RAPID INCREASE POPULATION

INTRODUCTION:

It is often suggested that rapid population growth, especially in developing countries, correspondingly intensifies environmental degradation, which must therefore be mitigated by reducing the rate of population growth. The validity of this assumption can be tested by means of an algebraic identity that relates the amount of a pollutant introduced into the environment to the product of three factors: population, "affluence" (the amount of goods produced per capita), and "technology" (the ratio of pollution generated to goods produced). For several forms of pollution that have a known origin in a specific production process (electricity production, use of motor vehicles, and consumption of inorganic nitrogen fertilizer), it is possible to compare the inferred rate of increase in pollution levels with the rate of population growth in developing countries. The results show that the rate of increase in pollution is largely determined by the technology factor, which governs the amount of pollution generated per unit of goods produced or consumed. This observation extends earlier evidence that both the increasing levels of pollution observed in developed countries and the results of efforts to reduce them support the view that the decisive factor determining environmental quality is the nature of the technology of production, rather than the size of the population.

Body:

Global human population growth amounts to around 75 million annually, or 1.1% per year. The global population has grown from 1 billion in 1800 to 7 billion in 2012. It is expected to keep growing, where estimates have put the total population at 8.4 billion by mid-2030, and 9.6 billion by mid-2050.[1]

-------------------------------------------------
Population growth rate[edit]
The "population growth rate" is the rate at which the number of individuals in a population increases in a given time period as a fraction of the initial population. Specifically, population growth rate refers to the change in population over a unit time period, often expressed as a percentage of the number of individuals in the population at the beginning of that period. This can be written as the formula:

A positive growth ratio (or rate) indicates that the population is increasing, while a negative growth ratio indicates the population is decreasing. A growth ratio of zero indicates that there were the same number of people at the two times—a growth rate may be zero even when there are significant changes in the birth rates, death rates, immigration rates, and age distribution between the two times.[3]
A related measure is the net reproduction rate. In the absence of migration, a net reproduction rate of more than one indicates that the population of women is increasing, while a net reproduction rate less than one (sub-replacement fertility) indicates that the population of women is decreasing.

-------------------------------------------------
Human population growth rate
-------------------------------------------------

A world map showing global variations in fertility rate per woman, according to the CIA World Factbook's 2013 data. 7–8 children 6–7 children | 5–6 children 4–5 children | 3–4 children 2–3 children | 1–2 children 0–1 children | | | | |

Estimates of population evolution in different continentsbetween 1950 and 2050, according to the United Nations. The vertical axis is logarithmic and is in millions of people.

Growth rate of world population (1950–2050).
Globally, the growth rate of the human population has been declining since peaking in 1962 and 1963 at 2.20% per annum. In 2009, the estimated annual growth rate was 1.1%.[4] The CIA World Factbook gives the world annual birthrate, mortality rate, and growth rate as 1.89%, 0.79%, and 1.096% respectively.[5] The last 100 years have seen a rapid increase in population due tomedical advances and massive increase in agricultural productivity[6] made possible by the Green Revolution.[7][8][9]
The actual annual growth in the number of humans fell from its peak of 88.0 million in 1989, to a low of 73.9 million in 2003, after which it rose again to 75.2 million in 2006. Since then, annual growth has declined. In 2009, the human population increased by 74.6 million, which is projected to fall steadily to about 41 million per annum in 2050, at which time the population will have increased to about 9.2 billion.[4] Each region of the globe has seen great reductions in growth rate in recent decades, though growth rates remain above 2% in some countries of the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa, and also in South Asia, Southeast Asia, and Latin America.[10]
Some countries experience negative population growth, especially in Eastern Europe mainly due to low fertility rates, high death rates and emigration. In Southern Africa, growth is slowing due to the high number of HIV-related deaths. Some Western Europecountries might also encounter negative population growth.[11] Japan's population began decreasing in 2005.[12] The United Nations Population Division expects world population to peak at over 10 billion at the end of the 21st century but Sanjeev Sanyal has argued that global fertility will fall below replacement rates in the 2020s and that world population will peak below 9 billion by 2050 followed by a long decline.[13]
-------------------------------------------------
Growth by country[edit]
According to United Nations population statistics, the world population grew by 30%, or 1.6 billion people, between 1990 and 2010.[14] In number of people the increase was highest in India (350 million) and China (196 million). Population growth was among highest in the United Arab Emirates (315%) and Qatar (271%).[14]

Growth rates of the world's most populous countries | Rank | Country | Population
2010 | Population
1990 | Growth (%)
1990–2010 | | World | 6,895,889,000 | 5,306,425,000 | 30.0% | 1 | China | 1,341,335,000 | 1,145,195,000 | 17.1% | 2 | India | 1,224,614,000 | 873,785,000 | 40.2% | 3 | United States | 310,384,000 | 253,339,000 | 22.5% | 4 | Indonesia | 239,871,000 | 184,346,000 | 30.1% | 5 | Brazil | 194,946,000 | 149,650,000 | 30.3% | 6 | Pakistan | 173,593,000 | 111,845,000 | 55.3% | 7 | Nigeria | 158,423,000 | 97,552,000 | 62.4% | 8 | Bangladesh | 148,692,000 | 105,256,000 | 41.3% | 9 | Russia | 142,958,000 | 148,244,000 | -3.6% | 10 | Japan | 128,057,000 | 122,251,000 | 4.7% |

