• Question: I just don't believe it is possible to sustain a population of more than 8 billion people: maybe only half that: so - I think my question pertains particularly to the Food and Water areas, but also perhaps to all areas: What can we do to reduce the world population to something actually sustainable in the long term so that we (humans) will still be around in another 300 years?

    Asked by courtenay-young-39 to Antibiotics, Dementia, Flight, Food, Paralysis, Water on 17 Jun 2014.
    • Photo: Flight Challenge

      Flight Challenge answered on 17 Jun 2014:


      Not directly an issue for Flight, but not irrelevant. If we accept for the moment that there is a problem of `overpopulation’ (really overconsumption), we need to look at why it happens. We know that raising living standards and, especially, educating women tend to lead to a drop in population growth rates. One way we can help raise living standards, in a material sense, is develop technologies based on renewable energy. There are very few places in the world that do not have some renewable energy resource available, `all’ we need to do is learn to exploit them. A renewable energy aircraft would be a demonstration of what is possible, and would also help us to develop the technologies which could be used to exploit renewable energy in lots of other areas (ground transport, small-scale local power generation, etc.).

      On top of all that, if we can demonstrate renewable energy in an application as energy intensive as flight, we might be able to generate power without using land currently used for food production, which would also ease one of the pressures on population growth.

      Essentially that’s what these grand challenges are all about. If we can solve them all, we make the world a more sustainable place for the future of mankind.

    • Photo: Water Challenge

      Water Challenge answered on 17 Jun 2014:


      An interesting question but, being trained in the sciences, I tend to work on evidence.
      Your question implies that you feel that only 4 billion people can be sustainably supported yet the evidence is that we are already supporting over 7 billion. True, there are stresses on food, water, land and more, but 3 billion of those 7 billion are not presently dying. Looking further at the evidence, we see (from World Population in Wikipedia) that global population growth has slowed considerably from 2.2% in 1963 to 1.1% today. This presumably is a trend likely eventually to lead to 0% at some stage, hopefully before the global population will have risen to between 8 and 11billion. If we can support 7 billion, then with some adjustments we should be able to sustain 10 billion or even a few (!) more. Can we do this sustainably ?
      If we look at all the factors affecting the global population, we see that increments have been made in food production which 20 years ago would have been unthinkable; our ability to provide suitable water supplies has improved to the point where 50 years ago, we could only have thought it was the stuff of science fiction; and energy production efficiencies have sky-rocketed and renewable energy sources are being developed at a rate that we can envisage that one day, we will be able to do without fossil fuels. All these improvements will not suddenly cease – they are likely to continue because the need is there and the rewards for improving efficiencies are great. At the same time, population growth is slowing down and we are increasingly becoming aware that it is essential to consume less – all factors which are inclining us toward a point where production and consumption will balance.
      If mankind is so adept that he can search for a particle which he cannot see but believes is there – and find it, like the Higg’s Boson – then I believe we have the skills to answer the problems of food, water, anti-biotic resistance, flight and many more. Now if that isn’t an invitation to school pupils to think about a career in science, technology, engineering and/or mathematics, I can’t think of a better one.

    • Photo: Food Challenge

      Food Challenge answered on 17 Jun 2014:


      Hello Courtenay,
      That’s a very good question, overpopulation is very much an understated problem and certainly needs addressing in the worlds current economic climate. There are just about 7 billion people on the planet at the moment and there is enough food and water to provide for all of us. Not that food and water are no longer an issue! But rather the infrastructure in place at the moment doesn’t allow the food and water we have to be evenly allocated to those who need it most. To give an example, food wastage is a significant problem in the UK (something I am trying to find a solution for in my research) whereas in parts of Africa, food is scarce and crops are desperately needed to provide higher yields without using too much water which people could be drinking instead.

      By the year 2050, there will be 9 Billion people all needing access to food and water like we have and the majority of these people will be in developing countries that have limited resources to provide for more people. That’s why we need scientists to find solutions to the problems of food and water security before the population exceeds what we can support.
      Before we think about reducing the population, it’s very important to understand why the human race continues to expand when we are already faced with global food and water shortages. Population growth typically occurs in developing or emerging economies where access to education, medicine, and family planning governances is unavailable. These countries still struggle with high levels of infant mortality meaning families are larger to account for this mortality rate. We have also learnt from emerging economies that populations stop growing when there is access to sustainable food and water where families are better equipped to be provided adequate medicine and education.

      In order to prevent overpopulation, getting people out of poverty by providing food and water to developing and emerging economies is an absolute priority. Investing into the right green technologies to combat climate change and keep energy costs cheap is paramount in this endeavour.

      Pertaining to food in particular, we have been tasked to double the world’s food supply by 2050 and 85% of that growth must come from lands that we already use. The positive effect of introducing sustainable food varieties on populations in developing economies is well documented. Have you ever heard of Norman Borlaug? He started the Green Revolution in the 1960’s and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on a semi-dwarf, high-yielding, and disease-resistant wheat variety to Mexico, Pakistan, and India. He’s also known as “The Man Who Saved a Billion Lives”. We’re trying to follow in his footsteps with a multidisciplinary approach to address the genetic manipulation of organisms with modern agricultural practices to provide food security to countries with limited arable land.
      In summary Courtenay, it’s very possible to sustain a world with over 10 Billion people in it; we just need to work a little harder at making it possible for everyone to be able to eat food when they want to!
      Michael

    • Photo: Paralysis Challenge

      Paralysis Challenge answered on 18 Jun 2014:


      Courtenay,
      You’re asking a really important question, and I’ll echo the responses of my colleagues on the other issues to say that this is worth considering as we move forward on all these challenge areas. I won’t pretend to have the expertise to answer your question, but I do know that humankind has everything it needs to solve what seem to be intractable problems, and incentive prizes are one way to focus popular attention on issues of global importance. The answers may lie in science, but — as likely — the answers may lie in economics, culture, geopolitics, or many other areas.
      Thanks for your interest on these topics.

    • Photo: Antibiotics Challenge

      Antibiotics Challenge answered on 18 Jun 2014:


      This is outside my expertise – you really want a panel of sociologists, economists, ecologists and politicians here! However it’s an extremely important question. As the other answers show, it’s not obvious what the maximum sustainable human population is – but whatever the exact number is, we can’t keep growing indefinitely.

      As Flight points out, probably the most effective first step would be ensuring all girls get a good education (of course, this is also a good idea for many other reasons). Worldwide, better-educated women have smaller and healthier families. Here’s some evidence:
      http://sustainabilityscienceharvard.viublogs.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/1/files/2014/05/12_b_Lutz_Samir_2011_Hum-Cap-Pop-Ed.pdf
      -Louise

Comments