The Myth of 9 Billion

Why ignoring family planning overseas was the worst foreign-policy mistake of the century.

BY MALCOLM POTTS, MARTHA CAMPBELL | MAY 9, 2011

This week, the United Nations Population Division made a radical shift in its population projections. Previously, the organization had estimated that the number of people living on the planet would reach around 9 billion by 2050 -- and then level off. Now everything has changed: Rather than leveling off, the population size will continue to grow, reaching 10 billion or more at century's end.

Why is this happening? Put simply, fertility rates. Across much of the world, women are having fewer children, but in African countries, the decline is far slower than expected. Part of this shift was supposed to come from preferences about family size and better access to family planning to make that possible. Sadly, however, that access hasn't come. Another factor, many expected, would come from the deleterious impact of high HIV/AIDS rates. But even Uganda -- with one of the highest numbers of AIDS cases in sub-Saharan Africa -- is projected to almost triple its population by 2050. In fact, outside a handful of countries, HIV/AIDS has only a tiny impact on overall population. Consider this: In the first five months of this year, the world population grew by enough to equal all the AIDS deaths since the epidemic began 30 years ago.

Rapid population growth is bad news for the continent, as it will likely outstrip gains in economic development. It's also a wake-up call: If the world doesn't begin investing far more seriously in family planning, much of our progress fighting poverty in sub-Saharan Africa over the last half-century could be lost.

Demographic projections are just that -- predictions. They only tell us what can happen if we make a variety of policy decisions and investments. As is the case with these projections, they include a lower and higher estimate -- and where we end up in that range depends upon what we do in the meantime. Hence, it would be a mistake to focus only on the medium U.N. projection of 9.3 billion people by 2050 as most commentators do. The high projection would take us to 10.6 billion in 2050. The low projection would mean 8.1 billion. (Just for a sense of scale: The difference between these high and low variants is equivalent to the entire global population in 1950.)

That 2050 figure is vital in determining how large the population will grow by 2100 -- either as high as 15.8 billion or as low as 6.2 billion. With so many people reproducing, very small differences in family size have a dramatic impact over time. The difference between a world of 6.2 billion and 15.8 billion will depend on a change in the average number of children that women have -- a change that is so small that demographers are reduced to using the odd image of "half a child" to describe it. Over the coming 40 years, however, if the average woman bears half a child more, on average, it will have an almost unimaginably profound effect on virtually everything else that happens in the 21st century.

 

Malcolm Potts is Bixby professor at the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley. Martha Campbell is president of Venture Strategies for Health and Development and a lecturer at the University of California, Berkeley.

QUATRA

11:58 AM ET

May 9, 2011

The Myth of 9 Billion

The picture is a shadow of what is to come. I'm happy to be 62 and having lived in an era of safety, order, carefree travel and spiritual and material wealth.

 

JBROCKLE

2:13 PM ET

May 9, 2011

Hehe

I've got mine, bugger the rest of you!

Can't say I blame you to be honest, although I'm sure some people would begrudge you such feelings.

Not sure all our amateur demographers above know anything about this subject - I certainly don't!

 

JUMPERPILOT

3:10 PM ET

May 11, 2011

So...this mess is all your

So...this mess is all your generation's fault, isn't it?

 

RICHKAO

11:11 PM ET

May 9, 2011

The Myth of 9 Billion

"Why ignoring family planning overseas was the worst foreign-policy mistake of the century."

This must be an editorial blunder...why would the editors allow such a outlandish, unsubstantiable assertion? Even if it read "What could be the worst foreign policy mistake in the coming century," that would be more accurate.

But to assert it WAS the worst foreign-policy mistake is ludicrous, and seems to suggest FP is pushing an agenda.

Please don't make this kind of mistake again.

 

ANON45

3:55 AM ET

May 10, 2011

Like the front page title.

Yep, its America's fault as always.

