Custom Search

CHINA TO END 1-CHILD POLICY, ALLOW 2 CHILDREN

Louise Watt, AP

Restrictions were introduced in 1979 to curb population,

limit demands for water and other resources

Oct. 30, 2015

China's ruling Communist Party announced Thursday that the country will start allowing all families to have two children, abolishing an unpopular policy that limited many urban couples to only one child for more than three decades.

The decision is the most significant easing of family-planning policies that were long considered some of the party's most onerous intrusions into family life and had been gradually relaxed in recent years. The restrictions led to an imbalanced sex ratio because of a traditional preference for boys, and draconian enforcement that sometimes included forced abortions.

The news elated 36-year-old Su Weihu in Guangzhou, who said she now plans to get pregnant next year before she becomes too old, and that she is eager for her 8-year-old daughter to have a sibling.

"I have looked forward this for so many years — even had dreams about it! I cried every time when I woke up and realized it wasn't yet true. I thought it was so unfair," Su said. "I do not care if the second child is a boy or a girl, at my age, as long as he or she is healthy."

A statement from the party's Central Committee carried by the official Xinhua News Agency said the decision to allow all couples to have two children was "to improve the balanced development of population" and to deal with an aging population.

May not spur boom

The move may not spur a huge baby boom in part because fertility rates are believed to be declining even without the policy's enforcement. Previous easings of the one-child policy have spurred fewer births than expected, and many people among China's younger generations see smaller family sizes as ideal.

Real estate agent Zhang Linghui reacted to the news in downtown Beijing by saying the policy change was a "sign of respect toward the people."

"You should be able to choose how many kids to have," she said.

The statement followed the panel's meeting this week to chart the country's economic and social development through 2020. In recent years, it has been unusual for such plenary sessions to result in major decisions. They generally focus on economic topics and there was no indication that this one would take action on the one-child policy.

China, which has the world's largest population at 1.4 billion people, introduced the one-child policy in 1979 as a temporary measure to curb a then-surging population and limit the demands for water and other resources. Soon after it was implemented, rural couples were allowed two children if their firstborn was a girl. Ethnic minorities are also allowed more than one child.

Chinese families with a strong preference for boys have sometimes resorted to aborting female fetuses, a practice which has upset the ratio of male to female babies. The imbalance makes it difficult for some men to find wives, and is believed to fuel the trafficking of women as brides.

China's one-child policy was introduced in 1979. (Kim Kyung-Hoon/Reuters)

Couples who have broken the rules were forced to pay a fee in proportion to their income. In some cases, rural families saw their livelihood in the form of their pigs and chickens taken away.

In November 2013, the party announced that it would allow couples to have two children if one of the parents is a single child, the first substantial easing of the policy in nearly three decades.

The decision announced Thursday removes all remaining restrictions limiting couples to only one child.

Aging population

The government credits the one-child policy with preventing 400 million births and helping lift countless families out of poverty by easing the strain on the country's limited resources. But many demographers argue the birthrate would have fallen anyway as China's economy developed and education levels rose.

Moreover, the abrupt fall in the birthrate has pushed up the average age of the population and demographers foresee a looming crisis because the policy reduced the young labour pool that must support the large baby boom generation as it retires.

"The good news is, it is here. The bad news is, it is too little too late," said Cai Yong, a sociology professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

"It's better late than never," said Willy Lam, an expert on Chinese politics at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. "It might serve to address the current imbalance in the sense that if they do not boost the growth rate then very soon, within 20 years or less, the working population will be supporting four aged parents."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/china-one-child-policy-abolishes-1.3293742

Current Population

is Three Times

the Sustainable Level

http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/3_times_sustainable

Current global population of over 7 billion is already two to three times higher than the sustainable level. Several recent studies show that Earth’s resources are enough to sustain only about 2 billion people at a European standard of living.

