What do we do with 10 billion people?

Apparently we are going to add three billion people to the global population by the end of this century.  Given the fact that the world just hit 7 billion people, it will mean providing for 10 billion by the year 2100 and still growing.  The first billion took from the beginning of man to the 1800's.  A second billion took 120 years, Two more billion in 55 years by 1975.  Six in 23 years by 1998 and now seven after 13 more years in 2011.  Can we do it?  Can the world feed, house, and care for all these people?  The answer is a qualified yes.

The question centers on the availability of resources.  In the early 1800s, Thomas Robert Malthus suggested that population increase is limited by the means of subsistence.  It hasn't worked so far, largely because of scientific advances in agriculture  and mechanization that have opened new areas for farming and  massively increased the productivity of our farmers.  

We humans seem to be able to survive on ever decreasing plots of land while making them ever more productive.  From 1950 to 2000 in the US the average amount of milk produced per cow increased from 5,314 pounds to 18,201 pounds per year (+242%), the average yield of corn rose from 39 bushels to 153 bushels per acre (+292%), and each farmer in 2000 produced on average 12 times as much farm output per hour worked as a farmer did in 1950.(http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/EB9/eb9.pdf) Presumably that performance can be replicated in other parts of the world. 

As the yields have increased the need for labor has decreased.  The US farm population is less that 3 million and it sustains a food industry employing more than 20 million. But the number of farms is declining.  A new generation of computer driven robots will soon replace many of today's farm workers. Robots with artificial intelligence are being developed to plough and seed fields, and feed cows. 

The Israelis are working on a robotic mellon picker that can tell if the mellon is ripe. "Watermerlon is grown in 90 countries with worldwide production exceeding 50 billion pounds per year. The United States is the world's fourth largest producer. According to the Department of Agriculture 70% of American households buy watermelon. The essential 'robotic' blending of intelligent sensing with mechanical actuation can be found in vision-guided tractors, product grading systems, planters and harvesters, applicators for fertilizers and pest control. Robot manipulators can divide plant material for micropropagation in sterile conditions; others can skin fruit for canning." http://ishitech.co.il/0903ar3.htm

Robots with artifical intelligence are being developed to plough and seed fields, and feed cows. Indoor production of plants is increasing and gene splicing is allowing researchers to produce commercial volumes of vanilla in labs eliminating the soil the cultivation, the harvest and the farmer (http://www.converge.org.nz/pirm/nutech.htm)  A fully automated farm is likely possible in the next 25 years.

There will no doubt be problems as we try to accommodate to a more crowded world. Technology, invention, investment and equitable distribution can solve most of them.  The problem does not depend so much on numbers of babies born as it does on their productivity.  And productivity has been steadily increasing for over a century (http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/).  If you use the output of the average worker in 1950 working a 40 hour week as your base, average worker today would need only 11 hours to produce the same quantity and at a much higher level of quality.  

Much of the world is facing unemployment and underemployment even in areas enjoying 9% growth per year.  China has been growing at 10.3% and yet in 2009 still had 4.3% unemployment.  Egypt, before the revolution was growing at 5.1% with an unemployment rate of 9.7%.  And these figures do not include the underemployed.  Think about the future of clerical workers, for example, in the US. In 2004 there were 31 million general office clerks, 1.5 milliion office administrative supervisors and 4.1 million secretaries.  Their salaries ranged from $23,000 to $41,030. And many have been replaced by machines. But how many secretaries are left? And how many will be left in 10 more years? 

Retail sales personnel numbered about 4.5 million jobs. Medium hourly wage was $9.89  in 2008.  But as companies look for ways to maximize profits, they also look for ways to reduce their most expensive input - labor with its increasingly expensive benefits. The manufacturing and service sectors are continuously embracing new technology that can replace people at a lower price.   Even old technology is stunning in its efficiency.  "A human teller can handle up to 200 transactions a day, works 30 hours a week, gets a salary anywhere from $8,000 to $20,000 a year plus fringe benefits, gets coffee breaks, a vacation and sick time... In contrast, an automated teller can handle 2,000 transactions a day, works 168 hours a week, costs about $22,000 a year to run, and doesn't take coffee breaks or vacations." http://www.converge.org.nz/pirm/nutech.htm. Nor does it need health insurance.   

It is easy to visualize a world in the not so distant future, where many jobs and entire sectors of employment will be replaced by more efficient, reliable and cheaper machines and artificial intelligence. So what are we going to do with the redundant people?  The greatest problem we may face in the future is not what we need to do to accommodate the basic needs of more people, but how we keep them productively occupied.  Work has been our means of keeping score, whether it is by virtue of income or status or both. If we do not have productive work, how in today's terms, do we validate our lives.  There are just so many holes of golf that a person can play.   This is the most challenging problem of the next half century.   

 

 

 

 

 

Comments

[Rachel Boylan]

As the blog asserts, new technology will certainly ensure that the burgeoning population is fed adequately. However, this is not the central problem concerning population growth. As mechanization continues, fewer jobs will be available. This creates several problems that future generations will have to face. First, the percentage of unemployed in each country will only increase. Even if the number of jobs remains static, this percentage increases. However, it is unlikely that the number of jobs will remain static. As the population grows, certain industries will be required to expand. One such example is the service industry. A larger population will require more construction workers, taxi drivers, hair dressers, and other similar professionals. It is possible that the jobs of the future will be less fulfilling by today’s standards, but at least there will be jobs. In other sectors, such as technology, new technological inventions may require workers temporarily; but, as history tells us, eventually machines will replace workers.

A second problem facing population growth is financing. As the number of unemployed people grows, fewer people will be able to support themselves. The global population will become idle as machines such as the Israeli melon picker become predominant. Even if there are more high value added jobs, these will unlikely grow at the same rate as population growth. So far, Americans have rejected most forms of state assistance because it resembles socialism and the European economies are lagging because of their expansive social welfare system. Alternatively, in the Gulf, the state is able to amply provide for its citizens because of oil wealth. For example, Kuwaitis receive retirement income, almost guaranteed employment, free education, and medical services. The most generous of these programs is debt forgiveness. (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35876.htm) However, most nations do not have the natural resources that can generate so much money and therefore finance vast social welfare without heavy taxation. Even in the Gulf, it is likely that oil wealth will dry up by the time the population reaches 10 billion people. Therefore, financing will be a major problem facing the growing world. How we deal with this has yet to be determined.