According to UN's 2010 revision to its population projections, world population will peak at 10.1bn in 2100 compared to 7bn in 2011.[46] A 2014 paper by demographers from several universities and the United Nations Population Division forecast that the world's population will reach about 10.9 billion in 2100 and continue growing thereafter.[47] However, some experts dispute the UN's forecast and have argued that birthrates will fall below replacement rate in the 2020s. According to these forecasters, population growth will be only sustained till the 2040s by rising longevity but will peak below 9bn by 2050.[48]

(June 2003) Fast-paced population growth and rampant urbanization represent some of the major population concerns in the Philippines, a country of 80 million people where the average number of children born to a woman is close to four and where a sizeable 37 percent of the population is under age 15.
These issues represent major stumbling blocks in efforts to reduce poverty and improve living standards in the Philippines. In 2000, roughly one-third of the population (nearly 27 million Filipinos) lacked the roughly US$275 required annually to satisfy food and non-food basic needs, the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) estimates. Such poverty, exacerbated by prolonged El Niño-induced drought and the residual effects of the 1997/1998 financial crisis that shook the region, limits the ability of the poor to gain access to health and other services.
The Philippines is also among the world's fastest urbanizing countries, and overcrowded cities present their own challenges. With some 47 percent of the population living in urban areas, compared with 31 percent in Thailand and 16 percent in Cambodia, the country has more than 200 urban areas that have populations of more than 50,000, notes the country's Commission on Population (POPCOM). By World Bank estimates, these urban centers could expand to some 600 by 2020, largely because high levels of rural poverty are pushing people into the cities.
The concentration of economic development in relatively few urban areas and rapid population growth throughout the country are other factors contributing to urban sprawl. Compared with other countries in the region, the Philippines is experiencing rapid population growth. The rate of natural increase — the birth rate minus the death rate — is 2.2 percent, compared with 0.8 percent in Thailand and Singapore and 1.9 percent in Malaysia.
In addition to fleeing to urban commercial centers, many people leave the country for work. An average of 2,500 Filipinos leave the country every day for work abroad, and the Philippines is second only to Mexico as an exporter of labor. An estimated 10 percent of the country's population, or nearly 8 million people, are overseas Filipino workers distributed in 182 countries, according to POPCOM. That is in addition to the estimated 3 million migrants who work illegally abroad. According to official statistics of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration, Filipino workers abroad sent home US$6.8 billion in 1999 alone. A large proportion of these remittances come from women who are the majority of overseas Filipino workers.

Demographic Variable | Data | Population mid-2002 | 80,000,000 | Rate of Natural Increase (birth rate minus death rate, expressed as a percentage) | 2.2 | Population Change 2002-2050 (projected %) | 82 | Population 2025 (projected) | 115,500,000 | Population 2050 (projected) | 145,700,000 | Infant Mortality Rate (infant deaths per 1,000 live births) | 26 | Total Fertility Rate (average number of children born to a woman during her lifetime) | 3.5 | Population Under Age 15 (%) | 37 | Population Over Age 65 (%) | 4 | Life Expectancy at Birth, Both Sexes (years) | 68 | Life Expectancy at Birth, Males (years) | 65 | Life Expectancy at Birth, Females (years) | 71 | Urban Population (%) | 47 | Population Ages 15-49 with HIV/AIDS at End of 2001 (%) | <0.5> | Contraceptive Use Among Married Women 15-49, All Methods (%) | 47 | Contraceptive Use Among Married Women 15-49, Modern Methods (%) | 32 | Government View of Birth Rate | too high | GNI PPP per Capita, 2000 (US$) | $4,220 | Women Ages 15-49, 2002 | 20,100,000 | Women Ages 15-49, 2020 (projected) | 27,800,000 | Births Attended by Skilled Personnel (%) | 56 | Maternal Deaths per 100,000 Live Births | 240 | Abortion Policy, 2000 | Prohibited, or permitted only to save a woman's life. | Women Among Population 15-49 with HIV/AIDS (%) | 42 | Literacy Rate (ages 15+), 2000, Female (%) | 95 | Literacy Rate (ages 15+), 2000, Male (%) | 96 | Secondary School Enrollment, 1985, Female (%) | 65 | Secondary School Enrollment, 1985, Male (%) | 64 | Secondary School Enrollment, 1993-1997, Female (%) | 78 | Secondary School Enrollment, 1993-1997, Male (%) | 77 | Labor Force Participation (ages 15-64), 1980, Female (%) | 46 | Labor Force Participation (ages 15-64), 2000, Female (%) | 51 | Labor Force Participation (ages 15-64), 2000, Male (%) | 83 | Women as Percent Ministerial and Sub-Ministerial Officials, 1998 | 17 | Population Ages 10-24, 2000 | 24,000,000 | Population Ages 10-24, 2025 | 27,600,000 | Population Ages 10-24 (% of total) 2000 | 32 | Average Age at First Marriage, All Women* | 22 | Percent TFR Attributed to Births by Ages 15-19 | 6 | Population Ages 15-19, 2000 | 7,900,000 | Illiterate Males Ages 15-19 (%) | 4 | Illiterate Females Ages 15-19 (%) | 1 | Births Attended by Trained Personnel, Single Females Ages 15-19 (%) | 51 | Contraceptive Use Among Married Females, Any Method, Ages 15-19 (%)* | 18 | Contraceptive Use Among Married Females, Modern Method, Ages 15-19 (%)* | 11 |

