The UN population fund has revealed that by the end of the week, the world’s population will tip the 7billion mark. Whatever your views, the rapid rate of increase is remarkable. When I was born 30 years ago the world population was ‘just’ 4.5billion.
But the overwhelming response by the media, as we welcome the 7billionth inhabitant into the world, has been that of doom and gloom. Brendan O’Neill yesterday noted the racist subtext to the stories, all of which are illustrated with pictures of Chinese, Indians and Africans undertaking earth-annihalating activities such as getting on a train, stopping at traffic lights and – heaven forbid – skipping. What strikes me about the tone of the text, however, is how apocolypse-laden it all is.
Population growth “threatens to undermine efforts to save the planet”, forcing us to examine “our planet’s predicament”. The Guardian descends into downright hysteria: “Since we passed one billion in 1800, our rising numbers and consumption have already caused climate change, rising sea levels, expanding deserts and the “sixth extinction” of wildlife.” One quickly reaches the conclusion that the only permissiable response is to scrub the earth clean of the scourge of humanity.
As Guardian journalists tend to live in London (population density of around 4,700 people per sq km) it’s easy to see why they might resort to hysteria. But to assume that the whole world is a replica of Kings Cross at rush hour is to blow matters out of all proportion. England is one of the most densely populated countries in the world at 395 per km sq (2008 figures) and yet David Cameron pointed out in his leader’s speech at conference that only 9% of the country is built upon. That statistic echoes worldwide statistics – globally, it’s estimated that 90% of humans live on just 10% of the earth’s surface. We’re not about to run out of space.
Most often, it’s the impact on resources that causes the most hand-wringing. Just imagine, all those people eating, clothing themselves, using fuel for all sorts of activities like staying warm and getting around. How ghastly. But this view completely ignores the fact that throughout history we have found ways to use resources more efficiently, even imaginatively so. Take energy as an example: we in the western world have progressed through a range of technologies from the least energy dense wood, through coal, to the highly energy dense nuclear technology, thus freeing ourselves of the need to chop down forests or dig out coal mines. There is absolutely no reason why, as our population rises and more human minds add to our collective ingenuity, we should fail to keep innovating in this way, using the earth’s resources more and more efficiently.
But the environmentalists and eco-handwringers don’t like to acknowledge human achievement, and they most certainly don’t like human development. Yearning for a mass-return to yurts and organic living (all of which is highly resource intensive) they have already told the developing world that they are not allowed to benefit from the sorts of technologies that the western world enjoyed during our industrial revolution. Now they are displaying the same hypocracy in criticising developing nations over their expanding populations.
Between the years 1700 and 2000, Britain’s population rose tenfold from 5.5million to over 50million. Despite our well-documented immigration rates over recent years, the most rapid rate of growth was during the latter half of the 19th century. Life expectancy at this time also rose – it was just 40 in 1820; by 1914 it had risen to around 53 (although it dropped again by 1920 due to economic recession and an outbreak of influenza) Today there are just a handful of countries left in the world with a life expectancy that low. A rising population is a measure of progress as modern technologies lift millions out of absolute poverty by providing them with livelihoods beyond subsistance farming, offering access to medicines, giving them warm, dry homes replete with electricity.
So the question to the end-of-the-worlders is this: if wealth gained through progress is the best way of allowing people to live longer, more fulfilling lives, how would you like to inform billions of people in developing nations that they are not allowed to live those lives? And if there are too many people on the planet, how would you like to get rid of the excess?
sending...
