The Foreign Service Journal, January 2010

P aul Ehrlich’s 1968 book, The Population Bomb , hit America’s college campuses with the in- tellectual force of a futurist’s impro- vised explosive device. It challenged Americans to consider —many for the first time— the potential for chaos and upheaval hidden within unfolding global demographic trends. A student at the time, I still vividly recall the power of Ehrlich’s message: the explosive growth of the human race affects all issues on the global agenda, from regional conflict and habitat loss to depletion of energy, food and water resources. That premise is truer today than ever before. In fact, it obligates us to take action. Unless population size is factored into policy decisions, we will never achieve valid, sustainable solu- tions to problems like global warming and energy independence. So if we care about the future of our children, then we need to be concerned about the effects of population growth on each and every one of those issues. The Scope of the Problem There are all sorts of population growth scenarios, but a frequently cited one comes from the United Na- tions Population Division. It forecasts that by 2050, the number of humans on the planet will have grown by a third, from 6.7 billion to 9.2 billion, be- fore leveling off. That increase — 2.5 billion human beings — is equal to the entire global population in 1950. Paradoxically, it will be the poorest, least developed nations that see the greatest growth in population, as their population rises from 5.4 billion to 7.9 billion. Staggering as such numbers are, they are actually quite conserva- tive, for they assume a rise in contra- ceptive use, coupled with a decline in fertility. (The calculations also factor in deaths from HIV/AIDS, as well as projected migration patterns.) Specifically, the figure assumes that fertility will continue to decline in de- veloping countries, from 2.75 children per woman to 2.05 children per woman by 2050. (The degree of fertil- ity reduction projected for the 50 least developed countries is even sharper: from 4.63 children per woman in 2005-2010 to 2.50 children per woman in 2045-2050.) Given the fact that even the tiniest variation in fertility rates can have huge implications for the size of the eventual world population, and taking into ac- count the lack of family planning ac- cess in much of the world, 9.2 billion may well be a “best case” scenario. Back to the Future Historically, the U.S. conducted a strong population assistance program that enjoyed consistent bipartisan sup- port through numerous administra- tions. Its longstanding policy objec- tives have been to enhance the free- dom of individuals to choose the num- ber and spacing of their children, and to encourage population growth con- sistent with the growth of economic re- sources and productivity. There is also a strong rationale for population assistance in terms of im- proving maternal and child health. Various justifications for this have held sway at different times, but all are im- portant. Many factors lead to people having fewer children: female educa- tion, improved child survival, access to contraception, and economic growth that offers opportunities to women out- side the home, changing the calculus for how they most productively spend their time. Of all of these, access to contracep- tion is one of the easiest to implement, has the most direct effect, and has had measurable success. Average family size has fallen by half in the develop- J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 0 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 13 The Population Bomb Is Still Ticking B Y M ICHAEL F RITZ S PEAKING O UT I call on my fellow professionals in development and diplomacy not just to monitor and report on the population debate, but to lead the discussion.