| Year | Population | Annual growth rate (%) |
Annual population change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1950 | 2,555,955,393 | 1.47 | 37,807,330 |
| 1951 | 2,593,762,723 | 1.61 | 42,101,075 |
| 1952 | 2,635,863,798 | 1.71 | 45,354,486 |
| 1953 | 2,681,218,284 | 1.78 | 48,096,925 |
| 1954 | 2,729,315,209 | 1.87 | 51,594,958 |
| 1955 | 2,780,910,167 | 1.89 | 53,156,544 |
| 1956 | 2,834,066,711 | 1.96 | 56,034,059 |
| 1957 | 2,890,100,770 | 1.94 | 56,726,494 |
| 1958 | 2,946,827,264 | 1.77 | 52,551,450 |
| 1959 | 2,999,378,714 | 1.40 | 42,307,137 |
| 1960 | 3,041,685,851 | 1.34 | 41,006,148 |
| 1961 | 3,082,691,999 | 1.81 | 56,224,066 |
| 1962 | 3,138,916,065 | 2.20 | 69,758,337 |
| 1963 | 3,208,674,402 | 2.20 | 71,377,045 |
| 1964 | 3,280,051,447 | 2.09 | 69,241,262 |
| 1965 | 3,349,292,709 | 2.08 | 70,445,430 |
| 1966 | 3,419,738,139 | 2.03 | 69,956,266 |
| 1967 | 3,489,694,405 | 2.04 | 72,055,706 |
| 1968 | 3,561,750,111 | 2.08 | 74,844,338 |
| 1969 | 3,636,594,449 | 2.05 | 75,402,508 |
| 1970 | 3,711,996,957 | 2.07 | 77,667,761 |
| 1971 | 3,789,664,718 | 1.99 | 76,357,913 |
| 1972 | 3,866,022,631 | 1.94 | 75,842,383 |
| 1973 | 3,941,865,014 | 1.88 | 74,627,480 |
| 1974 | 4,016,492,494 | 1.79 | 72,607,390 |
| 1975 | 4,089,099,884 | 1.72 | 71,114,503 |
| 1976 | 4,160,214,387 | 1.71 | 71,656,909 |
| 1977 | 4,231,871,296 | 1.68 | 71,489,322 |
| 1978 | 4,303,360,618 | 1.71 | 74,213,981 |
| 1979 | 4,377,574,599 | 1.70 | 74,982,536 |
| 1980 | 4,452,557,135 | 1.70 | 76,294,721 |
| 1981 | 4,528,851,856 | 1.75 | 79,872,396 |
| 1982 | 4,608,724,252 | 1.76 | 81,744,318 |
| 1983 | 4,690,468,570 | 1.70 | 80,223,994 |
| 1984 | 4,770,692,564 | 1.69 | 81,529,983 |
| 1985 | 4,852,222,547 | 1.71 | 83,687,162 |
| 1986 | 4,935,909,709 | 1.74 | 86,386,124 |
| 1987 | 5,022,295,833 | 1.72 | 87,036,938 |
| 1988 | 5,109,332,771 | 1.69 | 87,012,546 |
| 1989 | 5,196,345,317 | 1.68 | 88,141,297 |
| 1990 | 5,284,486,614 | 1.57 | 83,633,233 |
| 1991 | 5,368,119,847 | 1.55 | 83,657,777 |
| 1992 | 5,451,777,624 | 1.50 | 82,144,345 |
| 1993 | 5,533,921,969 | 1.45 | 80,900,295 |
| 1994 | 5,614,822,264 | 1.44 | 81,660,292 |
| 1995 | 5,696,482,556 | 1.41 | 81,154,757 |
| 1996 | 5,777,637,313 | 1.38 | 80,123,371 |
| 1997 | 5,857,760,684 | 1.34 | 79,217,938 |
| 1998 | 5,936,978,622 | 1.31 | 78,089,406 |
| 1999 | 6,015,068,028 | 1.28 | 77,341,044 |
| 2000 | 6,092,409,072 | 1.26 | 77,429,215 |