The Human Population is Increasing Too Rapidly
The argument goes like this, "The Population Problem- "The average family size today, worldwide, is about 3.6 children, and the annual population growth is 2 percent ... assume an initial population of two people, the first parents... The evolution model, with its million-year history of man, has to be strained to the breaking point. It is essentially incredible that there could have been 25,000 generations of men with a resulting population of only 3.5 billion. If the population increased at only 0.5 percent per year for a million years, or if the average family size were only 2.5 children per family for 25,000 generations, the number of people in the present generation would exceed 102100, a number which is, of course, utterly impossible... only 10130 electrons could be crammed into the entire known universe." -Henry Morris World Population Growth Rate2 |
This is a completely ridiculous argument, based upon faulty assumptions and faulty data. The assumption is that the average family size has always been the same and that the population growth rate has always been 2%.1 Both assumptions are false. The increase in family size and longevity has occurred only within the last century. Before the turn of the 20th century, the average life expectancy was 40 years. The advent of modern medicine has radically increased the population growth rate for the last 60-80 years. In fact, from 2000 B.C. to 1 A.D., the world's population rose from 108 million to 138 million (only 0.01% growth rate/year).2 It then took another 1000 years for the world's population to double (0.06%).2 Currently, the world's population is doubling every 50 years. The other problem with the calculation is that modern humans have not been around for one million years. Modern scientific studies put the date at 50,000 to 100,000 years, and the Bible claims at least 1000 generations (~40,000 years).3 In addition, the Bible says that limits to population growth prior to the flood were due to extreme violence and rampant murder .

Why is the world's population increasing so rapidly?

For me the population increase veryfast and there are different factors which are responsible for this. The highest increase has been seen in Asia as compare to the other continents. In some states, the population growth rate is minus. The major reason of increasing population is the increase in the birth rate and decrease in the death rate. The increasing birth rate is because of the illiteracy and unawareness among the people. People in South Asia also consider their kids as the future earners therefore, more children strategy is being followed by people in rural areas. Death rate has declined because of the medical facilities. Therefore, I think that increasing birth rate and declining death rate are two major factors which are increasing world's population.

Frequently Asked Questions
Why is population an important topic?
The human race has an enormous impact on this planet! We control and modify the Earth more than any other species. How do we meet the needs of human beings and also preserve Earth's finite resources, biodiversity, and natural beauty? This is the fundamental question of our time, and the challenge is becoming more problematic as we add more people. Meanwhile, in every locality, it's important to know how fast population is growing, so that we can build sufficient sewers, roads, power plants, and schools.
Do we know exactly how many people there are in the world today?
No. There are so many people on this planet that counting them up, exactly, is impossible. However, experts believe there are more than 7 billion people in the world today. This is a fairly reliable estimate. World population in 2014 was over 2 times greater than it was in 1965, 4 times greater than 1910, and 10 times greater than 1730. After growing very slowly for tens of thousands of years, world population has grown very rapidly in the last few centuries and continues to do so.
How fast is the world's population growing?
In terms of net gain (births minus deaths), we are adding over 200,000 people to this planet every day, or 140 EVERY MINUTE. That equates to 70 million more people every year, about the same as the combined population of California, Texas, and Washington. Although we have made encouraging progress in slowing the growth rate, any rate of growth is unsustainable in the long term, so we must stabilize population soon for the good of future generations.
Are there any parts of the world where population is not growing?
Yes. Roughly speaking, populations are holding stable in Japan and Western Europe. Populations are decreasing somewhat in Russia and some Eastern European countries. Growth in several southern African countries has slowed due to higher death rates because of AIDS. But population is growing either rapidly or very rapidly in every other part of the world right now, including India, Pakistan, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Bangladesh, Uganda, the United States of America, Australia, Ethiopia and China. In other words, population has stabilized where about 1.2 billion people live and is still increasing very rapidly where 4 billion people live -- those who can least afford it. Result: the annual net gain of over 70 million people!
I've heard some say the world population crisis is over and that it's not a problem anymore. Is this true?
No, absolutely not. First of all, we are vastly overpopulated right now with over 7 billion people. Cornell University professor David Pimentel's research shows that about 2 billion people is the number the planet can sustainably support, if everyone consumes the same amount of resources as the average European (which is less than the average American). Secondly, U.N. experts predict that world population will increase for at least the next 50 years, with a "most likely" prediction of 9 billion people by the year 2050. There probably will be additional growth beyond that.
There's no doubt that the worldwide average number of children per woman has come down over the last 50 years -- from more than 5 to less than 3 -- but: (1) the current average is still well above replacement level, which would be 2.1 children per woman, and (2) the number of women having children is about TWICE what it was in 1960. There is also huge "demographic momentum," since half the world's population is age 24 or younger -- either having children now, or poised to have them in the next 10 to 15 years -- so that any changes we make today may not have a visible effect until a generation has passed!
Finally, people are living longer all over the world and will continue to do so, with a resultant slowdown in death rates. Thus, there's a big imbalance in the birth to death ratio: currently about 5 births for every 2 deaths worldwide.
So much of the world is still empty space -- can't people just move to less crowded places?
A lot of that space isn't empty: vast tracts of farmland are necessary to feed the people who live in cities and towns, and forests are necessary to produce wood and oxygen. Much of the land that hasn't been settled by people simply isn't habitable: it's too dry, too cold, or too rocky. Besides, the people who are most overcrowded are struggling to exist on less than a dollar a day... they don't have the money to move!
The United States and other countries with low birth rates let in millions of immigrants each year. Doesn't this act as a "safety valve" to relieve the population pressure of the faster-growing countries?
Not really. Think of it this way. Each year the U.S. currently allows about a million people to immigrate legally (And another 500,000 to a million come in illegally.) But each year most countries of the developing world add almost 70 million more people to their numbers, net gain! The one to two million coming into the U.S. hardly make a dent to relieve the crushing problems created by the almost 70 million more people into these resource stressed countries -- each year!
If we continue letting in as many immigrants for the next 50 years as we have for the past 25, we will absorb only about 4 percent of the population growth from the less-developed countries! Although migration can greatly improve the lives of the immigrants themselves, it is not an effective way to relieve the population growth of the countries they come from.
I've heard that as population growth slows, countries like the U.S. are going to have to support increasing numbers of dependent elderly people. Don't we need to have more kids and increase immigration so that we'll have enough workers to support all these retired people?
No. First of all, people are dependent in their retirement years for only a fraction of the time they're dependent in their childhood. Right now retirement lasts only half as long as the dependent period before a young person enters the workforce. If trends continue, it may decrease to a third or even a quarter of that youthful dependency. So children are far more expensive to the economy than the elderly! Secondly, population growth has to stop sooner or later, so bringing in more people is not a long-term solution. The long-term solution is to restructure our system so that we don't need a constant influx of more people. The sooner we stop the increase in numbers, the more intact we leave our resource base for our children of the future.
What do you mean by "humanely" solving overpopulation?
Population continues increasing because the death rate worldwide dropped much farther than the birth rate. Of course no one wants to see death rates rise. That would be an unthinkably inhumane way to solve overpopulation!
The humane way is for birth rates to drop and balance with today's lower death rates. Repeated studies in countries all around the world show that the longer children stay in school, the fewer children they will have. Smaller families can provide more resources for each child, and entire nations benefit when they have fewer children to drain their limited, declining resources. So education is the key to humane population reduction.
Another highly successful educational approach involves the use of specially-created soap operas, both on TV and radio, that communicate -- even to illiterate people -- the benefits of having fewer children. These special soaps are currently running on every continent (except Antarctica) and are having an incredible impact to help reduce people's expectations about their "desired family size."

