One
should remember that in nature, everything has a limit. The size of earth is
limited, so is the amount of sun light reaching it. In a plant, size of plant, leaves
and the ability of plant to absorb nutrients from environment and produce food
for itself and other organisms around is also limited and so there has to be a
limit to growth of human population as well as development. This is not a new concept – it is being said
right from the earliest times; we hear about it in Ishavasya Upanishad “"Om
Isavasyam idam sarvam yat kin cha jagatyam jagat, tena tyaktena bhunjithah ma
gridhah kasyasvid dhanam"”, meaning we should not try to crave and
grow beyond limits3. If we do not
listen to this advice and act accordingly it is like going against our own
selves and committing suicide.
Unfortunately this ambiguity as to the number of people that earth can support
prevails among the Scientists, Economists as well as Social workers and Thinkers.
Many of them prefer to take shelter under Mahatma Gandhi’s famous quotation,5 “Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's
greed”, – a well-meaning quotation,
extrapolated wrongly, stating Earth can support
any number of people if they are able to control their needs and of course greed.
There are other groups, like Earlich2, Club of
Rome6, 7, who on the other hand, discussed the subject in detail with the help of computer aided
programs and had set a limit to growth as well as population at 6 billion, as early
as 1969. But can Earth accommodate 12
billion people ?, or even 6 billion as suggested by Club of Rome6 ? I am not willing to restrict
myself to just a bowl of rice per day (200 kg/year), naturally it is not fair even
to think that other humans should confine themselves to 200 kg of grain per
year. Besides, by now we learn the harsh
truth that the people of developed countries are not willing to reduce their
consumption rate, be it food or energy, so we cannot expect people of other
countries to reduce their needs to bare minimum. Besides, living does not mean
just food; we need a shelter, water, energy, roads, and entertainment and so on.
Which means even at 6 billion as suggested by Club of Rome, we would require
resources of three more Earths!
I
think the confusion prevails because these calculations refrain from taking environment
into consideration. Organisms and their environments are inseparably
interrelated8 – and interact to maintain a dynamic balance of material
and life cycle. Without trying to
explain the various complicated cycles which involve over 35 elements and their
innumerable compounds – it suffices to say that life supporting materials recycle between Abiotic (physical environment) and
Biotic units (living beings). It is a gigantic cycle, involving thousands of
tons of these materials. For example
Oxygen - animals’ breathe in and give out CO2, which the plants use to produce
food and in the process actually split water using Solar energy to release
Oxygen back to Environment. But life cycle is not simply limited to Oxygen and
Carbon dioxide; there are other elements and compounds required in right
proportion and at right time. Millions of organisms, apart from plants and animals, help in circulation 35
elements and their innumerable compounds back and forth forming interrelated
complex Biogeochemical cycles3. The
organisms of this earth, whether microscopic or large, - like Bacteria or
diatoms or big animals like Elephants or Whales - join hands
to move these gigantic and complex Biogeochemical cycles without which life will be impossible. Severn Cullis Suzuki9,
the girl who silenced the World for 5 minutes, has summarized the idea
beautifully by saying that ‘I am 13 million species strong’ . In other words,
humans alone cannot live on this plant; they require the help of all the organisms.
So we need to take them into consideration as well, in trying to estimate
sustainable number of humans that Earth can support. Dr. Doug Hamilton10,
person in charge of Astronauts and their requirements on Space Craft, runs lot
of experiments to recycle materials. He states that “we find it hard to repeat recycling
phenomena of Nature, so appreciate the Mother
Nature”.
(Banner specially created by Author for workshop to Save Western Ghats)
Dr
T V Ramachandra11 of CES, IISc Bangalore estimates that
“Eco-services provided by the forests in Gundia river basin
(700 hectors) is worth Rs. 200
billion/year (with food and water security) while aiding the livelihood of
ecosystem people”. We compete with other organisms of this planet forgetting
that we are totally dependent on them.
