Printer Friendly

Now We Are six.

In October, World Population Will Reach Six Billion. Can the Earth Carry the Load?

On or around October 12, 1999, a Very Important Baby will be born somewhere in the world. The arrival of a new child is not in itself big international news, since three are born every second, but this one will mark world population reaching a record six billion.

The five billionth baby isn't even a teenager yet, having been born in 1987. It took all of human history until 1800 for the population to reach its first billion; the second took only until 1930. A mere 69 years later, six billion will be crowding the planet.

Since the word "billion" has lost its power to shock (after all, a billion dollars only makes a down payment on an aircraft carrier), analogies are necessary. How many people make a billion? In his book How Many People Can the Earth Support? Joel Cohen notes that if they were spaced 15 inches apart, they'd form a straight line from the Earth to the moon. Six billion would make a triple loop.

In 1999, the population of the world is twice what it was in 1960. One-tenth of all the people who have ever lived on the planet are alive today. We are adding new humans at a rate of 78 million a year, and projections are that we will continue to do so for most of the next decade. Statistics like these are frightening, but they aren't the whole population picture at the end of the century. The good news is that fertility rates are declining rapidly all over the world (with the notable exception of Africa), and have already reached below replacement levels in most industrialized countries. On average, women around the world today have 2.7 children, a dramatic drop from the five they had in the 1950s.

Because of declining fertility, the United Nations Population Division was forced to make some dramatic revisions to its projections in late 1998. Instead of increasing 80 million a year, world population is "only" increasing by 78 million. And the date we're going to hit six billion was moved ahead from June 16 to October 12. Dr. Naris Sadik, executive director of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), called this "very encouraging news; though she tempered her optimism by noting that 97 percent of population growth is occurring in developing countries, where health services and family planning remain scarce.

Two Different Worlds

Clearly, the world is becoming a more polarized place, with the haves and have-nots standing in stark relief. Today, 20 percent of the world's population owns 80 percent of its wealth, a split that will become even more dramatic in the next century. By 2050, the U.N. projects that the developed world will have 1.16 billion people, slightly less than it has today. But the developing world will have doubled, from 4.52 billion in 1995 to 8.2 billion in 2050. Pentagon-based Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters projects a grim fortress scenario in which a few "have" nations "are islands of stability and wealth in a world with burgeoning populations, collapsing infrastructure, deadly cities and a genius for violence."

The world's poorest countries are also the hardest-hit by global disasters like AIDS. In the 29 African countries most affected by the HIV virus, average life expectancy has declined by seven years. In Botswana, where one in four is infected, people could expect to live until 61 as late as 1995. By 2005, the effects of AIDS alone will likely have dropped life expectancy to 41. But despite that, a phenomenon called "population momentum" will still double Botswana's population by 2050.

This momentum occurs because the population is becoming not just economically polarized, but demographically polarized as well. In 1998, only 66 million people around the world were over 80, but that figure is estimated to increase six-fold by 2050, reaching 370 million. More significantly, the population has also gotten much younger. The group of young women about to enter their childbearing years is the largest ever, and even if they have only one or two children each, a population explosion is still in the offing.

Dr. John Bongaarts, a vice president in the policy research division of the Population Council, has considered these and other factors in predicting that the world is only halfway through a broad population expansion that won't likely end until 2100, when global numbers could stabilize around 10 billion. "In Africa, half the population is under 18" he says, "so the birth rate will remain very high. Fertility is falling everywhere, but the numbers are still 50 percent higher than what they would need to be for population stabilization to occur any earlier. In the developing world, overall fertility has declined from six to three, but it would have to decline even further--to two--for the projections to change. A third factor is that death rates are falling. Both nutrition and sanitation are improving, so people are living longer."

Momentum is an inescapable force, accounting for 60 to 70 percent of population growth, but Bongaarts says its impact can be blunted by actions we take today. He points out that girls are staying in school longer in most of the world, and that educated women invariably want fewer children (who will, themselves, be much more likely to receive an education). Another positive trend, frequently seen in young women who've completed secondary school, is a delay in childbearing, which can have enormous demographic implications for the future. If couples uniformly delayed marriage and their first birth by five years, demographers say, the population in 2050 would be two billion less than if they had not waited.

There will be one billion young people between the ages of 15 and 24 on the planet next year, and three billion altogether under 25. Their hopes, dreams and aspirations in an increasingly crowded world are the subject of a new documentary by independent filmmaker Linda Harrar that will air next fall on PBS, possibly on the Day of Six Billion. Harrar talked about the future with young people in Mexico, Kenya, China, India and the U.S. "It's penetrating to a large number of them that economic difficulties will make it difficult to find jobs, or to raise and educate their children" she says. "They see a future that is sometimes bleak, and with good reason. Among young people in Kenya, for instance, education levels are rising but there is 70 percent unemployment. Arable land is getting scarce, and there's a health care crisis."