An average European consumes far more resources than any of the poorest two billion people in the world. However, Europeans use only about half the resources of Americans, on average.

Currently, over 7 billion of us are consuming about 50% more resources than Earth is producing – during any given time period. For example, in the past twelve months we have consumed the resources that it took the planet about eighteen months to produce. We are consuming our resource base.

Obviously, this 50% overshoot is not sustainable. Another crucial point to understand is this: the longer we overshoot and consume more resources than the sustainable level, the more the long-term “sustainable level” actually declines!

One illustration of this is what’s actually been happening to fresh water aquifers all around the world. Currently over half of us are in countries where aquifers are being overpumped. As “fossil” aquifers are pumped, that water is not replaced. So when that water is depleted, pumping ends since there is no more water flowing in.

Non-fossil aquifers have a “recharge rate” – the rate at which new, fresh water flows in. As long as water is pumped out at or below the recharge rate, the aquifer will continue to supply the same amount of water year after year after year. However, these rechargeable aquifers are being overpumped.

For example, if an aquifer held a million gallons of water, and each year rainfall replenished 100,000 gallons into it, the recharge rate would be 100,000 gallons. As long as everyone collectively pumped no more than 100,000 gallons out, that would be sustainable for years to come. But very frequently people begin pumping more than the recharge rate, let’s say 110,000 gallons the first year, 130,000 gallons the next year and so on. In several more years they might pump over 200,000 gallons out. Eventually they will have pumped all of the million gallons of reserve out. At that point, the annual capacity for that aquifer would fall back to the recharge rate – 100,000 gallons a year. When aquifer reserves are depleted and fall back to the recharge rate, millions of people may suffer! Many other resources are declining in similar fashion.

To become sustainable with Earth’s resources, what are our choices? Reducing overall consumption by 50% would do it for now. Or, reducing population by 3 to 4 billion would do it. It’s more likely that a combination of both – large declines in consumption and human numbers – will be necessary.

Five Earths at American Standard

If all of the world’s 7 billion people consumed as much as an average American, it would take the resources of over five Earths to sustainably support all of them. On average, each American uses nearly 20 acres of biologically productive land and water (biocapacity) per year.

Earth’s 29.6 billion acres of biologically productive land and water could sustainably support only about 1.5 billion people at an 'American standard of living and consumption.'

At the opposite end of the spectrum are the 1.3 billion people in the world’s poorest countries. Even they are unsustainably overshooting and depleting their resource biocapacity – by over 10%!

During the past decade several researchers around the world have independently concluded that one to two billion is the sustainable number of people (at a European standard of living). Could they be wrong? Download our newsletter to read the article: “Confronting The 21st Century’s Hidden Crisis: Reducing Human Numbers by 80%” <http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/wpb_newsletters/wpb_newsletter_2007aug.pdf> .

All of us want a viable, sustainable global home. This can be accomplished only if the wealthier of us reduce our ecological footprint to truly sustainable levels and, if all of us begin now to humanely and dramatically reduce our human numbers.

For detailed information about global sustainability issues, visit FootprintNetwork.org <http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/footprint_basics_overview/> .

As World’s Population Booms,

Will Its Resources

Be Enough for Us?

New projections of escalating growth increase the tension between humanity’s expanding needs and what the planet can provide.

National Geographic

By Dennis Dimick

Sep 21, 2014

There are more than 7 billion people on Earth now, and roughly one in eight of us doesn't have enough to eat.

The question of how many people the Earth can support is a long-standing one that becomes more intense

as the world's population—and our use of natural resources—keeps booming.

