Articles and Papers
MAHB: The population crisis – a Call to Arms. http://tinyurl.com/ybxsrlfy
“How can we expect wide understanding of our plight , if all the facts are not made easily available and are not part of world-wide education systems?
“These facts must include at least: the numbers and distribution of world population: an overview of how these numbers have changed, and are changing: the arithmetical facts about the necessity of one-child families: a summary of the world-wide destruction we are wreaking-including climate change.”
Guardian: Want to fight climate change? http://tinyurl.com/ybr5m3ah
This important article confirms the work of other researchers (see Murtaugh and Schlax in the section ‘Your Family’ at http://qcop.org.uk/immediate-action ), and confirms that the reduction of one’s eventual family by one might save as much as twenty times as much carbon dioxide emission as all the other likely steps that one might make.
Overpopulation Opinions: Reflections on my book tour in England
By Dr. Karen I. Shragg
Karen Shragg, author of ‘Move Upstream: a Call to Solve Overpopulation’, was invited to visit the UK to speak at several venues. The ensuing discussions led her to write these reflections and recommendations, under a series of headings: these cover compassion, the use of focus groups, remove all shame (you will see what this means when you read the article), staying focused on our message, keeping in contact with other groups. This is an important article
Can a collapse of global civilization be avoided? Ehrlich and Ehrlich, Proceedings of the Royal Society B, http://tinyurl.com/ptauwep.
‘Virtually every past civilization has eventually undergone collapse, a loss of socio-political-economic complexity usually accompanied by a dramatic decline in population size…but, for the first time, humanity’s global civilization…is threatened with collapse by an array of environmental problems.’
The paper calls this the ‘human predicament’, and states that it is driven by ‘overpopulation, overconsumption of natural resources and the use of unnecessarily environmentally damaging technologies and socio-economic-political arrangements to service Homo sapiens’ aggregate consumption’.
Considering population and war: a critical and neglected aspect of conflict studies. Bradley A. Thayer, Proceedings of the Royal Society B, http://tinyurl.com/o3wn8bp
This is a discussion of the reasons why population is not taken into account in the study of conflict. The author’s abstract makes clear his conviction that population stress has an impact on conflict.
In his introduction he expresses the view that ‘Political scientists are open to many theoretical and methodological approaches to the analysis of war. Yet, the relationship between population and war is not one of them. The reason why says much about the health of the study of international politics. Population, and insights from the life sciences more broadly, fall outside the standard social model forcefully advanced since Durkheim—social facts may only be explained by other social facts. For traditionally trained social scientists, the biological is taboo, and population is thus neglected. The cost of this neglect is significant. Shunning the life sciences costs political scientists a better understanding of political behaviour’
He concludes, ‘Those of us who analyse conflict for a living would be wise to recognize the myriad of contributions made by population studies. Both the life and social sciences are needed here. If successful, the result will be a consilient solution to a problem that requires one’
Confronting the inevitable: Population reduction, voluntary or otherwise. J. Kenneth Smail, http://tinyurl.com/qjem8qb
This article appeared in the online environmental journal Culture Change. It is preceded with a short note by the editor.
Ken Smail (Ph.D Yale, 1976) is Professor of Anthropology (Emeritus) at Kenyon College, Gambier, Ohio.
In this article he makes a case for not only slowing population growth, but for reversing it, over a period of about two centuries, to a level of two billion. Note, however, that his statement as to projected levels of population in 2050 and 2100 are outdated (the article was published in 2008). Rather than peaking at 9-10 billion, UN’s median projection is 9.7 billion in 2050 and 11.2 billion in 2100, with no decline expected.
To quote:-‘As a consequence of this modern-day “Malthusian dilemma,” it seems reasonable to suggest that it is now time — indeed, past time — to think boldly about the midrange future, and to consider alternatives that go beyond merely slowing the growth, or even the stabilization, of global human numbers. In this brief essay, I shall argue that it has now become necessary for the human species to develop and implement, as quickly as possible, a well conceived, clearly articulated, flexibly designed, broadly equitable, and internationally coordinated program focused on bringing about a very significant reduction in global human numbers over the next two or more centuries. In simple quantitative terms, this effort will likely require a global population “shrinkage” of at least two-thirds to three-fourths, from a probable mid-to-late 21st century “peak” in the 9 to 10 billion range to a future (23rd century and beyond) “population optimum” of not more than 2 to 3 billion, or perhaps even fewer.
