how will humanity survive exponential growth of its population?

Question

Albert Bartlett's treatise on exponential growth and its implications on humanity- how will we survive a global population doubling in forty years' time?

Answer 1

I'm afraid you asked a loaded question. I don't believe humanity *can* survive exponential growth of its population for very much longer. I don't know if our species has years or decades remaining... but it seems unlikely we have centuries unless we make drastic changes.

As I look, right now, the world population, according to my source below, is 6,627,722,573.

I agree with what little I know about Albert Bartlett's views on population growth. For years I (and many others) have said that unchecked growth is a grave danger. We simply do not have the material resources of fuel (for transportation and electricity) and food -- and ultimately space -- for population to continue to grow indefinitely!

'People, people, and more people' is the engine at the root of a great deal of what is wrong with the world, and is arguably responsible for a dwindling enjoyment of life on this planet -- Earth is of limited size, after all.

Take *unchecked* population growth to its seemingly-absurd but perhaps inevitable conclusion -- we are so physically restricted that we can no longer even move. Or maybe we run out of food long before then. Or growing stress and intolerance has sparked a global war. Or a new or mutated virus has destroyed hundreds of millions of people in a matter of months, thanks to our close quarters and constant global movement.

Ironically, it might be a virus that saves us -- or, at least those of us who survive. Freed of the need to compete for food and whatever fuel generates our electricity, they would at least have *some* of the resources our ancestors did. Of course, even those things may be scarce if that global conflict I mentioned sparked a nuclear war.

But besides all the doomsday scenarios that could happen, our quality of life must suffer -- must already be suffering -- from our incessant reproduction. Unless we live in the ever-dwindling rural areas of the planet, we are increasingly bombarded by noise, rudeness, superficiality, the tick of the clock, and the intolerance of our ever-closer neighbors and highway "companions" (erroneously implying they are pleasant to be around). The person in the next car or house probably feels the crunch of space and time just as we do, and stress is a growing problem.

Where there are more people there is more anxiety and fear, more intolerance of rudeness -- and more rudeness! -- more consumption, more noise, more constant construction and change, leading to increasing interruptions to our movement, and an increasing sense of instability... more stress (which is a catalyst for further reductions in many of the aforementioned areas)... and... less peace of mind, less fresh air, less reasonably-priced and readily available food (at some point), less awareness of nature (the sound of a stream having long been drowned out by the honk of the horn and the rumble of the engine; the chirp of a bird having been obscured by the chirp of the Nextel, and the violence-inspiring thump of the boom car)... I could go on and on.

I believe we are causing our world to evolve (or at least change; evolution implies improvement) faster than we, ourselves, are evolving. That strikes a dangerous chord in my mind.

This is to say nothing of the other species--plant and animal--we share the earth with. There is a need for them, too, not to mention a birthright of survival for every animal on earth!

I'm not as sure as I once was that we are heading toward these terrible conclusions... population growth isn't the rule in every country of the world. Indeed, there is a dwindling population in some places, and I wish I could say where, but I don't know.

But spend some time in a national park -- some real, quality time during which you *begin* to get a sense of what peace of mind is about, and how beautiful the *entire* planet once must have been -- and then tell me we don't have to pay close attention to the issue of population growth! I don't think a reasonable person can.

I am returning, now, to the population website I used for the figure at the beginning of my answer. I took some time answering, but did not purposely delay. The figure, now, is:

6,627,731,135

That is an increase of 8,562 people in the time I've taken to write my answer. And what does it read when you click the link, below, days or months later?

Regretfully, I suspect those low-income people (who have no computer, or even access to an education, to learn about the problem) are among the parents-to-be. But those who know something about the problem -- think about the consequences while you plan your family.

Answer 2

Eventually, the human race will experience a decrease in population... if we keep going the way we are, it may take something cataclysmic. We might suffer from massive starvation, or the affects of flooding from global warming, or an epidemic that sweeps through world populations like the bird flu. We might also wipe ourselves out, and with so many countries that have the technology to destroy and without the sense to use the technology properly (I'm including the U.S. in that grouping), we could easily go that route.

Eventually, Mother Nature will win. With dwindling resources and livng in closer and closer quarters, the human race will be more susceptible than ever. We already are, hence the talk of how many millions could die if the bird flu starts to spread quickly... the idea of the flu spreading by way of birds is not new... in fact that's how it's always happened, historically. But the numbers were never as staggering as those predicted now, largely the result of massive corporate farms and the burgeoning population worldwide.

Even if we do manage to survive, something will get us eventually. A meteor, a volcanic eruption from a supervolcano, a new ice age, floods, something. The earth will remain, but we will not. The dinosaurs lasted for millions of years... we might not be so lucky. With only 30,000 years or so on the planet, we're something of a rampaging virus destroying everything in front of us. The earth will eventually heal, and quite possibly at our expense.

