-
0
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?
- Keywords:
-
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.
-
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. -
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 -
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. -
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
courtenay-young-39 commented on :
Sorry – I still think that the main issue that I raised is actually being avoided – possibly unconsciously: and that is quite frightening.
Whilst I am glad that my question has raised some responses, the ‘answers’ are not answers. You might not agree with my premise: but you have not actually answered my question. “What can we do to reduce the world population to something actually sustainable in the long term.”
Michael: I am sorry but I just don’t “buy” your conviction that we can sustain a population of 10 billion on this planet. A total of 7 billion or 8 billion or 11 billion people is – I believe – just not sustainable in the long term: and there is no easy way to reduce the population levels: hence my question.
No-one wants a pandemic or a plague: and wars won’t do it either, though they will probably continue and get worse as resources get less. Government policies to restrict population growth does get votes: and we don’t have totalitarian control (yet) to limit childbirth (like was attempted in China). We are also not able to support a mass exodus out into space. So – back to my question, please!
It is not just a question of improving supplies of food, or water, or reducing CO2 levels, or use of fossil fuels, or developing better transport devices, or finding newly available metal-plastic combinations, or developing better drugs, or finding ways to reduce the increasing pollution, or preventing a massive depopulation of nearly all other species, etc. – it is ALL of these, together – not ‘or’ …, ‘or’ …, ‘or’ …, but ‘and’ … ‘and’ … ‘and’ … and more!
It is also all the other resources (and their attendant opportunity costs) that we are utilising increasingly recklessly, without any real possibility of renewal. There are hugely climbing exponential curves on all of these usages, with very little sign of any relapse or a significant rate of reduction: and they are quickly getting out of control. Birth rates would have to become negative for a considerable period to get back to where we – as a species – might just be able to survive with a reasonable, if considerably reduced, standard of living.
That is my ‘belief’ anyway. It is probably as valid as your ‘belief’ that – somehow (by throwing money at a problem) – we will be able to continue to be OK – almost indefinitely.
It is not scientific thinking, but it is idealistic thinking, to say: “If we can solve them all, we make the world a more sustainable place for the future of mankind.”
Another respondent also said: “If we can support 7 billion, then with some adjustments we should be able to sustain 10 billion or even a few (!) more.” This is false logic: I do not believe that we can support 7 billion people … indefinitely. We are facing reduced resources and increasing sets of problems.
All the improvements suggested – all very necessary and all part of a picture of the future – will not allow such a large permanent population, let alone an increased one.
So, there is a secondary question: why are we so stuck on increasing the world population: what is this obsession with growth? We could probably all have a much better lifestyle if there were actually LESS people.
“Enough already!” I say.
Flight commented on :
Hi Courtney, why do you think it wouldn’t be sustainable? What evidence do you have that this is the case? Rhys
Water commented on :
Hi Courtenay:
We all note your concern that a sustainable world is more likely with fewer people. So, here is a challenge to you: Starting with just over 7 billion people and a present global growth rate of around 1.1%, how would you achieve a total population of 4 billion ? If you can achieve that, then most (but by no means all) problems will have been solved or greatly reduced. If you can do it ethically and in a socially acceptable manner, you will be the front runner for the Nobel Peace Prize.
So, how would you go about achieving this reduction ?
Food commented on :
Hi Courtney;
It’s a very difficult issue. From my experience of living in China most people I know there are understanding of the one child policy (which is still in place but is now being relaxed), but it did cause a whole host of problems. Some families had more children anyway but were then unable to officially register them and sadly many baby girls were killed (doctors in China today do not reveal the sex of the baby to new parents). The policy has been effective in reducing the population growth, but do the means justify the end? How do you get the world’s poorest people who rely on having children, to give up their right to have them for the greater good?
annareed890 commented on :
Hi
This is a very difficult issue as you need food to survive and you can die of starvation but you would only beagle to live for around 2 days but with warmer you could live for at least a week. Also your body needs liquids so subdued and for example milkshake is a thick drink and could use this to help an empty tummy.