Obviously, a demographic change of this magnitude, whether brought about by conscious human design or ultimately by forces beyond human control, will require a major reorientation of human thought, values, expectations, and lifestyle(s). Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that such a program will be successful. Moreover, if humanity fails in this effort, it seems likely that nature’s even harsher realities will almost certainly be imposed. Speaking as a professional physical anthropologist/human evolutionary biologist, it is entirely possible that this rapidly metastasizing — yet still partly hidden — demographic and environmental crisis could emerge as the greatest evolutionary/ecological “bottleneck” that our species has yet encountered.’
Smart Planning for the Global Family, Lester Brown, Grist Magazine, April 2011
This article is a good general exposition of the case for family planning, and is especially informative on the continual reversals of policy in Iran. See http://tinyurl.com/z2q4sl2
The De-population Dividend, Population Matters.
This article, by Population Matters, lists the benefits of a declining population, to set against the usual economist’s advocacy of growth. See http://tinyurl.com/jsaw43l
This article discusses benefits of an ageing population: http://tinyurl.com/h2muebl
De-population in Japan
The standard economist’s attitude to population growth was expressed to me over 60 years ago by a tutor who said that ‘a growing population is good for the economy’. It is no surprise therefore that the situation in Japan is bewailed by economists. If numbers decline, they argue, economic growth is hobbled and the increasing number of elderly becomes a burden.
Japan’s population is the world’s oldest: the median age is 46 years, and a quarter of the population is over 65. The current fertility rate is 1.4 children per woman: one in four women don’t have children.
There are benefits, however. The proportion of the population that is dependent on the workforce is not dissimilar to that of other countries, but within that group there are twice as many over 65 as children: so less is spent on education. Although Japan’s economy is slow growing, per capita wealth has been rising strongly, as a result of the benefits of economic growth being divided between a smaller number
This article, from the Japanese paper Japan Today praises the benefits of a declining population; http://tinyurl.com/jq9otes
This one, from CNN, is a good discussion, entitled ‘Is Japan’s aging population a good thing?’ is on http://tinyurl.com/jyhhyq4
A Response to Critics of Family Planning Programs: John Bongaarts and Steven W. Sinding
This is a considered essay that dissects a number of standard objections to population action. It should be noted that this article, which appeared in March 2009, is now out of date as to some of the figures quoted: for example, in the first critique it states that 137 million women don’t want to get pregnant but are not practicing contraception: this figure is now thought to be 225 million.
The objections covered question the need for policies, or suggest that such policies are ineffective, that the death toll from AIDS etc. are making it unnecessary: that programmes are not cost effective and are coercive. The article is on www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3503909.html
Article in British Medical Journal: Voluntary Family Planning to Minimize and Mitigate Climate change, by Dr. John Guillebaud, Emeritus Professor of Family Planning and Reproductive Health, University College of London.
Guillebaud puts out for discussion the “persistent myth is that quantitative concern for human numbers is intrinsically coercive, and in much of civil society this idea still inhibits rational discussion about population stabilization.” All in all, the article is highly useful as a advocacy tool to influence policy-makers and thought-leaders. Strategies to remove cultural barriers to contraceptive uptake and educate people on the benefits of small family size decisions have never been more important.
This article is on www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2102
2019 General Election – Questions for parliamentary candidates on Population issues
Questions or points to raise with candidates or in letters. We suggest you pick and choose your favourite one, or the most appropriate for the occasion. They could also be used as focus points at a discussion group. If there is a hustings near you they could be useful to help raise general public awareness too. These are in the style of the 2015 General Election Briefing to Friends on the Environment.If you can think of any more, especially shorter and more catchy ones, please contact us.
- I know that you respect the climate scientists who tell us that the earth can only sustain 2 billion humans in the western style, and has a population of over 7 billion now . . What will your party do to ensure that any strong and binding agreement will include measures to stabilize global population?
