Like many people, my experience of the effects of our growing population was for many years limited to my observations of the changes in my immediate neighborhood. From time to time some changes certainly raised questions regarding our future way of life, the ever increasing traffic, the continuous noise from the distant highway and the ever increasing property taxes as the population grew. But I became so used to the slow but continuing change that this rate of growth eventually became an expected part of everyday life. Over the last three decades in the name of "development" I have seen our villages turn into towns, I have seen the farmland disappear as it is sold for building lots, I have seen the highways become congested, with traffic lights now on almost every junction, and the country lanes have become lined with homes. Yet because I have been part of this growth, it has appeared to be the natural sequence of change, a slow and steady movement to a better life.

Then for several years I worked overseas in some of the developing countries and the things that I saw and heard completely changed my understanding of the effects of population growth. Four episodes in particular stand out in my mind.

1. I was congratulating a senior official in one of the Third World countries on their improved agricultural program that now fed all their people. He thanked me and agreed that they had worked very hard to try and eliminate hunger in their country, but then replied wistfully, "But next year there will be a million more mouths to feed, and the year after that another million". His final comment has remained with me over the years and still sends a chill down my spine. "We are eventually heading for the worst famine the world has ever seen, and there is nothing that we can do to prevent it".
2. While driving through the mountains near Katmandu in Nepal, I was admiring the beautifully terraced fields that climbed almost to the mountaintops. Suddenly I came across a wide expanse of bare rock where all the soil had disappeared. I was told that the trees that had protected the slopes for centuries had been cut down and the rains then washed away the soil. There had always been an ample supply of dead wood for cooking and heating, but the population had grown dramatically over the past few years, there was no alternative fuel and the people had been forced to cut down the living trees. Indeed there was a flood of people moving from the country to the towns and Katmandu was so crowded that at times it was difficult to walk in the streets.
3. While visiting other Third World countries we also found walking in the cities uncomfortable and at times almost impossible because of the masses of humanity. The fast growing population in the countryside could find no work and flocked to the cities. The basic services there were overwhelmed by this influx of people, and walking became a matter of pushing through crowds of men, women and children. Many were ill nourished, and a large number very obviously needed the immediate services of a doctor.
4. We visited shanty towns in two countries. Hundreds of tiny huts were built of any scrap material that could be found, many were nothing more than a large cardboard or plywood box. Mud and filth was everywhere in spite of the best efforts of the governments. The most distressing sights were the hundreds of small children who filled the muddy paths. Few had shoes, some were totally naked, most were ill nourished and very many were obviously in need of medical treatment. We were told that there was no work available in the countryside because of the surge of population and they fled to the cities in an attempt to avoid starvation.

There are frequent discussions on the development of land for shopping centers and office buildings. Nowhere in any of these discussions are the effects of population growth even mentioned, in fact it is a matter of some pride that the population growth in our town is the highest in the county. Most of our particular growth is from people who are moving out of New York as incoming immigrants, legal and illegal, take over sections of the city. 

The continuously increasing population of this world is rapidly depleting our limited non-renewable resources. It is also jeopardizing the longevity of some resources that we generally consider renewable. At the same time it is drowning us in pollution, which further consumes our resources as we try to limit the effects of this on the health of our environment and our people. All of this is occurring at a speed that is increasing daily as the world’s population rockets out of control. 

This book does not contain pages of statistics. These are readily available to anyone who wishes to investigate the problems more deeply and in a truly scientific manner. Rather it presents the facts that have brought us to this point in the history of the world; and it considers the possible scenarios for the future. It discusses the way our end may occur and suggests our ultimate fate if nothing is done to control this ever-growing population. If we look at all the known facts honestly and without prejudice or bias, it is not difficult to understand what is happening in the world. It may well be that we have already left it too late to take effective corrective actions, but certainly if we do not begin immediately, our children’s future is bleak and our end may occur many centuries before nature would otherwise terminate life on this planet and it will occur under extremely cruel conditions. Hopefully this book will at least stir up a general concern regarding overpopulation and encourage open public debate and action.