Where do we put all these people? That question has plagued governments since the nineteenth century. The growth of the suburbs offered one solution to high population density, but this is neither good for the environment nor efficient. Countries like South Korea are now encouraging urban development. The restructuring of the housing sector may be one place where jobs emerge in the era of 10 billion people. Humans have always been able to adapt to changes in population and environment, and the 10 billion mark will just be another obstacle on the road of mankind.

[Nate House]

Amb. Walker stresses in his latest blog entry that “the greatest problem we may face in the future is not what we need to do to accommodate the basic needs of more people, but how we keep them productively occupied…If we do not have productive work, how in today’s terms, do we validate our lives”? Walker spends most of his efforts giving viable examples of how technological advancements will not only lead to exponentially higher levels of efficiency in agriculture, and other industries, but that it will also drive the greater population into unemployment, leaving people empty handed and restless. The crucial philosophical inquiry into how we validate our lives follows from Walker’s hasty assumption that “technology, invention, investment and equitable distribution can solve most of [the problems of an increasingly populated world].” Certainly, technology, invention, investment and equitable distribution might help to resolve some growing issues of today, but it is unrealistic to claim that they will act as the panacea to all of our problems. All the same, we must heed to Walker’s question of how we validate our lives, and consider the implications that await our increasingly techno-centric society.
Many of us assign great meaning in our lives through our employment and productivity. If technology travels the most predictable route, more and more people will be out of jobs as they get replaced by machines. This forces us to make a philosophical inquiry into how each of us truly validates our life, whether or not this will need to change with the surge in technology and unemployment, and how that might happen. As Walker states, “there are just so many holes of golf a person can play” alluding to the fact that there must be more in life for us than activities that are less socially productive than others. Productivity is a key to the way we operate on an individual and collective level, and since that rug is being pulled out from beneath us, we will begin needing to look elsewhere to create meaning, and be productive.
One thing that we must invest in for our current and future generations in this age of technological domination is education. In a 2009 article, How Women Can Save the Planet, Lawrence M. Krauss discusses some large-scale, long-term benefits of educating women worldwide. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-women-can-save-the-planet.
Krauss alludes to the “the unending, and unequal, growth of the human population”, arguing that educating women reduces fertility rates, and empowers them to be greater contributing members of society. He ends the article stating that universal education is a universal human right, which has been denied to too many women, and I would argue too many people, generally. Making education accessible to everyone would not only give people something to do while they are out of work, or too young to work; it would also provide individuals with a foundation for creative thought and knowledge which will be necessary for the innovation of new fields and industries, as well as for the creation of innovative solutions to growing problems.
Education is certainly not the panacea for the issue of unemployment in the age of technology, similar to how technology (investment, invention, and equitable distribution) can not serve as the penultimate cure for all of our other issues. Nevertheless, a universal education would allow individuals to find greater meaning in their lives, with or without, employment. The ways in which we validate our lives in the future may not be present in our minds at this moment, but a foundation of education would certainly establish a fertile ground for the establishment of certain undiscovered ways of operation.

[Lyman Munschauer]

Ambassador Walker portrays a scary future where there will no longer be enough jobs for the number of people in the world, where robots have put men and women out of work leaving governments to deal with the effects of massive unemployment. However, what Ambassador Walker fails to see is that while some job sectors, such as agriculture, are starting to rely more on technology and less on manpower, there are still many job sectors that are growing because either robots cannot do as good of a job or there is a social need for an actual human to perform these jobs. For example, teachers and counselors are two of the largest growing jobs in the United States and neither of these professions is likely to be overtaken by robots. (http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/02/employement-careers-jobs-leadership-careers-cx_pm_0702topjobs.html)
Even if Ambassador Walker is correct in his assumption that robots and computers will eventually begin to significantly replace jobs, I feel that he is missing the true issue, which is overpopulation. Eventually the Earth will no longer be able to support the increasing human population. This year starvation.net estimates that almost forty-two and a half million people have already died of starvation, meaning that almost every second, one person dies from starvation. Eighty-five percent of these people are children. (http://www.starvation.net/) This issue is further compounded by the fact that about forty percent of all food produced either spoils or is lost to pests. (http://faculty.sxu.edu/~fast/bio101_lab/preservation.htm) But even if as a global community we were able to completely reduce the forty percent of food that spoils or is lost to pests, we would still not be able to feed the ten billion people that Ambassador Walker says will inhabit the Earth by 2100. The issue of growing more food so as to meet the growing demand of a larger population is extremely pressing; the world is running out of habitable spaces and sooner or later, humans will need to face the fact that our population can no longer be supported be the current farmland and as a society we need to decide what is most important places for people to live of farms to grow the food for people to live.

[James McGraw]

While the world’s food production capacity has been drastically increasing in recent decades, I do not agree with the blog in its optimism on the future sustainability of the rapidly growing global population. While we are constantly finding new ways to revolutionize our agricultural productivity, there will be a point where the population growth rate surpasses the rate of agricultural production, thus causing food shortages in poorer countries.
On top of this daunting issue rests another grave concern. If the world’s population does continue to rise at such an exponential rate, there will simply not be enough resources to support it. Beyond food, we consume land, fuel, trees, clean water, and a host of other essentials. In some cases where the resource does not renew itself or grow (i.e. land), there exists a finite amount that we as a global community have at our disposal. If we start clear cutting all of the world’s forests to make way for new living spaces, there will be substantial consequences to our environment and overall global health. With the other resources, it becomes a question of whether or not we can produce more than we consume. If the world starts consuming trees at a rate faster than that of which we are able to replace them, eventually, we will run out of trees (or whatever other resource we are overusing.) In the cases of clean water and fuel, the issue arises when considering refining expenses. If the population does grow at such a pace as described in the blog, there will be a large number of countries with the inability to afford the technology needed to supply their citizens with living essentials.
As far as the job crisis goes, my opinion also differs from the blog. Even though countless jobs are being replaced by technology as time goes by, there are also many new jobs being created out of the same technology. Someone that may have worked as a librarian in the past could get a job at a company like amazon, applying their knowledge to e-books. In this manner, many other industries will be taken over by technology, but there will always be new jobs born from the technological advances. While a person may run out of golf holes to play in their lifetime, there will never be an end to the expansion of technology and the creation of new, ever-changing job opportunities in the world. This will ensure that the same person will never run out of career options.

