The really BIG problem we are all facing.

[peter]

See http://www.imeche.org/Home and their report entitled "Population: One Planet, Too Many People".
Precis.
By 2100, experts predict the global human population to reach about 9.5 billion.  Meeting the needs and demands of these people will provide a significant challenge to governments and society at large.  This latest IMechE report looks at how engineers can address the issues of food, water and energy supply for an ever urbanised population over the next few decades.

http://www.imeche.org/knowledge/themes/ ... Population links straight to the report.

[alan refail]

The report might be more useful if jargon such as this could be put into simple language with suggestions as to how such things could be brought about:

"The Institution's Five Engineering Developing Goals are:

Energy: Use existing sustainable energy technologies and reduce energy waste. Don't wait for new technologies to be developed

Water: Replenish groundwater sources, improve storage of excess water and increase energy efficiencies of desalination

Food: Reduce food waste and resolve the politics of hunger

Urbanisation: Meet the challenge of slums and defending against sea-level rises

Finance: Empower communities and enable implementation"

[John Walker]

@alan refail

The language doesn't look too taxing; has it stopped you reading the report?

There's a lengthy but thoughtful Guardian article (14.1.11) by Leo Hickman, 'The population explosion', which contains some different perspectives on the issue. Here's a taster:

But with rising greenhouse gas emissions and resource depletion ever-growing concerns, the approach of this year's population landmark has become an awkward, even unwelcome presence in the environmental debate. No one likes to talk about it, for there are no easy answers. Even a mention of it can see the questioner accused of racism, colonialism or misanthropy. Increasingly, environmental thinkers such as Jared Diamond, George Monbiot and Fred Pearce have made the case that population growth is not, in fact, the real problem (the UN predicts that growth will plateau at nine billion around mid-century before slowly starting to fall), rather that a rapid rise in consumption is our most pressing environmental issue. There are more than enough resources to feed the world, they say, even in 2050 when numbers peak – a point made this week by a report jointly published by France's national agricultural and development research agencies. The problem is that we see huge inequities in consumption whereby, for example, the average American has the same carbon footprint as 250 Ethiopians. The French report concluded bluntly that "the rich must stop consuming so much".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ja ... en-billion

[Primrose]

I can only be thankful that I will no longer be around by 2100 because I don't think the world will be a very pleasant place to be, either from an environmental or population viewpoint.

The solution is staring everybody in the face but every time anybody suggests it, there is public outrage. The human population just has to stop reproducing itself but I can't see many people voluntarily being sufficiently unselfish to volunteer to do the right thing. I can't see how technology will ever be able to feed this njumber of people. The amount of land for agriculture and homes is finite and sooner or later pressures will become so great that there will probably be wars for the acquisition of more land and resources. Man is supposed to be a superior being but sometimes I think the human race doesn't have much intelligence at all.

[alan refail]

The language doesn't look too taxing; has it stopped you reading the report?

Fair point John. No it didn't stop me reading the report. But I do still think Empower communities and enable implementation is rather opaque.

the UN predicts that growth will plateau at nine billion around mid-century before slowly starting to fall

This prediction is often quoted and I would genuinely like to see the reasoning behind it. Given that the world's population has grown in my lifetime from less than 2.5 billion to just short of 7 billion, how are we to believe that growth will slow or even reverse? What mechanism will come into play?

[Tony Hague]

This is quite a problem. It is utterly apparent that increasing population increases human impact on the environment by almost any measure. But strangely, if you look amongst the people who consider themselves "greens", there are a surprising number who seem to still celebrate fecundity as if we still lived in ancient times, proud of their "Earth Mother" status. Can't quite understand it myself.

[peter]

There are far more low consumption people aspiring to a high consumption lifestyle than the other way round.

Every shanty town or slum dweller wants to have the lifestyle enjoyed by the "respectable" working class, they in turn aspire to the lifestyle of the better-off, who aspire to a bigger house/car/tv etc and so on.

How many little boys on this planet believe they will be the next Beckham/Ferdinand/Drogba with a fleet of cars......

Until we in the high-consumption world ALL reduce our consumption the low-consumption world will accuse us of ttuing to deny them the enjoyment of what we have and use.

I cite the Tata Nano as a deeds in action example of how step by step average consumption will inexorably rise.
The one lakh car, designed to be affordable by the expanding monied classes.of India as family transport.

[oldherbaceous]

Trust me to be the odd one out.