Africa as a whole has one doctor for every 10,000 people, and the chance of a woman dying in pregnancy there is one in 48. HIV has infected a quarter of the population in Kenya's capital, Nairobi. If, as predicted by the United Nations Population Fund, Africa has two billion people by 2050 (up from its current 700 million), life expectancy and every measure of human misery could become unimaginably worse. "Young people all over the world are realizing that large families make life harder," Harrar says.

The Problem Is Access

One in six women, 230 million worldwide, is denied the birth control methods she would use if it were available to her, usually for reasons of poverty, reports UNFPA. This access problem is behind the gap that exists between ideal and actual family size in many countries. In the African country of Burundi, for instance, women want 5.4 children and have 6.4; in Bolivia, they want 2.7, but have 4.6.

Obviously, family planning assistance to the developing world would make a huge difference in population size. But at this crucial time, international aid to this part of the world is declining, the result of what Population Action International's Sally Ethelston calls "the lack of a post-Cold War rationale for global engagement." A commitment to international family planning funding was one of the primary achievements of the groundbreaking 1994 United Nations' International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo, but many countries have failed to meet their goals. Instead of the promised $5.7 billion in aid, only $1.4 billion has been delivered, including a declining U.S. commitment of $385 million in 1999. Overall economic assistance to the Third World dropped by 25 percent between 1992 and 1997. Fortunately, the shortfall has been accompanied by an increase in private assistance, including a $1 billion gift to the United Nations from media mogul Ted Turner, and a $2.2 billion foundation donation by Microsoft's Bill Gates, which will fund health and population projects.

Brian Dixon, director of government relations at Zero Population Growth, decries the "political backlash in Congress" that led to the U.S. reneging on many of the commitments it made at the ICPD conference, and to its elimination of all support (a cut of some $25 million) for the UNFPA. Ironically, congressional opposition was mobilized by UNFPA's launch of a $20 million program in China, which has used coercion to limit fertility. The anti-abortion Population Research Institute sneeringly refers to "UNFPA's love affair with Chinas ruthless one-child policy." But UNFPA has actually had some success in stopping the coercive policies.

As Dixon notes, abortion foes have turned their organizational wrath against family planning, siding with the influential Congressman Christopher Smith (R-NJ), who calls birth control pills "baby pesticides" (see "Baby Boom," November/ December 1998). Although federal law has, since 1973, prevented any family planning funds from being used to pay for abortion, the nonexistent connection is still frequently and effectively made. A bill to restore UNFPA funding, proposed by Congresswomen Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), faces an uncertain future.

"I don't know why they don't understand that women won't have abortions if they're not pregnant," Dixon says, noting the Senate's defeat (after passage in the House of Representatives) of a recent amendment that would have denied family planning assistance to any group that takes a public position on abortion. Dixon adds that 50 million of the 190 million pregnancies around the world each year end in abortion, many of them under clandestine, unsanitary conditions. If birth control were more widely available, that figure could be drastically reduced, he says.

According to the UNFPA, an allocation amounting to a tiny fraction of the U.S. military budget, $5 billion, would solve the world's contraceptive shortfall, drastically cutting the international abortion rate and shrinking population projections. But the current Republican congress is not likely to strike a blow for reproductive choice. "It's become extremely politicized," says Lise Rousseau, a spokeswoman for the National Audubon Society's Population and Habitat Campaign. "The U.S. was the leader in international family planning assistance, and the Clinton administration is committed to it, but a small group of opponents are able to stop the aid from getting through."

"All the evidence shows that fertility is falling and we're moving in the right direction," says Dixon. "It's largely because of a dramatic increase in contraceptive availability. What we've been doing--getting information out to people--works very well. To move away from that now, or to conclude from the fertility numbers that there's no longer a population problem, is to take exactly the wrong approach."

Family planning is an international success story, when conducted on the grassroots level. Morocco, for instance, had a fertility rate of 5.9 in 1980, when only 17 percent of women used any kind of contraception. Today, half of Moroccan women use contraception, and the fertility rate has dropped to 3.4. The abortion rate in Russia, once very high, is down dramatically because of wider birth control access. In many countries, the birth control message is reinforced through what are called "peer promoters," youth corps volunteers who spread the news about the advantages of family planning at the local level. It helps if the message is wrapped in the imagery of popular culture, as in the Philippines, where a video about the problems of a pregnant teenager features a song by pop singer Alanis Morisette.

