Four compelling reasons to fear population growth

| March 22, 2019 | Leave a Comment

Screen Shot 2019-02-27 at 21.57.34

Item Link: Access the Resource

Media Type: Article - Recent

Date of Publication: March 7, 2019

Author(s): Massimo Livi Bacci

Newspaper: The Overpopulation Project

Categories: ,

Four population-driven threats to space

If from abstract principles and paradigms of my previous article (Malthus, forever?), we turn to the real, contemporary world, we may say that the rapidly expanding world population also has other consequences – beyond the reduction of “pristine” space – that may adversely affect the quality of the environment (space, in our paradigm) and bring about critical situations. Four of these consequences are strictly linked to sensitive environmental questions that will become critical as we proceed towards the end of the century, when world population growth, according to a rather optimistic consensus, is forecast to be close to zero. In the coming eight decades, the world is set to host an additional 3.4 billion people, a number equal to the increase accumulated in the preceding half a century.[1]

These four consequences are:

(i) human intrusion into the great forests, and particularly the rainforests, whose integrity is a guarantee of the bio-natural equilibrium;

(ii) the intensification of human settlement in the most precarious habitats, in particular along coasts and on the shores of rivers and lakes;

(iii) the explosion of urbanization processes and

(iv) last but not least, global warming.

Each one of these four processes may be described as a population-driven threat to the environment, affecting the quality of space available to humankind.

Read more details about the 4 consequences here. 

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.
  • Arnold Byron

    A question is missing. I looked for it within the article but I could not find it. I’m not surprised because I have never found the question in any article on this blog-site or any other blog-site. If anyone has seen this question being asked, please tell me where. The question that is missing is: What can be done to reduce the number of people currently on Earth? Or: How do you reduce the population? Or: Is it possible to reduce the population in a nonviolent, non-eugenic, fair, safe and humane manner? Or some other rendition so long as it has the words, reduce the population, at the core of the question.

    I don’t understand why so many learned writers are unable to grasp that the opposite of overpopulation is reducing the population. Furthermore I don’t understand why I don’t see the words, negative population growth. A population growth rate of zero percent means two children per family. Reducing the population means a growth rate of less than zero, i.e., less than two children per family. I have noticed that one child families are happy families just as are families with two or more children. Writers need to push the idea of negative population growth so that everybody will learn how to reduce the population by accepting negative population growth.

    If i were to be asked how to make zero population growth a reality, I would say that the people of the world will need to accept a global office with the authority to direct and assist the people in using contraceptives to prevent more than one birth per family. The problem is that my idea is not a normal idea and people are afraid to look at he way a new process will work out. But this should not be the case with the learned blog writers who appear on these pages. Blog writers have the intellect and creativity to write about reducing the population and negative population growth.

    The only solution to overpopulation is negative population growth. What rules would you set for all of humanity to follow to achieve negative population growth?

  • Greeley Miklashek

    (v.) left out but not to be ignored, increasing illness resulting from “population density stress” requiring ever more medical resources to treat a tidal wave of chronic diseases, as noticeable in the falling life expectancies of Caucasian American men for three years in a row, and projected to cost $5.9T by 2030.

    So all of this future projecting appears to ignore the fact that we’d all be dead from diseases derived from population density stress were it not for all of our ever more expensive “heroic” medical care. Demographers and futurists have glossed over this reality, but those of us who practiced medicine for all of our working lives (42 years) have seen this trend toward an ever sicker population increasing steadily over four decades and longer. Perhaps, Mother Earth is working ever harder to cull our numbers and re-establish Her ecological balance long before we reach that projected 10B. Ever consider this part of the sustainability equation? Stress R Us