A Confused Statistician

Anne H. Ehrlich, Paul R. Ehrlich | November 12, 2013 | Leave a Comment


Hans Rosling has been making a splash lately telling people his five pieces of good news that should “upgrade their world view” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24835822).  One is that “Fast population growth is coming to an end.”  Globally, that may be true, but it is not happening soon, and it certainly isn’t true for countries like Nigeria, Zambia, or Yemen with average family sizes of five or more.  Population growth globally is projected to continue for another century, barring some enormous catastrophe.  The second item is that “The ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ worlds have gone.”  Again, this is partly true but, although the sharp differences of thirty years ago are disappearing, almost half of humanity still live in conditions the average American, Australian, European, or Japanese would find unacceptable. Conservatively, somewhere around 2 billion people are seriously underfed or micronutrient malnourished.  The third claim is that “People are much healthier.”  Basically that may be true on average, but not in absolute numbers.   In 1960, perhaps 1 billion of Earth’s 3 billion people were hungry, and several hundred million others were poorly nourished at best.  That’s fewer than the 2 billion in bad health today because of dietary deficiencies, but the proportion of the population in poor health is not very different.  Rosling’s fourth claim is that “Girls are getting better education.”  True, but it’s far from universal.  The fifth, “The end of extreme poverty is in sight” might be true, but more likely is “In this century extreme poverty will be the lot of most of humanity, after civilization collapses.”

The likelihood of such a collapse is, of course, the result of the perfect storm of environmental problems that now threaten all nations.  Those problems are all related to Earth’s severe overpopulation, continuing population growth, and associated vast overconsumption, especially by the rich.  Climate disruption alone, closely tied to human population size, could end the society we know.  If the planet warms by, say, five degrees Celsius (as seems ever more possible), the impacts on the global food supply would be catastrophic.  Additional threats from global toxification, loss of biodiversity, a decaying epidemiological environment, severe resource depletion, and the prospect of increasing resource or geoengineering wars (possibly going nuclear) are all very real and escalating, as are the classic signs of impending civilizational collapse (e.g., diminishing returns to complexity).

If civilization collapses, population growth will certainly come to an end with a rapidly rising death rate and a population crash.  All nations will be de-developed, virtually everyone will be less healthy (or dead), most girls (and boys) will be getting little or no education, and almost all survivors will be living in extreme poverty by today’s standards.  None of this has to happen, but there is almost no sign today of people in power taking the situation seriously, while the world continues its addiction to endless material growth powered by fossil fuels.  Rosling’s soothing assurances are analogous to a physician telling her lung cancer patient, not to worry, don’t get treatment. There’s lots of good news: your teeth have no cavities, your vision is excellent, and I see no symptoms of flu.


Ehrlich, P. R. and A. H. Ehrlich (2013). “Can a collapse of civilization be avoided?” Proceeding of the Royal Society B .

Klare, M. T. (2012). The Race for What’s Left: The Global Scramble for the World’s Last Resources New York, NY, Metropolitan Books

Michaux, Michael.  (2013). Peak mining and its implications for natural resource management.

Tainter, J. A. (1988). The Collapse of Complex Societies. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.

MAHB-UTS Blogs are a joint venture between the University of Technology Sydney and the Millennium Alliance for Humanity and the Biosphere. Questions should be directed to joan@mahbonline.org.

MAHB Blog: https://mahb.stanford.edu/blog/a-confused-statistician/

View as PDF

Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on LinkedIn
The views and opinions expressed through the MAHB Website are those of the contributing authors and do not necessarily reflect an official position of the MAHB. The MAHB aims to share a range of perspectives and welcomes the discussions that they prompt.
  • Rafael Andrade

    The world’s richest 10% are responsible for 50% of emitted carbon, while the poorest 50% (which everyone here seems to be eager to sterilize) are responsible for only 10% of all emissions.

  • Alexandra Ormsby

    Thanks for pointing out all the fallacies in his absurd arguments. We’re on the brink of disaster in so many ways, it’s a nightmare situation. We desperately need to get birth control either accepted in the Third World (yes, it certainly still exists in my viewpoint!) or start a program of population control in order to save humanity. No one has the slightest intention of doing either. My compassion for the situation is zero.

  • Randall

    Assume there are 1 billion people on earth, living in a pre-industrial fashion (don’t have to assume it; this is the fact of 1920’s / 1930’s Earth!). Assume that such a population is capable of increasing, either 6-fold, or, relying upon a non-superficially separate algorithm, of doubling twice (2 billion to 4; 4 billion to ~8 billion) in the span of a hundred years (again, one needn’t imagine this situation, as it is the fact of the matter, for this, the true earth, the historical earth, the only one that has EVER existed!). Now, how does the “peak child theory”–really more of an “unsupported hypothesis”–figure into this equation? It just doesn’t. We haven’t “got this population thing licked” as some people suppose. Things are better, in some ways, but much worse in others. Continued denial of these facts can only result in tragedy of unspecified, yet incredibly important, magnitude and consequence.

  • Randall

    Fact: 7 Billion. Fact : 58,000,000 sq. miles of land. Fact: 33% is Antarctic, desert, or high desert. Constraining all REASONABLE debate within these bounds, Dr. P.E. is much more credible than Dr. H.R.

  • BF

    I find Rosling to be a lot more believable on the subject than Ehrlich. This seems to be all doom and gloom with no hard facts to back it up.

    • No one cares what a troll and flat-out liar claims to find believable.

    • pieter

      Have you ever read some of the reports concerning climate change, resource depletion, ecosystem collapse, that are getting out about the future?
      Because i think your worldview along with that of rosling needs an update.

      • Eshan Prashar

        @truth_machine:disqus: HR never claims that there are no problems at all. In fact, he explicitly demands more context-specific solutions in say, Africa where you have a Nigeria on one hand and a more prosperous South Africa on the other. His approach was simply to be spread optimism given how much we’ve achieved till now and aim higher for the times to come.

        • Jordi Fabris

          Finally someone who’ve not misunderstood HR message. There are many huge problems in this world (climate change, consumerism, etc..) but Hans has not denied they’re threat to us, he just told us that throw statistical analisis we can see that the world population should stabilize at 10(or 11) billion people in the next 45 to 60 years. The global population won’t just explode to 32 billion people In few generation ( it’s not exponential 1 2 4 8 16 32)