[Daniel Peters]

7 billion people is a lot. It’s hard to imagine that the world population has increased 5 billion people in under a century. It is predicted that another 3billion people will populate the planet by 2050. A population increase this large will challenge the world’s ability to manage and provide for so many people. Along with Ambassador Walker, I do believe it is well within our capability to feed, house and care for the projected populations of the future.
                Being capable and executing are two different matters.  In the past, our scientific advances have been able to absorb most of the population increase. The average yield for most crops per acre has doubled or tripled over the past half century. This number will continue to multiply with the next generation of argricultural and mechanical advances (robots with artificial intelligence). My only concern is that with that large increase in population is a climate change that will hinder argricultural practices putting a serious dent into the food supply. A warmer climate can lead too many agricultural hardships like decreased rainfall. Extreme weather conditions like droughts or floods have are more prevelant and more erratic in warmer climates. Many of the agricultural problems stemming from climate shift will be affecting areas that are the most vulnerable. Consider Africa, where 50% of their population relies on agricultural for their income. Africa is also facing some of the highest increases in population and is predicted to get hit the hardest by many of the climate changes. I do believe these problems will be managed if the future, but with great difficulty.  
                The focus of Ambassadors Walker’s blog was very interesting. He concluded his piece by saying , “that our greatest difficulty in the future is not what we need to do to accommodate the basic needs of more people, but how we keep them productively occupied.” I never really thought about future population challenges like that before. I think it is very important to take this seriously because our future is already going to be short with supplies. It will be detrimental to waste supplies on millions of people that are not providing anything to society in return. Underemployment and unemployment are primary concerns for the future as many of today’s jobs are diminishing due to technological change.

[Tim McHale]

Ambassador Walker’s blog, “What do we do with Ten Billion people?” brings up a very serious issue. By the end of century, the world will consist of ten billion people, bringing up the obvious question of where are we going to get the resources to sustain a civilization of that size. However, I agree with Ambassador Walker when he says resources will not be the problem. As was stated, smaller plots of land are becoming more and more productive, stemming from increased technology. I also agree with Ambassador Walker that this is the real issue of the steady rise in world population. Computers and robots will end up taking the jobs of farmers, clerical jobs, and retail jobs. The real question, as Ambassador Walker states, is what will people do without these jobs available.
One resolution that I think might help is for more countries to adopt the American education system that revolves around critical thinking. This is one area where humans are better suited than robots. Robots in the future may be able to see if a seed is fresh but I doubt they will be able to critically think about a human issue. These careers stem in various fields such as law, science, finance, education, etc. Now, an obvious rebuttal to this is that the majority of the world has neither the institutions around, nor the means to gain this type of an education. This paints a bleak picture for many developing countries that have the majority of their workforce in the agricultural field.
I honestly do not see a reasonable solution to this problem. I believe as cheaper technology takes over human jobs, the unemployment rate will skyrocket. I read another blog on this topic titled, “New Technology and the End of Jobs,” by Jeremy Rifkin. There is a quote from it that reads, “The role of humans as the most important factor of production is bound to diminish in the same way that the role of horses in agricultural production was first diminished and then eliminated by the introduction of tractors” (http://www.converge.org.nz/pirm/nutech.htm). It is very possible that human production could be eliminated in the future. This is not something anyone wants to here as ten billion looms in the horizon.

[Sam Choate]

As a global society, we can support 10 billion people. To do so, we must change some of our current ways to make the transition to a larger population easier. How? As Ambassador Walker mentions, we must rely on technology. Furthermore, we have to promote and glorify non-agricultural jobs, as these jobs and technology will be needed to cater an additional 3 billion people.
Technology will be able to provide the needed resources for a global population of 10 billion. Ambassador Walker pointed out new technologies in farming (ex. Israel) and manufacturing as clear examples of technology’s ability to provide more resources in a shorter amount of time. Technology’s use in farming is growing trend and one that we shouldn’t bother to stop, as its usage is inevitable. Instead, we should rely on technology to increase the amount of food supplies, consumer goods, and access for people to receive these products. For technology to play its role properly, we must increase investment in agricultural R&D, boost regulation to assure lands are being used not abused, and we must decrease trade barriers to help nations without natural resources to obtain food products (http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/expert_paper/How_to_Feed_the_World_in_2050.pdf). In doing so, we will help technology produce enough resources for 10 billion people.
As a result of “farm automation” and other technologies, human jobs have and will continue to see a decrease in employment numbers. For those displaced from their jobs because of technology, state governments, the U.N., and other regional activist groups should promote and assist these workers in pursuing jobs in non-agricultural sectors. Industries such as medicine, education, and construction will need to be expanded to help aid and build the needed infrastructure to manage 10 billion people. Medicine, education, and construction are just 3 of many industries that will count on technology and human service through the year 2100. Unemployed workers should be encouraged to work in these sectors as they need a job and these industries are going to need more workers. To ensure this happens, governments could implement tax incentive programs for firms that hire more. We can make this seemingly very negative infiltration of technology have a positive result. We just need to support it.
Last, I argue that these workers will be rejuvenated working within a new industry. As a result, I envision them being more productive and happy at work. Workers in the education and medicine industries in particular will feel more satisfaction from their work, which will help them validate their lives. A change of scenery is always refreshing, especially in a job setting.

