This week, the Royal Society made public the submission it had made to the UK All-Party Parliamentary Group on Population, Development and Reproductive Health as a contribution towards the group’s current hearings on Population Dynamics in the Post-2015 World. This gives an interesting opportunity to look at this contentious issue.
The world’s population is at an all-time high and is set to continue growing, albeit at a slower rate than in the recent past, for at least the next few decades. Latest projections from the UN (World Population to 2300) are for a peak of 9.2 billion in 2075, 2 billion more than today’s figure. Although a little higher than the previous estimate, this is comfortably less than the figures being mooted a generation or so ago. The projection beyond that is for a slight fall followed by a slow rise to be back to a smidgeon under 9 billion by 2300.
Forecasting this far ahead is not for the faint-hearted. The report makes clear the assumptions of fertility returning to replacement levels following a dip below, and for life expectancy to continue its slow increase, with no upper limit. However, if long-term fertility turned out to be 0.3 children above replacement levels the 2300 population could be four times as high, or if fertility was 0.2 children below replacement, numbers could be a quarter of the main projection by the same date.
Nevertheless, whatever the long-term outcome, numbers will grow significantly up to at least mid-century, and there is little we can do to change that. The thrust of the RS report is the major impact that people have on the environment and, in particular, the implications relating to expected climate change. All of which leads to one of the key points of the submission:
“Addressing population growth is key but it isn’t sufficient to provide a sustainable future. The most developed and the emerging economies must stabilise and then reduce material consumption levels. Planning will be important to soften the impact of changing populations on societies and the environment.”
This is no surprise. This and several other key points are drawn from a previous (2012) report: People and the planet. The prescription in this for reducing material consumption levels was through “dramatic improvements in resource use efficiency, including: reducing waste; investment in sustainable resources, technologies and infrastructures; and systematically decoupling economic activity from environmental impact.”
This actually makes a lot of sense in principle. But it’s the path to achieving such a desirable state rather than the end itself which should be a matter for debate. Should we proactively try to control population? Are there ways in which we can cope perfectly well with likely numbers over the coming century or more? In particular, we should think about what is meant by such broad terms as ‘planning’ and ‘sustainable’.
‘Sustainable’ in particular is a buzzword which has a wide range of meanings for different people. The most-widely used general definition of sustainable development comes from the 1987 Brundtland Commission report Our Common Future: “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
What is made explicit in this and other definitions is the need for what is generally called inter-generational equity, the need to conserve resources for our children and grandchildren. And, although economic sustainability is one of the key factors, the environment is often viewed as the one which trumps all others.
It is common to talk about environmental ‘damage’ but in reality this concept is in the eye of the beholder. While there are plenty of things we would consider it stupid or destructive to do – clear-felling tropical rainforests, for example – in reality destroying one micro- (or macro-) environment creates a new one.
Europe today is very different from the largely wooded land mass it would have been millennia ago, and yet we place great value on the new landscapes our ancestors created, and on the species such as sky larks that occupy the new ecological niches.
On the question of conservation, the problem is that nearly all resources are to some extent limited, whether by economics or in absolute terms. Where should we draw the line? Should we project our use of a particular resource forward 50 years, a century, or more? If so, what should be our criteria for conservation? All of which brings in the ‘planning’ aspect.
There is a human urge to organise and control. Applied constructively, it allows stable, prosperous societies to flourish. Taken too far, we get the disaster of the planned economy. A regulated free market seems the best system to have evolved so far, although this is unlikely to be the end of the road for the development of human societies. Fukuyama’s ‘end of history’ is not imminent.
One of the lessons of history is that the trajectory of progress is difficult to foresee. Those who accepted Ehrlich’s arguments in The Population Bomb when the world had half the number of people as today would be amazed by our current capacity to feed ourselves and, by and large, manage a clean and safe environment. While we cannot be complacent, there is no reason to think that our species will not continue to innovate, adapt and simply muddle through for some time to come. Even if that is not to be, it’s difficult to see ourselves planning ourselves out of our fate.
So, while it’s easy to sympathise with the Royal Society’s concerns about population growth and the environment, the scientific establishment should place more obvious faith in their own profession’s ability to make the breakthroughs that will make some of our present concerns seem less pressing, (while undoubtedly raising new ones). Science can provide the tools and opportunities to sustain future prosperity, but it’s up to free societies to make the most of these opportunities.
Martin Livermore
The Scientific Alliance
St John’s Innovation Centre
Cowley Road
Cambridge CB4 0WS
______________________________________________________