Population is STILL our number one problem

The Economist opinion in November 2nd’s Star Tribune paper was right on several accounts but fatally wrong on several others. It is true that lower fertility has helped to spur economic growth in much of the world, but population growth remains a serious problem in sub-Saharan Africa and much of Southern Asia. Yes, global fertility rates fell sharply in the latter half of the 20th Century, but fertility rates remain stubbornly high in some of the poorest developing nations, and in some countries--like Kenya--fertility rates are climbing back up.

The bottom line is that though globally we have gone down globally from approximately 93 million additional people (births minus deaths) per year to 73 million we are still in serious overshoot of our natural resource base, as we have enough natural resources to keep only 2 billion people living on Planet Earth at a modest existence. On our current trajectory we are dangerously headed to 9 billion inhabitants of this limited place and beyond. The Economist article is as comforting as it would be to tell the passengers of the Titanic that the iceberg will hit next week instead of tomorrow.

Ten years ago, The Economist ["Drowning in Oil"] were completely of base on their forecast of oil reserves when they infamously declared that “The world is awash with the stuff and it is likely to remain so.” Now we are past peak oil and getting the remaining goo out of the ground is much more expensive and that’s before you look at its contribution to greenhouse gases.

Declarations in 2009 that “Population growth is already slowing almost as fast as it naturally could” or "worries about a population explosion are themselves being exploded," are equally false. This whole take on the issue throws a political monkey wrench into the efforts that must be done to educate people on the way our planet continues to rapidly grow while our natural resources continue to decrease.

In addition, the article declares that we can do no more about population growth so we need to focus on green technologies. This hopeless analysis is also false. Once we truly get the population issue we will be able to find many humane ways of solving this crisis, from tax incentives to education. If one truly understands that in the time it takes you read the Star Tribune ( assuming that is one hour) 9,000 additional people were added to the planet, then you will understand that no amount of green technologies can get us out of the hole we are digging for ourselves. The basics of life’s essential needs are in limited supply. Water is one of the main limiting factors, and solving how many people will need it in the future is where our efforts need to be, not on whether or not we can all drive electric cars.