[Liam Morgan]

As the world’s population continues to rise the question of finding employment for these growing numbers will continue to become more and more of an issue. I do agree with the idea that as technology and individual productivity continues to rise it will be harder and harder to find jobs for the population, but I believe that steps can be taken to prepare societies in general to have a job market which can employ more people even with these technological innovations.
It is important to note that though capital producing jobs are becoming scarcer those who do produce capital will have more money and need to consume. This will open up opportunities for the increase of service jobs, such a waiters, masseuses, and physical trainers. This being said, this system will increase the wealth gap between the service workers and capital producers, so the creation of new alternative, non-service fields of work must also be pursued.
The first measure must be a joint effort by governments and societies to increase the number of women in the workforce and the level of education for those individuals seeking jobs. As the trend indicates the main sectors where technology will continue to replace human labor quickest is what can be considered low-skill work (manual labor, farming, cashiers, etc). An increase in education levels for the workforce will better prepare workers to handle jobs in sectors where the immediate threat of technological takeover is less apparent, i.e. managers, lawyers, engineers. As the impact of technology on society becomes more drastic it would be pragmatic for governments to increase the number of grants given to students who pursue degrees in the STEM fields (engineering, science, mathematics), areas that will directly involve and innovate these growing technologies. An externality of increasing the education level of the workforce is that retraining the unemployed to fill new jobs will be much easier if they have a higher education. Increasing female participation in the workforce will have two affects. First, just as other forms of diversity help promote innovative ideas, an increase in women working would bring fresh perspectives that would foster new ways of looking at and dealing with problems. Secondly, if we were able to have a 50/50 workforce of men and women we would have a larger percentage of the workforce who would require maternity leave. If governments adopted things like the Swedish model, where maternity and paternity leave is subsidized extensively by employer and the state, we would have larger gaps of time where people must be rotated in and out of the workforce, thereby freeing up jobs for more people.
As a closing point, the growing unemployment from overproduction of technology has historically shown to increase the number of people who are productive in ways that do not fall under economic production. Who is to say that an increase in artists, philosophers, philanthropists, and academics will not be beneficial to society and satisfy the human need to be productive?

[Peter M.]

Ambassador Walker presents a strong, yet controversial argument in response to the world’s anticipated population growth. However, his argument fails to discuss several significant factors that are principal to this issue of growth, in addition to the labor perspective. While a growing population (even at upwards of 10 billion) may sustain the expanding labor market, it is doubtful that other factors will be able to mimic this adaption. These factors include, but are not limited to: access to education and high-quality healthcare, the control of limited natural resources, environmental deterioration, the immense overloads on transportation facilities, international crime and disease, and other transnational elements. Further, the sheer rate at which the global population is expected to grow places an unbelievable reliance on adaption to this growth – an adaptation that is nearly impossible.

The components listed above will not be able to react as quickly to population growth as the labor market. Take the first element – access to education. As late as 2001, case studies have proven that over 115 million children, who are of primary school age, do not attend school. (1) It is painfully clear that as the world population increases exponentially, these educational demands will become greater. Further, the resources our educational facilities currently employ will face even higher demands to expand to growing population needs.

While certainly not an advocate of the rationale that population growth spurs impending environmental disaster, I believe simply disregarding the effect humans have on the environment is a conceited and uneducated one. As population increases, so does the output of harmful gases, the increased consumption of natural resources, the depletion of oil reserves, and other factors contributing to climate change. While some may argue that this increase in population will allow additional citizens to develop programs and opportunities for the world to sustain more people with less means, I disagree. Many of the factors listed above are finite, rather than infinite. Oil reserves and other energy resources are in limited supply and cannot be reproduced at an even remotely expedient rate. (2)

Further, vegetation resources have rapidly decreased in growth since the onset of the twentieth century. One does not need to look far to observe this rapid deterioration in plain view: the bare mountainside of eastern Oregon and Washington State demonstrates just how much precious landscape has been destroyed to attempt to accommodate for an expanding domestic population. As Robert Musil, a member of the Board of Directors for Population Connection, concluded at a Dartmouth College lecture in 2010, “a failure to address both issues [climate change and population growth] will create an untenable future for the environment and humans.” (3)

Other elements, including crime, disease, and overwhelming demands on transportation, all contribute to a deteriorating level of sustainability for a rapidly increasing world population. The importance and stress of these three factors will continue to rise as population grows towards the estimate of 10 billion. Although resources can accommodate growth, the rate along will place an unbearable request on these resources, a request unable to be filled by the 2100 estimate. The demands this proposed rate of population growth places on the planet are too great to simply ignore or to trust adaption to assume its role.

1.) "UNICEF - Goal: Achieve Universal Primary Education." UNICEF. Web. 06 Nov. 2011. .

2.) "Why You Should Worry About Big Oil." Businessweek - Business News, Stock Market & Financial Advice. Bloomberg Businessweek, 15 May 2006. Web. 17 Nov. 2011. .

3.) Dooley, Brendan. "Population Growth Impacts Climate Change, Musil Says." TheDartmouth.com: America’s Oldest College Newspaper. Dartmouth College, 15 Apr. 2010. Web. 16 Nov. 2011. .