Answer 3

Did you know the entire population of human beings on planet Earth, lined up in tight formation, could all stand in Jacksonville, Florida, with room left over?

Food rots in our fields and is wasted all the time. We are not overcrowded. Just take a long drive across the country sometime, and see how big this place called America really is, and then realize that America accounts for a very small percentage of the land mass.

Your assumption is based upon the ridiculous notion that we don't have enough resources. The sun provides endless energy. Water is never used up, it always recycles. Air does not go away. Dirt will always exist. Metals can be reclaimed and used. Food can be grown and regrown. More life means exactly that; more life. A rainforest has life forms literally growing on top of each other, and this is a GOOD thing. As long as we can keep building skyscrapers and controlling our farms, we will never run out of resources. In about 5000 years, when Earth reaches about 900 trillion people, then we can start sending people to Mars. If you're worried about overpopulation, then go to New York City and see how people are thriving even when densely populated.

Overpopulation is only a problem in countries which are not well-educated. Smart people know what to do when there is a large amount of people: Grow more food, or learn a trade skill and trade for more food.

A very long time ago, a city was considered to be overpopulated before it reached 50,000 people, because we did not know how to deal with sanitation or housing space. Now that we can build 100+ floor buildings, know how to factory farm, how to refrigerate, recycle, claim solar energy, split the atom, desalinate water, depollute water, and a thousand other skills, we can have a city of several million people that continues to grow and thrive, when 2000 years ago, that city would be stagnant due to the death rate prevailing over the birth rate.

Consider the rainforest: It thrives BECAUSE it is so filled with life, it is not at all suffering because of it.

As long as human beings are smart enough to build the infrastructure neccessary to support urban growth, such as nuclear reactors, massive water treatment facilities, supermarkets, solar collectors, and things yet to be discovered, and we leave enough space to produce food, we will be fine. It's not like the Earth isn't literally made of metals and minerals.

The only thing that is running out is fossil fuels. Big deal. Even those reclaim over time, but we won't need them anymore by the time it does. We don't need them now, but we are too lazy to change our ways, and it's very expensive.

By the way, we can produce synthetic fuels from organic material, and use hydrogen power. The infrastructure hasn't been built yet, that's all. We have gas stations, but not nearly as many hydrogen or grain-based fuel stations, or cars which run on that kind of energy.

Do you really think that we cannot overcome these little problems? We split the atom, landed on the moon, and toppled the Third Reich. We can do a lot more than some cynical "scientists" give us credit for.

Answer 4

Phaedrus, over half the people reading and writing on this site will be worm food in forty-nine years time. Anyway...
With children having children, Mormons creating "new souls", Catholics against birth control, test tube babies for the infertile, and--coming soon to a petrie dish near you!--cloning...we're in deep doo doo. Humans have no natural predators (except each other) and the driving force in science seems to be finding ways to prolong life. This planet isn't ready for this homo sapien cancer and can not--will not--sustain it.

Maybe the best thing for the Earth and the creatures remaining un-slaughtered and otherwise made gone by humans, is the end of humans. And the destruction will be brought about by over-creation. Ironic, don't you think?

Answer 5

the world will end within probobly the next 40 years and we will have a world war within the next 10-15 years so we won't have to worry about rapid population growth because the world will be over. And if the world doesn't end in that time in todays world there are over 48 million abortions worldwide every year so that is a significant drop in the population.

Answer 6

I am not sure what the last poster meant on the fact that humanity will advance to its next stage of existence when changes create an environment that limits or takes away competition for resources. Darwin showed us that the basic principle of competition is the only means for change and evolution. And as can be found in every range of sciences from business marketing to theoretical physics, any thing concept which is not established to account for and embrace changing of principles in order to maintain competitiveness or authenticity is doomed to complete failure. Your predictions lead humanity to a state that likens to the people of the future Wells described; lambs for the slaughter. I am not disagreeing that cataclysmic events could very well be in our future, or the ability for them to dramatically change the very nature of life. However; I do not agree that it will change the fundamental human nature of striving for an understanding of its surroundings in order bend it to his will. In summary a future for humans that eliminates the need for competition dooms us to either die out as a species or lose or single most important defining characteristic (the ability to rationalize and implement change). I'm sure which would sadden me more. I do not want to be a cow.

Answer 7

Human race will never survive the way we are going now not only the population but many other behaviors.

Answer 8

Death will always exist, no matter Science, Nature will balance the population and the Universe will take care of the details.

Rev. Steven

Answer 9

It will be just fine, no problems, people just worry too much.
Now lets take the whole world, 6 billion, and shove them all into texas, it would only be 6000 people per square mile. Thats not alot when you think of tokyo or new york.

Answer 10

that is way their are more Gay people now...evolutionarilly speaking it would cut down on the population burst within abot 20-30 years....so granted that there are ways around this using science nature doesnt know that therefore more gay people mean less baby's as far as nature is concerned