Population growth
Population growth as a driving force for environmental problems Population growth is known as one of the driving forces behind environmental problems, because the growing population demands more and more (non-renewable) resources for its own application. So why exactly does the human population expand to rapidly? To understand this, we must first explain a little about the difference between linear and exponential growth, in other words, add a little basic math to the equation.

Growth is usually thought of as a linear process: an increase by a constant amount over a period of time. The new amount is not influenced by the amount already present. For exponential growth, this is different, because the increase of a factor is proportional to what is already there. When cells divide, there will be a constant doubling of the cells already present. In terms of population growth, the numbers of people already present always influences the number of children born in any country. It is however not a simple matter of a constant doubling of the amount. Other factors, such as fertility and mortality rates, influence population growth, and the sexe and age of people already present, and rational decisions influence whether or not people will actually have one or more children.

Schematically, this can be represented as follows:

Population growth = birth rates – death ratesfertility mortality
(rationality, (health care, birth control, food availability, relationships) resource availability)So how rapid does our population grow? Meadows et al. (2004) state that in 1650 the human population counted only 0.5 billion heads. By 1900, the population had increased to 1.6 billion heads and was growing increasingly more rapidly, to 3.3 billion in 1965 (see figure). Not only the population itself was growing, but also the doubling time was decreasing, which basically means that growth itself was growing. This rapid growth increase was mainly caused by a decreasing death rate (more rapidly than birth rate), and particularly an increase in average human age. By 2000 the population counted 6 billion heads, however, population growth (doubling time) started to decline after 1965 because of decreasing birth rates.The European population is now thought to decline in the future, because of a decreasing average number of children per family. Total world population continues to grow, but less rapidly because of population dynamics in developed countries.Population growth for specific countries

China – China currently has the world’s largest population size and growth. In 1970 it was discovered that population growth in the country threatened the food supplies. Starting that year, efforts were made to control population growth, and simultaneously decrease it. The strictest birth control programme ever was introduced. Couples were urged to marry older, and have no more than one child. People that signed contracts to have no more than one child were provided with financial aid, and free educational opportunities for the child in question. Sterilization and other birth control methods were widely provided. Between 1970 and 2000 fertility rates dropped, and the number of children born per woman decreased, as well. But despite all the efforts made, the population still grew by 12 million heads, and it is projected to count 1.6 billion by 2050.

India – In 1990 its population achieved a size of one billion humans. Projections have been made that this number will increase to 1.63 million by 2050 at current growth rates. While some believe that increasing welfare and its additional measure such as birth control may solve the problems occurring in future India, many state that only governments aggressively reducing births may make a difference. The alternative is natural population growth control by mass starvation or disease, or control by crime and war.