| 2001 | 6,169,838,287 | 1.23 | 76,355,619 |
| 2002 | 6,246,193,906 | 1.21 | 76,018,626 |
| 2003 | 6,322,212,532 | 1.21 | 76,913,590 |
| 2004 | 6,399,126,122 | 1.20 | 77,395,298 |
| 2005 | 6,476,521,420 | 1.19 | 77,646,189 |
| 2006 | 6,554,167,609 | 1.18 | 78,003,314 |
| 2007 | 6,632,170,923 | 1.18 | 78,755,194 |
| 2008 | 6,710,926,117 | 1.17 | 79,136,099 |
| 2009 | 6,790,062,216 | 1.17 | 79,580,822 |
| 2010 | 6,869,643,038 | 1.16 | 80,139,198 |
| 2011 | 6,949,782,236 | 1.15 | 80,499,224 |
| 2012 | 7,030,281,460 | 1.14 | 80,560,010 |
| 2013 | 7,110,841,470 | 1.12 | 80,351,923 |
| 2014 | 7,191,193,393 | 1.11 | 79,929,736 |
| 2015 | 7,271,123,129 | 1.09 | 79,455,115 |
| 2016 | 7,350,578,244 | 1.07 | 78,965,031 |
| 2017 | 7,429,543,275 | 1.05 | 78,351,232 |
| 2018 | 7,507,894,507 | 1.03 | 77,616,295 |
| 2019 | 7,585,510,802 | 1.01 | 76,774,088 |
| 2020 | 7,662,284,890 | 0.99 | 75,946,263 |
| 2021 | 7,738,231,153 | 0.97 | 75,095,456 |
| 2022 | 7,813,326,609 | 0.94 | 74,114,356 |
| 2023 | 7,887,440,965 | 0.92 | 73,080,464 |
| 2024 | 7,960,521,429 | 0.90 | 72,023,397 |
| 2025 | 8,032,544,826 | 0.88 | 71,045,623 |
| 2026 | 8,103,590,449 | 0.86 | 70,146,499 |
| 2027 | 8,173,736,948 | 0.84 | 69,228,348 |
| 2028 | 8,242,965,296 | 0.83 | 68,301,329 |
| 2029 | 8,311,266,625 | 0.81 | 67,362,805 |
| 2030 | 8,378,629,430 | 0.79 | 66,482,789 |
| 2031 | 8,445,112,219 | 0.77 | 65,674,999 |
| 2032 | 8,510,787,218 | 0.76 | 64,854,812 |
| 2033 | 8,575,642,030 | 0.74 | 64,006,185 |
| 2034 | 8,639,648,215 | 0.73 | 63,115,929 |
| 2035 | 8,702,764,144 | 0.71 | 62,235,131 |
| 2036 | 8,764,999,275 | 0.70 | 61,382,465 |
| 2037 | 8,826,381,740 | 0.68 | 60,504,670 |
| 2038 | 8,886,886,410 | 0.67 | 59,592,670 |
| 2039 | 8,946,479,080 | 0.65 | 58,632,197 |
| 2040 | 9,005,111,277 | 0.64 | 57,682,175 |
| 2041 | 9,062,793,452 | 0.62 | 56,755,838 |
| 2042 | 9,119,549,290 | 0.61 | 55,785,991 |
| 2043 | 9,175,335,281 | 0.60 | 54,769,039 |
| 2044 | 9,230,104,320 | 0.58 | 53,708,633 |
| 2045 | 9,283,812,953 | 0.57 | 52,639,344 |
| 2046 | 9,336,452,297 | 0.55 | 51,569,107 |
| 2047 | 9,388,021,404 | 0.54 | 50,475,749 |
| 2048 | 9,438,497,153 | 0.52 | 49,366,268 |
| 2049 | 9,487,863,421 | 0.51 | 48,247,836 |
| 2050 | 9,536,111,257 | ||
Category: Articles
-
Total Midyear Population fot theworld:1950-2050
-
Optimum Population Trust
Concerned about the speed of global warming?