[Colin K. Chapin]

Ambassador Walker’s post “What Do We Do With 10 Billion People” only looks at half of the population “problem” that the world faces. The world has seen a dramatic rise in population over the past century at an increasing rate, and as Gillis and Dugger point out in their NYT article of May 3rd, the world population is set to possibly hit 10 billion by the end of this century if growth continues at the current rate. However, the bulk of this population growth is fueled by South East Asian and African states. In more advanced Western states, birth rates are either stagnating or falling. In his article for the May/June 2004 Foreign Affairs, Longman asserts that population growth has slowed by 40% since the `60s, and that declining birth rates in advanced countries fuels the fall. These declining birth rates also will create an enormous burden on a smaller workforce to support an aging population incapable of economic contribution.
What does this mean for the world, as science continues to increase the efficiency and productivity of workers in the slowly declining First World? Ambassador Walker is certainly correct in his assertion that we can probably provide for a few billion additional bodies, but not necessarily nourish their souls through a valuable existence. But weaving in the second half of the population problem stated above greatly complicates the question that Ambassador Walker posited. What the world may be facing is an educated, and efficient first world in population equilibrium, and a burgeoning third world combined with a global aging population that becomes increasingly reliant upon it to be supplied with food, water, medicine, and other basic needs. Paul and Anne Ehrlich note, it’s not just population that matters, but the carrying capacity of the land that they live on. However, through global trade or foreign aid, many third world countries have been able to sustain higher population levels than their land would otherwise permit. This source of wealth seems like it will increasingly come form the backs of fewer individuals, and be demanded by even more masses.
The world can reestablish equilibrium. The first way through is a program of education, availability of contraception, and foreign aid in the short term to balance the third world with the first. Education has proven to reduce birth rates, but has the double-edged benefit of also being able to help lift the third world out of impoverishment. Education can lift women into the workforce, which adds to increased development. Combined with effective contraception, the birth rates in the third world could be reduced to a more sustainable rate, so that it can be better supported in the short term by aid programs as they work towards a better ability to participate in trade and self-sustainability. The second alternative is immigration; throw open the gates and allow the population boom from the third world into the declining first world. With this however comes great questions of National Identity in these old nations, and in the short term will create an even greater burden on already struggling social welfare states.
There is no satisfying way to look at population as a “problem,” because an active solution to population smacks of eugenics or excessive state control. But by trusting in the basic ability of education and self regulation through basic economic need, and the basic need the Ambassador points out for humans to live fulfilling and meaningful lives, the population should largely self regulate itself when given the means to do so through education and opportunity.

[Anthony Mathieu]

Accommodating over 10 million people in the distant future may seem to be a manageable task in today’s world, but will unfortunately be a difficult test for those who inherit the 22nd century Earth. Feeding the world’s population is one matter that will place great strain on the scientific innovations of the recent past. While the world has increased its agricultural yields in the benefit of those who need to be fed, hunger and starvation still plague the African continent in addition to other challenges such as disease and civil unrest. In order for the world to feed an additional 3 million people in the next few decades, it will be expected that a greater proportion of the world can contribute to agricultural crop production. However, such an expectation concerning places like Africa seems unreasonable as they have found it difficult to even feed themselves.
Nonetheless, Ambassador Walker does not seem to be too worried about the ability for humans to feed themselves. However, not enough focus is spent on the energy consumption of the world’s population, which only increases as time moves forward. Rising populations, societies, and economies as seen in countries such as China and India are consuming fossil fuels and other energy resources at astronomical rates. China has been projected to surpass the United States in fossil fuel consumption within the next 20 years. Thus, rapid consumption of non-renewable sources of energy should be of great concern to vast populations that do not seem to have innovative ways of cutting down energy consumption and utilizing renewable resources.
Additionally, with the spread of globalization, distant populations are now finding it ever so easy to communicate and interact with one another. While such a process poses great benefits to the world’s population, it also indicates a great threat. Globalized trade has made it easy for billions of people to consume products that they would otherwise not have access to in their native homeland. Such product exchange can be seen in the transfer of Middle Eastern oil to the West and automobile exports from Japan to the United States. The process of commodity exchange makes it much more likely that deadly viruses can spread worldwide and bring about the world’s next great pandemic. The presence of a globalized, interdependent trade system makes this possibility a real threat at all times and can never be minimized unless domestic, localized populations grow to become self-sufficient.
Technological innovations will undoubtedly benefit mankind in the years to come and allow humans to accommodate themselves within a shrinking planet. However, population rise will only continue to bring about new challenges such as the spread of disease, unemployment, and geographic migration in the form of illegal immigration. These problems can only be mitigated by sovereign nations working together to apply the same interdependence that has allowed economic and social globalization to grow upon the political institutions that govern international policy.

[Andrew Menges]

The world’s population is growing at an ever-increasing rate. No one can deny it. Thankfully the statistics show that the world will most likely be able to provide for them all in the near future. But can the increase in productivity and production keep pace with population growth? Statistics prove the ability of the world to provide for its immediate growth in population. But there is little evidence to support the ability of farming innovations and technology to prevent the negative consequences of population growth for the indefinite future.
The United Nations Population Fund concludes that nearly all population growth occurs in developing nations http://www.unfpa.org/pds/trends.htm. Most of the production innovations, however, will occur in developed nations such as America and Israel. This creates the problem of distribution. Even if some countries can increase productivity enough to produce enough food for the whole world, how are these countries supposed to affordably send it to the developing countries in need? America already has a hard enough time sending aid packages to different third world countries around the globe. The logistical difficulties and costs of increasing that aid pose a significant barrier to its viability.
If someone found a viable solution to the problem of distribution, developed countries would still face the problem of preventing the developing ones from becoming entirely dependent on them for resources. The last thing America needs is to create a system in which developing countries become dependent America’s aid to sustain their own population growth. America will have to invest, not only in increasing its own productivity, but also in teaching other nations how to do the same. Only then will population growth become sustainable on a world scale.
The last few paragraphs bring up good points on the negative side effects of productivity increases. Unemployment is a serious concern if machines come to replace an increasing number of secretaries, tellers, and farmers in this country.
However, I think there are larger issues at stake than the inability “to validate our lives” without employment. Even if one can play unlimited golf and feel validated at the same time, how and who would decide who gets to play golf instead of working? The productive members of society would revolt if distribution of their excess productivity to the unemployed became normalized in our society. Seeing the unemployed reap the benefits of their hard work, they would demand to work fewer hours in response and our whole economy would become less productive. If widespread unemployment is to become the norm, the biggest challenge is creating a fair method to provide for the unemployed without incurring the general dissatisfaction of the employed.