This week, two conflicting projections of the world's future population were released. As National Geographic's Rob Kunzig writes here <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.nationalgeographic.com%2Fnews%2F2014%2F09%2F140918-population-global-united-nations-2100-boom-africa%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFtZmNSE_sXvsvhxWfaTVZO2cyuZw> , a new United Nations and University of Washington study in the journal <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencemag.org%2Fcontent%2Fearly%2F2014%2F09%2F17%2Fscience.1257469&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGL-_B2OqJZULbWc__NbmY85ZGQEw> Science <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencemag.org%2Fcontent%2Fearly%2F2014%2F09%2F17%2Fscience.1257469&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGL-_B2OqJZULbWc__NbmY85ZGQEw> says it's highly likely we'll see 9.6 billion Earthlings by 2050, and up to 11 billion or more by 2100. These researchers used a new "probabalistic" statistical method that establishes a specific range of uncertainty around their results. Another study in the journal Global Environmental Change <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedirect.com%2Fscience%2Farticle%2Fpii%2FS0959378014001095&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEq7bhSKyCxDu9R-TfFYk6wVV3frQ> projects that the global population will peak at 9.4 billion later this century and fall below 9 billion by 2100, based on a survey of population experts. Who is right? We'll know in a hundred years.

Population debates like this are why, in 2011, National Geographic published a series called "7 Billion" on world population <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fngm.nationalgeographic.com%2F7-billion&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFx_trI0B8dBj7OnKQgqhdlWpmriw> , its trends, implications, and future. After years of examining global environmental issues such as climate change <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fngm.nationalgeographic.com%2Fngm%2F0409%2Ffeature1%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFQI70aBROrQ5VWBI4XRgoz_uavpg> , energy <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fngm.nationalgeographic.com%2F2014%2F04%2Fcoal%2Fnijhuis-text&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNE2fKQQgALnyLvpUcGlORi44n3qPg> , food supply <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fngm.nationalgeographic.com%2F2009%2F06%2Fcheap-food%2Fbourne-text&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHGi7cGMmJO_6wtBejzHwUoeG480Q> , and freshwater <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fngm.nationalgeographic.com%2F2010%2F04%2Ftable-of-contents&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFfT_AVwRVaVZSJGWrFFeWmmK6_ew> , we thought the time was ripe for a deep discussion of people and how we are connected to all these other issues—issues that are getting increased attention today, amid the new population projections.

After all, how many of us there are, how many children we have, how long we live, and where and how we live affect virtually every aspect of the planet upon which we rely to survive: the land, oceans, fisheries, forests, wildlife, grasslands, rivers and lakes, groundwater, air quality, atmosphere, weather, and climate.

World population passed 7 billion on October 31, 2011, according to the United Nations <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.un.org%2Fapps%2Fnews%2Fstory.asp%3FNewsID%3D40257%23.VBqszUsaVZs&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHT61GXfmw-V8ci1AxvBhjd7U6URg> . Just who the 7 billionth person was and where he or she was born remain a mystery <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newyorker.com%2Fmagazine%2F2011%2F10%2F24%2Fbillions-and-billions-2&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGy9IdKgM31CK4N8lWzRYIxPsqkLg> ; there is no actual cadre of census takers who go house to house in every country, counting people.Instead, population estimates are made <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prb.org%2FPublications%2FReports%2F2001%2FUnderstandingandUsingPopulationProjections.aspx&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHRa9RWPfQwJQ9UYBoj1EZifYZR2w> by most national governments and international organizations such as the UN. These estimates are based on assumptions about existing population size and expectations of fertility, mortality, and migration in a geographic area.

We've been on a big growth spurt during the past century or so. In 1900, demographers had the world's population at 1.6 billion, in 1950 it was about 2.5 billion, by 2000 it was more than 6 billion. Now, there are about 7.2 billion of us.

In recent years we've been adding about a billion people every 12 or 13 years or so. Precisely how many of us are here right now is also a matter of debate, depending on whom you consult:The United Nations <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.un.org%2Fen%2Fdevelopment%2Fdesa%2Fpopulation%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFEK5HT3Fl1OBTitPO1rl7IV0h7Cg> offers a range of current population figures and trends, the U.S. Census Bureau <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fpopclock%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFm_zTnHxcwLIw1ttIL2MZpjrqTlg> has its own estimate, and the Population Reference Bureau <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prb.org&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNExX7nXrDVZ4TLjctky9MhSSw7Bhw> also tracks us.

