Population Puzzle: Boom or Bust?

By Laura E. Huggins and Hanna Skandera

Drawing from government reports, think tank studies, scholarly journals, magazines, newspapers, and books, this insightful overview offers a range of contrasting viewpoints and policy perspectives on the major issues concerning world population growth, with particular emphasis on the impact of population trends on the United States.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Independent Publishers Group
• Release date: Sep 1, 2013
• ISBN: 9780817945336

Book preview

(1955)

PART I

BEGINNINGS

PART I: QUICK FACTS

Everybody understands that the population explosion is going to come to an end. What they don’t know is whether it’s going to come to an end primarily because we humanely limit births or because we let nature have her way and the death rate goes way up.

Paul R. Ehrlich, The Population Bomb (1968)

The material conditions of life will continue to get better for most people, in most countries, most of the time, indefinitely. Within a century or two, all nations and most of humanity will be at or above today’s Western living standards.

Julian Simon, Hoodwinking the Nation (1999)

In 2003, world population was more than 6.3 billion, increasing more than 150 percent over the last fifty years. The population of the United States totaled more than 291 million, having increased nearly 100 percent over the last fifty years.

U.S. Bureau of the Census (2003; see figure 1.1).

The global rate of population growth has decreased over the last three decades. In 1970, the global rate of growth was 2.1 percent a year; in 2002, it was approximately 1.3 percent (roughly 78 million people annually).

U.S. Bureau of the Census (2003)

In 2001, 29.8 percent of the world’s population was under the age of fifteen and 7.0 percent of the world’s population was age sixty-five and above. In the United States, 21.7 percent of the population was under the age of fifteen and 12.3 percent was age sixty-five and above.

United Nations Development Programme (2003)

In 2002, worldwide life expectancy at birth was sixty-seven years, having increased by twenty-two years since 1950.

Population Reference Bureau (2002)

In 2003, the United States had the third largest population in the world with 292 million; China was ranked first with nearly 1.3 billion, and India was ranked second with more than one billion.

Population Reference Bureau (2003; see table 1.1).

FIGURE 1.1. World Population

Source: Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat (1999). The World at Six Billion. New York: United Nations. Available via the Internet: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/sixbillion/sixbilpart1.pdf.

*Time series not drawn to scale.

TABLE 1.1. World’s Largest Countries

Source: Copyright ©2003 Population Reference Bureau. Available via the Internet: http://www.prb.org/Template.cfm?Section…ts/2003_World_Population_Data_Sheet.htm.

INTRODUCTION

Beginnings

As in most cases, context is everything. According to a September 1998 public opinion survey by RAND, the vast majority of Americans (72 percent) think that population is a critical issue. It is apparent, however, that the knowledge base of the general populace is limited. For example, while most know that total world population has grown over time, few have a sense of population size or rates of growth. In 1998, for instance, only 14 percent of those surveyed were able to identify population as being in the 5 to 6 billion range (in 1998, population was estimated at 5.9 billion). Moreover, 29 percent of those surveyed believed the world’s population would double in ten years or less; another 19 percent believed it would double in eleven to twenty years. (According to U.N. estimates at the time, it would take at least fifty years.) A mere 10 percent thought it would take fifty years or more for the world population to double (the more accurate estimate). These numbers suggest that much of the American public is uninformed when it comes to population and related issues.

Chapters 1 and 2 provide a framework for the reader—the origins of the population debate and the underlying values and ethical dilemmas—without which it would be nearly impossible to understand the nature of the debate. The evolutionary divide between the neo-Malthusian and institutionalist mind-sets emerges, painting a literal and theoretical picture and enabling the reader to grasp the differing suppositions behind the population conundrum.

The first chapter provides the historical back and forth of the contextual divide. Ann Wolfgram and Maria Aguirre’s essay, Population, Resources, and Environment: A Survey of the Debate, introduces the complexity of the debate. The ordering of the various pieces is intentional and significant. Each essay is paired with another; both capture the differing perspectives of their respective eras. Thomas Malthus (An Essay on the Principle of Population) is paired with Karl Marx, Paul R. Ehrlich with Julian Simon, and finally, Lester R. Brown, Gary Gardner, and Brian Halweil with Nicholas Eberstadt. All present classic arguments and familiarize the reader with some of the more recognized population scholars and their views.