When Homo Sapiens first evolved on this world, nature made sure that the species would thrive. The act of procreation was simple, quick and generally provided pleasure to both parties. The female could be expected, under normal conditions, to give birth to at least one offspring every year during her fruitful lifetime and nature made sure that a male would always be ready and willing to play his part. This natural stimulus was necessary during the major part of the existence of our species as initially life expectancy was short. A high percentage of children never reached adulthood and a healthy birthrate was necessary to guarantee that a sufficient number of people would survive to maintain the race.

For thousands of years this system functioned very well and there was very little change in the conditions that determined the life span of "Homo Sapiens". Then during the last millennium we began, slowly at first, to develop the ability to control our environment and this dramatically changed the entire situation. These changes are still continuing, but at an ever-increasing rate and at a lightning speed, at least compared to the time scale of nature’s evolution. Over the past few centuries they have completely altered our way of life. As a consequence we have been able to dramatically increase our life span, and there is now no reason for a high birthrate to maintain the species.

Better nourishment from the development of farming, clean water supplies, improved housing and sanitation, and above all an ever increasing knowledge of medicine and the prevention of sickness have all played a part. During the past few centuries these advances have resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of people in the world. We have now reached the point where the present rate of growth of the world’s population is no longer required to guarantee the survival of mankind. Instead, population growth has now become the single factor that is most likely to guarantee the premature demise of our civilization.

Unfortunately overpopulation and the effects it has on our way of life are extremely unpopular subjects for general discussion. They attack so many traditional lifestyles and they affect so many political and religious affiliations that they are rarely discussed openly in any public forum. Only recently I heard a talk show host on the TV discussing an incident that caused the death of a child. He then said that as our population continues to grow so quickly there was a much greater probability of this happening again. But after going into the details of population growth and a brief comment on the effect on our lives, his final comment was "But there is nothing we can do about that". There are a few less well known organizations that are dedicated to the debate but generally they are not reported in the media. They make their arguments in a quiet, scientific manner, and are never given the publicity accorded to the more active environmental groups.

I have never seen or heard any report of our environmentalists demanding that some actions be taken to retard our population growth. When I asked one activist why this fundamental cause of most of our environmental problems is not given the importance it deserves, his response was that "This is not a popular subject". Another said, "We can do nothing about it, so we don’t bother". Unfortunately pretending that the overpopulation of this world does not exist and has no effect on our future will never eliminate the very real danger that civilization faces today.

It is extremely difficult to understand why we refuse to at least discuss publicly the inevitable fate that awaits us because of overpopulation. It is incredible that we are unwilling to even consider developing the actions that are necessary to prevent it. We dance around the subject of population growth as if it does not matter, as if it will eventually correct itself or that there was nothing we can do about it and as if we had all the time in the world to correct the situation. We try to pretend that the inevitable crisis will never happen although all the evidence is clearly visible to anyone with an unbiased eye. We spend a tremendous amount of time and effort in attempting to eliminate the very obvious environmental problems and the social and political signs that clearly indicate our eventual fate. We appear to be totally unable or unwilling to take any corrective action. For example there are continuing discussions on how to prevent global warming, and avoid polluting the rivers and oceans. These are all commendable concerns, but completely ignore the ever-growing population that is the cause of all these problems.

Recently I read of the international meeting to discuss new laws to limit the emission of gases that are believed to cause "global warming" and the tremendous cost that this would incur. From time to time we see concerned groups taking up arms to prevent the loss of acres of rain forest to agriculture or mining or similar projects. Ocean fishing that for years was completely unrestricted is now subject to control because the amount of fish available is steadily decreasing. All of these actions are commendable, but no one will even discuss the overpopulation that is the fundamental cause of all of these problems.

