including a short video explaining very clearly the ‘demographic transition’, and why population growth rates are slowing but the population still rising:

http://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2011/08/prbs-population-data-sheet-201...

Venetia

Thanks, Venetia. I posted the following comment:

³The flaw in purely demographic projections is that they focus largely on
birth rates, while assuming continued declining trends in death rates. They
thus ignore the non-demographic factors likely to affect death rates -
notably climate change, sea level rise, peak oil (declining energy return on
energy invested, 'EROEI'), peak phosphate, peak antibiotic, aquifer
depletion, soil erosion and biodiversity loss. Yemen, for instance, is
already running out of water, and world grain reserves are shrinking.

It is a fact, not an opinion, that on a physically finite planet indefinite
growth in anything physical - notably resource consumption per person and
the number of people - is physically impossible; so it will definitely stop
at some point.  In both cases this can only be either sooner in an orderly
way through deliberate policy, or later in a disorderly way through natural
systems failure. As regards population, this means either sooner by fewer
births (the humane way - contraception backed by policy to make it available
and encourage people to use it) or later by more deaths (the 'natural' way
by which every other species is kept in balance with its habitat -
resource-competition, famine, disease and predation/war).

I do not blame the PRB for declining to predict when and how death rates
will rise - no-one can. But the probability that the inevitable
discontinuity in growth will occur during this century through ecological
failure is surely high and rising. Does anyone really believe that
Afghanistan can support 800 million people in 100 years time - the number it
would reach from its current 30 million if its current growth continued for
a century? Thus the credence given to the PRB  projections should be
modified by wider judgements about sustainablity.

These should also add urgency, and stridency, to the case for (non-coercive)
population stabilisation policies in all countries, rich and poor alike; and
to demands for vastly higher priority and funding for family planning and
women's empowerment programmes in national and aid budgets. It is truly
derisory that total aid for family planning is only 10% of the Goldman Sachs
bonus pot!

Roger Martin
Chair, Population Matters (UK)²

On 10/08/2011 12:10, "Venetia Caine" <venetia.ca...@btinternet.com> wrote: