LETTERS: MANY VARIABLES AFFECT POPULATION

To the editor:

The Aug. 16 letter by Christine Stephens seems to place her squarely in the camp of the don't-worry corps when it comes to global population. This is such an uninformed and unreasonable representation of our current situation that it demands a response. To bolster her don't-worry position, Ms. Stephens reports that even the United Nations predicts global population stabilization. What Ms. Stephens completely failed to mention is that the U.N. offers a range of predictions that vary according to the assumptions included in the models. If we look at the United Nations Population Division World Population Projections to 2150 (Feb. 1, 1998), for example, we find the following assessment:If fertility were to stabilize at slightly above two children per woman, the world population will grow from 5.7 billion in 1995 to 10.8 billion by 2150 and would finally stabilize at slightly under 11 billion persons around 2200. If, however, a range of fertility ratios is applied, differing by just one child per couple, from half a child below to half a child above replacement fertility levels, the size of the world population in 2150 would range from 3.6 billion persons to 27.0 billion. Meanwhile, if fertility rates were to stay constant at 1990-1995 levels, the world in 2150 would need to support 29.6 billion persons. Even if all couples of the world had begun to bear children at the replacement-fertility level in 1995 (about two children per couple), the growth momentum of the current age structure would still result in a 67 per cent increase in the world population, to 9.5 billion by 2150. Population growth has a momentum that cannot be quickly or easily thwarted. The report adds that the future will see a continued geographical shift in the distribution of the world population as the share living in the currently more developed regions will decrease from 19 to 10 per cent between 1995 and 2150. Declining fertility and mortality rates will lead, furthermore, to dramatic population aging. In the medium-fertility scenario, the share aged 60 years or above will increase from 10 to 31 per cent of the world population between 1995 and 2150. The messages that we need to take from these predictive models: 1. The predicted stabilized world population depends on the assumptions of the model. 2. The lower estimates depend on a degree of fertility limitation that has yet to be realized globally, and will only be realized if we take the lead in encouraging and promoting fertility reduction around the world. 3. The impact of these predicted global population sizes on the environment of the planet will depend on the per capita resource consumption and pollution rates of the individuals present. 4. If we anticipate that all individuals on the planet will enjoy in 2150 a standard of living and quality of life at least equivalent to that of current residents of the developed world (to do otherwise would be to consign our brethren in the undeveloped world to perpetual poverty, misery, envy and probably resentment), we must expect a vast increase in the consumption and pollution rates of individuals in the less developed world. A conservative though simplistic estimate would be that individuals from currently undeveloped nations will consume at 15 times their current rate. We must adjust, therefore, our computation of future population impact to account for this. A rough estimate for 11 billion individuals, utilizing resources at current U.S. levels, to today's population would be a population impact equivalent of maybe 100 billion humans. 5. A moment's reflection will lead a reasonable person to realize that this is absurd. The planet simply has neither the ecosystem services (water and air purification cycles) to support such rates of pollution nor reserves to support such rates of consumption of its renewable, much less it non-renewable, resources.6. If we fail to promote reductions in fertility around the world, and anticipate global stabilization at 27 billion or more, the global population/consumption/pollution scenarios become even more absurd. We must, therefore, support international programs that offer education, support sustainable economic development and provide family-planning assistance. If we do not, our national security will be severely jeopardized.7. Providing family-planning assistance around the world, without self-righteous pronouncements about how recipients shall promote family planning in their cultural situations, constitutes (as Richard Nixon long ago recognized) a requirement in defense of our national security. The alternative to global population regulation is a future for our descendants of more and more Gulf Wars as nations fight for ever dwindling resources.8. Those who argue that we should bring yet more children into the world are arguing (maybe mistakenly) for a global future with increased famine, an increased frequency of military conflict and an increase in the attendant abominations in human behavior that accompany war. Ms. Stephens might think that she has adopted the moral high ground when arguing against promoting family-planning education and availability around the world, but in the long run, she is promoting more suffering, more misery and a greater likelihood of the next War to End all Wars.

ALAN R.P. JOURNET

Cape Girardeau