Overpopulation and the effect that it has on our lives and our future must be brought "out of the cupboard" and debated openly by us all. Until we accept the consequences we will never take action to correct the situation. This is not something that can be delayed for years. We either begin to take action now, or we must prepare for a global disaster way beyond anything we have seen to date. This will totally smash our civilization as we know it today. Those who are left may generate a new and very different society, but that will be generations away.

Hopefully this article will raise the degree of concern regarding the ever growing world population, initiate discussion and hopefully trigger some corrective action. It will also begin to show the complexity of the situation and that this problem affects almost every aspect of our lives. Merely stabilizing the population at its present level will affect our economy, the very way that we live, and our entire future. It we intend our civilization to continue into the future we will ultimately have to reduce the world’s population to that which we can support with our replaceable resources. When we consider this step, we will see that the results shake the very foundations of many of our beliefs and ideas. The results of taking no action however will be even more disastrous.

For many centuries the normal life span of most adults would today be considered quite short. A hundred or so years ago a man of 45 was considered old. Newborns had a poor chance of surviving the first few years of life with many fatal childhood sicknesses that are today considered little more than a nuisance. From time to time outbreaks of contagious diseases such as the "Black Death" and the "Plague" decimated the citizens of various countries and even influenza caused many deaths every year. Added to these catastrophes many minor accidents that today are completely curable, such as a broken bone or a bad wound, were more likely to result in death. All of these factors tended to maintain the growth of the world’s population within acceptable limits. The overall increase was small and the additional people were readily welcomed into society.

Even three hundred years ago, the population of the world used very few of the world’s non-renewable resources. Their way of life was largely rural and primarily involved only renewable materials. The farmer tilled his land using animals as the primary source of power. He kept cattle and sheep to graze the fields that were then laid fallow to regain their fertility. The manure from the cattle, horses and other animals was spread over the fields prior to plowing, to fertilize the new crops. Transport was limited on the ground to the human being and the horse, and similar animals. On water the sailing ship or rowboat carried all of the loads. Goods produced in any neighborhood were generally used within that local area, and on the whole the necessities of life did not rely on transporting goods from a central manufacturing areas.

The major source of fuel was from renewable sources such as wood and in some countries dried animal dung. Small quantities of coal was used by those able to dig it out from nearby outcropping seams. Clay was used to make bricks, fired with wood from the forests. Mud and soil was used as the primary materials for adobe dwellings and together with timber, rock and stone provided all the necessary building materials. Some nonreplaceable materials, especially tin, copper and iron were mined to make tools, utensils and farm implements, but in very small quantities compared to the gigantic mines of today. Candles, made from animal fat, provided most of the illumination until lamps were eventually developed when oil became available, initially from the whaling industry. It was only towards the beginning of the 19^th century that this overall picture began to change dramatically.

The use of iron, in particular for military weapons began the industrial revolution. The use of automation increased with the invention of the cotton and wool mills that were required to satisfy the growing demands for clothing from the increasing population. Even then power was still provided from natural renewable resources such as water wheels and windmills. The invention of the steam engine triggered off the growth in the demand for non-renewable resources and soon coal fired steamships and railways completely changed our way of life. Faster and cheaper transport opened up the country and eventually changed the nature of industry. Until this time it was slow, difficult and expensive to move goods and materials over more than a very short distance. As a consequence small plants had largely carried out manufacturing to supply a very limited area. Now large factories and mines could develop in centralized areas, as it became possible to easily ship products all over the world. They in turn generated a need for workers to operate the mines, the iron works and the factories. This triggered the steady move from the country villages to the urban and city areas, which continues today.

