Banner
    Over Population Of The Planet And Global Warming
    By David Houle | November 19th 2007 06:41 AM | 8 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About David

    David Houle is a future thinker, speaker and strategist who advises organizations about dynamic trends. He is the author of The Shift Age...

    View David's Profile

    The impact that humanity is having on climate change is directly related to the fact that there are so many of us. Add on top of our shear numbers the fact that we treat the planet harshly and it is clear why we are moving toward a global crisis.

    Consider some facts about the growth of human population. Humans have been on the planet for hundreds of thousands of years. It took until 1804 for our numbers to reach 1 billion. It took another 123 years to reach 2 billion in 1927. It only took another 33 years for us to reach 3 billion in 1960 and 14 years to reach 4 billion in 1974. That means that if you are older that 40 the world’s population has doubled in your lifetime. There are now 6.6 times more of us now than 200 hundred years ago. It is also during these 200 hundred years that the Industrial Revolution occurred, bringing with it the use of fossil fuels for powering our societies and economies.

    It is not clear, and has been open to debate as to what the “natural” or “perfect” level of human population is for the earth. What is the global number that could be sustained indefinitely in a perfect and interrelated manner on Earth? There is no correct answer to that question. It is clear that a few hundred million of us living lives of hunters and gatherers and limited agriculture would probably not over burden the planet. Since that milestone was passed more than a millennium ago we must now look at how many there are of us, how we conduct ourselves relative to impact on the biosphere, and, given that there are 6.6 billion of us, how must we adapt all our behavior to have a future on this planet that is sustainable and might go on for centuries.

    Humanity did not even consider this equation until recently. There was no global council 100 years ago discussing the need for slow growth from the 2 billion population level at that time. We did not, as a species, make any conscious decision about managing our numbers as it might relate to the capacities of our spaceship earth. Quite the contrary our history has been one of ever greater numbers. Create large families to till the farm and work the family business and to offset infant mortality. Create ever larger populations to fuel our economies based upon unlimited growth. Large families and endless growth has driven us. The perception was that resources were infinite and there was therefore no need to consider the fact that constant growth and expansion might one day come up against finite resources and threaten our very existence. It could be argued that the photo of a lonely Earth floating in infinite blackness that was sent back by the Apollo spacecraft in 1969 was the first image that suggested a finite planet to us all. But of course we have more than doubled our population since then.

    Since we did not manage our growth, we now are confronted with the consequences of mindless growth. What that means we must collectively decide, and soon. We really have only a few options. The first is to accept zero planetary population growth. The second is to end all burning of fossil fuels by finding replacement energy sources that are renewable. The third is to use innovation, invention and new technologies to change how we live and how we interact with the planet. The fourth is to accept that what we have brought with us from our collective past can no longer be the norm. We might have to give up ideas of unmanaged growth, fresh food, fish and all sorts of things we accept as part of the human experience. If we haven’t been able to manage our numbers, we must manage how our species lives. I don’t like it, you don’t like it, but we have birthed ourselves to a number that our precious spaceship can no longer sustain.

    It has been said that if all of the earth moves up to the energy consumption level of the developed countries we would need three planet earths’ worth of fossil fuel resources to sustain us. James Lovelock, the visionary scientist who first suggested the Gaia theory, that the planet is a single, complex, interrelated organism has recently spoken with despair. He sees the climate change that is occurring as Gaia moving to rid itself of the virus that is the human species, in order to protect itself. We have become the virus that threatens Gaia. He has suggested that the climate disruptions ahead will shrink the 6.6 billion of us down to 500 million by the end of the century. He has suggested that it might already be too late to alter that scenario. In other words, since we didn’t manage our species growth, Gaia is stepping in to do it for us.

    We must act now. Debating whether there is global warming and whether we are contributing to it is no longer an option. It is, as was pointed out in the last column, an issue of risk management. The incremental steps discussed by our so called leaders will not be enough. Collectively we must mobilize and change how our species conducts itself. We must make it very personal to get this underway. Think of it this way: if Lovelock is even remotely close to being right, then if you know someone under the age of 10, or if you envision grandchildren, actions taken today might save their lives. You are responsible for future generations even having a chance. We all are.

