Reducing Human Population is No Quick Fix

China implemented their One Child Policy in 1979 to correct population by 700 million. Others have posed the idea that for human survival on a global level, all families need to adapt the one child policy and reduce the destructive effect of each person (Butler, 1996). Others choose a softer approach, suggesting an increase in family planning as the most effective way to protect the Earth's environmental future (Cleland et al, 2006). It is therefore clear that many feel implementing population controls are the answer to a growing population and environmental problems.

Source: BBC News 

However, a recent report in PNAS suggests that reducing human population is 'not a quick fix' for environmental problems (Bradshaw and Brook, 2014 ). They use WHO and US Census Bureau data input into a Leslie Matrix to predict population in the year 2100 under different global scenarios. The findings are quite remarkable:

• Enforcing a scenario with a global one child per woman policy by 2100 resulted in a peak population size of 8.9 billion in 2056, followed by a decline to around 7 billion by 2100 (Essentially causing a return to the 2013 population)

• A mass mortality scenario of 2 billion dead within a 5 year time span half way through the projection interval led to a population of 8.4 billion in 2100.

• A mass mortality scenario of 6 billion dead implemented 1/3rd of the way through the projection led to a population of 5.1 billion by 2100.

These figures make for a shocking read. They show that even with major catastrophic events (such as those described by Malthus as 'positive checks' to raise the death rates (Malthus, 1798) population is still going to pose a huge strains on the environment. They stress: 

'Even if the human collective were to pull as hard as possible on the total fertility policy lever (via a range of economic, medical, and social interventions), the result would be ineffective in mitigating the immediately looming global sustainability crises'


They therefore propose that there is a need to focus on policies that decrease consumption and of natural resources for immediate sustainability gains. This throws into question of whether we should be turing away from population controls as a means of creating a sustainable environment. Is reducing population menial?

Of course we cannot forget that controlling population has other benefits such as poverty reduction. It is my opinion we cannot disregard reducing population as a solution to improving the environment. However, i feel we should maybe prioritise and bring to the forefront other measures to preserve the Earths environment, which focus on conservation, recycling and reduced consumption of natural resources by both individuals and businesses.