Environmentalist
have been cautioning about these issues, the concept of Ecological Foot printing
(coined by Wackemagel12) or the more recent Carbon foot prints, caution us as to the damage we are causing to
the natural systems, and also suggest how to reduce the impact. While the
concept of Embodied Energy tries to gauge ecological impact values for artifacts
we use like Car, TV or Mobile phone right from resource stage to finished
product and use of the same. All these concept need to be deliberated while
calculating the size of population that Earth can support. Phrases like ‘Sustainable growth’ are becoming
popular, but growth means demand on resources, bigger the population more the
demand, and thus the very concept of Sustainable growth is wrong – the two
words are contradictory. The growth is always exponential- just like that for
population, and growth cannot be sustained that too with ever growing of
population. Unfortunately the concept of
sustainable growth itself is basically wrong – it is an oxymoron13,14.
For example, Govt. in India is planning for 8.5% growth rate, which means the
demand on resource will double in just 8.25 years. Demographers show that human
population took more than 10,000 years to reach a size of 1 billion, but in the
recent past it has taken just about 12 years to add a billion. Fortunately,
recent UNESCO15 studies show that population growth
rate is slowing, and may reach 1.5 % or less, even then by 2050 it is estimated
that population size would be will
be 9 to 9.5 billion.
The
growth is always exponential- just like that for population, and growth
cannot be sustained that too with ever growing of population.
|
We
cannot expect people to be satisfied only with 200 kg of food per year, they
would all like to enjoy other food, the some modern gadgetry – we cannot
deprive our fellow citizens from enjoying fruits of civilizations. So we need to know how much space is required
to provide such devices and then take all these aspects into consideration
before we arrive at a sustainable steady state figure of human population.
One
may still argue that science would help us to grow more food as has happened
some years ago. Industrialized countries tripled their produce through use of
fertilizers and farm machinery.
Fertilizers as well as energy for farm machinery were derived from
fossil fuels – but now the fossil fuels are peaking. In fact Albert Barlett13
dubs modern Agriculture as conversion of
fossil fuels into food. Dr. Molly Brown16 of NASA scans the agricultural fields
of the World through remote sensing techniques.
She states that world has to double the food production, to feed the
ever growing population, but there is no more land available. Besides, the agricultural production is
leveling off. Some try to find solace in the fact that modern agricultural
practices like Hydroponics may
bailout the civilization’s food
requirement, forgetting that it is a
highly energy intensive method and hence cannot be practiced on an extensive
scale and produce food at low cost for the masses.
There
are others who look at the fisheries17 for rescue. But the oceans which
cover 70% of Earth is also getting polluted, and large trawlers fishing
mindlessly in deeper and deeper waters, fish nets extending several kilometers,
cyanide fishing, use of explosives and pollution have upset the food chain of
oceans. Aquaculture farming has in fact, worsened the situation further.
Monoculture practices of such farms have resulted in diseased fishes and prawns
escaping to the sea and spreading the disease to natural populations. In
several areas the pollution has resulted in loss of coral reefs. On the other
hand, practices like construction of Dams across rivers, have prevented free
flow of nutrients from the mountains and forests to the sea. One well studies
example is that of Aswan Dam and its effect on decline of fisheries on
Mediterranean sea13. Mindless fishing and hunting are so
rampant that voluntary organizations like Green peace18 were constrained
to launch mega resistance movements to prevent Whales and other large mammals from
being hunted.
Bruce
Sundquist’s19
study cautions us about another factor not considered so far. This important
parameter is the life supporting top soil, the very foundation of good yield. From
his studies extending for over a decade, he estimates that mind boggling 100 billion
metric tons of top soil is getting washed down to sea and other sediments and this
is about 5 times the amount of top soil nature produces. This loss coupled with
excessive use of fertilizers, pesticides and irrigation practices which increasing
water logging and salinity has already resulted in lowering
crop yield. It is estimated that
at the present rate of depletion, agricultural fields as well as grass lands
(on account of over grazing) most of the top soil will be lost, rendering the agricultural
fields almost barren in a couple of years.
In
fact, the present day agriculture is not in doing well either. Modern
agriculture, though displays high yield, has actually a negative energy balance,
for we are using fertilizers and farm machinery which are again based on fossil
fuels. Packing and transporting food, consume
lot of energy, it is estimated that to process 1 calorie worth of food 10 calories are used in US10 and at times food is transported
over 1500 km, which deprive local soils of their nutrients4. Moreover,
in the recent past, farm community is attracted by ‘easy’ city life, and
many a villages, at least in India, are becoming old age homes – it is
estimated that soon 70% of populations will be living in cities. As it is, many
villages are experiencing severe shortage of farm labor, constraining the use
of farm machinery. But where will they
go for fuel to run them? I feel the electric tractors and other farm machinery
will have to be evolved. , and these will be running on electricity generated
in the villages from Solar Chimney21.
