People at a crowded concert. Credit: CHUTTERSNAP / Unsplash
The human population just reached eight billion! Does it matter?
Our numbers have quadrupled in my lifetime–and doubled since 1975. It’s undeniable that rapid growth of any species in a finite environment will have consequences. As humans require more land, water, trees and fuels, we leave less for other species and upset ecological equilibrium.
When people consume as we have in the Global North, or aspire to, the problems become far more severe.
How connected are climate change and population growth, though? Maybe not so much. A recent UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs report states,
although high-income and upper-middle-income countries contain around 50 per cent of the global population, they contribute around 85 per cent of global emissions of carbon dioxide. Such emissions from upper-middle-income countries have more than doubled since 2000, even though the population growth rate was falling throughout this period.
The average person in the U.S. and Canada emits more than twice as much as someone in the European Union or the U.K. and 10 times as much as in India and Pakistan. But Pakistan, like many countries that have contributed least to the problem, has been hit hard by climate impacts, with one-third of the country devastated by floods in 2022.
It’s clear that the immediate concern is excessive consumption. Population growth is already slowing, with 10.4 billion humans expected by 2080, followed by a levelling off. One study found that increase would contribute much less to global heating than, for example, not putting a price on carbon.
We can cut consumption immediately, but stabilizing population growth takes time, and will require ongoing global efforts to strengthen women’s rights, provide education to women, girls and families and ensure access to family planning resources and birth control.
Focusing more on population than consumption ignores the far greater impacts wealthy countries–where population growth is slowing–are creating.
Consider also that much of the Global North’s wealth is in effect stolen from the Global South. Through ongoing colonial enterprises, wealthy people and nations have exploited the natural resources and people of lands everywhere–from slavery to driving Indigenous Peoples from their own territories and destroying lands and waters for mining, fossil fuel development, industrial agriculture and massive dams and power plants.
One study found unequal exchange is draining US$10 trillion a year from Global South countries and that “in 2015 the North net appropriated from the South 12 billion tons of embodied raw material equivalents, 822 million hectares of embodied land, 21 exajoules of embodied energy, and 188 million person-years of embodied labour, worth $10.8 trillion in Northern prices–enough to end extreme poverty 70 times over.”
They concluded that this “unequal exchange is significant driver of global inequality, uneven development, and ecological breakdown.”
Climate disruption is caused mainly by greenhouse gas emissions resulting from consumer-driven economics in the Global North, much of it founded on exploitation of labour and resources of countries and people who don’t reap anything near equal benefits. Many of those countries are now experiencing severe climate-related crises, from massive floods to deadly heat waves to increasing human migration. And people argue population growth is the main problem?
That’s why recent discussions at the COP27 climate summit and beyond about “loss and damage” compensation and funding to help Global South countries adapt to the inevitable and avoid the worst climate impacts should not have been controversial.
All of us who have benefited from decades or centuries of exploitation owe a debt to vulnerable people, communities and nations. At the very least, we ought to do everything possible to curtail our consumer lifestyles and reduce our environmental footprints, including reducing emissions.
But it’s not just up to individuals; industry must pay its share. That’s why a “windfall profits tax” is garnering a lot of attention. Properly done, it would tax the massive returns fossil fuel companies are raking in–fuelled in part by global conflict–and use the money to help those at risk.
Our immediate crisis is caused by a system that encourages endless growth, exploitation, waste and energy use. Population growth is a factor, but it’s one that can be addressed partly by rethinking our greed-based economic system and the inequalities it creates.
David Suzuki is a scientist, broadcaster, author and co-founder of the David Suzuki Foundation. Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Senior Writer and Editor Ian Hanington.
Monthly Review does not necessarily adhere to all of the views conveyed in articles republished at MR Online. Our goal is to share a variety of left perspectives that we think our readers will find interesting or useful. —Eds.
FAQs
As average incomes have increased, diets have shifted to include both more calories and more varied and resource-intensive foods. These changes have had negative environmental impacts in terms of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, loss of biodiversity, and water and soil pollution.