The demands for fuel for the newly invented internal combustion engine triggered off the drilling and refining of oil to provide gasoline and together with the demand for coal began the major drain on the world’s resources. Electricity became readily available and in turn triggered off many new products, as well as a greater use of coal and oil to generate the power. These things eventually changed our entire life style. In the past, people walked to the local store each day for their food, and also grew much of their own food in their gardens and fields. Now they began to drive to the supermarket once a week for their supplies. This required a motor car to transport their food and a refrigerator in which to store it. In turn this demanded the gasoline and electricity to run them. These, and many other inventions, which were initially considered luxuries, quickly became an essential part of life. They increased the rate at which we began to use up our nonrenewable resources and in turn they increased the rate of pollution of the environment. The fumes from the refinery for the gasoline, the exhaust from the car, the gasses and the cooling water from the power station, not to mention the factories that make the materials for all of these products and employ the people who buy them.

Today each individual in the major industrial countries consumes many times more of the world’s resources than did our ancestors of a hundred years ago. This consumption is increasing faster than the number of people and so we have two interrelated factors. Not only is the world’s population increasing at an alarming rate, but the consumption of the world’s resources is increasing at an even faster rate, which in turn contributes to the increasing pollution. Consider the effect on the cost and availability of gasoline and the increase in pollution when the automobile becomes available to the masses of the peoples of China or India. We express our concern when the price of gasoline is increased by a few cents a gallon, but in a competitive society, it is only natural to expect the cost of a product that is in limited supply to steadily grow as the available supply diminishes. It is inevitable that we will continue to pay more and more for the fuel to operate our automobiles, until the world’s supply of oil is completely depleted.

Our economic system has also indirectly encouraged overpopulation. We have developed a competitive, capitalistic system that is solely based on profit. This has worked extremely well over the past two or three decades, but it has also, in the long term, only made the situation worse. A profit based system demands growth if it is to continue to operate efficiently. The investor is seeking growth in his investment, and this in turn demands that more and more people buy the services or products concerned. This very obviously cannot continue, without a growing population. For our long-term existence we will have to develop a "steady state" economic system to serve a "steady state" population. It is difficult to see how this will function. Attempts to develop alternative economic systems such as the socialist example have not proved totally successful. But when resources are limited, and the customer base is static, business cannot operate solely through competition and a free market. This may well become one of the more difficult problems to overcome when our population is stabilized.

The growth in scientific knowledge has certainly contributed both directly and indirectly to population growth. The increasing ability to cure many of the diseases that in the past caused thousands of deaths has been a very obvious factor. Smallpox, Malaria, Influenza and so on, that killed so many people every year, are now considered little more than a controllable nuisance. On the other side the increasing ability to control and limit conception has the potential of solving many of our population problems. Unfortunately in many countries birth control is socially unacceptable for a variety of reasons. Some religions will not accept the need to control our population, and among many races there is total ignorance and a lack of understanding of the seriousness of the situation.

Tradition and history materially affect this problem. For many years when individuals reached the age when they were unable to work, their very life depended on having a family around them to look after them, to provide food and lodging and the many other services necessary if they were to survive. From this requirement developed the need for large families to assure the survival into of at least a few members. In one of the third world countries a young friend I was visiting had limited his family to two children because he wanted to provide them with a sound education. He told me that his mother had called a family meeting a few weeks earlier at which she demanded "How dare you deprive me of the pleasure of having many grandchildren?" and from then on he was totally ostracized. This was a comparatively wealthy and well-educated family but the attitude is understandable as in that country there is no social security, and if the family is not there to look after the old people the only alternative is begging in the street.

We have reached this position in the history of the world because the human race developed it’s knowledge of science and technology so very much faster than nature expected, and has exceeded the ability of evolution to compensate for the subsequent increasing fertility. If nature could in some way reduce the ability of mankind to reproduce, to two children in the lifetime of every woman there would be no need to become concerned about our future. If nature cannot do this, then for the sake of the present population and those of the near future, man has to take over this task.