About food, water and energy scarcity – the effects of overpopulation on a plundered planet?
About the UK’s failure to stabilise its own population?
Support the Optimum Population Trust
Support research into optimum population sizes
Campaign for a lower population in the UK
Sign our Stop at Two pledge!World population is projected to rise from today’s 6.8 billion to 9.1 billion in 2050.* The World Population Clock is ticking. We are rapidly destabilising our climate and destroying the natural world on which we depend for future life.
GETTING THE FACTS RIGHT
The Optimum Population Trust is absolutely opposed to any form of coercion in family planning.
The Optimum Population Trust believes that Earth may not be able to support more than half its present numbers before the end of this century, and that the UK’s long-term sustainable population level may be lower than 30 million. Research and policy are summarised on this website and available to all members in the OPT Journal.
In the UK, population is officially projected to rise from 60.6 million (mid-2006) to 77 million in 2050 – that’s more than another two Londons.**
* United Nations Population Division, World Population Prospects 2008 Revision, 11 March 2009. ** Mid-2006 based Principal Population Projection, Government Actuary’s Department, and ONS release, both 23 October 2007.
OPT for a sustainable planet
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Image by Reto
Stockli & Robert Simmon, with MODIS,
USGS EROS,& DMSP. -
Population Clock
Population clockOn 30 April 2009 at 08:18:22 PM (Canberra time), the resident population of Australia is projected to be:
21,746,528This projection is based on the estimated resident population at 30 September 2008 and assumes growth since then of:
- one birth every 1 minute and 50 seconds,
- one death every 3 minutes and 48 seconds,
- a net gain of one international migrant every 2 minutes and 36 seconds leading to
- an overall total population increase of one person every 1 minute and 30 seconds.
These assumptions are consistent with those used for Series B in Population Projections, Australia, 2006 to 2101 (cat. no. 3222.0).
RELATED PRODUCTS:
Australian Demographic Statistics (cat. no. 3101.0)
Population by Age and Sex, Australian States and Territories (cat. no. 3201.0)
Local government and other regionsRegional Population Growth Australia (cat. no. 3218.0)
Population by Age and Sex, Regions of Australia (cat. no. 3235.0)
Births and Deaths
Births, Australia (cat. no. 3301.0)
Deaths, Australia (cat. no. 3302.0)
Australian Historical Population Statistics (cat. no 3105.0.65.001)
Population projections
Population Projections, Australia, 2006 to 2101 (cat. no. 3222.0)
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians
Experimental Estimates of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, Jun 2006 (cat. no. 3238.0.55.001)
Other statistics
This page last updated 17 March 2009 -
2008 Revision of World Population Prospects
2008 Revision of World Population Prospects
Key Findings
1. In July 2009, the world population will reach 6.8 billion, 313 million more than in 2005 or a gain of
78 million persons annually. Assuming that fertility levels continue to decline, the world population
is expected to reach 9.1 billion in 2050 and to be increasing by about 33 million persons annually at
that time, according to the medium variant.
2. Future population growth is highly dependent on the path that future fertility takes. In the medium
variant, fertility declines from 2.56 children per woman in 2005-2010 to 2.02 children per woman
in 2045-2050. If fertility were to remain about half a child above the levels projected in the medium
variant, world population would reach 10.5 billion by 2050. A fertility path half a child below the
medium would lead to a population of 8 billion by mid-century. Consequently, population growth
until 2050 is inevitable even if the decline of fertility accelerates.
3. In the more developed regions, fertility has increased slightly in recent years so that its estimated
level in 2005-2010, 1.64 children per woman, according to the 2008 Revision is higher than the onereported in the 2006 Revision (1.60 children per woman). As a result of the slightly higher projected
fertility and a sustained net in-migration averaging 2.4 million annually, the population of the more
developed regions is expected to increase slightly from 1.23 billion in 2009 to 1.28 billion in 2050.
