Jennifer Dabbs Sciubba with Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee, has posted a thought-provoking response to PRB's recent population predictions, taking issue with demographic projections for sub-Saharan Africa over the next several decades. To read more, click here.

Developing rural areas have always seen high fertility rates. We had high birth rates in America when we started out, but that was when children could be used for labor on family farms. It was not uncommon for a family to have five or more kids to help the parents with chores.
Many of these African countries are in a similar situation now, but the times are changing. As Africa becomes more industrialized, child labor will still be needed, but there may not be enough resources or room to support them. As the world's population grows and the globe's natural resources are exhausted, it will be interesting to see how these developing nations adjust. Will they be content to stay undeveloped, or will they find a way to progress without the resources the rest of the world has used to industrialized

I agree that resource scarcity is a huge concern as far as population growth is concerned. Jeff, as you mentioned, some developing countries, be they in sub-Saharan Africa or elsewhere, may ultimately be able to get by with fewer resources as they expand in population and develop economically. But in the process, quality of life may suffer. Population growth-induced environmental degradation and sanitation declines are also major concerns from an ecological and public health perspective, as a few of the above posters have noted.

But the sheer number of people in a given country isn't the only factor contributing to pressure on local resources. Lifestyle preference has a lot to do with it too. In some rapidly growing countries, such as China and India, there is an emerging consumer class that is looking to adopt elements of a Western lifestyle, such as private car ownership, or a diet that is more meat-based. In turn, these shifts in dietary and consumer preferences place a greater demand on local resources and the local environment, because of the greater number of inputs needed to manufacture such goods or food products. (Using the shift in dietary preferences as an example, it takes on average more than 10 times more water to produce one kilogram of meat than it does the equivalent amount of rice or grain.)

In the next week or two, keep an eye out for a follow-up piece on population projections for sub-Saharan African that we'll be posting here on New Security Beat. It is written by Paul Cincotta, a demographer at the Stimson Center in Washington DC, and he (like Jennifer Sciubba) contends that population predictions for the region between now and 2050 may be overly optimistic, suggesting that sub-Saharan Africa may end up more crowded than most are currently anticipating.

The world population is rising at an alarming rate, yet there are ways to work around the potential issues that could result from a massive population the world cannot support. Immigration can be used as a tool for people to go where the work and resources are. We are becoming a more global community. The European Union has created a borderless continent where people are able to travel freely from one country to another. This enables ideas, values and traditions to become more accepted by other cultures in the world. The United States, Canada and other countries saw the benefits that come along with immigration, such as: economic prosperity, diversity, and education. It is important to understand the potential problems of a large human population Earth cannot hold. It is ever more important that we use our resources consciously and recycle as much as possible so we have a beautiful world that many people can live in and for future generations to enjoy.

Is sanitation the main issue though? While i will admit that it will be a problem, could it not be said that the more pressing issue will be quantity? The quantity of consumable water is not increasing (if anyhting, because of sanitation it is decreasing) and the population is increasing, so would it not be safe to say that dealing with sanitation will only postpone the inevitable, which is a increased lack of resources due to overcrowding?

AjC, it's debatable whether sanitation is the main issue in the population growth debate, but it is a big one. A lot of time, water quality and quantity issues go hand in hand. The less you have, the easier it is for what you've got left to get polluted (groundwater, for example). And even if you're a country with a lot of water, population growth can strain those supplies, and water pollution can quickly leave you with a lot less water than you thought you had, especially if it becomes unfit for drinking or even agricultural use. You can also argue that water sanitation is a big deal because it can really take a toll on a country's public health outlook over time, given the prevalence of water-borne diseases, etc.

At the end of the day, countries need to prioritize supply and quality concerns alongside one another. This is especially true of populous countries (India, China, the U.S.), and/or those that are rapidly increasing in size with limited water resources (Syria, Pakistan).