Overpopulation, threat or myth?
Klatzmann, J.
Comptes Rendus de l'Academie d'Agriculture de France 82(1): 83-89
1996
Document Number: 298979
Is the world threatened by overpopulation? Few topics give rise to so totally contradictory opinions. For it is not enough to try to forecast at what level world population will reach stabilization. It is also necessary to know if, at that time, it will be possible to secure proper feeding to all human beings and also if ali threats against nature will not endanger the life of future generations. Moreover, it is not enough to consider world prospects. Special attention must be given to countries where the danger of overpopulation is especially high. In the foreseeable future, agriculture will almost remain the only source of food. To feed correctly (that means more than just covering physiological needs) a population of more than 10 billion human beings without increasing pollutions by the use of fertilizers and pesticides, without damaging agricultural land, and despite the lack of water in many regions and the negative consequences for agriculture of the "greenhouse effect" will surety not be easy. And what Will happen if world population stabilizes at a much higher level? Some people argue that the threat on non-renewable natural resources and the increase of pollutions come from developed countries much more than from countries where population growth is high. But we must not forget that poor countries need rapid economic progress. And if the rate of population growth is high, it is much more difficult to increase GNP per head (for example, if the annual rate of growth of population reaches 3%, it is necessary to build, just in order to keep the level of housing, four times more than in a country where population is stabilized). Facing such complex problems, it is difficult to decide who is right-pessimists or optimists. The only certitude, is that a doubt remains. In such a situation the wise behaviour is the prudent one: to act against all possible dangers, which means to try to reduce population growth faster than now (except, of course, in countries where the menace is depopulation), to give high priority to the increase of agricultural production and to fight against all threats on nature- for example making all which is possible to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. But it is easier to say what should be done than to put it into operation. May I add, after this attempt of an objective analysis putting the stress on doubt, my personal opinion? I am afraid for the future of mankind: prospects are more worrying than many people think.