Iran – After the Islamic Revolution in 1979 the Iranian population rapidly grew, from 34 million to 63 million in just 20 years. Birth rate per woman rose unbelievably, as everyone was encouraged to increase the Islamic population, and birth control was forbidden. The stimulation of giving birth and raising as many children as possible increased when the war broke out in 1980 and many young soldiers were killed. In the late 1990s the Iranian government became aware of the cost of such rapid population growth, and attempted to limit it by introducing mandatory family planning courses for couples. Birth control was now available, and educational programmes were organized. Currently, the population is still increasing, but only slowly. Birth rates per woman have dropped remarkably.

Nigeria – In 1950 the country had a population size of about 36 million humans. By the year 2000 this number had grown to 125 million. This is a nearly fourfold increase in population size in 50 years. If growth was unlimited by resource application, the population would increase eight more times before 2050. However, food shortages and environmental deterioration prevent such rapid growth.

Russia – The Russian population is currently declining by nearly 1 million people a year. Many different causes of this decline became apparent: demoralization of the population by a collapsing economy caused a decline in birth rates, pollution (see environmental disasters), poor nutrition and poor health care in many cases resulted in infertility, genetic defects or infant mortality, and many men died young because of drinking problems. All these factors together resulted in the lowest number of children per woman in the world.

Thailand – Before the 1970s, the Thai population was growing extremely rapidly. After 1971, a programme for population control was adopted, including a government-supported family planning programme, increases in women’s rights, including working possibilities, better health care and opportunities for birth control, and religious support for family planning. Vasectomies were particularly stimulated, and special clinics were opened everywhere. The number of births per woman fell, and the population stopped growing so rapidly. There is however still a major pollution problem for the government and the people of Thailand to deal with.

United States – In 1900 the United States population counted only 76 million heads, but by 1998 this had grown to 270 million. Birth rates per woman were particularly high after World War II in 1950, and have been steadily declining after that. The United States has the most rapidly expanding population of any developed country. The growth is more than double that of most other developed countries. It is estimated that the population will increase to nearly 340 million heads by 2050, and some environmental agencies even expect it to grow to over 500 million by than. Reasons for the expected population growth include increase in the number of young unmarried mothers, high fertility rates for some ethnic groups, and inadequate sexual education and birth control provision. |

Demographers are not as worried today as they were several decades ago about the prospect of a "population bomb," a scenario where so many people come to populate the planet that we exhaust its resources. Population growth has slowed in many parts of the world. And in much of North America, Europe, China, and Brazil, fertility rates are so low that local populations are on pace to decline.
These trends, however, don't cover the whole story of human impact on the environment. The growth in the number of humans on earth may be slowing. But something very different is happening in the growth of human households.
A “household explosion” long underway in developed countries is now rapidly accelerating around the world.
Researchers Mason Bradbury, M. Nils Peterson, and Jianguo Liu identify some hidden but seismic shifts on this front in a new paper in the journal Population and Environment. For years – in some countries, centuries – the average household has been shrinking in size. As a result, the total number of global households is growing much faster than the growth of the world population itself.
Why does this matter? In the U.S. and Europe, the average household included about five people in the late 1800s. Now it has more like 2.5. That means the same number of people today live in twice as many homes, requiring twice as many resources to build and furnish them, to heat and cool them, to pave roads to their front doors. This "household explosion" has long been underway in developed countries. But it's rapidly accelerating throughout the rest of the world.
Now, if developing societies follows suit – mimicking a pattern where household size plummets in tandem with urbanization and industrialization – then "billions of households could be formed,” Bradbury and his co-authors warn, “despite declines in population growth."
This graph from their paper reflects data the researchers collected on 213 nations, territories, and colonies, relying on historic data going as far back as 1600 in documents like censuses and books. Across all of these decades and countries, the definition of "household" has varied. But, acknowledging that limitation, the authors have tried to highlight some underlying patterns. In the graph below, each point represents the average household size of a particular nation during the census corresponding to that year:
"Longterm dynamics of household size and their environmental implications," by M. Bradbury et al. in Population and Environment.
According to that picture, developed nations reached a tipping point in 1893 when household size began to rapidly drop. Over the course of the next century, households fell in size by half, from 5.0 to 2.5. In 1987, developing countries appear to have reached a similar threshold, with an even steeper downturn since.

With some fluctuation, this long-term pattern holds in nearly every country in the study:

Across all of these places and time periods, and with only a few exceptions, the number of households grew faster than the number of people.
A lot of forces have been driving us in this direction. The population is aging. Women are having smaller families, and children are leaving home sooner to start their own households. Singletons are on the rise, alongside the social acceptance of unmarried women living alone. Divorce rates are rising, while inter-generational households are growing less common. And as once-poor parts of the world are becoming wealthier, families that previously crammed under one roof together can now afford to spread out a little more.
In the U.S., demographers and economists have been waiting for household formation to increase, as a hopeful sign that Millenials' job prospects are improving enough to abandon their parents' basements. On a global scale, the trend may similarly have positive implications for local economies, in the construction of new housing and the demand for more household goods.
But this is also what worries scientists concerned about global sustainability. Smaller households are on average less efficient (the opposite is true of smallerhouses). They demand, per person, more land, more energy, more water. As Bradbury and his co-authors frame it:
From a more simplistic perspective, declining household sizes, from over 5 to approximately 2.5, will mean approximately twice as many houses will be needed per capita in any areas of the world yet to undergo the shift in household size. If the average household size had been 2.5 people globally in 2010, then the number of households would have been 41 % higher, resulting in 800 million additional households...
That's also 800 million more refrigerators and ovens and climate-control systems, 800 million more homes that need roads and sewage hookups and access to a power grid. If every one of those homes were the size of the average American home circa 2002, the researchers calculate that would mean constructing about 72,000 square miles of new housing on the planet.
That’s an intentionally dramatic illustration; American homes are a colossal outlier. But, in countries like China, the average home is already rapidly scaling up in size.