[Allison Fried]

Although Ambassador Walker does state some compelling facts about the capabilities of modern technology to increase productivity across the board, his premise that the mere existence of these technologies guarantees that the world can provide for its increasing population is questionable. And even if the obstacles to these technologies can be overcome, would it be wise or beneficial to the world to continue in this technological direction anyway?
The first question that must be asked it this: even if all of these technologies can be made and spread, how much longer will the world even have the fuel needed to make these modern machines run? Oil production is expected to peak and begin to go below demand levels by 2030, and the world is predicted to have a major oil crunch by 20151. So even if these technologies provide for the world, unless they can be converted to new energy sources, their capacity is very time limited. As soon as the world begins to depend on them, they will become obsolete. And food scarcity will become an immediate crisis.
People must also consider the effects that this increased technology will have on the already pressing climate change problem. With even more machines spouting CO2 into our atmosphere, the temperatures will continue to rise. And our current agricultural practices will only survive for so long; another blow. Add in the fact that the amount of fresh water on the earth is decreasing and will continue to decrease, and you can see how many problems have not been mentioned.
For the sake of argument, however, let us consider for the remainder of this post that these obstacles are overcome. Let us imagine a world “successfully” provided for by these productive machines. Are these new practices, especially in the food industry, even healthy or beneficial? Or does the continuance of mass food production, which produces calorie rich and nutrient low foods, guarantee even higher health problems and costs, costs that may become so high that they negate the amount of money saved from employing less people?2
Another point; this increase in technology, which will in all likelihood cause higher unemployment rates, will in effect lower socio-economic levels. As lower SES is correlated with higher birth rate, this will propagate the cycle of population increase. And with our highly medicated society with its longer life spans, the retirement age of this population will most likely go up. And the problem of resource scarcity and unemployment will become even larger.
This new era of technology, if it came into being, would necessitate another move such as the one that society saw with post-materialism. This would be the only way to counter the unemployment issues that would undoubtedly arise among the others. Basic necessities being provided for, humans would have to strive toward new goals in order to validate their lives and preserve their happiness. In an increasingly technological world, social competency would be even harder to learn from everyday interactions; thus, jobs could arise in that field to preserve the traditions of human communication. Education would become a more professionalized field as people would need even greater intelligence to be able to maintain these machines. Increased leisure time as a result of shorter, but more productive work days, would lead to a rise in jobs in the entertainment and leisure activities industry. These are just some examples of the possible ways in which our new society would have to remodel itself. So, all things considered, would this be a better or even feasible world?

1 http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/dec/15/oil-peak-energy-iea

2 Roberts, Kim, ed. Food, Inc.. Writ. Kenner Robert, Pearce Richard, and Schlosser Eric. Magnolia Home Entertainment, 2009. Film.

[Helen Lucey]

I agree with Ambassador Walker that over time humans have found amazing ways to continue to increase productivity and have the physical capacity to provide for everyone. However, I think Ambassador Walker underplays the importance of the unequal distribution of these resources. In today’s world we could adequately supply every human being with enough food to sustain a healthy life style. However, there are still deadly famines in parts of the world, while other countries struggle against an obesity epidemic. As the population grows I see no evidence that countries will take steps to ensure more even distribution of wealth and resources.

In the second half of his argument, Ambassador Walker points out, that as we increase our productivity through the use of robotics, we will also perpetuate the global problem of unemployment. Increased unemployment, I believe will lead only to increased uneven distribution of resources. As more and more people lose their lower level jobs, wealth will become more concentrated among people who own the machines and other means of production, making it more difficult for them to gain access to resources. Although this problem could be solved through government intervention and forced distribution of resources, I see no reason why public sentiment against foreign aid and government handouts would change in the future.

Ambassador Walker’s overarching point that technology will be our savior while also providing us with our biggest challenge is an interesting and I believe extremely valid point. However, I think we will have bigger concerns, than just keeping the human population productive and occupied. The past as well as the present has shown us that although humans are capable of great innovation, we have never nor likely will ever be the greatest sharers.

Below is an article from The New York Times discussing the unequal distribution of resources and other reasons why despite our physical capability to feed a growing world population, large portions of the global population will continue to go hungry.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/world/22food.html

[Amanda Cohen]

Ambassador Walker titles his blog post, “What do we do with 10 billion people?” However, I think a more appropriate question is not only what to do with so many people, but also how long can the globe sustain a constantly increasing number of people? At some point in time as the number of people keeps increasing and the amount of resources and jobs keeps decreasing (due to artificial intelligence), there will come a time when the world will not be able to grow any larger. Once the globe has achieved its maximum production level, the population will inevitably decrease so that we find a range of people that the earth can sustain. This number might be higher than what we have now, but there eventually has to be a maximum.

There are many foreseeable problems that will occur in the future if the population exceeds what the world can handle. Walker discusses many of the increases that the farming industry has made from 1950- 200 and presumes that the performance can be replicated in other parts of the world. However, once this is achieved there will eventually be a maximum when all fertile land is used and when all farms maximize their output, making it impossible to feed even more people. Land and food will not be the only problems facing the globe as population increases. It will also become difficult to find jobs for everyone; this includes farm jobs as well as office jobs because robots and artificial intelligence are replacing many people. Jobs are crucial to people; even in today’s society, those who do not have jobs struggle to get by. Many Americans end up living on the street and, eventually, perishing from starvation and a lack of shelter. The fact that the Israelis are working on a robotic mellon picker that can tell if a mellon is ripe and that robots can do various tasks such as skinning fruit for canning, is not necessarily as convenient as it may sound. Walker points out that we are currently battling unemployment and underemployment and claims that we are developing “new technology that can replace people at a lower price.” Thus, the trend of unemployment will only increase as more people are replaced by technology.

Not only will technology take away jobs from humans who need them, but it will also create a larger profit gap between the rich and the poor. The people who own the robots will reap the benefits of the robots success by not only being able to produce more in less time, but also by not having to pay the human workers who would otherwise be doing various tasks (such as skinning fruit and clerical positions). Thus, the owners will be making more money while there is an increasing number of jobless people who will be profitless and moving down in the economic rank. This will cause an even greater disparity between the wealthy and the poor, which does not make for a successful society. Communities will be lacking a middle class to act as a buffer between the two groups. Thus, the dynamic of society as we know it will change dramatically. There will be more people out of jobs while, at the same time, there will be more people maximizing profits and getting wealthier.