4. The population of the 49 least developed countries is still the fastest growing in the world, at 2.3 per
cent per year. Although its rate of increase is expected to moderate significantly over the next
decades, the population of the least developed countries is projected to double, passing from 0.84
billion in 2009 to 1.7 billion in 2050. Growth in the rest of the developing world is also projected to
be robust, though less rapid, with its population rising from 4.8 billion to 6.2 billion between 2009
and 2050 according to the medium variant.
5. Slow population growth brought about by reductions in fertility leads to population ageing, that is, it
produces populations where the proportion of older persons increases while that of younger persons
decreases. In the more developed regions, 22 per cent of population is already aged 60 years or over
and that proportion is projected to reach 33 per cent in 2050. In developed countries as a whole, the
number of older persons has already surpassed the number of children (persons under age 15), and
by 2050 the number of older persons in developed countries will be more than twice the number of
children.
6. Population ageing is less advanced in developing countries. Nevertheless, the populations of a
majority of them are poised to enter a period of rapid population ageing. In developing countries as
a whole, just 9 per cent of the population is today aged 60 years or over but that proportion will
more than double by 2050, reaching 20 per cent that year.
7. Globally, the number of persons aged 60 or over is expected almost to triple, increasing from 739
million in 2009 to 2 billion by 2050. Furthermore, already 65 per cent of the world’s older persons
live in the less developed regions and by 2050, 79 per cent will do so.
8. In ageing populations, the numbers of persons with older ages grow faster the higher the age range
considered. Thus, whereas the number of persons aged 60 or over is expected to triple, that of
persons aged 80 or over (the oldest-old) is projected to increase four-fold, to reach 395 million in
2050. Today, just about half of the oldest-old live in developing countries but that share is expected
to reach 69 per cent in 2050.
9. Although the population of all countries is expected to age over the foreseeable future, the
population will remain relatively young in countries where fertility is still high, many of which are
experiencing very rapid population growth. High population growth rates prevail in many
developing countries, most of which are least developed. Between 2010 and 2050, the populations
of 31 countries, the majority of which are least developed, will double or more. Among them, the
populations of Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, Niger, Somalia, Timor-Leste and Uganda are projected
to increase by 150 per cent or more.
10. In sharp contrast, the populations of 45 countries or areas are expected to decrease between 2010
and 2050. These countries include Belarus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cuba, Georgia,
Germany, Hungary, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Poland, the Republic of Korea, Romania,
the Russian Federation and Ukraine, all of which are expected to see their populations decline by at
least 10 per cent by 2050.
11. Population growth remains concentrated in the populous countries. During 2010-2050, nine
countries are expected to account for half of the world’s projected population increase: India,
Pakistan, Nigeria, Ethiopia, the United States of America, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the
United Republic of Tanzania, China and Bangladesh, listed according to the size of their
contribution to global population growth.
12. Fertility has continued to fall in the vast majority of countries in the less developed regions. The
number of developing countries with high fertility (5 children or more per woman) declined from
59 in 1990-1995 to 27 in 2005-2010, and their share of the world population dropped from 13 per
cent to 9 per cent. Over the same period, the number of developing countries with fertility levels
that do not ensure the replacement of the population increased from 15 to 38.
13. Most developed countries have had below-replacement fertility (below 2.1 children per woman) for
two or three decades. Among the 45 developed countries with at least 100,000 inhabitants in 2009,
42 had below-replacement fertility in 1990-1995 and 44 did in 2005-2010. However, between the
2000-2005 and 2005-2010, 34 developed countries experienced slight increases in fertility. For the
more developed regions as a whole, total fertility increased from 1.58 to 1.64 children per woman
between those two periods. Yet, in 2005-2010, 25 developed countries, including Japan and most of
the countries in Southern and Eastern Europe, still had fertility levels below 1.5 children per
woman.
14. In 2005-2010, the 76 countries with below-replacement fertility accounted for 47 per cent of the
world population. The most populous developing countries with below replacement fertility are
China, Brazil, Viet Nam, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Thailand and the Republic of Korea, in order
of population size.