-------------------------------------------------

Should we be concerned about population growth?

There are many countries in the world which are trapped in a cycle of deprivation. Lack of affordable education and poor infrastructure leads to lack of economic success, which in turn leads to inability to afford the necessary education and infrastrucuture. In these circumstances, having lots of children becomes a kind of social security.
An additional factor is that there are quite a few societies where good education for women is actively discouraged, as a social policy.
Even in countries which have advanced econonically, a drop of birth rate does not really lead to reduced demand on resources, since each person consumes much more in terms of consumer goods, food, water, energy etc. In the UK for example we probably consume about 3 times a fair share of the world resources available. Countries like China, India and Brazil are hoping to join us shortly.
Getting population under control is always going to be difficult, because of the ageing population problem as birth rates drop, but it has to be tackled sometime, and it is not going to get any easier.

The Population Explosion: Causes and Consequences

The rapid growth of the world's population over the past one hundred years results from a difference between the rate of birth and the rate of death. The human popula-tion will increase by 1 billion people in the next decade. This is like adding the whole population of China to the world's population. The growth in human population around the world affects all people through its impact on the economy and environ-ment. The current rate of population growth is now a significant burden to human well-being. Understanding the factors which affect population growth patterns can help us plan for the future.
The purpose of this unit is to examine some important factors about overpopula-tion. This unit addresses: (1) the definition of overpopulation (2) the causes of rapid population growth, (3) the consequences of rapid population growth, and (4) ac-tions and strategies that can be developed to solve problems caused by overpopula-tion.
This unit consists of core knowledge about the causes and consequences of overpopulation, lesson plans, teacher resources, student reading list, a list of speak-ers and a bibliography. Although this unit is intended primarily for students in grades 5-8, teachers in both elementary and high school can use this unit to explore key ideas and concepts about the population explosion.

THE DEFINITION OF OVERPOPULATION
In the past, infant and childhood deaths and short life spans used to limit popula-tion growth. In today's world, thanks to improved nutrition, sanitation, and medical care, more babies survive their first few years of life. The combination of a continu-ing high birth rate and a low death rate is creating a rapid population increase in many countries in Asia, Latin America and Africa and people generally lived longer. Over-population is defined as the condition of having more people than can live on the earth in comfort, happiness and health and still leave the world a fit place for future generations.1 What some people now believe that the greatest threat to the future comes from overpopulation.
It took the entire history of humankind for the population to reach 1 billion around 1810. Just 120 years later, this doubled to 2 billion people (1930); then 4 billion in 1975 (45 years). The number of people in the world has risen from 4.4 billion people in 1980 to 5.8 billion today. And it is estimated that the population could double again to nearly 11 billion in less than 40 years. 2 This means that more people are now being added each day than at any other time in human history.
Looking ahead, world population is projected to exceed 6 billion before the year 2000. And according to a report by the United Nation Population fund, total popu-lation is likely to reach 10 billion by 2025 and grow to 14 billion by the end of the next century unless birth control use increases dramatically around the world within the next two decades.3
Both death rates and birth rates have fallen, but death rates have fallen faster than birth rates. There are about 3 births for each death with 1.6 births for each death in more developed countries ( MDCs) and 3.3 births for each death in less de-veloped countries( LDCs). The world's population continues to grow by 1 billion people every dozen years.4
On one hand, some politicians call for countries, especially MDCs to increase their population size to maintain their economic growth and military security. On the other hand, critics denote that one out of five people living here today is not properly supported and believe that the world is already limited in resources.
These critics maintain that slowing world population growth is one of the most ur-gent issues Those who believe that the world is overpopulated argue that if we don't sharply lower birth rates, we are raising death rates by default5

