Bill Gates writes:
Yep. I have said the same thing myself and even "bet the farm" on the future of the world (OK, it was an ant farm, but still, it was real money from a guy who works for a living).
This morning, before posting this note to the blog, I sent a note to two people I know from back in the days when I worked on U.S. and world population policy, noting the current Total Fertility Rate for countries that used to send tremendous numbers of immigrants to the United States:
Countries as diverse as Korea (1.24 TFR in the South, 1.99 in the North), Tunisia (2.01), Iran (1.86), Italy (1.41), France (2.08), Ireland (2.01), and Morocco (2.17), have low fertility rates.
China and India combined (TFR of 1.55 and 2.55 respectively) have replacement level fertility.
South Africa's Total Fertility Rate has dropped to just 2.25.
Sure there are areas where fertility remains high, but even here it is falling fast. Kenya has a TFR of 3.76, but that's down from 8.1 in 1977. Iraq has a TFR of 3.5, but that's down from 7.40 in 1970. Pakistan's TFR is 2.96, but that's down from 6.60 in 1980.
The simple truth is that thanks to information, education, and access to family planning, clean water, antibiotics, vaccines, and a little bit of capital and guidance from overseas, the world is dramatically improving, which is exactly what the Marquis de Condorcet predicted.
.
By almost any measure, the world is better than it has ever been. People are living longer, healthier lives. Many nations that were aid recipients are now self-sufficient. You might think that such striking progress would be widely celebrated, but in fact, Melinda and I are struck by how many people think the world is getting worse. The belief that the world can’t solve extreme poverty and disease isn’t just mistaken. It is harmful.
Yep. I have said the same thing myself and even "bet the farm" on the future of the world (OK, it was an ant farm, but still, it was real money from a guy who works for a living).
This morning, before posting this note to the blog, I sent a note to two people I know from back in the days when I worked on U.S. and world population policy, noting the current Total Fertility Rate for countries that used to send tremendous numbers of immigrants to the United States:
The Total Fertility Rate for the US is now 2.1. For Mexico, it's just 2.2. For El Salvador it's 1.99. For Vietnam it's 1.89. For Cuba it's 1.46.For the record, replacement level fertility is 2.1.
Countries as diverse as Korea (1.24 TFR in the South, 1.99 in the North), Tunisia (2.01), Iran (1.86), Italy (1.41), France (2.08), Ireland (2.01), and Morocco (2.17), have low fertility rates.
China and India combined (TFR of 1.55 and 2.55 respectively) have replacement level fertility.
South Africa's Total Fertility Rate has dropped to just 2.25.
Sure there are areas where fertility remains high, but even here it is falling fast. Kenya has a TFR of 3.76, but that's down from 8.1 in 1977. Iraq has a TFR of 3.5, but that's down from 7.40 in 1970. Pakistan's TFR is 2.96, but that's down from 6.60 in 1980.
The simple truth is that thanks to information, education, and access to family planning, clean water, antibiotics, vaccines, and a little bit of capital and guidance from overseas, the world is dramatically improving, which is exactly what the Marquis de Condorcet predicted.
.
4 comments:
Dear Patrick,
I'd like to think so too. The scientists I've asked estimate that the world's maximum sustainable population is 2-350 million humans.
Donald McCaig
There is no clear set limit to the number of people -- it depends on the technology available, and however it goes it is now clear that we will not approach the limit FOR PEOPLE any time in the foreseeable future.
For example, the global population number you cite are the population of the world before the time of Christ. Back then, this Hemisphere did not have horses, the wheel, cattle, chickens, or tractors. Today the world is very different. Not only do all those amenities exist in this hemisphere, but we have new and limitless sources of energy (solar, nuclear, geothermal, tidal, wind, methane hydrides, etc.) and we are wasting less and less wood and other resources, and recycling more and more. Farm animals grow faster, produce more milk and eggs, and grain does too, all thanks to simply genetic selection.
Sure, there is habitat loss and change, and some extinctions too due to human overpopulation. I consider humans to be locusts on the land. But, in all fairness, these extinctions do not impact humans negatively too much most of the time. For example we wiped out the Passenger Pigeon and replaced it with billions of broiler chickens. Where was the harm to people or the environment? It's not clear there was one. Ditto for most other species. The loss is certainly biological and spiritual (and one that I have spent 30 years fighting), but the bottom line for people is usually economy and health, and it's hard to point to anything negative enough to offset the positive.
The result is that forests fall to farms and farms fall to freeway, and we move from primitive hunter gatherers to hothouse cucumbers and shed- raised pigs. It's not what I prefer, but it is clearly what the world wants.
More people CAN mean a hammering on wildlife. That's the way to bet, but the good news here is that it is not inexorable. History has shown that with increased wealth, many countries (including this one!) repopulate their wildlife and protect their remaining wild spaces. See >> http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2009/07/population-growth-and-limits-of.html for a lengthy detailing of that.
That's in the US, but it's also true in Europe where there are more wolves today than there were 50 or 100 years ago. The beaver has returned to the UK. Africa too is moving to create massive game parks. Asia is finally moving to crack down on the illegal wildlife trade. China is not killing Pandas -- it is spending millions to breed them for export, even as they are practicing afforestation (tree planting) at pretty impressive levels.
All that said, I am always the first one in any room to point out the tremendous economic benefits to come from the Bubonic Plague -- a labor shortage meant higher wages and more social mobility, massive deaths meant cheaper land and housing, etc. A massive loss of fertility in the world that extended for a few decades would be a good thing. And this is how it will happen >> Viral Immunocontraception >> http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2004/08/end-of-game.html
Dear Patrick,
It's about the same population as the planet hosted a thousand years after Christ and not much smaller than 1500. Sustainability suffers when we take more than we put back and - despite those pandas - that's what we humans seem to do. As a species we are dependent on energy that costs less to use than produce. That "extra" which has displaced costs rather than eliminating them is the fuel of our technology.
I think the Amish habit of adopting new tech only when its costs are known is more prudent than our society's technophilia.
Donald
The World is not gething better, people are.
Post a Comment