Soledad O'BrienThe number of humans is likely to rise from 8.1 billion to 9.5 billion before declining again by the early 1960s.
Although we are not on the verge of extinction, this path was not expected by anyone. In fact, the United Nations predicted in 2017 that human numbers would not peak until the year 2100, when our number would exceed 11 billion people.
Before that, the disaster of the population explosion seemed inevitable, but the rise in education and reproductive freedom of women helped ward off some of the worst predictions of the twentieth century.
In fact, this is something worth celebrating, as we are not on the verge of suffering from overpopulation and food depletion, as sometimes happens to animals in the wild, and as predicted in the book “The Population Bomb” published in 1968.
The appropriate number for the world’s population
However, the proportion of the elderly population will rise significantly in various parts of the world, which raises concerns among some economists, amid the desire of some political leaders for more people to have more children.
On the other hand, some environmentalists argue that human populations must be reduced more rapidly to slow both global warming and the destruction of habitat for other species, ultimately destroying the environmental conditions for human life.
Cohen explained that attempts by some governments to encourage fatherhood by offering economic incentives or imposing restrictions on abortion fail. He pointed to research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association showing that voluntary sterilization rates in the United States rose after the Supreme Court’s decision in the Dobbs case, which abolished national abortion rights. Although cause and effect have not been proven, he said it is possible that laws restricting the practice of abortion “lead people not to have children, which I don’t think is the intended effect.”
Consequences of controlling population density
It is impossible to know all the unintended consequences of trying to adjust population density toward growth or decline, but there are none of the negative consequences of taking better care of the children we already have.
Future policy should focus on helping people have the number of children they want, when they want, and with whom they want. In her new book, Sex and the Planet, University of Utah bioethicist Margaret Pabst Patten begins with a thought experiment and raises the question: What would happen if everyone had access to reliable, safe, free, and reliable long-term contraception, such that pregnancy only occurs if a woman chooses? Or couple it?
To date, 45% of all pregnancies in the world are unplanned (and even higher in the United States), some of which account for the 73 million abortions that occur each year.
But abortion rates would decline, as would teenage pregnancy rates, with reliable, long-term contraception. Also, birth rates will decline in many regions, which will prevent rapid population growth. Hence, people will not need to resort to permanent sterilization.
Of course, gloomy and pessimistic ideas are popular, which is why population trends are always portrayed as impending disasters, whether it is a baby boom or a decline in their number.
If we cannot agree that we are expecting too much or too little population, perhaps now is the time to help people have as many children as they think is right for them.
Opinion Article
Soledad O’Brien
Associated Press
Johanna Liander
Sophie Rosemont
Alexis Parker