• woodrow wilson center
  • ecsp

New Security Beat

Subscribe:
  • mail-to
  • Who We Are
  • Topics
    • Population
    • Environment
    • Security
    • Health
    • Development
  • Columns
    • China Environment Forum
    • Choke Point
    • Dot-Mom
    • Navigating the Poles
    • New Security Broadcast
    • Reading Radar
  • Multimedia
    • Water Stories (Podcast Series)
    • Backdraft (Podcast Series)
    • Tracking the Energy Titans (Interactive)
  • Films
    • Water, Conflict, and Peacebuilding (Animated Short)
    • Paving the Way (Ethiopia)
    • Broken Landscape (India)
    • Scaling the Mountain (Nepal)
    • Healthy People, Healthy Environment (Tanzania)
  • Publications
  • Events
  • Contact Us

NewSecurityBeat

The blog of the Wilson Center's Environmental Change and Security Program
  • Ten Billion: UN Updates Population Projections, Assumptions on Peak Growth Shattered

    May 12, 2011 By Schuyler Null

    The numbers are up: The latest projections from the UN Population Division estimate that world population will reach 9.3 billion by 2050 – a slight bump up from the previous estimate of 9.1 billion. The most interesting change however is that the UN has extended its projection timeline to 2100, and the picture at the end of the century is of a very different world. As opposed to previous estimates, the world’s population is not expected to stabilize in the 2050s, instead rising past 10.1 billion by the end of the century, using the UN’s medium variant model.

    Africa is projected to experience the most explosive increase in size: the population of sub-Saharan Africa will nearly quadruple, growing from 856 million in 2010 to 3.3 billion by 2100. Nigeria alone is projected to be home to 730 million people – nearly equal to the entire population of Europe today (738 million) and four and half times its current size. The Republic of Tanzania will be the fifth most populous country in the world, with 316 million people.

    In contrast, Europe as a whole is projected to shrink to 675 million by around 2080, before leveling off. China, Japan, and South Korea are also projected to decline in size, with India passing China in 2021. The United States is projected to maintain steady growth, eventually reaching 478 million people in 2100.

    “A Wake-up Call”

    The 2010 revision’s numbers are different due to changes in the UN’s methodology that take into account slower than previously expected declines in total fertility (number of children born to a woman during her lifetime), more accurate, country-specific estimates, and longer life expectancy. Elizabeth Leahy Madsen of Population Action International writes on Grist:

    The UN has shifted to a “probabilistic” model for its medium-fertility scenario. This allows the pace of each country’s fertility decline to be calculated individually, based on new estimates of historic fertility rates, allowing for much more variance across countries. The new method also assumes that fertility rates will eventually balance out around 2.1 children per woman, a level where couples would “replace” themselves in the population, rather than 1.85. And the projections now extend out to 2100, and incorporate life expectancies ranging as high as 90+ years.

    In particular, these changes created much higher estimates for sub-Saharan Africa, as well as some key countries in the Middle East: Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yemen are all projected to at least double in population over the next 40 years, tilting the playing field uphill for ongoing development and stability efforts.

    For Africa, the estimates should be a wake-up call, argue Malcom Potts and Martha Campbell on Foreign Policy:

    Rapid population growth is bad news for the continent, as it will likely outstrip gains in economic development. It’s also a wake-up call: If the world doesn’t begin investing far more seriously in family planning, much of our progress fighting poverty in sub-Saharan Africa over the last half-century could be lost.

    Investment in Family Planning Determines Growth Rate

    Worse, both Potts/Campbell and Madsen warn that even with the current revisions, estimates may still be low. “It would be a mistake to focus only on the medium UN projection of 9.3 billion people by 2050 as most commentators do,” write Potts and Campbell:

    The high projection would take us to 10.6 billion in 2050. The low projection would mean 8.1 billion. (Just for a sense of scale: The difference between these high and low variants is equivalent to the entire global population in 1950.)

    And Madsen singles out Nigeria once again:

    Nigeria’s fertility rate, measured at almost six children per woman in 2008, is projected to fall to slightly over three children by 2050. This is highly unlikely if current trends continue, because only 10 percent of married women in Nigeria use effective contraception, while 20 percent want to avoid pregnancy but aren’t using family planning services.

    The New York Times’ Justin Gillis and Celia W. Dugger also highlighted the role of family planning:

    Though [family planning programs] were a major focus of development policy in the 1970s and 1980s, such programs have stagnated in many countries, caught up in ideological battles over abortion, sex education, and the role of women in society.
    …
    Over the past decade, foreign aid to pay for contraceptives – $238 million in 2009 – has barely budged, according to United Nations estimates. The United States has long been the biggest donor, but the budget compromise in Congress last month cut international family planning programs by five percent.

    In Uganda, where the population growth rate is the third highest in the world (after Yemen and Niger), the Daily Monitor reported that the unmet need for family planning is 41 percent. “Our reproductive health and family planning services remain mainly urban-based yet the majority of our women are in rural areas, some of them quite remote where accessibility remains poor,” the country’s State Minister for Planning, Fred Omach, told the Monitor.

    “Every billion more people makes life more difficult for everybody – it’s as simple as that,” John Bongaarts of the Population Council told The New York Times. “Is it the end of the world? No. Can we feed 10 billion people? Probably. But we obviously would be better off with a smaller population.”