 

RLHOFF

6:31 PM ET

May 13, 2011

Don't be absurd

Your sarcastic remark vastly oversimplifies the article. Yes, through both the size & nature of its economy as well as through direct foreign policy, the U.S. does have direct influence on the shape of the world. This is undeniable, as is previous administrations' attacks on family planning. No where is it implied, however, that global population overgrowth is attributable solely or primarily to the U.S.

 

GLASHY

4:38 AM ET

May 10, 2011

Reengineering the solution approch

Dear,
I’m quit surprise of your proposals for mastering the population density over the next years. I’m worrying that we now are enjoying life, and are choosing to set who should be the next humans. I would share the idea that we create a community of people you would for saving the world accept to stop their life to avoid the disaster you intend by the booming of the population.
Nowadays, we are all corrupted by the fact that we should be enjoying life in a selfishness manner. If for enjoying life the rest of the population is an obstacle we should leave it.
Guys! That looks to bad and, we acting as world creators, to be deciding for others survival while hoping disasters to take out some of them.

One my point is that the target when trying to set or to understand some aspect of humanity, we should not be considering things as if we are a lot of something; no human is transcendent, that is trivial when comparing yourself to a dog. So as you are able to love, to write, to think… we should leave what is fundamental to human, freedom and responsibility. We can not plan to set the population as we can decide of the size of the population of chicken or lions in a pack.

Concerning the allocation of the resources, we all may guess that they are not extensible at infinite, but in my understanding the question should be, how to increase the capabilities to receive the next scale of population? That I suppose is more conform to the respect of others. The human fraternity can play a big role. I’m sure that if this question is correctly addressed, we would any more need to worry about the size of the population, just in term of sensitizing people to responsible of their choices. You were worrying about education, health… capabilities, but have a count of what we are spending in the geological wars, and you could understand that the matter is not the size of the population but the will of each of us to live in a too comfortable manner.
Then for some statistical remind, the region you choose to illustrate your report right now represent less than 20% and have the less density of population at the km².

Even if thanks for your article, it shows deeply that actions should be taken to enhance the future of the humanity.
Best regards

 

RLHOFF

6:47 PM ET

May 13, 2011

Sorry, but...

You seem to be suggesting that human beings are somehow "external to" nature and therefore exempt from the inherent laws of physics and biology. But though I hate to disillusion you, there are indeed biological limits to growth, and human population can not increase beyond some tipping point where the biological / environmental feedback systems will come into play.

Whether it is climate change, pollinator die-off or broader ecosystem collapse in the seas on the land or both; or the emerging social conflicts over water, land, etc.; the likely results of a failure to make conscious choices to stabilize population will result in cataclysmic events - whether famine, disease or war - until a new equilibrium is reached.

The choice is ours: whether we wish to achieve population stabilization consciously and humanely; or whether we will just wait until equilibrium is brought about through harsher avenues as described. It really is one or the other.

 

GARYPOTTER

6:58 PM ET

May 10, 2011

Solution

The solution isn't to start spending money on birth control. The solution is to stop spending money trying to feed these fools. Let them try to feed themselves and die off on their own. Frankly, I think Japan, Russia, and the rest of the developed world should start trying to increase their birthrates instead of fretting about Africa. Africa is a terrible place full of terrible people, always has been and always will be.

 

ADRIENNEDU

9:36 AM ET

May 11, 2011

Really?

You're such an idiot. Africa is the wealthiest piece of real estate on the earth in terms of natural resources. Africans could feed themselves if they weren't forced to export all of their agricultural produce to the "developed" nations. Get informed.

 

TEXPAT

11:20 PM ET

May 11, 2011

Resources? Get real

With the Africa content including along the Mediteranian of 5 countries are oil producing supplying 85% to China and the diamonds are all messed up between DeBeers and the corrupt and "revolutionary" leaders. South Africa had good ranchers and farmers and turned it over to the people. Farms and ranches failed within a year. Have you worked with anyone directlly off the boat from Uganda or Nigeria? This content is just a welfare state. People with brains normally get thrown out or get it and create the "Brain Drain". How would you explain HIV and the need for population control to them? The only hope was a country (Ghana) that my Economies Professor was from. The government is smart in not spending the money at the capital but in building roads and such verses palaces like so many other third world country.
With the 166.9% increase from 1990-2000 of Africans immigrating to the US I am sure the birth control problem is solved; send them abroad. On a positive note according the same time frame the Africans have a higher graduation rate from High School and advanced schools to include Canada.
Does anyone out there think the African countries will get their act together on HIV and population control? More than likely we and other countries will continue to send money were I do not think all of 100% of the funds will get to the people?