In chapter 2, J. Philip Wogaman introduces the idea that the population issue is not merely practical or technical. He explains that at nearly every level and from every angle, values are at stake. Joel E. Cohen, Garrett Hardin, and Julian Simon attempt to define some of these values and propose differing views on how best to rank them. The pieces in this chapter allow the reader to wrestle with his or her own population paradigm. What we value dictates our decision-making and ultimately our life’s pursuits and priorities. Our perceptions and views regarding population are no exception to this truth.

Chapter One

FRAMING THE DEBATE

Will humankind’s propensity to multiply exhaust the earth’s ability to provide?

Population, Resources, and Environment: A Survey of the Debate

Ann F. Wolfgram and Maria Sophia Aguirre

This selection was excerpted from Population, Resources, and Environment: A Survey of the Debate (available online at http://arts-sciences.cua.edu/econ/faculty/aguirre/Harvard.doc).

FRAMING THE DEBATE

It is currently estimated that there is, or there will be shortly, 6 billion humans inhabiting the planet earth. The theme of population, and more specifically, overpopulation has been in the popular mind for the last thirty years or more. Schools, national governments, international legislative bodies, interest groups, and the media have all but ensured that the public sees the issue of population as a problem, and increasingly, in reference to natural resources and the environment. At the heart of the population-resources-environment debate lies the question: can the earth sustain 6 billion or more people? How one answers this question depends greatly on whether or not one sees population as a problem.

Is population a problem? Some would argue that yes, population is a problem in that the earth is limited, that it can only sustain a certain number of people (although no one knows what that particular number may be), that the more numerous we become, the poorer we will become. Others argue that, no, population is not a problem but that it is government policies, economic structures, and the organization of society that is the problem. Some contend that numbers in themselves do not equal poverty; rather, poorly structured societies and economies foster poverty.

How people perceive the issue of population is critical, for it is by these perceptions that international legislative policies are formed, economic development packages are crafted, federal social and economic programs are formulated, and local sex education classes are designed. Thus, it is equally critical that people ensure that their perceptions are grounded not in rhetoric and emotion but in established scientific and empirical data. An accurate understanding of the data will enable people to think and act rationally with regard to population on a local, state, national, and international level.

PERSPECTIVES IN THE DEBATE TODAY

There are many groups taking part in the current population debate. All approach the question of population from very different points of view and with different motivations. A working knowledge of the parties and their underlying philosophies will allow one to sift through the diverse rhetoric and hold it up to the light of scientific data. Frank Furedi, in his book Population and Development: A Critical Introduction (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1997), has provided a brief outline of the variety of approaches to the issue of population.

The Developmentalist Perspective

Until the 1990s, this was one of the most influential perspectives. Its advocates argue that rapid population growth represents a major obstacle to development, because valuable resources are diverted from productive expenditure to the feeding of a growing population. Some also contend that development solves the problem of population. They believe that increasing prosperity and the modernization of lifestyles will create a demand for smaller families, leading to the stabilization of population growth. A classic account of this approach can be found in Coale and Hoover (1958). It is worth noting that at least until the early 1980s, this was the most prominent argument used by many leading demographers and most of the influential promoters of population control.

The Redistributionist Perspective

Those who uphold the redistributionist perspective are skeptical of the view that population growth directly causes poverty and underdevelopment. They often interpret high fertility as not so much the cause as the effect of poverty. Why? Because poverty, lack of economic security, the high mortality rates of children, the low status of women, and other factors force people to have large families. They also believe that population is a problem because it helps intensify the impoverishment of the masses. For some redistributionists, the solution to the problem lies in changing the status of poor people, particularly of women, through education and reform. Repetto (1979) and the World Bank (1984) provide a clear statement of this approach. This perspective is linked to the Women and Human Rights approach discussed below. Some proponents of redistribution contend that the population problem can only be solved through far-reaching social reform. (See Sen and Grown [1988] for a radical version of the redistributionist argument.)

The Limited Resources Perspective

This perspective represents the synthesis of traditional Malthusian concern about natural limits with the preoccupation of contemporary environmentalism. According to the limited resources perspective, population growth has a negative and potentially destructive impact on the environment. Its proponents argue that even if a growing population can be fed, the environment cannot sustain such large numbers; population growth will lead to the explosion of pollution, which will have a catastrophic effect on the environment. See Harrion (1993) for a clear statement of this position.

