If the world鈥檚 population grows as predicted and human activity stays
unchanged, science and technology may be powerless to prevent widespread
poverty and irreversible damage to the environment. This is the stark message
from a population summit in Delhi last week which brought together members
of the world鈥檚 scientific academies. In a joint statement the academies
call for 鈥榸ero population growth within the lifetime of our children鈥�.
Even according to conservative estimates, the global population of 5.5
billion could double within the next half century, the statement says. The
worst scenario puts the population at 19 billion by 2100 and 28 billion
by 2150. To relieve these pressures on the planet, the academies call for
a range of social and technological measures, including wider access to
family planning, health care and education, an end to wasteful consumption,
and the introduction of 鈥榞reen鈥� technologies.
The population summit was called to set the scientific agenda for next
year鈥檚 UN International Conference on Population and Development. Although
56 academies signed the meeting鈥檚 closing statement, a number of others
refused to endorse it.
Advertisement
Among the fiercest critics is the African Academy of Sciences, an umbrella
group for the continent. It says that in Africa, people are crucially important
to development, and that the continent鈥檚 natural resources cannot be tapped
without them. 鈥楾here cannot be one target for all countries at all times.
An African agenda would be different,鈥� says James Egunjobi, an AAS representative.
He is angry that the summit statement ignores the problem that infertility
poses in many parts of Africa.
Where poverty is worst, families are often bigger. And the attitude
of the industrialised world on trade, the debt crisis and the provision
of aid bears much of the blame for the poor economic state of many African
countries. The academies ignore these broader political issues says the
AAS.
Uganda and Kenya signed the statement, while agreeing with the AAS.
Zero growth may benefit the world as a whole, but it is not best for Uganda
says Wilson Byarugaba of the Uganda National Academy of Science. 鈥榃e have
a recent history of significant population loss through civil wars and disease,鈥�
he says. 鈥楶opulation increase would seem to me a much desired asset.鈥�
Other opponents of the statement include the Vatican鈥檚 Pontifical Academy
of Sciences and the Royal Irish Academy. The statement is 鈥榦utside the society鈥檚
remit鈥�, says Patrick Buckley, executive secretary of the RIA. 鈥榃e don鈥檛
deal in global and sociological matters.鈥� Buckley denies that the academy鈥檚
action was influenced by Catholic views on contraception.
Although the statement concentrates on developing nations, Norman Myers
of Green College, Oxford, stresses the implications of population growth
in developed countries. Britain鈥檚 0.2 per cent annual growth rate adds 116
000 people per year to its population, says Myers. By contrast, Bangladesh,
with a 2.4 per cent growth rate, adds 2.7 million. But every person in Britain
uses more than 80 times as much fossil fuel as a Bangladeshi, so Britain鈥檚
population growth effectively contributes 3.5 times as much carbon dioxide
to the global atmosphere as Bangladesh鈥檚.