 

RLHOFF

6:49 PM ET

May 13, 2011

Yeah, that would really help. NOT

Sorry, but I don't see how increasing birth rates in developed nations will help reduce overall population growth rates.

 

FUBAR

10:53 PM ET

May 11, 2011

the myth of overpopulation

In 2100 Africa will be booming, but most of western civizilation will be nearly extinct from a century of low birth rates and economic stagnation. One generation at 1.0 children/woman = 1/2 population reduction. Look up sub-Sahara Africa's gdp growth rates if you haven't been following along. A hundred years at 2% growth = 7x, a hundred years at 9% growth = 5000x.

This article reminds me of the articles I keep coming across talking about how important it is to get the Chinese to save less (lol). You've taken some villainy and dressed it up as altruism. Like worring about women's rights in Afghanistan.. sure, that's why you're there. Or (a lot longer ago), worrying about the souls of 'savages' (which is the general theme).

Africa will be fine. without you.

 

RLHOFF

6:55 PM ET

May 13, 2011

ignoring the fundamental issue

This isn't just about Africa's growth. As the article says, it is ultimately about global population growth. Regardless of slowing birth rates in some developed nations, gobal population growth is unsustainable. And do you not think that high-growth populations will ultimately emigrate ... to some of those other (lower birth rate) nations? That's why, for instance, the U.S. has its current struggles over immigration policy.

 

GOOD REASON

8:11 AM ET

May 13, 2011

Women AND Men

It is very strange to me that you would never know from this piece that men are involved in reproduction also. For example, it talks about women who don't want to have children but aren't using contraception are the real measure of the world's policy failure on population. How about men who are sexually active, probably coerce women to have sex when they do not wish to have sex or pay prostitutes for sex, and don't use contraception? The elephant in the room is that men are not held accountable for their sexual incontinence. And apparently they are not held accountable for the consequences of this for world population

This is ironic, because Potts wrote a great book called Sex and War that pointed these very things out.

Until we are willing to tackle why men are not mentioned in discussions of population, we are not going to get anywhere.

 

ORMONDOTVOS

12:49 PM ET

May 13, 2011

Religion poisons everything, ideology tries to keep up, though.

Men run the world, controlling women.

Women try to build good cultures, men start patriarchal religions to control women. Part of the control is control of the sexual impulse.

Men don't take care of children, so they don't care about starvation and disease.

Thus you see wealthy nations with strong controlling religions preventing birth control.

It won't change until the tragedies.

 

PHILBEST

7:28 PM ET

May 13, 2011

Religion poisons everything?

Read Matthew Parris: "As An Atheist, I Honestly Believe Africa Needs God".

The first world is only the first world because of Christianity. Africa will join the first world when it gets Christianity. Animism, paganism, Islam, Communism, "secular pure reason" (yeah, right) - all this will only leave Africa in the mess it already is in. "Culture" really IS everything - Karl Marx's biggest forgotten legacy to us today, is political-economic "culture blindness". But there is a clear connection, when academics have been brave enough to study it. Robert Barro, Rachel McCleary, Luigi Guiso, Rodney Stark, Lee Iannoccone.

Africa COULD feed itself AND be a massive net exporter of food. Even without Africa producing what it could, the international economic terms of trade have steadily trended AGAINST food production - this is hardly a sign that we are running out of it. If we truly were, it would be worth tearing down housing and turning urban land back into farms. But everywhere we look, we have to use "urban growth constraints" to prevent urban development taking over farmland. Farmland almost everywhere is between about 1 / 50th and 1 /100th of the price necessary to make it "not worth it" for urban developers.