THE CAUSES OF RAPID POPULATION GROWTH
Until recently, birth rates and death rates were about the same, keeping the population stable. People had many children, but a large number of them died before age five.6 During the Industrial Revolution, a period of history in Europe and North America where there were great advances in science and technology, the success in reducing death rates was attributable to several factors: (1) in-creases in food production and distribution, (2) improvement in public health (water and sanitation), and (3) medical technology (vaccines and antibiotics), along with gains in education and standards of living within many developing nations.7 Without these attributes present in many children's lives, they could not have survived common diseases like measles or the flu. People were able to fight and cure deadly germs that once killed them. In addition, because of the technology, people could produce more and different kinds of food. Gradually, over a period of time, these discoveries and inventions spread throughout the world, lowering death rates and improving the quality of life for most people.8
Food Production Distribution
The remarkable facts about the last 150 years has been the ability of farmers to increase food production geometrically in some places. Agricultural practices have improved in the United States in the last two centuries. Much of the world experi-enced agricultural success, especially in the last 50 years. Between 1950 and 1984, for example, the amount of grain harvested worldwide increased from 631 million tons to 1.65 billion tons. This represents a gain of 2.6 times at a time when the world population increased by only 1.9 times.9
In more recent years, the technology has produced a broader variety of tech-niques: new kinds of seed, chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and more sophisticated machinery. The use of technology has made possible the rapid expansion of agri-culture in the United States and other MDCs and LDCs. The use of pesticides in LDCs, for example was expected to increased between 400 to 600% in the last 25 years of the twentieth century. 10
During the past 10 years, the world's food production has increased by 24 per cent, outpacing the rate of population growth.11 However, this increase was not evenly distributed throughout the world. For example, in Africa, food pro-duction decreased, while population increased. And world cereal production fell in 1993, according to the FAO, which predicted a food shortage in 20 countries during 1994. 12 However, most experts agree that there is no shortage of food, and that equitable distribution should be sufficient to meet all needs for the future. Lack of money to buy food is the problem of malnourishment. Pov-erty, in effect translates the world adequacy into national and local shortages. Within households, men and boys have priority for whatever food is available, while women and children, especially girl children are the first to suffer malnu-trition. Few resources are available to women, even though they are often re-sponsible the for food supply.13
Improvement in Public Health
People have concerns about surviving daily living, such as meeting basic needs: food, water, and housing. First, access to safe drinking water was related to the incidence of epidemic diseases such as cholera and child survival. Less than 50% of the population had access to safe drinking water before 1990. By 1990, access to safe drinking water had increased by 75 per cent. But between 1990 and 2000 the numbers of people without access to safe water are projected to increase. 14 An increasing number of countries both developed and develop-ing are approaching the limits of sustainable water use based on their own re-newable resources.15
Second, the pressure to provide adequate housing increases as the population grows. More than half of the developing world's population will be living in urban areas by the end of the century. This growth outstrips the capacity to provide housing and services for others. In some countries, finding a place to live is hard, especially for women. Some women and children are forced to live in the poorest community where they are open to exploitation and abuse.16
The priorities for getting rid of poverty, improving food supply, ending malnu-trition, and providing adequate housing coincide at all points with those required for balanced population growth.
Conquest of Disease
The biggest population story of the last hundred years has been the conquest of disease. Scientists have learned a great deal about the ways to prevent and cure many types of disease. Thus, millions of people who would have died of disease a century ago are more likely to live to old age. The most effective tools in the con-quest of disease have been improved knowledge about nutrition, vaccinations, bet-ter public health practices and the development of new medicines17
In the late 80s, a baby born in Iceland was 32 times more likely to live to the age of one year as a baby born in Afghanistan.18 The major reason for this large differ-ence in survival rate is nutrition. When young children get enough of the right kinds of food, they are likely to live to be adults. In many nations the people know about proper nutrition for young children and adults. Unfortunately, in many LCDs the people lack the money and skills that would allow them to use the knowledge about nutrition they already have. As a result, infant death rates and therefore, overall death rates, remain high in many LDCs. 19
The second most important factor is vaccinations. As far back as 1800, scien-tists knew how to use vaccines to protect people from infectious disease. Use of that knowledge has reduced the rate of diseases like influenza, smallpox, polio and rubella in MDCs. Again, lack of resources has prevented many LDCs from mak-ing similar use of vaccinations to reduce the rate of infectious disease and death rates in their countries. Moreover, vaccines are still not available for some dis-eases-malaria is the most obvious example and the greatest concern in LDCs.20
Third, better public health practices-- the germ theory of disease, discovered by Louis Pasteur in the 1870s clearly demonstrated that a person's health was also a community problem. Sewage dumped into a public water supply could cause dis-ease throughout the community. With this understanding, the science of public health was born. Today, public health measures like waste treatment, water purifi-cation, vaccination, and nutritional education are well developed in MDCs. How-ever, public health measures are still absent in many LDCs. As a result, disease continues to spread and cause high death rates.21
And finally, with the advent of new medicines, disease was less of a problem in MDCs because medical science has invented a whole range of new medicines with which to treat everything from infections to pneumonia. In many LDCs, new drugs and medicines are simply not available. 22
As stated earlier, death rates in MDCs have fallen largely because of improved health and medical knowledge and because of better health and medical practices based on that knowledge. Death rates in many LDCs remain high because the money, personnel and facilities needed to put that knowledge into practice are not available.23
Progress in medical science has, therefore, had a great effect on the population of most nations of the world. Nearly everywhere death rates have fallen. At the same time, birth rates, at least in the LDCs, have remained high. This combination of high birth rates and low death rates have led to the population explosion in many countries throughout the world.
The end of the population explosion worldwide will be determined by how much countries invest in family planning efforts to lower fertility and slow down popula-tion growth.
Different populations grow at different rates around the world. This depends on how many children families have and the number of years someone is expected to live. The population of many countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America are growing the fastest, especially where large families are still important. These poorer, less developed countries (LDCs) tend to have shorter lives and higher infant death rates. When couples know some of their children may die, they choose to have more. However, many couples wish to limit family size, but lack the informa-tion and means to make these choices. 24