Although the question of what to do with 10 billion people in the world is important to examine, it must go hand in hand with questions such as how long can we sustain a growing population? Inevitably, there will eventually have to be maximum number of people the world can sustain, especially when we examine the decreasing number of jobs available and how that will change society.

[Jeff Rabinowitz]

First and foremost, while I agree that we seem to be able to survive with less land than ever before, much of this is due to scientific intervention such as genetic modification of food, and the use of various hormones and chemicals. Society, including the scientists and policy makers who advocate this intervention, is still very much ignorant of the potential consequences of this practice. For example, a recent scientific study was conducted on rats to examine the effects of eating genetically modified potatoes. The study showed that there were appreciable differences between the intestines of rats fed genetically modified potatoes and rats fed normal potatoes, although some critics claim that this paper was flawed. (1) Another recent experiment showed that pollen from genetically modified corn caused an extremely high mortality rate among monarch butterfly caterpillars, demonstrating the ability of genetically modified crops to inflict unintended harm to other organisms. (1) Let us pretend for a moment that humans have no nature value, by which I mean we do not place any value/ gain anything from the simple fact that animals and plants exist in nature, rather that we only value them for the food and resources that they provide to us. Every organism has a vital role in the food chain, and a stark reduction in the population of any particular species could have profound consequences. While it may seem that we can use genetic modification to make up for any of these food chain inadequacies, it is important to keep in mind that many of these organisms to which genetically modified crops cause harm are the same organisms from which various genes destined for crops are extracted in the first place, drawing into question the sustainability of the practice. I argue that there are many potential consequences of scientific intervention in agriculture, some of which may take generations to appear. It is impossible for us to truly proclaim success before all of the potential consequences are realized.

I would also like to say that I found the last three paragraphs of your blog post to be extremely fascinating. I agree that hiring a robot is more efficient, cheaper and more reliable than hiring a human, and that envisioning a world in which entire sectors of the workforce are replaced by robots is completely fathomable. However, if robots take over all of the jobs, how will people generate income? People will still need income to purchase food, housing, and amenities. Will people buy robots like they buy cars and send them to work to earn money for the family, or will the companies simply purchase their own robots to carry out necessary tasks? And finally, if companies purchase their own robots and the money that firms generate doesn’t eventually end up in people’s pockets, what will be the point, philosophically, of the existence of business at all?

(1) http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php

[Andrew Taub]

In his article “What do we do with 10 billion people?”, Ambassador Walker argues that the most challenging problem over the next half century will be how to keep the world’s growing population productively occupied. But before considering the effects on labor or answering “what are we going to do with the redundant people,” I think we first need to identify who these people will be.

Given this expected increase in population, how is it going to be distributed? In “The Global Baby Bust,” Phillip Longman identifies that population increase will be a result of aging, not high birthrates. The Administration on Aging (AoA) reports that by 2030, one in every five Americans will be age 60 or older. Their 2008 Annual Report also states that those 85 and over are the fastest growing group of seniors, “with their numbers expected to more than triple from 5.4 million to 19 million between 2008 and 2050.” At first, 19 million might not seem particularly large compared to the entire population of potentially 400 million (around 5%). But what is more significant is how the distribution will spread over the years. For example, in 2010, those under 20 years were 27% of the U.S. population and those 65 and over were 13%. It is projected that in 2050, those under 20 will represent 25% whereas those 65 and over will be 20% of society. In fact, the AoA projects that as early as 2030, those over 65 will already represent 19.3% of the U.S. population.

Why does this matter? Do these statistics merely imply that more harmless, old people will inhabit the states? For one, supporting the old is expensive. A larger group of aging citizens would require more old-age entitlements, government health-care benefits, and pensions which would all affect our nation’s wealth. What if the government had to increase the retirement age and deny any possibility for early retirement? Then older people might be forced to continue working against their will, and to what extent would this challenge the American way of life or infringe upon expected, entitled rights? Might the U.S. need to become less democratic in order to control an increasingly frustrated section of its population?

Now, to return to Walker’s concern: suppose the labor problem is not an issue and people do have jobs. This does not change the fact that population will still be increasingly older. Indeed, a shift in the U.S. social landscape would be as significant as anything else. Even if the world is capable of sustaining an influx of people, the projected future of the U.S. is an example of how a shift in population might not only be about its effect on the demand and supply of resources, but rather how it could also modify social classification itself. An unprecedented presence of aged citizens will have more profound effects than simply becoming a greater government priority; it could reduce the existence of nuclear families and systemically redefine the fabric of society.

http://www.aoa.gov/AoARoot/Program_Results/docs/2008/AOA_2008AnnualReport.pdf

[Ellie Myers]

This is an interesting and complicated problem that our world must deal with. Not only are we faced with a serious population issue, but it is likely that many jobs that could occupy the 3+ billion people that we will add to the global population in the future will be taken over by machines. This will further increase unemployment rates around the world, and a population increase will only make unemployment rise even higher.

It is interesting to consider this as a problem of productivity as a resource. When one thinks of a resource, one usually thinks to space, food, clean water, and clean air. However the ability to be productive is also a resource, and one that will be drastically limited with a population increase. There are certain areas of the world that are already dealing with issues of overcrowding and limited resources as a result of overpopulation. What are those areas to do as the populations continue to expand? Ambassador Walker asserts that we have the capacity to feed, house, and care for the rise in population, but it will be a difficult task. I agree that we have the capacity to do so, but at what cost? Will our standard of living be lowered as more and more people inhabit our world?

