Summary:
Human population change poses a very delicate issue for the 21st century, especially with threats being issued by both extremes of the spectrum. Furthermore, rapid population growth in some parts of the world will not be counteracted by rapid decline in other parts. The reality is that the majority of humans live in less-developed, lower-income nations, where conditions are ideal for the rapid growth that threatens to bring Earth's human population to 9.6 billion by 2050 and to 10.9 by 2100. This median estimate for population growth was released by the U.N. Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), and it seems to be constantly rising. That is not to say that the biggest problem the world faces is rapid population growth, for low fertility can also threaten a nation in different ways. A fertility rate below replacement level makes it harder to have children replace an aging population, which is the case in more developed countries like Japan. Therefore, the ideal solution is to avoid the extremes of either rapid growth or rapid decline. Governments can take matters into their own hands by encouraging immigration if there is a lack of young people in their country, or by pursuing family planning policies if fertility rates are high. However, if the U.N.'s predictions are correct, then Earth will surely adapt just as it has done in the past.
Reaction:
I understand that this article is only intended to inform readers about the fact that human population growth is becoming more rapid, but the way that it is written makes the problem seem easily amenable and less severe. The author quotes John Wilmoth, director of the population division at DESA, and states that humanity can simply adjust to the U.N.'s most recent median estimates. However, if the reality becomes one of the extremes predicted (6.8 billion-16.6 billion), then there is no telling what will happen. I will admit that I learned a lot from this article, including the fertility rates of several nations and projections for population growth worldwide, but very little was said regarding the "efforts needed to avoid two extremes". For example, the author mentions that citizens of lower-income nations will have fewer children if the standard of living improves in those countries, but then ties it in to how this makes it difficult to predict future trends in population. The main message that I get out of this article is that human population growth is not something to worry based on DESA's projections. The world may have proven that it can adapt to 7 billion people, but it is uncertain whether it can do the same in the next century considering the diverse factors that influence human population growth and the wide range of environmental issues that exist today.
I am not implying that the world needs to think like Thomas Malthus, who was convinced that human population growth had to be stopped at all costs. However, organizations like the United Nations should definitely be more involved in these affairs than by just making predictions. I have heard several demographers talk about an s-curve trend, which could explain why DESA is not too concerned with human population growth. If this trend plays out according, human population growth is expected to slow down as Earth begins to reach its carrying capacity. Nonetheless, countries like China and India are currently feeling the effects of rapid population growth and there is no sign of it deterring. In these countries, overpopulation is an issue intertwined with resource scarcity and climate change. This may be the problem of only a few nations, but we need to move beyond our present mindset of every nation for itself if we want to avoid a global crisis. Besides family planning, which is one of the solutions mentioned in this article, governments can also confine rapid population growth by educating women and improving child mortality rates. The developed world, and their willingness to provide development aid to poorer nations, also plays a big role in whether or not we can avoid the two extremes of human population change.
I am not implying that the world needs to think like Thomas Malthus, who was convinced that human population growth had to be stopped at all costs. However, organizations like the United Nations should definitely be more involved in these affairs than by just making predictions. I have heard several demographers talk about an s-curve trend, which could explain why DESA is not too concerned with human population growth. If this trend plays out according, human population growth is expected to slow down as Earth begins to reach its carrying capacity. Nonetheless, countries like China and India are currently feeling the effects of rapid population growth and there is no sign of it deterring. In these countries, overpopulation is an issue intertwined with resource scarcity and climate change. This may be the problem of only a few nations, but we need to move beyond our present mindset of every nation for itself if we want to avoid a global crisis. Besides family planning, which is one of the solutions mentioned in this article, governments can also confine rapid population growth by educating women and improving child mortality rates. The developed world, and their willingness to provide development aid to poorer nations, also plays a big role in whether or not we can avoid the two extremes of human population change.
Vocabulary:
"Less-developed nation"- a country that is considered lacking in terms of its economy, infrastructure and industrial base.
"Standard of living"- the degree of wealth and material comfort available to a person or community.
"Fertility rate"- the number of children that would be born to a woman if she were to live to the end of her childbearing years
"Family planning policies"- programs to regulate the number and spacing of children in a family through the practice of contraception or other methods of birth control.
Rein- check or guide (a horse) by pulling on its reins.
"Developed country"- a country with a lot of industrial activity and where people generally have high incomes.
"Carrying capacity"- the number of people, other living organisms, or crops that a region can support without environmental degradation.
"Standard of living"- the degree of wealth and material comfort available to a person or community.
"Fertility rate"- the number of children that would be born to a woman if she were to live to the end of her childbearing years
"Family planning policies"- programs to regulate the number and spacing of children in a family through the practice of contraception or other methods of birth control.
Rein- check or guide (a horse) by pulling on its reins.
"Developed country"- a country with a lot of industrial activity and where people generally have high incomes.
"Carrying capacity"- the number of people, other living organisms, or crops that a region can support without environmental degradation.
Source:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/human-population-growth-creeps-back-up/