How many people can Earth support? ›
On October 18, 2023, the International Union for the Scientific Study of Population (2023) broadcast a Yes-or-No debate on the statement: “The population of humans that can be supported sustainably on the planet at a reasonable standard of living is below 4 billion.” Here is an abridged version of Joel E.
What is the ideal population for Earth? ›
What is the “ideal” population size? The question of what population size is environmentally sustainable has been addressed multiple times. While estimates have ranged from as low as 100 million, the most frequently occurring figure is 2-3 billion.
Should we worry about overpopulation? ›
Scarce resources cause prices to rise, which disproportionally affects less-developed nations. Food is another resource that is affected by an overpopulated world. Due to increasing demands brought on by population growth, any serious disruption in the global food chain can have catastrophic repercussions.
Can the Earth support 8 billion people? ›
Human population, now nearing 8 billion, cannot continue to grow indefinitely. There are limits to the life-sustaining resources earth can provide us. In other words, there is a carrying capacity for human life on our planet. Carrying capacity is the maximum number of a species an environment can support indefinitely.
What will happen once the earth is overpopulated? ›
An increase in population will inevitably create pressures leading to more deforestation, decreased biodiversity, and spikes in pollution and emissions, which will exacerbate climate change.
How much longer is the Earth expected to last? ›
Finally, the most probable fate of the planet is absorption by the Sun in about 7.5 billion years, after the star has entered the red giant phase and expanded beyond the planet's current orbit.
How long can Earth sustain human life? ›
Roughly 1.3 billion years from now, "humans will not be able to physiologically survive, in nature, on Earth" due to sustained hot and humid conditions. In about 2 billion years, the oceans may evaporate when the sun's luminosity is nearly 20% more than it is now, Kopparapu said.
Why is overpopulation happening? ›
Due to immigration, the decline in mortality rates, medical breakthroughs, and increased birth rates, populations will always increase and eventually gives rise to overpopulation.
Can Earth support 11 billion? ›
In other words, there is a carrying capacity for human life on our planet. In the International Journal of Forecasting study's median scenario, the global population is 11.1 billion in 2100, 10.4 billion in 2200 and 7.5 billion in 2300. World population projected to reach 9.8 billion in 2050, and 11.2 billion in 2100.
Prof Matin Qaim, an agricultural economist and director of the Centre for Development Research (ZEF) at the University of Bonn in Germany, says 10 billion people can be fed without harming the planet “if we do the right things”.
What is the highest population the Earth can sustain? ›
A meta-analysis of 70 studies estimates the sustainable limit to the world population to 7.7 billion people. World population as of 2020: 7.8 billion...
Is the United States overpopulated? ›
Although the U.S. is the third largest country in the world, it has a fairly low population density and in 2017, the U.S. birthrate was the lowest in thirty years, which is well below replacement level. Those upsides, however, are disappearing, particularly in larger metropolitan areas that are becoming overcrowded.
Where is overpopulation the worst? ›
It is predicted that the population of sub-Saharan Africa will double by 2050. The Pew Research Center predicts that 50% of births in the year 2100 will be in Africa.
How much land would 8 billion people take up? ›
This means there would be roughly 1.2 people per square metre. It would then require 6,688,800,000 (roughly 6.7 billion) square metres to fit the 8 billion people inside. Converting the 6.7 billion square metres to square miles means it would require roughly 2582.55 square miles to fit in 8 billion people.
What are the effects of overpopulation in society? ›
Overpopulation leads to water scarcity, as the demand for this vital resource exceeds its sustainable supply. Water stress affects agriculture, industry, and households, leading to social and economic unrest in many regions. Similarly, meeting the growing demand for food becomes an increasingly challenging task.
Can we sustain 10 billion people? ›
However, as we also demonstrate, transformation towards more sustainable production and consumption patterns could support 10.2 billion people within the planetary boundaries analysed. Key prerequisites are spatially redistributed cropland, improved water–nutrient management, food waste reduction and dietary changes.
What has led to the human population reaching a record 8 billion people? ›
Day of Eight Billion
This unprecedented growth is due to the gradual increase in human lifespan owing to improvements in public health, nutrition, personal hygiene and medicine. It is also the result of high and persistent levels of fertility in some countries.
People at a crowded concert. Credit: CHUTTERSNAP / Unsplash