- The UK has one of the highest birth-rates in Europe. Will your party ensure that sex education in schools is compulsory, properly taught and includes discussion on family size?
- The UK is committed to stringent EU targets on pollution by 2020. To what extent is an increasing birth-rate a hindrance to this? Would it not be a good idea to have similar EU targets on stabilising the birth-rate, and will your party pursue this goal?
- The world aid funding for contraception is substantially less than the bonus payments for Goldmann Sachs staff. Will your party maintain the Family Planning element of the Overseas Aid Budget?
- This planet is overpopulated with humans. The environment for all species, including our own is under increasing pressure from human activities. What are the views of you and your party on abandoning the competitive drive for economic growth and instead aiming for a non-growth economy? Will these include plans for the stabilization of the population?
- Educating women together with proper health and family planning policies has proved amazingly effective at bringing down soaring birth-rates in many countries, Bangladesh, Iran, Brazil etc. Will your party ensure that there is no reduction of funds from the Overseas Aid Budget for the education of women? 
Written by Cherry Foster and Roger Plenty, with the Quaker Population Concern Group – February 2015. Re-edited November 2019
 World population at . See Home Page for current numbers and watch the numbers mount by the second.
 Climate change talks, Paris, Nov. 30th – Dec 11th 2015
 Average family size in Europe is 1.58 children (2012). UK family size has risen from1.56 to 1.84 children over the last decade
 In 2012 Goldman Sachs budget was about $4.5 billion. At the same timeworld aid funding for family planning was about $450 million
Tried and Tested, letters to the press, by Roger Plenty. The press in general has shown a reluctance to discuss population, even where it is relevant to the subject under discussion .
This one was published in the Independent after Christmas 2015.
As your article ‘Droughts caused by global warming to cause mass migration across the world’ suggests, (24.12.15), the global migrant crisis has scarcely begun. In addition to drought, the rise of sea levels will drive people in huge numbers off the great deltas and other coastal regions. What can come of this but conflict and famine?
Meanwhile, World population is increasing by eleven thousand every hour. Is it not blindingly obvious that we should do something about our numbers?
This one went to the Guardian on 13.11.15 but was not published:
Your editorial today (Tell it like it is) speaks of the possibility of 50 million on the move in a few years driven by ‘climate change, desertification and population explosion’. At least this recognises population as one of the drivers, and yet you have not said the half of it. Two recent news items state that by 2100 the Sahel region’s population will grow from 125 million to 650 million, if current trends persist (UNPF). Over the same period, the region’s temperature will rise by 4.5-6.5 degrees, making it virtually uninhabitable (IPPC). The same period will see people driven from densely populated low lying land as sea levels rise. How does that chime with your recent attempts to denigrate those who advocate population restraint? The migrant crisis has scarcely begun.
And this was published in The Guardian 17 Mar 15 :
Now the week of special articles on climate change is over, without any mention of the consequences of population growth (except for one brief letter), may I refer back to your editorial of 1 March: “Hunger is coming. The temperature rises.” This mentioned that according to revised UN figures, “by 2100, the world could be home to 12 billion and still rising.” Please, is it not blindingly obvious that a figure less than that would be beneficial? And please, since several countries have successfully reduced their fertility by means that are scarcely controversial (ie education, organisation of clinics and a properly supported distribution of contraceptives), why is it not done to discuss this at the very least?
Over 40% of all pregnancies are unintentional: 225 million women have no access to modern contraception. Sort those two problems out and we would be more than halfway to a stable world population: but if we keep fudging this subject, then we will indeed face famine on a worldwide scale, together with a wholesale destruction of nature.
Blue Ventures. Incorporating family planning services within community conservation initiatives can address the unmet reproductive health needs of hard-to-reach populations, enabling couples to access contraception and avoid unintended pregnancies.
This is the finding of a paper just published in Studies in Family Planning, which reports on changes in modern contraception use and general fertility rates between 2009 and 2013 in the Velondriake locally managed marine area of southwest Madagascar, where Blue Ventures began implementing an integrated Population-Health-Environment (PHE) programme in 2007.
This article is on tinyurl.com/kbwssvp