services—even if that funding comes from another source. The Gag Rule is a political football. Started by Reagan, every Democratic president since has rescinded it, but every Republican, including most recently Trump, has reinstated it in even more restrictive form.

138 organizations have signed a statement opposing the Global Gag Rule. What can we as individuals do? Population Connection (formerly “ZPG”) started a campaign supporting Congress’s move to block the Rule permanently. 46 senators have co-sponsored Senate Bill 210, the Global Health, Empowerment and Rights (HER) Act. In the House, a companion bill H.R. 671 has support from 140 Representatives. Go to http://www.populationconnectionaction.org/fight4her/ for more information

A new organization was formed in reaction to the reinstatement of the Global Gag Rule. Lilianne Ploumen, a social activist and minister in the Dutch cabinet, started “She Decides – Global Fundraising Initiative”. The Dutch government announced that it will contribute 10 million Euros to this initiative to help replace the funding the Gag Rule has taken away—and it has been joined by support from 7 other governments. There is more information and the opportunity to donate at: https://www.shedecides.eu.

Here in Colorado some members of our State Legislature have recognized the problems caused by diminished reproductive rights and have written House Resolution 1005. Democrats, including our own Barbara McLachlan, support this resolution. It champions the full range of reproductive health, including abortion. Would that there were more strong advocates nationwide such as we have here in Colorado!

© Richard Grossman, MD 2017

Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States.