The new UN study out this week projects that the world's population growth may not stop any time soon. That is a reversal from estimates done five years ago, when demographers—people who study population trends—were projecting that by 2045, world population likely would reach about 9 billion <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fngm.nationalgeographic.com%2F2011%2F01%2Fseven-billion%2Fkunzig-text&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFYCuBmqDu87WOPmiItINdt2u4WpQ> and begin to level off soon after.

But now, the UN researchers who published these new projections in the journal Science say that a flattening of population growth is not going to happen soon without rapid fertility declines—or a reduction in the number of children per mother—in most parts of sub-Saharan Africa that are still experiencing rapid population growth. As Rob Kunzig wrote for National Geographic, the new study estimates that "there's an 80 percent chance . . . that the actual number of people in 2100 will be somewhere between 9.6 and 12.3 billion."

A History of Debates Over Population

In a famous 1798 essay, the Reverend Thomas Malthus <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.econlib.org%2Flibrary%2FMalthus%2FmalPop.html&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHI7E1T-TlQl-x6d-CFkZgdkmhW0g> proposed that human population would grow more rapidly than our ability to grow food, and that eventually we would starve.

He asserted that the population would grow geometrically—1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32—and that food production would increase only arithmetically—1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. So food production would not keep up with our expanding appetites. You might imagine Malthus' scenario on geometric population growth as being like compound interest <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.boundless.com%2Falgebra%2Ftextbooks%2Fboundless-algebra-textbook%2Fexponents-and-logarithms-5%2Fgrowth-and-decay-compound-interest-39%2Fpopulation-growth-186-6112%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHULfTDh7> : A couple have two children and those children each produce two children. Those four children produce two children each tomake eight, and those eight children each have their own two kids, leaving 16 kids in that generation. But worldwide, the current median fertility rate is about 2.5, (or five children between two couples) so, like compound interest, the population numbers can rise even faster.

Even though more than 800 million people worldwide don’t have enough to eat now <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fao.org%2Fpublications%2Fsofi%2Fen%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFKe2-1qLxlTU6o-nlR_Fsm0DKedg> , the mass starvation Mathus envisioned hasn't happened. This is primarily because advances in agriculture—including improved plant breeding <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationalgeographic.com%2Ffoodfeatures%2Fgreen-revolution%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEQBq-9ShIoGFIb6siBX2JdHXID9A> and the use of chemical fertilizers <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fngm.nationalgeographic.com%2F2013%2F05%2Ffertilized-world%2Fcharles-text&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFYP6TIH5YzmYUhd7B6VIk--Imobw> —have kept global harvests increasing fast enough to mostly keep up with demand. Still, researchers such as Jeffrey Sachs <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scientificamerican.com%2Farticle%2Fare-malthus-predicted-1798-food-shortages%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGOiiMsn4m3s033IXGgeFubh0ld1g> and Paul Ehrlich continue to worry that Malthus eventually might be right.

Ehrlich, a Stanford University <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwoods.stanford.edu%2Fabout%2Fwoods-faculty%2Fpaul-ehrlich&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFtwGMi6jiRRSZrbrlVkONj9E9Ofg> population biologist, wrote a 1968 bestseller called The Population Bomb, which warned of mass starvation in the 1970s and 1980s because of overpopulation. Even though he drastically missing that forecast, he continues to argue that humanity is heading for calamity <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fe360.yale.edu%2Ffeature%2Ftoo_many_people_too_much_consumption%2F2041%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGBqWXmRbwL2Nxh28QMdFAtlKMxfw> . Ehrlich says the key issue now is not just the number of people on Earth, but a dramatic rise in our recent consumption of natural resources, which Elizabeth Kolbert explored in 2011 in an article called "The Anthropocene <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fngm.nationalgeographic.com%2F2011%2F03%2Fage-of-man%2Fkolbert-text&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEISloY8yzBeG8fmm5zzOGRejHnzg> — <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fngm.nationalgeographic.com%2F2011%2F03%2Fage-of-man%2Fkolbert-text&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEISloY8yzBeG8fmm5zzOGRejHnzg> The Age of Man." <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fngm.nationalgeographic.com%2F2011%2F03%2Fage-of-man%2Fkolbert-text&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEISloY8yzBeG8fmm5zzOGRejHnzg>

