Seven billion and still counting...

IT WILL be a birthday to remember. Somewhere, sometime, on Halloween, a baby will be born which will bring the world’s population to a milestone figure of seven billion people.

That is a seven-fold increase over the past 200 years. Frighteningly, that total is expected to more than double before the end of this century, according to a report due to be published this week by the United Nations. A previous UN estimate had expected population would grow to at least ten billion by 2100 – but the latest figures would smash that estimate within about 40 years.

And it has taken just 12 years for the population to swell by the last billion people – a record leap.

The study, by the UN Population Fund and called The State of World Population 2011, is due to be published today.

“It is entirely possible the eighth billion will be added in 12 years as well, placing us squarely in the middle of history’s most rapid population expansion,” said Carl Haub, in a separate report for the Washington-based Population Reference Bureau.

But while in most western countries, such as the UK, people are having fewer children – in other countries, the opposite is true. The West African state of Niger has the highest fertility rate – the number of live births per woman – at around seven per female, followed closely by Uganda, in East Africa, at six – while conversely, in the UK, there is currently a fertility rate of just two, about average for western Europe.

In Scotland, where expectations about future changes to the population are due to be published today by the National Records of Scotland, predictions have been difficult to make.

Just seven years ago, the Register General warned Scotland’s population could soon fall below the five million mark – sparking a flurry of initiatives to raise immigration and discussions over the introduction of a “fertility policy” to encourage women to have more babies. The population is now around 5.2m and rising.

However, economic fears in the West, combined with readily available contraception and a higher proportion of working women have all put the brake on births in many developed countries.

In the third world, however, where birth control is, in many cases, almost non-existent, it is a very different story.

Mr Haub added: “Today, most population growth is concentrated in the world’s poorest countries – and within the poorest regions of those countries.

“This prospect seems to run counter to the prevailing belief that concern over population growth is a thing of the past, and that today’s ‘population problem’ is that birth rates are too low, not too high.

“In fact, there is some truth to that notion, depending on the region or country one is talking about.”

But is the world large enough to accommodate all of these extra people? And have we sufficient resources to achieve a decent standard of living for everyone? There is no lack of space, but distribution of population is the real difficulty. If the entire world population lived in an area as densely populated as New York, all seven billion would fit into Texas, which is about five times larger than the UK. However, a lot of land is uninhabitable, and some areas are more economically viable than others.

Currently the main drag on world resources comes from developed countries, where the birth rate is, in fact, the lowest.

But as the western lifestyle is adopted elsewhere, the demand on resources will be even greater. Many experts believe the West should look to its own consumption patterns before blaming population growth for environmental crises.

“The real issue is unsustainable consumption, and this means that we have to look first at the rich countries – and at our own lifestyle choices,” said Alex Cobham, policy adviser at Christian Aid.

He added: “The solution is not to seek to limit fertility choices in developing countries, which would simply impose a further inequality on some of the world’s poorest people.

“Unmet demand for contraception should certainly be met, to allow men and women greater choice and control over their fertility, but this is important in its own right and not as a population-limiting method.

“In fact, the historical record is clear that, over time, fertility falls as countries develop, and so population concerns should increase our focus on poverty eradication.”

Robert Engelman, an expert on global population and the president of Worldwatch, agreed. He said: “The most direct and immediate way to lower birth rates is to make sure as high a proportion as possible of pregnancies are intended, by assuring women can make their own choices about whether and when to bear a child.

“It is precisely because the human population is so large and is growing so fast that we must care how much we as individuals – and nations – are increasingly out of sync with environmental sustainability. The challenge becomes even more [urgent] with each generation.”