Nature may still have a trick or two to play on us. We have seen in the past few years the outbreak of HIV that has contributed to the deaths of millions of people We have also seen the effects of the Ebola virus and the growing concern over the West Nile virus. With the masses crowded together in many of our cities another such disease could involve many more millions of people. There is always the possibility of some major catastrophe that could dramatically change the future of mankind, be it an asteroid striking the earth, or some other major disaster, but in all honesty this is unlikely to occur.

Mankind is left with two options. We can ignore the ever-increasing population growth and hope that in some unknown manner it will eventually correct itself. We can accept the inevitable consequences if it does not, and they may well be disastrous. Or we can begin to take all possible measures now, attempt to limit the population growth and make our ultimate end controlled, dignified and as far into the future as possible.

The shortage of some basic raw materials and the pollution of our environment are the first practical signs of the effects of overpopulation. They are of course in many respects interrelated, and in this age are becoming highly visible. This is not a new idea. In the late 1700’s Daniel Malthus suggested that the population could outstrip the available food supply, and that there would always be a struggle between the demands of a constantly growing number of people and the food that nature made available. However in those days, when the world’s population was much smaller it was easier to ignore these facts. Now we see signs every day that the world’s population is quickly outgrowing the resources nature has provided. Man is valiantly trying to boost the efforts of nature, but inevitably there is a limit to what can be achieved. A lack of clean water may well be the first shortage that will have a major impact on our civilization. We are using more and more water while there is a growing pollution of many traditional water supplies.

Fifty years ago the very idea of buying bottled water for drinking would never have been thought possible, as then most traditional water sources could be used safely. I remember as a boy playing in the fields and drinking from any of the streams and rivers in our rural community. Now New York City is considering building a massive filtration plant to purify the drinking water for their residents. Until recent years, the water from the many upstate reservoirs has been exceptionally clean and is currently piped directly to the consumers in the City with little or no pre-treatment. Indeed it has been the proud boast of New York City that their drinking water was some of the purest in the country.

However with the influx of people many of the areas surrounding the upstate reservoirs are changing dramatically. The once pristine wilderness of the entire area is quickly developing into suburbia. This dramatic growth in the population has resulted in an ever-increasing pollution of the water supply. Tighter zoning laws have been put into force that limit how and where buildings can be erected near the reservoirs, but increasing contaminants come from cars, businesses and industry, as well as domestic housing. They are all contributing to the overall pollution problem. The new filtration plant will cost many millions of dollars to erect and will increase the cost of water. In turn it will also consume a considerable amount of electricity, which will then add to the demand for more generating plants in the state. These in turn inevitably generate more pollution. So it is obvious that shortages of water and pollution levels are very closely related.

This is but one comparatively small example of the growing problems for our rivers, steams, and lakes. While great steps are being taken to control the pollution of our water supplies, more and more actions are required as more and more people produce more and more pollution. The growing population and the desire for clean water in our streams and rivers are constantly at odds with each other.

In the western states, some environmental groups are demanding that many of the dams that provide the water for hydroelectric plants are demolished to preserve the environment for the fish population. These plants not only produce much of the electricity for the western states, but also control the water that is essential for many of the major cities especially those in California. The reasons given for removing the dams not only include saving the fish populations but also to improve the flow of water in the rivers, and other environmental reasons. But power and water are two very closely interrelated items both of which are absolutely essential if our society is to continue. As the population of the western states continues to grow, it seems unlikely that we will be able to maintain the necessary supply of water. There have already been suggestions that it may be necessary to buy water from Canada, and questions as to whether it is practically possible to pipe the water all the way South to the major Californian cities.

In some of the central and southern states the water table has dropped dramatically as the supply has been tapped for irrigation of the fields. What was basically desert with occasional areas of green where the water naturally reached the surface, has now been transformed into rolling farmland and pastures. Watching the irrigation systems rolling slowly across the fields spraying water onto the crops it is easy to understand where the millions of gallons of water are being used. Unfortunately the ground water that took thousands of years to accumulate is being used very much faster than it can be replaced and inevitably the ground will once again revert to desert. It is already being forecast that this will reduce the area of land available to grow our food, at a time when the demand will be increasing because of the growing population.

