In the Year of Seven Billion, the Planet Takes Note

As global population reaches another milestone (7 billion predicted by late October), the media is taking notice. National Geographic is running a year-long series of articles examining population issues. Their partner in this reporting is none other than the PBS News Hour. Just a few weeks ago, National Public Radio featured population issues on its Talk of the Nation program. Major articles have recently run in The Guardian (UK), USA Today and Time Magazine.

But what is the real issue? Most economists, businesses and governments see population growth as an engine for economic growth. Population projections from the United Nations, estimating a world of 9 billion by the year 2045, are welcomed with enthusiasm. More people equal more consumers, which increases demand, which spurs production, which employs more people and broadens the tax base. Everyone benefits. Or do they?

Another constituency – environmentalists, ecologists and sustainability activists – disagree. These groups see population growth in the context of a planet showing major symptoms of distress, including climate change, resource depletion and historically high rates of species extinction. They fervently hope that the population has stopped growing by 2045, preferably stabilizing well below 9 billion people.

Does it matter who is right and who is wrong?

Perhaps not. As these two schools of thought make their cases in opinion pieces, articles, research papers, blogs and online debates, a completely different set of people go about their business – business that will almost certainly lead to the slowing of population growth. The irony is they are not necessarily motivated by population growth concerns. In fact, many reject population concerns as harmful to their efforts. These people are human rights activists, feminists and reproductive health professionals. Their efforts at improving maternal health, decreasing infant mortality, creating true gender equity across the world and providing contraceptives and family planning services will – if successful – have the side effect of smaller family size choice and relatively quick population stabilization.

How should the average person evaluate these differing perspectives? Which ideas should they support and which ones should they reject? How can people reconcile their environmental concerns and wishes for a prosperous economy while still supporting human rights?