The Sociobiological Perspective

This approach politicizes the limited resources perspective. Its proponents present population growth as a threat not only to the environment but also to a way of life. They regard people as polluters and often define population growth as a pathological problem. In the West, the ruthless application of this variant of Malthusianism leads to demands for immigration control. Some writers call for the banning of foreign aid to the countries of the South, on the grounds that it stimulates an increase in the rate of fertility. Other writers believe that the number of people threatens the ecosystem, and even go so far as to question the desirability of lowering the rate of infant mortality. Abernethy (1993) and Hardin (1993) provide a systematic presentation of the sociobiological perspective.

The People-as-a-Source-of-Instability Perspective

In recent years, contributions on international relations have begun to discuss population growth in terms of its effect on global stability. Some writers have suggested that in the post-Cold War order, the growth of population has the potential to undermine global stability. Some see the rising expectations of large numbers of frustrated people as the likely source of violent protest and as a stimulus for future wars and conflicts. The key theme they emphasize is the differential rate of fertility between the North and South. From this perspective the high fertility regime of the South represents a potential threat to the fast-aging population of the North. See Kennedy (1993).

The Women and Human Rights Perspective

This perspective associates a regime of high birth rates with the denial of essential human rights. Those who advocate this approach insist that the subordination of women and their exclusion from decision-making has kept birthrates high. Some suggest that because of their exclusion from power and from access to safe reproductive technology, many women have more children then they otherwise would wish. The importance of gender equality for the stabilization of population is not only supported by feminist contributors but by significant sections of the population movement. At the Cairo Conference of 1994, this perspective was widely endorsed by the main participants. For a clear exposition of this approach see Correa (1994) and Sen, Germain, and Chen (1994).

The People-as-Problem-Solvers Perspective

In contrast to the approaches mentioned so far, this one does not believe that population growth constitutes a problem. On the contrary, its advocates believe that the growth of population has the potential to stimulate economic growth and innovation. From this perspective, more people means more problem solvers, since human creativity has the potential to overcome the limits of nature. Some believe that in the final analysis, the market mechanism can help establish a dynamic equilibrium between population growth and resources. Others emphasize the problem-solving abilities of the human mind. See Boserup (1993) and Simon (1981) for illustrations of this approach.

The Religious Pronatalist Perspective

Some of the most vocal opponents to population policy are driven by religious objections to any interference with the act of reproduction. They argue that population growth is not a problem and are deeply suspicious of any attempt to regulate fertility. Although some supporters of this perspective mobilize economic arguments to support their case, the relationship between population growth and development is incidental to their argument. For them, the argument that population growth is positive is in the first instance justified on religious grounds. See Kasun (1988) for a clear exposition of this perspective. Other pronatalist voices regard the growth of population in the South as a positive asset that will contribute to a more equitable relation of power with the North. They view population programs as an insidious attempt to maintain Western domination.

Not all people belong strictly to one perspective or another, as Furedi is also quick to point out. In fact, most people adopt different strands of argumentation pulled from the various perspectives. However, some approaches to the issue of population are more specific to particular aspects of the debate. For instance, the People-as-a-source-of-instability perspective only touches on resource and environment concerns and deals more specifically with issues of immigration and trade policy.

An Essay on the Principle of Population

Thomas Malthus

This selection was originally published as chapter 1 in An Essay on the Principle of Population, edited by Geoffrey Gilbert (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).

It has been said that the great question is now at issue, whether man shall henceforth start forwards with accelerated velocity towards illimitable, and hitherto unconceived improvement, or be condemned to a perpetual oscillation between happiness and misery, and after every effort remain still at an immeasurable distance from the wished-for goal.

The most important argument that I shall adduce is certainly not new. The principles on which it depends have been explained in part by Hume, and more at large by Dr. Adam Smith. It has been advanced and applied to the present subject, though not with its proper weight, or in the most forcible point of view, by Mr. Wallace, and it may probably have been stated by many writers that I have never met with. I should certainly therefore not think of advancing it again, though I mean to place it in a point of view in some degree different from any that I have hitherto seen, if it had ever been fairly and satisfactorily answered.

The cause of this neglect on the part of the advocates for the perfectibility of mankind is not easily accounted for. I cannot doubt the talents of such men as Godwin and Condorcet. I am unwilling to doubt their candour. To my understanding, and probably to that of most others, the difficulty appears insurmountable. Yet these men of acknowledged ability and penetration scarcely deign to notice it, and hold on their course in such speculations with unabated ardour and undiminished confidence. I have certainly no right to say that they purposely shut their eyes to such arguments. I ought rather to doubt the validity of them, when neglected by such men, however forcibly their truth may strike my own mind. Yet in this respect it must be acknowledged that we are all of us too prone to err. If I saw a glass of wine repeatedly presented to a man, and he took no notice of it, I should be apt to think that he was blind or uncivil. A juster philosophy might teach me rather to think that my eyes deceived me and that the offer was not really what I conceived it to be.

In entering upon the argument I must premise that I put out of the question, at present, all mere conjectures, that is, all suppositions, the probable realization of which cannot be inferred upon any just philosophical grounds. A writer may tell me that he thinks man will ultimately become an ostrich. I cannot properly contradict him. But before he can expect to bring any reasonable person over to his opinion, he ought to shew that the necks of mankind have been gradually elongating, that the lips have grown harder and more prominent, that the legs and feet are daily altering their shape, and that the hair is beginning to change into stubs of feathers. And till the probability of so wonderful a conversion can be shewn, it is surely lost time and lost eloquence to expatiate on the happiness of man in such a state; to describe his powers, both of running and flying, to paint him in a condition where all narrow luxuries would be contemned, where he would be employed only in collecting the necessaries of life, and where, consequently, each man’s share of labour would be light, and his portion of leisure ample.

I think I may fairly make two postulata.

First, That food is necessary to the existence of man.

Secondly, That the passion between the sexes is necessary and will remain nearly in its present state.

These two laws, ever since we have had any knowledge of mankind, appear to have been fixed laws of our nature, and, as we have not hitherto seen any alteration in them, we have no right to conclude that they will ever cease to be what they now are, without an immediate act of power in that Being who first arranged the system of the universe, and for the advantage of his creatures, still executes, according to fixed laws, all its various operations.

I do not know that any writer has supposed that on this earth man will ultimately be able to live without food. But Mr. Godwin has conjectured that the passion between the sexes may in time be extinguished. As, however, he calls this part of his work a deviation into the land of conjecture, I will not dwell longer upon it at present than to say that the best arguments for the perfectibility of man are drawn from a contemplation of the great progress that he has already made from the savage state and the difficulty of saying where he is to stop. But towards the extinction of the passion between the sexes, no progress whatever has hitherto been made. It appears to exist in as much force at present as it did two thousand or four thousand years ago. There are individual exceptions now as there always have been. But, as these exceptions do not appear to increase in number, it would surely be a very unphilosophical mode of arguing to infer, merely from the existence of an exception, that the exception would, in time, become the rule, and the rule the exception.

Assuming then my postulata as granted, I say, that the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man.

Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio. A slight acquaintance with numbers will shew the immensity of the first power in comparison of the second.

By that law of our nature which makes food necessary to the life of man, the effects of these two unequal powers must be kept equal.

This implies a strong and constantly operating check on population from the difficulty of subsistence. This difficulty must fall somewhere and must necessarily be severely felt by a large portion of mankind.

Through the animal and vegetable kingdoms, nature has scattered the seeds of life abroad with the most profuse and liberal hand. She has been comparatively sparing in the room and the nourishment necessary to rear them. The germs of existence contained in this spot of earth, with ample food, and ample room to expand in, would fill millions of worlds in the course of a few thousand years. Necessity, that imperious all-pervading law of nature, restrains them within the prescribed bounds. The race of plants and the race of animals shrink under this great restrictive law. And the race of man cannot, by any efforts of reason, escape from it. Among plants and animals its effects are waste of seed, sickness, and premature death. Among mankind, misery and vice. The former, misery, is an absolutely necessary consequence of it. Vice is a highly probable consequence, and we therefore see it abundantly prevail, but it ought not, perhaps, to be called an absolutely necessary consequence. The ordeal of virtue is to resist all temptation to evil.

This natural inequality of the two powers of population and of production in the earth, and that great law of our nature which must constantly keep their effects equal, form the great difficulty that to me appears insurmountable in the way to the perfectibility of society. All other arguments are of slight and subordinate consideration in comparison of this. I see no way by which man can escape from the weight of this law which pervades all animated nature. No fancied equality, no agrarian regulations in their utmost extent, could remove the pressure of it even for a single century. And it appears, therefore, to be decisive against the possible existence of a society, all the members of which should live in ease, happiness, and comparative leisure; and feel no anxiety about providing the means of subsistence for themselves and families.

Consequently, if the premises are just, the argument is conclusive against the perfectibility of the mass of mankind.

I have thus sketched the general outline of the argument, but I will examine it more particularly, and I think it will be found that experience, the true source and foundation of all knowledge, invariably confirms its truth.