15. Globally, total fertility is expected to fall from 2.56 children per woman in 2005-2010 to 2.02 in
2045-2050 according to the medium variant. However, in the more developed regions, total fertility
is projected to increase from 1.64 children per woman currently to 1.80 in 2045-2050. A major
reduction of fertility is projected for the group of least developed countries (from 4.39 to 2.41
children per woman) and the fertility of the rest of the developing world is expected to drop from
2.46 children per woman currently to 1.93 in 2045-2050, thus nearly converging to the fertility
levels by then typical of the developed world.
16. The median age, that is, the age that divides the population in two halves of equal size, is an
indicator of population ageing. Globally, the median age is projected to increase from 29 to 38 years
between 2009 and 2050. Europe has today the oldest population, with a median age of nearly 40
years, which is expected to reach 47 years in 2050.
17. The median age is higher in countries that have been experiencing low fertility for a long time. In
2010, 19 developed countries or areas are expected to have a median age of 40 years or higher, up
from 11 in 2005. In addition, among developing countries or areas, median ages above 40 were
reached in Hong Kong SAR China and Singapore. The pervasiveness of population ageing will
increase by 2050 when all 45 developed countries are projected to have median ages higher than 40
years and 43 developing countries will also have similarly high median ages. Whereas today abou
7 per cent of the world population lives in countries where median ages are 40 years or higher, the
equivalent proportion in 2050 is projected to be 43 per cent.
18. Countries where fertility remains high and has declined only moderately will experience the slowest
population ageing. By 2050, slightly fewer than one in five countries is projected to have a median
age under 30 years (37 countries). The youngest populations will be found among the least
developed countries, eight of which are projected to have median ages below 25 years in 2050,
including Afghanistan, Chad, Guinea-Bissau, Niger, Somalia, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania
and Zambia.
19. Increasing longevity also contributes to population ageing. Globally, life expectancy at birth is
projected to rise from 68 years in 2005-2010 to 76 years in 2045-2050. In the more developed
regions, the projected increase is from 77 years in 2005-2010 to 83 years inn 2045-2050, while in
the less developed regions the increase is expected to be from 66 years currently to 74 years by midcentury.
20. Life expectancy remains low in the least developed countries, at just 56 years in 2005-2010, and
although it is projected to reach 69 years in 2045-2050, realizing such increase is contingent on
reducing the spread of HIV and combating successfully other infectious diseases. Similar
challenges must be confronted if the projected increase of life expectancy in the rest of the
developing countries, from under 68 years today to 76 years by mid-century, is to be achieved.
21. A major concern is that most developing countries are unlikely to meet the goal of reducing underfive
mortality by two-thirds between 1990 and 2015, as called for in the Millennium Development
Goals. According to the 2008 Revision, 134 of the 151 developing countries with more than
100,000 inhabitants in 2009 will not reach that goal. Furthermore, 59 developing countries, located
mainly in sub-Saharan Africa or belonging to the group of least developed countries, are projected
to have in 2015 an under-five mortality higher than 45 deaths per 1000, the less demanding target
set by the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development.
22. Among the more developed regions, Eastern Europe has the lowest life expectancy and it has
experienced reductions in life expectancy at birth since the late 1980s. In 2005-2010 life expectancy
in the region increased somewhat but at 69.2 years was lower than it had been in 1965-1970 (69.6
years). Despite having recorded some recovery since the late 1990s, Moldova, the Russian
Federation and Ukraine have currently the lowest life expectancies among developed countries
(below 70 years).
23. Although the HIV/AIDS epidemic continues to be a major issue of concern in the global health
agenda, adult HIV prevalence reached a peak over the past decade or so in at least two thirds of the
58 countries considered to be most affected by the epidemic and a growing number of them are
reaching and maintaining lower prevalence levels. Nevertheless, in countries where prevalence has
been high, the impact of the epidemic in terms of morbidity, mortality and slower population
growth continues to be evident. Thus, in Southern Africa, the region with the highest prevalence of
the disease, life expectancy has fallen from 61 years in 1990-1995 to 52 years in 2005-2010 and is
only recently beginning to increase. Nevertheless, life expectancy in the region is not expected to
recover the level it had in the early 1990s before 2045. As a consequence, the growth rate of the
population in the region has plummeted, passing from 2.4 per cent annually in 1990-1995 to 0.6 per
cent annually in 2005-2010 and is expected to continue declining for the foreseeable future.