As part of this human-dominated era, the past half century also has been referred to as a period of "Great Acceleration" <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.igbp.net%2Fglobalchange%2Fgreatacceleration.4.1b8ae20512db692f2a680001630.html&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEnXFp3XPUK3P8ZcZRzBI9yPnPOGA> by Will Steffen <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fcci.anu.edu.au%2Fresearchers%2Fview%2Fwill_steffen%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEMyRXttykiPdinfVagxzxFgJN27g> at International Geosphere-Biosphere Program. <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.igbp.net&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNG_1cwtZF1KtIqnvW0zurtntLp-tA> Besides a nearly tripling of human population since the end of World War II, our presence has been marked by a dramatic increase in human activity—the damming of rivers, soaring water use, expansion of cropland, increased use of irrigation and fertilizers, a loss of forests, and more motor vehicles. There also has been a sharp rise in the use of coal, oil, and gas, and a rapid increase in the atmosphere of methane and carbon dioxide, greenhouse gases that result from changes in land use and the burning of such fuels.



Measuring Our Rising Impact

As a result of this massive expansion of our presence on Earth, scientists Ehrlich, John Holdren, and Barry Commoner in the early 1970s devised a formula to measure our rising impact, called IPAT, <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eoearth.org%2Fview%2Farticle%2F153641%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNH1rUQqlgyQ_oq2BxHDMKyT1-ApkA> in which (I)mpact equals (P)opulation multiplied by (A)ffluence multiplied by (T)echnology.

The IPAT formula, they said, can help us realize that our cumulative impact on the planet is not just in population numbers, but also in the increasing amount of natural resources each person uses. The graphic above, which visualizes IPAT, shows that the rise in our cumulative impact since 1950—rising population combined with our expanding demand for resources—has been profound.

IPAT is a useful reminder that population, consumption, and technology all help shape our environmental impact, but it shouldn’t be taken too literally. University of California ecologist John Harte has said <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsecuritybeat.org%2F2013%2F05%2Fsurprises-ahead-population-environment-dynamics-tipping-points%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHMu9Vj26cdjI2aVGibJAu74mgvyA> that IPAT ". . . conveys the notion that population is a linear multiplier. . . . In reality, population plays a much more dynamic and complex role in shaping environmental quality."

One of our biggest impacts is agriculture. Whether we can grow enough food sustainably for an expanding world population also presents an urgent challenge, and this becomes only more so in light of these new population projections. Where will food for an additional 2 to 3 billion people come from when we are already barely keeping up with 7 billion? Such questions underpin a 2014 National Geographic series on the future of food <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationalgeographic.com%2Ffoodfeatures%2Ffeeding-9-billion%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFwefK7gLvtukLgvGaRtOjgJlQ9BQ> .

As climate change damages crop yields and extreme weather disrupts harvests <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.nationalgeographic.com%2Fnews%2F2014%2F05%2F140522-food-crisis-vulnerable-weather-climate-future%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNF4SuClh0V6IkUFFeNwJ9qkXNIkIg> , growing enough food for our expanding population has become what The 2014 World Food Prize Symposium calls "the greatest challenge in human history <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldfoodprize.org%2Findex.cfm%3FnodeID%3D71721%26audienceID%3D1&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEP8cHFE9lkaoj7XYa_Glmp2CllUA> ."

