According to United
Nations estimates, world population reached the six billion mark on
October 12, 1999 -- a number that is steadily rising.
The 1998 Revision of
United Nations world population estimates says, "from 1804, when the world
passed the 1 billion mark, it took 123 years to reach 2 billion people
in 1927, 33 years to attain 3 billion in 1960, 14 years to reach 4 billion
in 1974, 13 years to attain 5 billion in 1987 and 12 years to reach 6 billion
in 1999." "It is estimated that 2000 years ago the population of
the world was about 300 million. For a very long time the world population
did not grow significantly, with periods of growth followed by periods
of decline. It took more than 1600 years for the world population to double
to 600 million." The following chart shows how rapidly the world
population has grown in recent decades, from about two billion in 1930
to more than six billion in 1999.
While the total world
population size (the blue line on the chart, above) is growing, the annual
population increments (the orange bars, above) have peaked, so that the
number of new people added each year is declining.
population density varies from place to place. For example:
Australia, with a
present population of 19,169,000, has an average density of 2.5 persons
per square kilometer.
population of 1,261,832,500 has an average density of 135.3 persons per
The United States has
a present population of 275,562,700, has an average density of 30.1
persons per square kilometer.
India, with a present
population of 1,014,003,900, has an average density of 341.0 persons per
the U.S. Census
Bureau's online world demographic aggregation tables.
Similarly, population growth
rates vary remarkably in different parts of the world. The World
Population Data Sheet published by the Population Reference Bureau shows
that about 80% of the present world population lives in less developed
countries where the population growth rate is 1.7% per year. In developed
countries, with about 20% of the world population, the present population
growth rate is only 0.1% per year.
The United Nations predicts
that the entire world population will stabilize at about 10 billion people. The 1998 Revision of the official United
Nations estimates and projections says that "by 2050 the world is expected
to have 8,909 million people, an increase of slightly less than half from
the 2000 population. By then the share of Asia will have stabilized at
59 per cent, that of Africa will have more than doubled, to 20 per cent,
and that of Latin America nearly doubled, to 9 per cent. Meanwhile the
share of Europe will decline to 7 per cent, less than one third its peak
level. While in 1900 the population of Europe was three times that of Africa,
in 2050 the population of Africa will be nearly three times that of Europe."
In some more developed
countries, where the population growth is close to leveling off, populations
will start to decline during the next fifty years. According to the
U.N.'s 1998 Revision, "a very slow and decelerating population growth in
Northern Europe during the first quarter of the 21st century will be followed
by steady population decrease in 2025-2050 .... Western Europe will
start experiencing negative population growth earlier and its population
will shrink by 6.5 per cent. Populations of Eastern and Southern
Europe will be decreasing during the entire projection period at a high
and accelerating pace; by the mid-century they are expected to lose 18
and 20 per cent of their 1998 sizes, respectively. On the contrary,
the populations of Eastern Asia, Northern America and Australia/New Zealand
are projected to keep growing; their respective increases by 2050 will
be 15, 29, and 39 per cent."
There is disagreement
among demographers as to when and where population changes will occur.
However, the unarguable facts of rapid world population growth and impending
population decline in developed countries have substantial economic impacts
During recent decades
of rapid and continuous population growth, there has been a continually
increasing demand for life essential products and services (such as food,
clothing, housing, education and medical care) as well as an increasing
demand for leisure and luxury products and services in developed and developing
Observing the phenomenon
of rapid population growth here on the Island of Maui, in Hawai`i, and
a corresponding increase of development activities has been a remarkable
eye-opener. This being an island, the limits of physical expansion
are plainly defined, and development has to be placed within those physical
limits. Contained as it is, the impact of rapid growth and development
here has been all the more visible.
The impacts here have
been negative in terms of the environment. There has been a steady
introduction of more alien species that are taking a toll on the existing
plant and animal life. The increased crowding has caused traffic
and pollution problems. As more people want more homes in a limited
field of real estate, housing and land costs have dramatically increased.
It is my understanding that our experience on Maui, as amplified as it
may be in terms of visibility, is similar to the same phenomenon that is
taking place in many locations throughout the world.
As advocates debate
the pros and cons of rapid development here, development advocates tend
to emphasize economic benefits, arguing that they offset the visibly adverse
environmental and esthetic impacts. In other words, economic arguments
are advanced to counter the empirical perception of and visceral reaction
to a decreasing quality of life. The argument that growth is good
for the economy is really simply a reflection of the economic opportunities
that population driven demand inexorably brings with it. As you have
more people, you can sell more stuff.
This situation then
is really not so much an argument as an opportunity -- demand is increased
by population growth, and demand drives the economic marketplace.
The countervailing positions emphasize issues such as adverse environmental
and esthetic impacts and the sustainability of endless growth (especially
on an island.)
Since this population
growth driven increase in demand has been fueling economic opportunity,
what are the implications of a predictable leveling off of population growth
and an eventual decline in population?
The argument over growth-driven
development is one of detail rather than a yes/no proposition -- more people
demand more housing. The issues are in the details of the design
and planning of housing expansion vis a vis adverse impacts.
The argument will be
significantly affected by an end to population growth, and even more so
by a population decline. Imagine yourself living in a time when the
population is declining on an island that has been over-developed (both
in terms of its natural, physical limits and in terms of what is needed
for a decreasing population.) What would you expect to be the demand
at that time?
I predict that the demand
will then shift to support a restoration economy. While we are presently
caught up in a quantity of life economic situation, we will in the predictable
future find ourselves in a quality of life economic situation. The
emergence of a new and viable restoration economy is already visible (e.g.
Kaho`olawe.) Eventually the facts of population will end the
present growth driven demand and there will be an increased demand for
quality of life and restoration economic activities.
What does this prediction
say for the present? First of all, we need to preserve the environmental,
cultural, esthetic and quality of life values and resources that we now
have, because our grandchildren are going to want them. Secondly,
as we plan for the unavoidable need to accommodate more people during the
next fifty years or so, we need to also recognize that this is a temporary
situation. Today's growth driven economy is not a permanent condition.
With a minimal amount of foresight, we can then perceive that when the
growth driven economy subsides, there will be lingering effects from development
accomplished in times past.
We need to help those
whose interests and economy will harmonize in restoring and enhancing quality
of life in the predictable future by not exhausting or devastating the
resources and places they will have to work with in their own time, on
their own terms.
here for an interesting population comparison counter.
The net worth of the top one percent of Americans is greater than that
of the bottom 90 percent, according to research from the Federal Reserve
and the Internal Revenue Service. Jeff Gates, Towards
a More Democratic Capitalism