The world is drowning in misinformation. Colin Clark and Julian Simon were the last real wise men we had.

 

RIDGE

8:39 PM ET

May 13, 2011

10 billion? Surely there's a limit

surely there's a limit to the number of people in our world possible scarremoval at any GIVEN TIME...i know advancements in modern medicine help people stay alive for longer and reduce infancy deaths but still...10 billion???? 20% of the world's population already does not have enough food as it is TODAY what are we going to do when there are 10 billion instead of 6 billion of us starvation and standards of living will be PITYFULL

Finally, how much more can Africa take before it explodes and there is either a mass exodus or all-encompassing war??

 

CONRADSWIMS

10:43 AM ET

May 14, 2011

Africa population

The solution as I see it is to reduce the number of people being born. This can be done to a large extent by increasing the power women have up to that of men in Africa. How to do it is another matter and it is mostly up to the people that live there to do it.

 

CNA

11:55 PM ET

June 5, 2011

The elephant in the room is

The elephant in the room is that men are not held accountable for their sexual incontinence. And apparently they are not CNA held accountable for the consequences of this for world population

 

MARK SCALIA

9:35 AM ET

June 7, 2011

I would share the idea that

I would share the idea that we create a community of people you would for saving the world accept to stop their life to avoid the disaster you intend by the booming of the sázkové kancelá?epopulation.Nowadays, we are all corrupted by the fact that we should be enjoying life in a selfishness manner. If for enjoying life the rest of the population is an obstacle we should leave it.Guys! That looks to bad and, we acting as world creators, to be deciding for others survival while hoping disasters to take out some of them.One my point is that the target when trying to set or to understand some aspect of humanity, we should not be considering things as if we are a sázkové kancelá?e lot of something; no human is transcendent, that is trivial when comparing yourself to a dog. So as you are able to love, to write, to think… we should leave what is fundamental to human, freedom and responsibility. We can not plan to set the population as we can decide of the size of the population of chicken or lions in a pack.

 

DAILYHUGHES

12:59 AM ET

June 8, 2011

I completely disagree.

We eventually have to face the fact that the world is not going to be big enough for all of us. The resources are running out quickly, and in spite of what we might read, technology is unlikely going to save us in the long run. We do not have to compare ourselves dogs, cats, and other animals to realize that some are going to survive and some will have to say goodbye. While I love the idea that everyone has a place in this world and every life is worth saving, when the shtf people are going to have to make tough choices. Just going back to 1960 there were only 3 billion people in the world, and now we have have enough dentists, doctors, and chiropractor seattle to serve each any everyone of them. The only problem is there is soon to be triple that population. While I don't want to be promoting gloom and doom, this subject has been a topic for generations, and it is only getting worse.

 

MARK SCALIA

9:36 AM ET

June 7, 2011

I would share the idea that

I would share the idea that we create a community of people you would for saving the world accept to stop their life to avoid the disaster you intend by the booming of the sázkové kancelá?epopulation.Nowadays, we are all corrupted by the fact that we should be enjoying life in a selfishness manner. If for enjoying life the rest of the population is an obstacle we should leave it.Guys! That looks to bad and, we acting as world creators, to be deciding for others survival while hoping disasters to take out some of them.One my point is that the target when trying to set or to understand some aspect of humanity, we should not be considering things as if we are a sázkové kancelá?e lot of something; no human is transcendent, that is trivial when comparing yourself to a dog. So as you are able to love, to write, to think… we should leave what is fundamental to human, freedom and responsibility. We can not plan to set the population as we can decide of the size of the population of chicken or lions in a pack.

 

JOSé3376

12:56 AM ET

June 8, 2011

myth of 9 billion?

Why is that a myth now? I do not really understand. Even a vacavillechiropractor could tell you that it does not really matter whether we have 9 billion or 10 billion people. If they all treat each other nicely it should not be a problem. But as you said: "Demographic projections are just that -- predictions. "