THE WORLD IN 2050

Richard Buckley

Many politicians and religious leaders still fail to see the urgency of the population issue. If future global overload is to be avoided, action is needed now.

Estimates of future population vary from the apocalyptic to the sustainable. It is impossible to be precise about the size of the population even in 50 years time, but the present number of people makes further substantial growth inevitable.

Demographers typically produce a range of estimates based on different assumptions about fertility, mortality, etc. Small differences in the assumptions can result in big differences in actual population. For example, the UN's 'high' projection of world population in 2050 is 12.5 billion people, while its 'medium' projection is 9 billion, and its 'low' 7.8 billion. Even at the low level, population would have tripled since 1950.

In late 2003, the UN issued population estimates for 2300, showing that population would reach a staggering 134 trillion if current rates of fertility were maintained until then. Such an outcome is clearly impossible, but the figures show the unsustainability of high fertility rates. Assuming that fertility rates will in fact continue to fall, the UN estimates that population in 2300 will be somewhere between 2.3 billion and 36.4 billion. The low scenario would only occur if fertility rates remained at 1.85, while the high scenario assumes half a child more per mother (2.35). The 'medium scenario' (based on replacement-level fertility of 2.1) projects that world population will reach a maximum of 9.2 billion in 2075, decline to 8.3 billion in 2175 and then grow again to 9 billion by 2300.

Political commitment to limiting population growth has been halfhearted and controversial. Some governments continue to believe that more people will bring more power and more economic prosperity. Others put their faith in technology-believing that science will come up with new ways to produce food and energy. Some see attempts to limit population as an infringement of human rights, especially when it is the rich world lecturing the poor world on the need for birth control.

It is still argued, with some justification, that the main environmental threat to the planet is excessive consumption in rich countries, rather than burgeoning population in the developing countries.

In recent years, planners have accepted the need to integrate population policy and development planning. Thus population programs are increasingly linked to projects aimed at reducing poverty, improving health and education, protecting the environment and, above all, improving the condition of women. In some countries, religious fundamentalism conflicts with moves to extend women's rights and reproductive freedom. Although a major study by the distinguished Muslim scholar Professor Abdel Rahim Omran concluded that modern family planning is acceptable to the great majority of Islamic theologians, some traditionalists oppose the notion of equal rights for women. This is an important issue in view of the fact that Muslims make up a quarter of world population.

The Roman Catholic Church, led by Pope John Paul II [and the present Pope] has opposed abortion and all forms of artificial contraception, arguing that fears of a population explosion are unfounded and alarmist. At the 1994 UN population conference in Cairo, the Vatican and ten Roman Catholic states, together with a few Muslim countries, refused to endorse the complete text of an international action plan designed to tackle the population problem. Yet the Roman Catholic church is active in supporting education and healthcare programs, and many individual Catholics give close support to family planning clinics at local level.

The attitude of the US government is also important. There is a strong anti-abortion movement in the US and, in 1973, Senator Jesse Helms pushed through a law banning the use of US money for abortions or forced sterilizations. At the 1984 UN population conference in Mexico City, President Reagan announced that US aid would no longer be permitted to go to NGOs that were involved in voluntary abortion activities, even if such activities were undertaken with non-US funds. The result was a surge in abortions worldwide as funding for family planning fell away. The 'Mexico City restrictions' were repealed by President Clinton and the 1990s saw a reduction in rates of both population growth and abortion at worldwide level. As soon as George W. Bush took office in 2001, however, he issued an executive memo stopping US federal support for any program that permitted abortion.

Unlike capital spending on sanitation or schools, the benefits of money spent on population programs only show up after decades of effort. Thus political support is hard to muster. According to Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, Executive Director of UNFPA, "international funding for population and reproductive health programs is just 40% of what was agreed upon by governments in 1994 at the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo." Yet, as a World Bank report pointed out, "family planning investments actually save money. Reduced maternal and child health care costs create short-term savings that often amount to double the cost of the family planning program; additional savings accrue as lower fertility eases the demands on the education system." In short, family planning is a key aspect of development. Meanwhile, the gap between rich and poor is growing both between and within individual countries. With the concentration of huge numbers of poor people in cities, the potential for radicalization is obvious. Concern about population growth is entwined with worries about the political stability as well as the environmental health of our fragile planet.

Source: Understanding Global Issues, #122, "World Population: Still the Biggest Problem?" Editor: Richard Buckley, Publisher: Frank Preiss. Reprinted with permission. http://www.global-issues.co.uk