24. Given the low fertility prevailing in developed countries, deaths are expected to exceed births over
the foreseeable future. Consequently, the population of the more developed regions would be
World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision xiii
decreasing if the excess of deaths over births were not counterbalanced by a net migration gain.
During 2010-2050, the net number of international migrants to more developed regions is projected
to be 96 million, whereas the excess of deaths over births is 58 million, implying an overall growth
of 38 million.
25. In 2005-2010, net migration in nine countries or areas more than doubled the contribution of natural
increase (births minus deaths) to population growth: Belgium, Macao SAR China, Luxembourg,
Malta, Qatar, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain. In addition, in a further 11 countries or
areas, net migration counterbalanced totally or in part the excess of deaths over births. These
countries are: Austria, the Channel Islands, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Germany, Greece,
Hungary, Italy, Japan, Portugal and the Russian Federation.
26. In terms of annual averages, the major net receivers of international migrants during 2010-2050 are
projected to be the United States (1.1 million annually), Canada (214,000), the United Kingdom
(174,000), Spain (170,000), Italy (159,000), Germany (110,000), Australia (100,000) and France
(100,000). The major countries of net emigration are projected to be Mexico (-334,000), China
(-309,000 annually), India (-253,000), the Philippines (-175,000), Pakistan (-161,000), Indonesia
(-156,000) and Bangladesh (-148,000). Although the current economic crisis may reduce migration
flows in comparison to those registered over the recent past, the major economic and demographic
asymmetries that will persist are likely to remain powerful generators of international migration
over the medium-term future.
-
Population Control- ultimate greening
Population control – ultimate greening
By Green Living Tips | Published 02/5/2009 | family
The ultimate green tip – don’t have kids
The issue of population, or more accurately overpopulation, is a really, really sensitive subject, so I want to state from the outset that this article is not directed to those people with children, rather those that are considering having children; be it their first or adding to their clan. What’s done is done, what’s not can be prevented.
Knowledge is wonderful, but with it comes a heavy responsibility.
Jonathon Porritt, an advisor to the UK government, believes that green groups are betraying the interests of their members by refusing to address population issues due to the topic being “too controversial”. He’s right, it’s the elephant in the room many of us are trying to ignore for fear of backlash. I had touched on the topic briefly and gingerly in the past with some interesting feedback.
At the age of 27, I decided that it was important that I did not have children and took the appropriate steps to ensure it didn’t occur. At that stage, it had more to do with genetics than environment, but as I get older I’ve discovered the side benefit was my decision is likely my greatest gift to the planet.
It’s a decision I have never, ever, ever regretted, so I certainly can’t claim it was a huge sacrifice and be eligible for any martyr awards. The thought of my progeny running about planet Earth sends chills down my spine to be quite honest :).
For me to perpetuate the line would have contributed so much additional environmental strain, even if my kids missed getting hit by the genetic boogeyman. For example, the average life expectancy of Australians, Canadians, folks in the USA and UK is between 77 – 80 years. At an average of 11 tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year, the average Aussie will generate more than 880 tons of carbon emissions in one lifetime. That doesn’t include all the other harm we do.
But what if I didn’t stop at one child and had two or more? Or what about my child’s children, their children and so on. What if some of them became heavy tobacco smokers like me? The mind boggles at the potential environmental impact if I had decided to have kids. It could potentially have many thousands of tons of greenhouse gas emissions and toxic waste within a few generations. Even if I reduced my personal impact by 75%, that could be wiped out by me introducing a single mini-me to this planet.
Here’s a few stats gathered from Mother Jones about the carbon footprint of children:
– One child in the USA generates as much CO2 as 106 Haitian children.