Marx and Engels on Malthus

Ronald L. Meek

This selection was excerpted from Marx and Engels on Malthus, in Marx and Engels on the Population Bomb, edited by Ronald Meek (Berkeley, Calif.: Ramparts Press, 1971).

FOREWORD

Back in 1798—a year in which the French Revolution was still conjuring up hopes of the perfectibility of man and of society—the Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus issued his famous law of population: mankind’s propensity to beget, he warned, would soon outstrip the earth’s capacity to provide.

Half a century later another prophet branded the good parson a shameless sycophant of the ruling classes and a bought advocate of those who opposed a better life for Merrie England’s poor. By arguing that poverty was a natural condition and misery a necessary check on growing numbers, the contemptible Malthus was, Karl Marx claimed, simply selling scientific and moral arguments to selfish opponents of reform. The real problem wasn’t too many people or too little food, said Marx, but that private capitalists owned the means of meeting men’s needs.

THE THEORY OF POPULATION

Marx, in a letter to Schweitzer of January 24, 1865, criticizing the work of Proudhon, made the following comment:

In a strictly scientific history of political economy the book [Proudhon’s What is Property?] would hardly be worth mentioning. But sensational works of this kind play their part in the sciences just as much as in the history of the novel. Take, for instance, Malthus’s book On Population. In its first edition it was nothing but a sensational pamphlet and plagiarism from beginning to end into the bargain. And yet what a stimulus was produced by this libel on the human race!

The stimulus which the principle of population produced was indeed a strong and far-reaching one. There was probably no other idea which exercised so great an influence on economic theory and practice during the first half of the nineteenth century, and certainly no other which aroused such impassioned attacks and defenses. And it was destined to exercise considerable influence even outside the strictly economic sphere: for example, it was an important factor in the early development of Darwinism. The stimulus was strong from the beginning, and its strength is by no means exhausted today.

How did it come about that the Malthusian theory, which had few pretensions to scientific profundity and was shot through and through with fallacies, was able to exercise this enormous influence? One of the main reasons was that the actual phenomenon which Malthus described and which he tried to account for—the widespread poverty and pauperism among the working people—was a real phenomenon which could not be ignored and which was crying out for an explanation. Malthus was right, in his way, said Engels, in asserting that there are always more people on hand than can be maintained from the available means of sub-sistence—although the pressure of population was really against the means of employment rather than against the means of subsistence. Malthus’s critics might attempt to prove his principle of population to be wrong, but they could not argue away the facts which led Malthus to his principle. Thus even apart from all questions of what Marx called party interest, there was a presumption in favor of Malthus’s explanation of the facts until a better one had been put forward.

Party interest, however, played an important role in securing the wide acceptance of the theory in ruling-class circles. An explanation of human misery in terms of an eternal law of nature, such as Malthus’s principle of population, has an obvious appeal for political reactionaries, since it diverts attention from the part played in the creation of this misery by class exploitation in general and by particular systems of class exploitation such as capitalism. One cannot do away with an eternal law of nature. If it is nature and not human society which is responsible for the misery, all one can do, at the very best, is to mitigate some of the effects of this eternal law and suffer the remainder with a good grace.

To Marx and Engels, interested as they were in discovering the basic laws of social change, and in particular the law of motion of bourgeois society, any explanation of social phenomena such as overpopulation under capitalism in terms of an eternal law was bound to appear superficial and inadequate. This was the basis of their main general criticism of Malthus’s theory of population. As early as 1847, in his first economic work, Marx attacked the tendency of economists to represent the bourgeois relations of production as eternal categories and criticized Ricardo for applying the specifically bourgeois conception of rent to the landed property of all ages and all countries. The Marxist position was stated by Engels in a letter to Lange of March 29, 1865:

To us so-called economic laws are not eternal laws of nature but historic laws which arise and disappear; and the code of modern political economy, insofar as it has been drawn up with proper objectivity by the economists, is to us simply a summary of the laws and conditions under which alone modern bourgeois society can exist—in short the conditions of its production and exchange expressed in an abstract and summary way. To us also, therefore, none of these laws, insofar as it expresses purely bourgeois conditions, is older than modern bourgeois society; those which have hitherto been more or less valid throughout all history only express just those relations which are common to the conditions of all society based on class rule and class exploitation. To the former belongs the so-called law of Ricardo, which is valid neither for feudal serfdom nor ancient slavery; to the latter belongs what is tenable in the so-called Malthusian theory.