As stated in the original blog post, we are “able to survive on ever decreasing plots of land while making them ever more productive,” and thus we will be able to adapt to a population increase. However, it is interesting to consider the increase of population as conflicting with the rise of technology and decrease in job availability. With new technology we have seen an upward trend of productivity and capacity for work for machines, and this trend will continue to rise in the future. This is contrasted with a decrease in jobs available for humans. This alone is already an issue, but when you add in the potential for another 3 billion people by the end of this century, the employment rate for humans will decrease at an even more rapid rate.

So, this begs the following questions: should we attempt to stabilize employment by stopping the advance or technology, or should we attempt to better control the population? How can we ensure that people will have jobs, be productive, and thus have validated lives in future generations (and in our generation)? Is this even possible? These questions open a lot of doors for debate and analysis.

If we stop using machines to do jobs that humans could do, then there would be less of a problem of human productivity. However, machines are (usually) less expensive (when you consider all the money that would be saved by not having to pay benefits) and yield a more productive output. China has attempted to stifle the problem of overpopulation by mandating their one child per household policy. However this policy is controversial and it creates imbalances in both gender and age (4 grandparents and 2 parents dependent on one child—is this manageable?). There doesn’t seem to be an immediate solution to the problem of overpopulation, so for now we must look at ways to keep the expected 10 billion occupied by 2100. There may not be a solution, and that is a difficult reality to accept.

[Anne Loizeaux]

With the increasing mechanization of agriculture and manufacturing, more and more people will find themselves unemployed. As Ambassador Walker explains, machines are beginning to replace humans, not only in the industrial sector but also in farming. The blog argues that the biggest problem facing the world in the future may not be finding ways to support the basic needs of people but rather finding ways to occupy people who have lost their jobs to technology. However, without work, the problem will not be occupying people, but finding a way to keep them alive, and our economy moving, without a steady source of income.

American culture is predicated on the opportunity to work and make one’s own fortune. Although a complete shift to automation may save companies money, more people will be out of work and will no longer be able to consume goods and services. It may be of greater benefit in the short term for businesses to automate services but this will have an adverse effect in the long run. Every job lost to a machine is another consumer who no longer has an income and can no longer afford to buy goods and services to keep the economy moving. Employed people can inject money into the economy and can also save money over the long term reducing strain on government programs. The problem, then, is not just occupying people who are not working. If people don’t have an income, they won’t have the means to invest or spend their time on leisure activities such as playing golf. A human’s primary concern is survival, and without work, one’s basic needs cannot be supported.

There are many benefits to increased mechanization of agriculture and manufacturing. More technology requires more people with advanced skills to develop and maintain new machines and devices. This leads to more people with higher educational levels and more fulfilling work. As Ambassador Walker points out, work validates our lives and is used as a primary measure of success. Perhaps these higher skilled jobs would lead to more satisfaction in the lives of the few who are qualified to hold these positions. However, we must still consider all those, who, because of lack of education and access to resources, will not be able to get these jobs in the technology sector. How will they continue to support their basic needs without jobs?

Jobs allow people to spend money on goods and services, which in turn supports the economy. With continued population growth, this will become more and more difficult. We will need to find ways to expand our economy and open up more options for employment. Technological development can help with this. With new technology comes the need for people to support that technology. However, we must be careful not to let technology replace humans as the basic force behind our economy. Population growth is not going to stop. We need to accept this and find a way to keep everyone involved. With too many people out of work, no one will be investing in the global economy and that will lead to disaster.

[Adriana Fracchia]

According to Ambassador Walker’s blog, “What do we do with 10 billion people?” the problem facing our world is the increase in population coupled with the decrease in the amount of human-labor needed. As I write this blog comment at 7pm on a Monday there have already been around 291,003 births and 124,304 deaths today. If our growth rate is +166,669 a day not counting the 5 hours of possible growth remaining today, we are in big trouble. However, our dependence on technology and the lack of jobs that result from robots replacing humans cannot be the scapegoat for the real problem that population growth causes: increased, low quality production in order to meet the demands of the growing population.

Population growth occurs when people in a society can subsist beyond their current means. Once people can no longer subsist they will die and the population will naturally decrease. No one wants to be or have their family be the people who do not have the means necessary in order to survive. In response, the genius of man has been able to create answers to some very delicate subsistence problems. Even so, we are getting pretty close to the world’s glass ceiling of subsistence - if we have not crashed through it already.

Humans are taking a toll on the earth’s ecosystem. As Walker says in his blog, “The problem does not depend so much on numbers of babies born as it does on their productivity.” But no matter how productive today’s net population growth is, people (myself included) are still consumers. The bottom line is that more humans on this earth means more consumption, more stuff, more waste, more destruction, more problems, and more consumption. The problem is not the lack of productivity but rather the type of productivity that we currently have. Yes, cows can make almost three times the amount of milk that they used to, but that product is full of hormones that have been proven to alter the consumer’s growth. Yes, farmers can produce more vegetables but a study in 2004 at the University of Texas at Austin analyzed USDA data and found harsh decreases in nutrients such as calcium, iron, riboflavin, phosphorus, and ascorbic acid in vegetables. Even though we have increased productivity, the consequences of these man-made short cuts can and often do outweigh the short-term benefits. We are sustaining an unsustainable population without finding a real long-term solution.

Why do we devalue the heirloom tomato to have a flavorless rubber-like red ball? Because too many people depend on that tomato for subsistence so the quality of the product must be sacrificed for the greater good of overall consumption. (Plus, someone somewhere is making a profit.) We are doing to the world the same thing as to the tomato: ignoring its limitations and stuffing it so full of GMOs that it loses its natural qualities. This is the ruin to which I worry the human race is running, and considering an additional 10,500 or so humans were born by the time I completed this first draft, the big problem is that all of us are running out of room to run.

http://www.worldometers.info/
Ireland, Corydon. Hormones in milk can be dangerous. 2006. http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/12.07/11-dairy.html
Clippard, Lee. Study suggests nutrient decline in garden crops over past 50 years. Dec. 1, 2004. http://www.utexas.edu/news/2004/12/01/nr_chemistry/
http://www.worldometers.info/