Population's Structure: Fertility, Mortality and Migration

CLICK AND SCROLL FOR CHART: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/09/140920-population-11billion-demographics-anthropocene/





Population is not just about numbers of people. Demographers typically focus on three dimensions—fertility, mortality, and migration <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.healthknowledge.org.uk%2Fpublic-health-textbook%2Fhealth-information%2F3a-populations%2Ffertility-mortality-migration&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHgEj-JZL7amDBEWGOHwAdxN4Gc9A> —when examining population trends. Fertility examines how many children a woman bears in her lifetime, mortality looks at how long we live, and migration focuses on where we live and move. Each of these population qualities influences the nature of our presence and impact across the planet.

The newly reported higher world population projections result from continuing high fertility in sub-Saharan Africa <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsecuritybeat.org%2F2013%2F08%2Fdemographic-transition-stalled-sub-saharan-africa%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEjq7KCyjBXAOZ8PNrj529OEnUEGg> . The median number of children per woman in the region remains at 4.6, well above both the global mean of 2.5 and the replacement level of 2.1. Since 1970, a global decline in fertility—from about 5 children per woman to about 2.5 <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.un.org%2Fesa%2Fpopulation%2Fpublications%2FWFD2012%2FMainFrame.html&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFlvawcCLcvpybVigibF_KVBZ7z1w> —has occurred across most of the world: Fewer babies have been born, family size has shrunk, and population growth has slowed. In the United States, fertility is now slightly below replacement level <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prb.org%2FPublications%2FDatasheets%2F2012%2Fworld-population-data-sheet%2Ffact-sheet-us-population.aspx&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNE_NPSOcUzu0PfY9sEwRR9PVYi1nw> .

Reducing fertility is essential if future population growth is to be reined in. Cynthia Gorney wrote about the dramatic story of declining Brazilian fertility <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fngm.nationalgeographic.com%2F2011%2F09%2Fgirl-power%2Fgorney-text&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEeY6bBpiltx76zcrzbLaI5rrt4TA> as part of National Geographic's 7 Billion series. Average family size dropped from 6.3 children to 1.9 children per woman over two generations <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fngm.nationalgeographic.com%2F2011%2F09%2Fgirl-power%2Ffertility-graphic&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHxy1PJpDufZbIUH4MbkbA_KH6TXQ> in Brazil, the result of improving education for girls, more career opportunities, and the increased availability of contraception.

Mortality <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.britannica.com%2FEBchecked%2Ftopic%2F470303%2Fpopulation%2F60659%2FMortality&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNF1rXQJSGok13I-dzFe9Gh393PnLA> —or birth rates versus death rates—and migration <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.unfpa.org%2Fpds%2Fmigration.html&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFTvywc9dzsit0E7Wy4jy8RWXcUtg> (where we live and move) also affect the structure of population. Living longer can cause a region’s population to increase even if birth rates remain constant. Youthful nations in the Middle East and Africa, where there are more young people than old, struggle to provide sufficient land, food, water, housing, education, and employment <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fngm.nationalgeographic.com%2F2011%2F11%2Falbertine-rift%2Fdraper-text&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGdtXDlktgkgdjcIggn0-qUB348Cg> for young people. Besides the search for a life with more opportunity elsewhere, migration also is driven <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationalgeographic.com%2Fxpeditions%2Flessons%2F09%2Fg68%2Fmigrationguidestudent.pdf&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGvW99ZFrs30HyirpOUCrpw4g48qg> by the need to escape political disruption or declining environmental conditions such as chronic drought and food shortages.