And even in the case of those laws and conditions which have had a limited validity throughout the whole history of class society, Marx and Engels maintained that the most interesting and important thing about them was the different ways in which they operated in different types of class society. Thus Marx and Engels denied that the law of population is the same at all times and at all places. On the contrary, they maintained, every stage of development has its own law of population.

It was not enough, of course, merely to assert this—it had to be proved. Marx and Engels do not seem to have made any direct attempt to formulate the laws of population appropriate to earlier forms of class society; had they done so, they would probably have framed these laws in terms of the particular form of pressure of the direct producers against the means of employment which was generated by each of these types of society. They considered that the most important job they had to do was to formulate the actual law of population peculiar to the present bourgeois stage of development, and to demonstrate that this new specific law fitted the contemporary facts better than the old eternal law that Malthus had put forward. Marx’s main formulation of the law is reproduced below, and a brief summary—which necessarily does much less than justice to the original—is all that is required here.

To understand the reason for the emergence of relative surplus population under capitalism, says Marx, one must consider the influence of the growth of capital upon the lot of the laboring class. And here the most important factor is the composition of capital and the changes it undergoes in the course of the accumulation process. As accumulation proceeds, the value of the means of production (constant capital) tends to rise relatively to the sum total of wages (variable capital). The accumulation of capital, says Marx, …is effective… under a progressive qualitative change in its composition, under a constant increase of its constant, at the expense of its variable constituent. This relative diminution of the variable part of capital proceeds simultaneously with the progress of accumulation and the concentration of capital that accompanies it. Now the demand for labor is determined not by the amount of capital as a whole, but by its variable constituent alone, so that the demand for labor falls relatively to the magnitude of the total capital, and at an accelerated rate, as this magnitude increases. Although the demand for labor increases absolutely as the total capital increases, it does so in a constantly diminishing proportion. Thus it is capitalistic accumulation itself that constantly produces, and produces in the direct ratio of its own energy and extent, a relatively redundant population of laborers, i.e., a population of greater extent than suffices for the average needs of the self-expansion of capital, and therefore a surplus population. And after discussing briefly the various ways in which these changes may work themselves out, Marx sums the matter up as follows:

The laboring population therefore produces, along with the accumulation of capital produced by it, the means by which itself is made relatively superfluous, is turned into a relative surplus-population; and it does this to an always increasing extent. This is a law of population peculiar to the capitalist mode of production; and in fact every specific historic mode of production has its own special laws of population, historically valid within its limits alone. An abstract law of population exists for plants and animals only, and only insofar as man has not interfered with them.

It is on the basis of this central thesis that Marx goes on to discuss in greater detail, and with a wealth of historical illustration, the laws of the expansion and contraction of the industrial reserve army and the different forms that relative surplus population assumes in modern society. It was in this way that Marx and Engels completed their criticism of Malthus’s law of population—by formulating a new law capable of replacing it.

Too Many People

Paul R. Ehrlich

This selection was excerpted from Too Many People, in The Population Bomb (reprint, Cutchogue, N.Y.: Buccaneer Books, 1997).

Americans are beginning to realize that the underdeveloped countries of the world face an inevitable population-food crisis. Each year food production in these countries falls a bit further behind burgeoning population growth, and people go to bed a little bit hungrier. While there are temporary or local reversals of this trend, it now seems inevitable that it will continue to its logical conclusion: mass starvation. The rich may continue to get richer, but the more numerous poor are going to get poorer. Of these poor, a minimum of 10 million people, most of them children, will starve to death during each year of the 1970s. But this is a mere handful compared with the numbers that will be starving before the end of the century. And it is now too late to take action to save many of those people.

However, most Americans are not aware that the United States and other developed countries also have a problem with overpopulation. Rather than suffering from food shortages, these countries show symptoms in the form of environmental deterioration and increased difficulty in obtaining resources to support their affluence.

In a book about population, there is a temptation to stun the reader with an avalanche of statistics. I’ll spare you most, but not all, of that. After all, no matter how you slice it, population is a numbers game. Perhaps the best way to impress you with numbers is to tell you about the doubling time—the time necessary for the population to double in size.

It has been estimated that the human population of 8000 B.C. was about 5 million people, taking perhaps 1 million years to get there from 2.5 million. The population did not reach 500 million until almost 10,000 years later—about A.D. 1650. This means it doubled roughly once every thousand years or so. It reached a billion people around 1850, doubling in