Zero Population Growth is using a cutting-edge technology, Web radio, to reach younger audiences--people who would be turned off by a preachy message. Zero 24-7 (http://www.zero24-7.org) is a 24-hour alternative rock station, available to computer-savvy listeners all over the world, that runs well-produced and amusing family planning messages in place of commercials. "The ZPG message is there, but we try to make it seamless and noninvasive," says press officer Mark Daley. Forums like Zero 24-7 can create greater awareness, but they can't have much real impact in the absence of access to contraception, which depends in many countries on a combination of political will and adequate funding.

Iran: A Case History

Despite the declining commitment from the developed countries, actual global spending for family planning is increasing, from less than $1 billion before the Cairo conference to $1.4 billion today. Just five countries--China, India, Mexico, Indonesia and Iran--allocated 80 percent of that money. The presence of Iran, a rigidly orthodox Moslem theocracy, on that list may be surprising to some. Abortion remains illegal there, and many restrictions on women's freedom of movement are still in place.

But birth control is not condemned in the Koran, and most Islamic societies allow it. Iran goes further, however, and is conducting a program that has reached the smallest villages. The reasons why are clear: Despite losing a million young people to the war with Iraq, Iran still stands to double its population, from 65 million to 115 million, by 2050. A majority of the current population is under 25, and even if fertility declines, population will climb steeply in a country with limited water and other natural resources, exacerbating economic woes.

Elena Pozdorovkina, UNFPA program officer for Iran, says the country's family planning operation is "one of the most successful in the world, and reaches almost the entire population. They really do amazing things in terms of advocacy and information dissemination. Family planning messages are on television and in the cinemas--they're even on toothpaste tubes and teabags. There are mobile clinics, and 35,000 highly motivated health volunteers, in a system modeled on that of the former Soviet Union. Contraceptives are free and available." A catch is that, because premarital sex is not officially acknowledged, condoms are available only to married couples. Iranians can't marry unless they have a day of counseling, including a family planning component, but such counseling isn't available to single people.

"Very few people in Iran today want more than two children" Pozdorovkina says. "And they're willing to wait until they're 22 or 23 to start a family." Since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, contraceptive use by Iranian women increased from 26 percent to 75 percent. Iranian fertility rates are still high, but they are dropping rapidly.

A `Birth Dearth'?

Declining fertility in Iran, Mexico and other countries has led some scholars, most notably conservative commentator Ben Wattenberg, to predict a looming population deficit. The Wall Street Journal lamented in 1997 that 15 developed nations, including Russia, Germany and Italy, "each year fill more coffins than cradles" The Journal editorial used the fact of worldwide declining fertility to come to some unusual conclusions. "Humanity's long-term problem" it said, "is not going to be too many children, but too few." Noting only in passing that Africa, Asia and Latin America will continue with sharp growth for several decades, the newspaper predicted that worldwide population will peak at seven billion by 2030 "and then begin a long descent." But the United Nations projections, considered the most reliable, see population peaking at seven billion only in the most optimistic of three possibilities, dependent on a more widespread use of contraceptives than is currently likely. The U.N. consensus is that population won't level off until it reaches nine billion in 2050.

Even if population does continue to increase dramatically, the optimists at conservative think-tanks like the Cato and Hudson Institutes think the modern miracle of genetic engineering and ever-increasing farm yields will meet the global food challenge. The book World Food Outlook, cited by some of these activists, predicts confidently that "global food production will continue to increase faster than consumption."

Lester Brown of the Worldwatch Institute draws exactly the opposite conclusions. Although he acknowledges rising grain yields, he thinks those gains will soon reach a finite plateau. "The slower rise in world grainland productivity during the 1990s may mark the transition from a half-century dominated by food surpluses to a future that will be dominated by food scarcity" he says. And food scarcity is just part of the problem, says Worldwatch. It also documents declining fish harvests in most major fishing grounds, and an accelerating erosion of the natural resource base, from forests to fossil fuels. In addition, the Johns Hopkins University School of Health recently reported that 2.8 billion people could be facing severe water shortages by 2025.

Does the Earth have a "carrying capacity" beyond which the human population will suffer drastic consequences? Population experts like Garrett Hardin and Paul Ehrlich say that we've already exceeded it, while the late Professor Julian Simon refused to acknowledge any limits. Joel Cohen points out that demographers' estimates of carrying capacity have varied widely over the years. In 1891, British scientist E.G. Ravenstein published a paper in which he confidently extrapolated that the "total possible" population of the Earth was just under six billion, the figure we will reach this year. But Australian economist Colin Clark, writing in 1967, thought the Earth could feed 157 billion people, though his calculations, based on the theoretical availability of arable land, seem rather naive.