    For more on the latest UN population projections, be sure to check out The New York Times’ “Room for Debate” feature on the topic, with input from Jamais Cascio, Joel E. Cohen (see his New Security Beat appearances as well), Warren Sanderson, David E. Bloom, Jason Clay, and Brad Allenby.

    Sources: Sources: Daily Monitor, Foreign Policy, Grist, National Population Commission (Nigeria), The New York Times, Population Reference Bureau, UN Population Division.

    Chart Credit: Arranged by Schuyler Null, data from UN Population Division, World Population Prospects, 2010 Revision.

    Topics: Afghanistan, Africa, China, demography, development, family planning, India, Iraq, Japan, Korea, Nigeria, population, security, UN, Yemen
    • Anonymous

      http://bravenewworld.in/russell-hopfenbergs-science/

      Russell Hopfenberg’s Science
      By: Steve Salmony

      For the past 10 years scientific research from Dr. Russell Hopfenberg has been everywhere avoided by many too many professionals with appropriate expertise in population science… would someone with adequate expertise either report findings regarding extant hypotheses and evidence or else find a top rank colleague with appropriate expertise who will affirm or refute the research?…

      Hopfenberg’s apparently unforeseen, unfortunately unwelcome and still unchallenged scientific finding regarding the relationship between food supply and human population numbers is being denied by the very experts upon whom the human community relies for guidance and direction. For a decade ‘the brightest and best’ have refused comment on what appears to be the best available science concerning the relationship between food availability and the size of the human population on Earth. Too many experts have ignored certain scientific evidence and failed to report their findings in professional journals, as would be expected. This failure has to be acknowledged and put behind us so that momentum can gather to move the human family in a new direction; so that we can begin making necessary changes toward sustainability.

      Until now what appears so obvious, almost rhetorical to many people, regarding the human population has been rarely acknowledged and seldom reported by experts who have unassumed responsibilities to science and unfulfilled duties to perform for humanity’s sake. Perspectives of many too many professional researchers regarding human population dynamics and overpopulation have not been shared widely and openly. Public discourse of science regarding so vital a topic as human overpopulation has been voided, as it were, into a black hole of silence. Experts in possession of scientific understanding have remained mute…
      Scientists with expertise in many other fields of inquiry utterly depend on other top notch colleagues to present the best available scientific evidence in each field of study. That is to say, first class scientists who are not expert in matters related to population dynamics and human overpopulation, for example, are dependent upon similarly situated experts in fields of study related to population dynamics and overpopulation for reports of the best scientific evidence. Regrettably, professionals with appropriate expertise in population dynamics and human overpopulation have not been carefully examining and objectively reporting findings regarding certain scientific research from Hopfenberg on the human population. This most problematic situation has to be recognized, addressed and overcome.
      How are human beings to consciously, deliberately and ably respond to the global challenges posed to humanity by human overpopulation of the Earth if experts in population dynamics and overpopulation choose to pose as if they are willfully blind, hysterically deaf and electively mute in the face of scientific evidence? Responding to science with silence, as has been occurring for the past ten years, is woefully inadequate and could contribute to a forbidding result, one in which humankind inadvertently precipitates the ruination of the world as a fit place for children everywhere to inhabit. If the day ever comes when professionals come to regard the best available, uncontested science as meaningless or useless, then I will fear the worst for the children. I cannot see any justification or defense for continuing to consciously and willfully deny what could be true regarding the human population, as science discloses what is real to us…

    • Pingback: climateafrica.net » U.S. Drought, Climate Change Could Lead to Global Food Riots, Political Instability | New Security Beat()

Join the Conversation

  • RSS
  • subscribe
  • facebook
  • G+
  • twitter
  • iTunes
  • podomatic
  • youtube
Tweets by NewSecurityBeat

Trending Stories

  • unfccclogo1
  • Pop at COP: Population and Family Planning at the UN Climate Negotiations

Featured Media

Backdraft Podcast

play Backdraft
Podcasts

More »

What You're Saying

  • shutterstock_1858965709 Break the Bias: Breaking Barriers to Women’s Global Health Leadership
    Sarah Ngela Ngasi: Nous souhaitons que le partenaire nous apporte son soutien technique et financier.
  • shutterstock_1858965709 Break the Bias: Breaking Barriers to Women’s Global Health Leadership
    Sarah Ngela Ngasi: Nous sommes une organisation féminine dénommée: Actions Communautaires pour le Développement de...
  • hongqiao-liu1 As China Adjusts for “True Cost” of Rare Earths, What Does It Mean for Decarbonization?
    Anthony Maw: It is just another one of those "inconvenient truths". Western defense and security analysts often...

Related Stories

No related stories.

  • woodrow
  • ecsp
  • RSS Feed
  • YouTube
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Home
  • Who We Are
  • Publications
  • Events
  • Wilson Center
  • Contact Us
  • Print Friendly Page

© Copyright 2007-2023. Environmental Change and Security Program.

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. All rights reserved.

Developed by Vico Rock Media

Environmental Change and Security Program

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center

  • One Woodrow Wilson Plaza
  • 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
  • Washington, DC 20004-3027

T 202-691-4000