    Comments

    Hank
    I'm not sure I agree that we can't sustain the number or even increase it a lot. The 'population bomb' has been talked about since the 1960s yet we don't have food wars, Soylent Green or anything else predicted.

    As our Future Thought guru how would you address it? The easy, no brainer solution is mitigation. The example I always use is the ancient tribe that was running out of game to hunt. The political solution of that day was to cut back people and ration food - fine for the people who had food. The science solution was to domesticate livestock so hunting was less important and everyone could eat.

    I think we can do the same thing here. I wrote an article on the food/pollution issue and T Colin Campbell did a much longer piece here on studies he has done in this area.

    Science can do this but it takes a change in perception. If we take even a fraction of the money some governments want to lose with caps and mitigation and divert it to solving the problem, I predict we can easily have 15 billion people here without a problem.

    That, my friend, is a future thought prediction it takes some cajones to make. :)

    hi there
    i am 13 years old and we are talking about overpopulation at school.
    i think that global warming is not only caused by humans.
    if we were not alive, there still would of been global warming!
    what im trying to say is that, if we did not exist, global warming would of probably strike at earth 1000 years from now,
    but we are using up our resources to quickly and in an unsustainable way, and for that reason we caused it to happen in 50 years not in 1000.
    so that is what the problem is.
    this is not exactly true, but this is my opinion.
    thank-you
    Anastasiaokl

    Gerhard Adam
    Anastasia, what you're saying is probably true.  The only reason why people are concerned that it's a problem is that people can't easily just move away or go somewhere else if it becomes a serious problem.  It may effect our ability to grow food, or which animals/insects may move to different areas because of temperature changes.  All these things become a problem for people, not the earth.

    Some people think that it wouldn't be bad if the temperatures got warmer, but it would effect the weather patterns and storms, insect and disease patterns, the ability to grow crops, and just about everything. 

    Also, when a change occurs too fast, it might be bad because there isn't enough time to prepare for the change.

    Anyway, you sound like you have a pretty good idea of what's happening.
    I believe overpopulation to be the "elephant in the room" in regards to Global Warming. Our leaders / politicians ignore this aspect due to the unpopularity of the potential solutions. To take an extreme example - What do humans do when they perceive an overpopulation of a species within an area? Not so common these days however, but certainly in the past they conducted a cull !!! How far are we prepared to go to save our entire planet from a "plague" of humanity???
    I know I may sound extreme but we are facing an extreme situation.
    The soft approach is to adopt the Chinese (partial) solution. They have foreseen the population problem and addressed it in an unpopular but pragmatic manner. 1 child per couple. This needs to be applied Globally ASAP.

    Excellent point. There seems to be a news censorship on the relation between overpopulation ang global warming. The truth is that the only way to reduce global warming is to reduce world population. Sure; it's not easy; but that's the truth. I watch this world population counter grow every day and find it frightening.

    I for one have no children so i feel i should have a tax break for not contributing to the massive footprint !
    Telling people the world is coming to an end is no incentive, they will keep acting like rabbits !
    Give married couples who have no kids a tax break ,not the other way around, today the more kids you
    have the more you are helped in tax and other benefits, again people have no fear of global warming
    they fear taxes, sad but true !

    1915: 1.8 Billion people,
    2010: 6.9 Billion people,
    95 years: 5.1 Billion people,
    2310: 22.2 Billion people,
    Solution to problem: Stop Creating Babies

    Who really wants to live on a crowded planet and put up with all the problems overpopulation is the cause of. Everyday there are more and more problems to be solved. Problems that would not even be considered problems if we had 2 billion instead of the 7 billion we have now. It seems as thought many people are comfortable living in overcrowded cities.

    Add a comment

    The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
    • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite><TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe><u><font>
    • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
    CAPTCHA
    If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.