On
more major limiting factor is fresh water. It is said that the water and not the
fossil fuel, will be the cause of 3rd world war. Experts like Dr.
John Cronin22
feel that our economy is controlled by water and not fossil fuel. Further, he
feels that there are many options for Energy source but no option for fresh
water. A
report in January of 1997 from Stockholm23 indicated that by the year 2025,
two-thirds of the world’s people will suffer from water shortages, and the
report also noted that the rate of use of fresh water was growing at twice the
rate of world population. It is now a common
scene to see long Qs before public tap; local governments are spending huge
amounts to provide drinking water to its residents, while on the other hand
even the sacred rivers are getting polluted.
So much so, many countries and states of USA have already planned to
convert sewage water into drinking water.
Most of the rivers are dammed, and yet people in ample rain fed areas, rain
water storage is becoming common. But rain water storage will not help in
agriculture. Agriculture uses lion’s
share of currently available fresh water. Besides, we tend to forget that processed
food also requires huge quantity of fresh water. For example, one cup of Coffee
actually needs 120 lit of water, one bottle of bear can be made only after
spending 150 lit of water, to grow cotton enough to knit a shit, will require
3000 lit of water. However, over optimistic people like late Julian Simon24,
a longtime policy advisor to US Govt., do exist and air ridiculous comments
like, “there is no need to worry about shortage Copper, we can make it from
other metals”. We are exploiting every
source of fresh water on earth, wells, bore wells, and many other sources, some
of which can’t be replenished. Many say
desalination of sea water is the answer, but it is a highly energy intensive
and costly process and we cannot hope to get adequate amount of water for our
activities especially agriculture. Fortunately, nature provides us with lot of
fresh water in the form of rain, but not enough to cleanse the rivers we are
polluting. We are yet to learn to make wise use of rain water. Similarly it is
becoming clear that first grade ores are getting depleted, and what would be
available for our next generation is only second or third grade ores.
There is one more important aspect
to be considered, the Exponential growth of population, the root cause of most
of the preset problems and the very subject of this essay. Better living standards, modern medicine and
food have increased the life span of us humans.
We have practically eliminated most of the negative population controls.
Excessive greed and flare for comfort has resulted in Global Warming which
threatens mass extinction of other species on which we are totally dependent. This exponential growth of human populations has
led to steady degradation of living standards as well as environment. Our numbers have grown from 6 billion to 7 billion
in just about 12 years. There are clear indications of over population – like
starvation deaths and increase in poverty. It is estimated that there are over
50 million poor people in US too. Added to this, we have several of miseries,
social such as congestion, Wars as well as environmental like Global Warming, pollution,
threatening not just the humans but the very life on earth.
Our
development strategies are aimed at speedy growth, it looks like our policy
makers are totally unaware of mathematical phenomena - the exponential factor -
ruling such growth patterns. May be they do but do not wish to abide by it for
the fear of losing job. Legend has it that it was an Indian wizard who invented
the Chaduranga - the Chess, and illustrated the power of exponential. Albert
Bartlett explains the phenomena taking Bacteria for example. Bacteria divide
once an hour. So if we take just two bacteria in a bottle, they will start
dividing into 2, then 4 and so on, and one
minute before twelve? They would have filled just half a bottle. Much
later Malthus and others applied this concept of exponential, independently of
course, to populations and had warned the civilization of the population bomb
waiting to explode if the local Governments do not take suitable
precautions. This exponential factor
affects other aspects of life as well. For example, in India, the planning
commission is chasing a target of 8% growth, which means the growth would be
almost double within 8.75 years, that is, India would require double the amount
of resources now being used. Resource crunch is already being felt in
several spheres of activities, especially the power sector, clearly indicating
that it would be difficult to maintain the activities even at present rate.
Every
planner is envisaging 10 billion
population by 2050 and planning for it, but I feel the focus should be on avoid reaching this unsustainable number through education and family planning strategies. All the countries of the World,
including India should try and do this.