Giving the Environment Its Due

While environmental groups were well represented at the 1994 Cairo conference, they were relatively scarce five years later at the 1999 Hague Forum. "Why has concern for the environment gone underground?" asked the Summit Foundation's Susan Gibbs during a session. The relevant section of the official Hague report is a single oblique paragraph, which notes that economic crises have deflected governments from paying attention to environmental problems. "Unbalanced production and consumption patterns persist and contribute to environmental degradation" it says. "Unregulated movement of toxic material compromises people's health, particularly women's reproductive health." By contrast, an overview prepared by nongovernmental organizations at the Forum clearly links population growth with such environmental problems as overconsumption of fossil fuels and global warming.

Audubon's Lise Rousseau wonders why the inclusive Cairo process wasn't carried over to Holland. "In the Hague, the emphasis was on women's reproductive health" she says. "There's nothing wrong with that, but it can't reach the point of excluding all other issues." Patricia Sears of the hands-on Centre for Development and Population Activities (CEDPA), declares, "They didn't make the connection to the environment, but that connection is a day-to-day reality for all the community-based organizations CEDPA partners with." Corrie Shanahan, a UNFPA spokeswoman, says that even though the environment wasn't emphasized from the podium, it was a lively topic in the side discussions at the Forum.

Hillary Rodham Clinton gave two strong speeches in Holland, calling for the restoration of UNFPA funding and more access to family planning services around the world, though she didn't have much to say about the environment, either. But Clinton did note the multiple burdens unchecked population growth puts on young people. "They will have to determine where we will find the water, the food, the environmental resources, and how we will manage the burgeoning explosion of population in urban areas that spread further and further out from a core" she said.

Unfortunately, there's a big gap between Hillary Clinton's goals and what the United States actually does on population and family planning issues. She was able to point to the $3 billion spent by USAID on reproductive programs around the world, and $2.5 billion in spending on women's empowerment, but had to acknowledge that the President's proposals are sometimes shot down by a fractious Congress.

Sally Ethelston of Population Action International identifies three Scandinavian countries--Norway, Denmark and Sweden--as fully living up to their Cairo commitments. The U.S., she says, while it remains near the top in terms of actual assistance dollars, is at the very bottom when the size of its economy is factored in. As a whole, U.S. development assistance amounts to only two-tenths of one percent of the Gross Domestic Product. This reality stands in sharp contrast to the strong support generally found for humanitarian aid of all kinds in opinion polls.

"At this late date, family planning should no longer be controversial" says the Population Council's Bongaarts, who nonetheless thinks it will continue to be. He believes political realities will cause population to peak at 10 billion by the middle of the next century, then level out. It's not a happy scenario. Civilization may not collapse, as some pundits, including the authors of the influential book Beyond the Limits, predict. The Earth's carrying capacity is not a fixed wall, but more a zone of accelerating peril for the human race. "There's no question the environment and our quality of life will be much better off if we never reach 10 billion" Bongaarts says."It will mean a lot of trouble and a lot of headaches." Add to that a dramatically diminished environment, and a world of lowered expectations for billions of young people. CONTACT: Centre for Development and Population Activities, 1400 16th Street NW, Washington, DC 20036/(202) 939-2674; Population Council, 1 Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, New York, NY 10017/(212)339-0500.

RELATED ARTICLE: Immigration: Two Views

Melanie Mitsue Okamoto Campaign organizer, Political Ecology Group

In the past decade, the anti-immigrant lobby, which includes groups such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform and the Carrying Capacity Network, has jumped on the "green" bandwagon to invent a new form of scapegoating that targets immigrants as a cause of our environmental problems. These groups simplistically equate immigration with overpopulation, and blame immigrants for everything from logging to urban sprawl.

The anti-immigrant and population control extremists miss the big picture. Immigration is a symptom of growing economic and environmental instability, not the cause. Many families are forced to migrate because of impoverished living conditions caused by political and social unrest in their homelands. Multinational business interests often displace local communities by destroying natural resources and polluting local lands without regard for environmental protections.

Let's not be fooled: Restricting immigration isn't going to solve our environmental problems. Looking at sheer numbers of people is a misleading way to measure environmental impact. And targeting immigrants only lets the real culprits off the hook, while fostering anti-immigrant sentiment that hurts us all.