A paradox of lower fertility and reduced population growth rates is that as education and affluence improves, consumption of natural resources increases per person <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.energyrealities.org%2Fchapter%2Fmeeting-our-needs%2Fitem%2Fper-capita-energy-consumption%2Ferp327B7C729A3B31D2B&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFaX9X6vhqm6c91F45OWOWpBEZQIw> . In other words, (as illustrated in the IPAT graphic here) as we get richer, each of us consumes more natural resources and energy, typically carbon-based fuels such as coal, oil, and gas. This can be seen in consumption patterns that include higher protein foods such as meat and dairy, more consumer goods, bigger houses, more vehicles, and more air travel.

When it comes to natural resources, studies indicate we are living beyond our means. An ongoing Global Footprint Network study <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.footprintnetwork.org%2Fen%2Findex.php%2FGFN%2Fpage%2Fworld_footprint%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHZIZ0PvHJ8wJsWkJHEgeQbI-SPkw> says we now use the equivalent of 1.5 planets to provide the resources we use, and to absorb our waste. A study by the Stockholm Resilience Institute has identified a set of "nine planetary boundaries" <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stockholmresilience.org%2F21%2Fresearch%2Fresearch-programmes%2Fplanetary-boundaries.html&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFAZfALpkBbDtvMOZe6uPnAm1atCQ> for conditions in which we could live and thrive for generations, but it shows that we already have exceeded the institute's boundaries for biodiversity loss, nitrogen pollution, and climate change <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stockholmresilience.org%2F21%2Fresearch%2Fresearch-programmes%2Fplanetary-boundaries%2Fplanetary-boundaries%2Fabout-the-research%2Fthe-nine-planetary-boundaries.html&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHr-QB6YNjK> .

Those of us reading this article are among an elite crowd of Earthlings. We have reliable electricity, access to Internet-connected computers and phones, and time available to contemplate these issues.

About one-fifth of those on Earth still don't have have access to reliable electricity <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.worldbank.org%2FWBSITE%2FEXTERNAL%2FTOPICS%2FEXTENERGY2%2F0%2C%2CcontentMDK%3A22855502%7EpagePK%3A210058%7EpiPK%3A210062%7EtheSitePK%3A4114200%2C00.html&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGL9p0rzKGRh7FNwC3pac9Wl> . So as we debate population, things we take for granted—reliable lighting and cooking facilities, for example—remain beyond the reach of about 1.3 billion or more people. Lifting people from the darkness of energy poverty <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.nationalgeographic.com%2Fnews%2Fenergy%2F2013%2F05%2F130529-surprising-facts-about-energy-poverty%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFVFdzSe41NNO504bchgeaqZxMiVA> could help improve lives.





As World Bank Vice President Rachel Kyte told Marianne Lavelle of <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.nationalgeographic.com%2Fnews%2Fenergy%2F2013%2F05%2F130529-surprising-facts-about-energy-poverty%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFVFdzSe41NNO504bchgeaqZxMiVA> National Geographic <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.nationalgeographic.com%2Fnews%2Fenergy%2F2013%2F05%2F130529-surprising-facts-about-energy-poverty%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFVFdzSe41NNO504bchgeaqZxMiVA>   <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.nationalgeographic.com%2Fnews%2Fenergy%2F2013%2F05%2F130529-surprising-facts-about-energy-poverty%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFVFdzSe41NNO504bchgeaqZxMiVA> last year, "It is energy that lights the lamp that lets you do your homework, that keeps the heat on in a hospital, that lights the small businesses where most people work. Without energy, there is no economic growth, there is no dynamism, and there is no opportunity."

Improved education, especially for girls <http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.un.org%2FNews%2FPress%2Fdocs%2F2011%2Fpop994.doc.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHhZa72jGvSKUSIYknt9W1LdXivNg> , is cited as a key driver of declining family size. Having light at night can become a gateway to better education for millions of young people and the realization that opportunities and choices besides bearing many children can await.

So when we debate population, it's important to also discuss the impact—the how we live—of the population equation. While new projections of even higher world population in the decades ahead are cause for concern, we should be equally concerned about—and be willing to address—the increasing effects of resource consumption and its waste.