But many a leading Economists, though prepared to accept facts like
peaking of fossil fuels, prevalent mal-nutrition and starvation and the
like, refrain from commenting on number of people this plant can support and
harp on the idea that world can still support many more billions of
people. Though there are many
apprehensions regarding multiple requirements of people, like food, water,
shelter, and at least some modern amenities, all of which require space and energy
in huge proportion, which at present is being derived from fossil fuels. Many
peg their hopes on Biofuels, but huge area of land is required to produce
enough biofuel. For example, to run cars
of a city like Hyderabad, entire Telugu Desam land will be required to grow the
required crop14. Then there is the use of machines to
plough, harvest, crush, distill the fuel; one
expert indicates that we may end up spending more energy in production than
what we get as final product13. In such a situation, it is
heartening to note that many European countries
have resolved to meet all their energy requirements through alternate sources
by 20508.
So
I wonder, if the Ladies of the Word, irrespective of creed and caste, will decide to have only one child in
their life time, thinking as to why add another innocent soul to already
troubled world, this planet may be a better place to live in couple of
years..
|
Many prominent economists feel that elevating
poverty will automatically reduce population growth; may be, they feel that the
poor have no other better work than to engage in the – primordial entertainment contributing directly to
population growth. Interestingly, history25 tells us that 18th century
elite French women decided to have just two children, and this model was
followed by the people of other strata. Today many celebrities have set a new
trend of adopting children. We also note that many a parents wish to have only
one child. So I wonder if the Ladies of the World, irrespective of creed and
caste, will decide to have only one
child in their life time, thinking as to why add another innocent soul to
already troubled world . This strategy would
drastically reduce the population to a sustainable level in a short time. Over the years, women of
various parts of the world have taken the lead in Environmental protection –
the Ecofeminism is a movement to reckon with, so if they decide, situation can
improve. Such a decision will enable democratic countries to reduce their
populations without any difficulties.
Who
is benefited by the population boom? It is the Industries and Trade and of
course politicians. But it is not a
sustainable proposition, the divide between rich and poor will widen and this
may lead to a severe confrontation when the limit of patience exceeds, in fact
the indication to this effect are already there. Naxal movement in India, and
revolt against the local Governments in many parts of world, and even the latest Wall Street March, are
some of the glaring and prominent pointers. But “More the merrier” is the
patent formula of Industries as they are immensely benefited by increase in
populations - more customers -more profits. This is temporary phenomena, they
know, but as long as it goes, amass wealth at the cost of gullible.
Planet
Kepler 22b
Many
an optimists are dreaming of discovering other habitable planets, and or
colonizing the Sea as has been projected in some of the Science fiction films.
But there are several odds; migration of people
from crowded to less crowded areas on this plant
itself has been rendered difficult with so many restrictions, making it
difficult even to think about even distribution of people on this earth. So if
at all a new planet is discovered, who is to colonize it? But in the first place how close are these
‘habitable planets’?
The one which has been discovered
recently and lot of hype made about it, the Kepler 22b is 600 light years away,
Gliese 581e, is much closer, just about 20 light years away ! but that is an
incredible distance to travel at present.
It
is fairly a well accepted fact that the population of developed countries is
responsible for faster depletion of resources and responsible for aggravating Ozone hole,
global warming and associated phenomena –because their consumption rate
is 30% more than global average. But it does not mean that increase in number
of people in less developed countries are not contributing to the problem. Each
human being does impact the environment, and the extent, of course depends on
development status. More the development higher will be the impact. Thus there
is an urgent need to estimate number of humans that earth can support. Human activities have already caused great
change in the global environment. May26 observes that "..the scale
and scope of human activities have, for the first time, grown to rival the
natural processes that built the biosphere and that maintain it as a place
where life can flourish" . Whether the growth is smart or dumb, the
growth destroys the environment13.