Roy Beck Public speaker, author of The Case Against Immigration, and director, NumberUSA

It's true that whatever steps you take to improve the behavior of multinational corporations, developers and individuals makes a big difference for the environment. But it's a plain fact that our country's natural resources would be much better off with 270 million, the population now, than with 400 million, the estimated population in 2050 based on one million new immigrants per year.

Let's look at the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, where I live. We're part of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, one of the largest and most important estuaries in the world. It's in dire condition, caused almost entirely by the people who live here. The problem comes from sewage treatment overflows, from sedimentation, from development, and from the relentless buildup of traffic. We've added several million people to the area in the last 30 years, and we're projected to add millions more in the next few decades under current immigration policies. Quite simply, the majority of additional population in the Washington, D.C. area is composed of immigrants and their children. Nationally, immigrants and their children make up 70 percent of population growth.

Of course, population is a global problem, and I fully support U.S. family planning support for those countries that desperately want it. But every country has to control its borders. Polls show that 65 million Indians want to come here. Do we let them all in? If we did, our environment would be quickly destroyed. I'm not scapegoating the individual immigrants already in this country. In fact, because high immigration levels suppress wages, limiting future numbers is one of the nicest things we could do for those new Americans, as well as for the impoverished populations around the world that constantly lose some of their best leaders through the immigration brain drain.

CONTACT: Political Ecology Group, 965 Mission Street, Suite 218, San Francisco, CA 94103/ (415)777-3488; Numbers USA, 1601 North Kent Street, Arlington, VA 22209/(703)816-8820 /http://www.numbersusa.com.

RELATED ARTICLE: Population and the Press: Read Nothing About It

From the viewpoint of the American press, last February's Hague Forum on population, a follow-up to the landmark Cairo conference five years ago, was largely a stage set for Hillary Rodham Clinton to look senatorial. Very few U.S. media outlets, with the notable exception of CNN (Turner Broadcasting is also producing a Year of Six Billion documentary narrated by Jane Fonda), provided continuing coverage of the conference. Fewer still offered analysis of how it fit into the ongoing story of global family planning.

In an illustration of how "pack" journalism can work, the Clinton impeachment trial and the funeral of Jordan's King Hussein blew most other important stories off U.S. front pages. Meanwhile, the European press covered the Hague conference extensively, with the German Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, for instance, producing a story on each day of the four-day conference. Kathy Bonk of the Communications Consortium, which analyzed U.S. media coverage of the Forum, notes that wire services like the Associated Press also provided daily dispatches, but most of the bigger daily papers ignored them.

But pack journalism and the rush to sensationalism are only part of the story. Even in slow news weeks, the population explosion is a hard sell to the news media. United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) spokeswoman Corey Shanahan points out that the story is an ongoing and not necessarily sensational one. "We can't simply go screaming to the media that there are too many people on the planet and it's all a time bomb," she says. "We have to talk about women's health and empowerment, and there's a lot of misconceptions about that. For instance, many people in the U.S. are convinced that family planning necessarily includes abortion."

"Reporters don't often connect the dots," adds Sally Ethelston of Population Action International. "They write about urban sprawl locally, but don't show how it's related to population growth and happening all over the world." Ken Strom, executive director of the National Audubon Society's Population and Habitat Campaign, laments the media's failure to fully understand the population issue. "It's hard for them to see a new or unique angle," he says. "Even when they do write about population, they don't make the environmental links."

Some of the most thoughtful coverage isn't widely circulated. One of the best columns linking population and the environment was in the St. Paul Pioneer Press. For detailed daily reports from the Hague Forum and the follow-up PrepCom meeting in New York City, you'd have needed an Earth Times subscription. And it helps when there's "a hook." Last October, the New York Times' James Barron wrote a "Week in Review" piece about UNFPA that focused on Geri Halliwell, a "goodwill ambassador" for the group who also happens to be a former Spice Girl. --J.M.

JIM MOTAVALLI is editor of E.
COPYRIGHT 1999 Earth Action Network, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1999, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:world population to reach 6 billion
Author:Motavalli, Jim
Publication:E
Geographic Code:00WOR
Date:Jul 1, 1999
Words:4597
Previous Article:NORTH DAKOTA: HEMP HAVEN?
Next Article:Uprooted.
Topics:


Related Articles
Fertility rates: the decline is stalling.
And Baby Makes 6 Billion.
ARE WE RUNNING OUT OF ROOM?
6 Billion Call It Home--and Other Facts of Life on Earth.
World population fun facts.
Six billion and counting: it took all of recorded history until 1804 for world population to reach one billion; it took another 123 years to reach...
Putting the brakes on reproduction.
Living on the edge: as the world's population grows people are pushed into areas that are basically uninhabitable.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |