John Bongaarts at the Population Council thinks Climate Change has a good chance of limiting human Population but he is wrong

According to the new analysis by researchers at the United Nations and several academic institutions, there is an 80 percent chance that the world’s population, now 7.2 billion, won’t stop at nine billion in 2050, but will instead be between 9.6 billion and 12.3 billion by 2100. The researchers increased their estimates after noting persistent high birth rates and faster-than-expected progress in combatting HIV/AIDS in Africa. [Journal Science – World population stabilization unlikely this century]

Technology Review David Talbot says the prediction’s reliability is debatable, given that it does not take into account future hardships a large population would likely face. It doesn’t take into account the effects of climate change, food shortages, disease, or conflict. The study take into account that population growth could trigger deadly calamities like food shortages, war, and disease even without climate change, says John Bongaarts, vice president and distinguished scholar at the Population Council, a think tank and research organization based in New York City.

Robert Zubrin lays out a case against the Population Council and similar organizations Robert Zubrin’s “Merchants of Despair” chronicles huge and devastating influences of radical environmentalists along with associated criminal pseudo-scientists and a fatal cult of anti-humanism upon global events and society which continue today.

Wolfgang Lutz, director of the Vienna Institute of Demography, says, his newest analysis still suggests a less-dire outcome. “Our most likely scenario comes out somewhat lower than the current United Nations projections,” and suggests population will peak at 9.4 billion around 2070 and start a slow decline to nine billion by the end of the century.

So Lutz at the Vienna Demography Institute calls a human population rising to 12 billion in 2100 a dire outcome. It would be dire if wars, food shortages, disease and climate change do not limit population ? Or if Africa does not see vastly increased usage of birth control ?

Birth rates are suppressed during big wars but studies show that there is an increase in birth rates after the war and population levels recover.

Birth rates and populations also bounce back after famines.

Bongaarts seems to be hoping or expecting permanent wars and famines.

Africa has more wars and famines than other places in the world. This is one of the reasons that the birth rates stay high. People are worried that they will lose children. So they have 5-6 kids hoping that 2-3 will survive. When survival rates are good then birth rates are low. A lot of wars and famine and hardship means that people will have more kids and not less and population will be higher. There would have to be a complete global collapse for the population to drop and stay down. Bongaarts underestimates what people can do.

Large scale fish farming and ocean management (iron fertilization of the ocean to boost fish).
Bongaarts does not realize that all of the CO2 emissions and climate effects are side effects of our civilization. This is happening without that as a goal. Of course the technology exists and can be developed for changing the climate and the oceans to what we want. It is about getting the most economic and efficient solutions.

Ocean Acidification can be mitigated

Climate change can be mitigated.

Correcting soot pollution is 20 times cheaper than fixing the CO2

The World can support one hundred billion living at western levels and expected improvements in agriculture, energy and water can easily handle 15-20 billion by 2100.

If you liked this article, please give it a quick review on ycombinator or StumbleUpon. Thanks