(A bang on resources, should we survive like
this)
Now you will ask me what could be answer for the question raised in the title
itself. I am surprised that many who
have deliberated on issue, for or against, seem to be conveniently avoiding
presenting a plausible number. In the famous
video on “How many people can live on this planet ...” Sir David Attenbourough10,
wonders “can our intelligence save us?” (How many people can live on Planet Earth –BBC
Horizon (HD) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwBgNF_4g7Q)
Now you will ask me what could be answer for the question raised in the title
itself. I am surprised that many who
have deliberated on issue, for or against, seem to be conveniently avoiding
presenting a plausible number. In the famous
video on “How many people can live on this planet ...” Sir David Attenbourough10,
wonders “can our intelligence save us?” (How many people can live on Planet Earth –BBC
Horizon (HD) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwBgNF_4g7Q)
More number of people would only mean
congestion, inequality and suffering, leading to tension. It would then become
essential to cut more forests, look for more pastures, faster depletion of resources like fresh water,
minerals, fossil fuels, more human – wildlife conflicts, and finally conflicts
between societies. All of these problems are caused by population growth, and
none of these problems can be “solved” if population growth continues. The
series of big city riots of the recent decades are symptoms of a deep-seated
illness, injustice and inequity that we have ignored too long
In fact the proliferation of humans on this planet runs
parallel to spread of Cancer. We have occupied every habitat, depleting
resources, spewing pollutants, killing the very life supporting system.
The illness is certainly made worse by the rapid population
growth that consumes public and private resources in order to give generous
returns to investors, with minimal benefits going to help the low income people
who are adversely affected by the growth. The public financial resources that
are needed to pay the costs of population growth come at the expense of all
manner of community programs that are essential for improving education, justice,
and equity. Injustice and inequity breed unrest and discontent. When a
condition of instability is reached, things can happen with surprising speed.
What
answer do we have for our future generations on these issues? Club of Rome
suggested a population size of 6 billion. Earlier to that David Pimental27,
estimated that maximum number of people that Earth can support is 1.5 to 2 billion,
while Erlich 28 gave a figure of just about 500 million. In
India we are now 1.2 billion people that would be an average of 0.1 hectares
per person, while area required for an average Americas is pegged at 10 hectares
per person. From Rio convention and back
to Rio, we see that people of developed countries are not willing to reduce
their consumption rate.
How
many people can the Earth support? Total terrestrial area of Earth is about 14.8
billion hectares, of this for human use we can only consider 50% at the maximum,
balance for the nature to take care of us. That leaves us with 7.4 billion hectares
of land. So at 5 hectares per person,
earth can support just about 1.50 billion people, and at 10 hectares per
person, a very comfortable limit, just
about 0.75 billion people can live happily on this planet.
This
does not mean end of innovations, super markets, flashy cars or super robots. Each citizen can still enjoy all the modern
gadgetry, projector TVs or HD TVs, all Electric cars, safer and better
Airplanes if not jets, good food – milk, meat, vegetables and cereals. In fact if we are careful and plan right from
now, we can recreate paradise of Earth. We can still dream of travelling around
the world, visiting the natural or human made wonders, clean and green power
generating industries, also places like Rwanda where ethnic clashes resulted in
massacre of over million people in just three months.
Will
the ladies of the world decide to have just one child till and help to reach a
sustainable population level of say 1.5 billion? Will the citizens of the world
decide to limit their activity within 5 hectors? Can this planet be converted to Paradise? I am not sure. Am I hopeful that this article
of mine will impress at least some of the policy makers, or the public in general?
I would be happiest person if it did, though the
ideas depicted here are not new –but may be put together in one place.
Astrologers
had predicted a major natural disaster by the end of 2012, while Astronomers forecasted
a devastating Mass Coronal Ejection in mid-2013. If these predictions do not transpire,
we still can’t be off guard. Life on
earth would still be under threat. Effects of human made maladies like Global
Warming, Ozone hole, pollution, peaking of fossil fuels, recessions in
developed countries, ever growing populations and dwindling resources, Nuclear wastes,
terrorism, all seem to be converging to a anthropogenic catastrophe in the near
future.
References:
Wilson
Eshavasya Upanishad
Micheal Ruppert
Club of Rome
30 years after Club of Rome
Odum E.P.,
Seven Cullis Suzuki – Girl who silenced the World
Doug Hamilton (in ref 10)
Ramachandra T V.,
Wachemgel
Albert
Barlett
Sagar
Dhara
UNESCO
Molly
Brown
Green
Peace
Bruce
Sandquist
A.
Kent MacDougall
Jorg
Schaich
John
Cronius
Stockholm
Report
Julian
Simon
Ref
to French ladies
By,
Dr. Ashok Kundapur, Ph.D.,
Environment & Energy Activist ,