– In the region of 223 trees would be needed to offset the CO2 generated by a child watching 3 hours of TV every day for 18 years.
– In 2006, volunteers collected 68,720 lbs of toys and 33,469 lbs of diapers during global beach cleanups.
– The average student bins up to 90 lbs of lunch-box leftovers and packaging each year.
Sure, I could have taken steps with my kids to avoid some of those things, but that doesn’t mean they would have continued it. My parents warned me about drugs, but that certainly didn’t stop me losing a decade of my life to them. The machine of marketing is in kids’ ears for so much of their lives and it’s incredibly pervasive and persuasive. I know because I’m part of that machine.
The other thing that constantly springs to my mind for those of us who fully understand where humanity is at – why would you want to bring children into a world that’s falling apart environmentally? We can’t guarantee their survival, nor can we even be confident in it. Are we offering them the “gift of life” or a terrible curse? Some talk about their “right” to children. But where does that “right” come from? Mother Nature issues us with no such right.
Are we listening too much to our animal instincts but using our “superior” intellects to rationalize our having children rather than facing the fact this planet needs to be fixed before we can continue expanding, or even just maintaining current population levels? Many say even at current levels, the population is unsustainable long term. We really need to think long and hard about why we have children.
The finger is often pointed at developing countries regarding their tendency to generate massive broods, but I feel those folks have a better justification than most of us do. They don’t have the education we do and it’s their survival strategy for when they get older. With mortality rates so high in many country they need to have more children. Until we address their poverty, nothing will change there. But in order for us to maintain our comparatively lavish lifestyles, they must stay poor. It’s sadly just how the system works for now and it’s a system doomed to fail.
Let’s face it; we humans aren’t exactly an endangered species and no matter what types of controls are put in place, be they from government or nature throwing devastation our way, it’s unlikely everyone will stop procreating all at once and for humanity to disappear from the planet altogether.
Let me play the devil’s advocate here – even if it did, why would that be so bad? Why is it so important in the grand scale of things that our species continues to survive forever? Seems to me that the way we are going it couldn’t be – we appear to have some sort of collective, subconscious death wish.
If it is so important, what’s wrong with Africans taking over the world for example? Or Chinese, or Indians? Who cares as long as it’s an element of the species that by that time knows how to look after the darned place.
Our societies and commerce systems are based on the false assumption that infinite expansion is realistic. Deep down, most of us know that is insane. Knowing is one thing, experiencing it is another. We, and the next couple of generations are going to quickly see that this is not the case. Not only the environment, but our own financial systems have turned against us already.
For those of us with the education and knowledge of the perils of overpopulation, it’s up to us to make what for some will be a huge sacrifice – to not have any/more children. That doesn’t stop us from teaching the current and next generation about our mistakes so that they may avoid them. Want kids or something to nurture? Adopt. Consider getting a recycled pet even.
For the others who don’t fully understand the danger we our now facing with overpopulation and the environmentally generally – continue to eat, drink and be merry by all means, but if you do, just don’t have kids – that can be your contribution; there’s nothing further you need do or understand. Going green for you can be that easy. Sounds like a fair trade for not having to compromise your lifestyle don’t you think?
Let’s just give churning out kiddies a bit of a rest for a while and see how this mess pans out.
-
Listener tests new biochar approach
This week, Dieter has excelled himself. In response to the news story about a NZ venture to microwave biomass and produce charcoal, Dieter took himself outside, grabbed a large handfull of grass clippings and threw them into the microwave.

He not only sent us a photograph of the results to share with you. He drove into the studio (on his no carbon, electric motor cycle) to show them to us first hand (cracked plate and all). Thanks to Dieter’s pioneering efforts you don’t have to try this at home, kids, we already know the results.
Of course, we have already raised the issue of dedicating resources to growing forests (or any other biomass) simply to expend more energy microwaving it on the basis that the net result is a reduction in global carbon dioxide. Tim Flannery disagrees with us, so what more can we say?