THE CONSEQUENCES OF RAPID POPULATION GROWTH
Rapid human population growth has a variety of consequences. Population grows fastest in the world's poorest countries. High fertility rates have historically been strongly correlated with poverty, and high childhood mortality rates. Falling fertility rates are generally associated with improved standards of living, increased life expectancy, and lowered infant mortality. Overpopulation and poverty have long been associated with increased death, and disease. 25 People tightly packed into unsanitary housing are inordinately vulnerable to natural disasters and health problems.
However, most of the world's 1.2 billion desperately poor people live in less developed countries ( LDCs). 26 Poverty exists even in MDCs. One in five Soviet citizens reportedly lives below the country's official poverty line. In the United States, 33 million people - -one in eight Americans are below the official poverty line. The rapid expansion of population size observed since the end of World War II in the world's poorest nations has been a cause of their poverty. 27
Poverty is a condition of chronic deprivation and need at the family level. 28 Poverty, is a major concern of humankind, because poverty everywhere reduces human beings to a low level of existence. Poor people lack access to enough land and income to meet basic needs. A lack of basic needs results in physical weak-ness and poor health. Poor health decreases the ability of the poor to work and put them deeper into poverty.
Instead of allowing poverty to persist, it is important to limit our number be-cause in dense populations too many lack adequate food, water, shelter, education and employment. High fertility, which has been traditionally associated with pros-perity, prestige, and security for the future, now jeopardizes chances for many to achieve health and security. 29
Rich and poor countries alike are affected by population growth, though the population of industrial countries are growing more slowly than those of develop-ing one. At the present growth rates, the population of economically developed countries would double in 120 years. The Third World, with over three quarters of the world's people, would double its numbers in about 33 years. This rapid dou-bling time reflects the fact that 37 percent of the developing world's population is under the age of 15 and entering their most productive childbearing years. In the Third World countries (excluding China), 40 percent of the people are under 15; in some African countries, nearly half are in this age group. 30
The world's current and projected population growth calls for an increase in efforts to meet the needs for food, water, health care, technology and education. In the poorest countries, massive efforts are needed to keep social and economic con-ditions from deteriorating further; any real advances in well-being and the quality of life are negated by further population growth. Many countries lack adequate supplies of basic materials needed to support their current population. Rapid population growth can affect both the overall quality of life and the degree of hu-man suffering on Earth. 31

ACTIONS AND STRATEGIES THAT CAN BE DEVELOPED TO SOLVE THESE PROBLEMS
There is controversy over whether population growth is good or bad. Over-population and continuing population growth are making substantial contributions to the destruction of Earth's life support systems. In the past, human populations have rarely been subject to explosion. In numbers. The powerful long-term mo-mentum that is built into the human age structure means that the effects of fertility changes become apparent only in the future. For these reasons, it is now conven-tional practice to use the technology of population projection as a means of better understanding the implications of trends.
Population projections represent the playing out into the future of a set of as-sumptions about future fertility and mortality rates. More public education is needed to develop more awareness about population issues. Facts like the size or the growth rate of the human population should be in the head of every citizen. Schools should inform students about population issues in order for them to make projections about the future generations.
Action plans and strategies can be developed to increase public understanding of how rapid population growth limits chances for meeting basic needs. The spirit of open communication, and empowerment of individual women and men will be key to a successful solution to many population problems. Collective vision about health care, family planning and women's education at the community level build a basis for action. The creation of action plans help to meet challenges to find coop-erative solutions. Free and equal access to health care, family planning and educa-tion are desirable in their own right and will also help reduce unwanted fertility.
Individual choice, human rights and collective responsibility are key to al-lowing families to plan the size and spacing of their children. It is essential to achieve a balance between population and the available resources. Teachers, par-ents, community workers and other stakeholders should extend the range of choices about available resources to individuals, especially women, and by equal-izing opportunities between the genders from birth onwards.
Teachers, parents, other educators, politicians and other concerned citizens can practice how to make good decisions in everyday life. Decisions about family size, and resource will affect the future generations. Through commu-nity forums, specific issues about the population growth can be discussed and possible action plans can be developed.
Teachers, as well as students can use the information super highway to gain knowledge about other countries' population and resources. Teachers can help students with problems and decision making on a daily basis. The investigation of world population will raise the level of awareness, so that we can learn to handle problems based on data. This data can help us to analyze our situations in a practical way.
Teachers, students, parents and other stakeholders can look for trends in the population explosion. They can hold community meetings at school to discuss how this issue presents a challenge to the big picture of human population on the planet "Earth".

Conclusion :

Perhaps if solutions like the one child policy or birth control and others were applied to India and the World the population growth would slow, giving us more control of our own destiny. However, as of now we have yet to see these changes or any change for that matter to slow a growing problem that is a large undisputed problem for all of mankind. Only with the effort of many people can we reduce the population growth and continue to live the lives we currently have. If we continue to have such a high population growth rate we will struggle to support the billions of people on this planet. This will cause famine and conflict and will limit the resources for future generations. We will destroy the earth rather than preserving it which is our duty since we inhabit the earth. By implementing birth control it would directly limit the birth rate in countries that have extremely high growth rates and would ultimately slow the population growth. By informing young adults of the consequences of sex including pregnancy and STD’s hopefully it will limit the amount of young unplanned pregnancies. By searching for better ways to use our resources more effectively more people could live on less resources. Providing that we do become extremely overpopulated (which is where we are headed right now) by allowing less resources to be spent on each person we can spread resources out making each resource more effective than it would have been. If these efforts fail it is always possible to implement China’s One Child Policy in other developing countries like India to prevent the population growth rate from rising to high. Although this is a drastic measure precautions need to be taken to make sure our earth does not exceed its limitations. In India this could be justified by the use of dharma in their religion which states they must put the world’s needs before their own. If these solutions were implemented it would help cut down an increasing problem that concerns not small groups of people but everyone that inhabit the earth