The world today inhabits about 7.3 billion people, but this number is growing faster than ever imagined. By 2050, the United Nations estimates this number will grow to 9.7 billion. Growing even higher from there, it is estimated to increase to 11.2 billion people by 2100. Surprisingly, the fertility rates are expected to decline. However, the reason for a burgeoning population is not new born babies but an overall longer life span. As of today, the average life span is 70 years, but by 2050 this number will increase to 77 and eventually to 83 years by 2100.
Society is not the only factor at risk of overpopulation; these immense surpluses will greatly danger the global environment. Having recently visited the Philippines, I witnessed first-hand the effects of overpopulation on third-world countries. Today, one out of every seven people alive goes to bed hungry because of the unequal distribution of food throughout the world. This number, increasing heavily by 2050 and 2100, will not only affect society but also cause an overall lack of food supplies in the environment. With a stronger push towards conserving food and serving third world countries, it may be a little easier to support the advancing population. Relied on heavily by the modern society, oil and fuel are finite resources that will quickly run out if the population keeps living and wasting these precious assets. With a little education on family planning and the importance of conserving natural resources, the planet will not drain out for generations to come and may very well be able to sustain the changing world.
Source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/07/world-population-expected-to-reach-9-7-billion-by-2050/
I absolutely agree with stressing the importance of natural resources, although, I am unsure as to how effective it will be. Many people are unconscious about how the growing population affects the environment and its ability to meet the demands of everyone. I think placing a higher reliance on renewable, natural resources would only be a temporary solution to hunger and pollution. Once the population grows to a certain point, and the effects of climate change continue to take their toll on the environment, natural resources may decrease in abundance and will not be able to sustain 9.7 billion people Energy production, food, freshwater, and shelter are all necessities that need to be taken in account for a growing population. With certain natural resources already being depleted and affected by climate change, I don’t think a higher reliance on them would be successful in helping America or third-world countries permanently.
ReplyDeleteI really like the ideas set before in this thread, and renewable resources are in fact a pressing issue in the human population’s growth. I feel like the best way to handle large human populations would have to be a global movement to more sustainable diets. The land to calorie ratio is extremely high in plant products in comparison to meat; thus, if we largely removed animal products in most diets we should be able to counterbalance an increased population.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, I think Ciara was very clever to mention the concept of family planning. The human population does not have to reach 9.7 billion by 2050, which is projected. Instead third-world countries (which is where most population growth occurs) should push contraceptives and female education. It is a known fact that as female education takes off, many women take time to consider having children and the growth rate halts.
In response to Chelsea, I feel like shifting to green energy, food production, and building methods could fend off environmental threats for enough time for science to develop something that has no environmental effect or removes our already existence impact on the earth.
If we are able to recognize issues with human growth and curb it before it becomes impossible to support, our burden on the environment should be minimized.