The effects of population growth on the water supply are much more easily understood by observing the changes at a local level. Twenty years ago the lake on which I live was crystal clear and full of life. Although at a superficial glance nothing much appears to have changed, unfortunately much of the wild life has disappeared. Ten years ago in the summer evenings I could sit on my deck and listen to the croaking of the many frogs that lived in the lake and the surrounding swamp. Today there is not a single frog to be seen, and many of the other animals that were once common visitors to our garden have long since disappeared. The water is brownish and after a rainstorm often has a strong smell of sewage for a day or two. After the last analysis, the chemist was asked if it was OK to swim in the lake. "Only if you must", was the reply "Don’t let the water get into your nose or ears, and then have a good hot shower when you come out". Some of the residents have suffered from infections after swimming in the lake and no longer venture forth and those who do, follow the chemist’s advice and take a good hot shower when they get out.

It is easy to see where this pollution has come from. For many years all the water that drained from the surrounding hills came into the lake via a large swamp that very effectively filtered the water. Then the shores of the lake became a popular place for summer cottages which later became permanent residences each with its own septic system. The surrounding hills quickly became developed and roads built. What was pristine woodland and farms now has acres of homes, roads and paved areas all of which drain into several enormous culverts that eventually take the water directly into the lake. Our lake is only a very tiny part of the pollution problem, but multiply it by the many areas of population growth and it is easy to see how it can quickly grow to unmanageable proportions. It is of course now far too difficult and costly to install the pumped sewage and drainage system that would be required to totally eliminate this contamination of the lake. In addition the solution would consume electrical power that would in turn generate more contaminants.

Every home in the area has it’s own well and septic system, and for years the question of water supply and purity was never even considered. Now we frequently hear of neighbors having to deepen their well because the supply of water has failed. From time to time people complain of a smell from their water and testing shows the presence of bacterial contamination. The well then has to be disinfected, pumped out and deepened because the water has become contaminated to the point where it is a danger to health. This situation has steadily become worse over the past few years and will only continue to worsen as the population grows. Our school district has recently had to install chlorination systems into most of the wells that supply the schools. They have provided pure drinking water ever since the schools were built but now contamination has become so severe that it is a danger to health and bottled water is now provided for drinking.

Another of the more imminent shortages will doubtless be gasoline. This will have a very dramatic effect on all our lives. We have already been affected by the increasing cost of gasoline and although it will doubtless vary with changes in the economy, it is unlikely that it will ever return to the prices of a few years ago. It is estimated that the world resources of oil are sufficient for the next 30 to 40 years, and to date there are no effective plans to produce a substitute in sufficient quantity and at an acceptable cost. We have heard of alcohol and ethanol being produced from grain and vegetation. We have seen the odd unit designed to provide power from sunlight. We frequently hear of the potential use of fuel cells, but to date we have seen nothing that can effectively take over from the internal combustion engine and no practical substitute for gasoline. This infers that the cost of gasoline will steadily increase until it will eventually be out of the range of all but the very wealthy. Likewise even if a substitute can be developed it will inevitably be much more expensive than even the present cost of gasoline

The high cost will reduce the demand and may extend the life of the world’s oil supply for a few more years. It will also provide an opportunity for society to get used to living without the motor car. There is no major combined effort to develop an alternative mode of personal transport and it seems totally unlikely that any other form of portable power will become available. The very idea of powered personal transport may well become part of history. This will have a dramatic impact on the way we live. During the past few decades our entire way of life has centered on the automobile. Our towns and villages have been designed around the motor car, we have become used to "driving to the mall". The layout of our shopping centers has been developed to provide acres of parking. What will we do when gas costs $20 per gallon and then later when it is totally unavailable?

It seems likely that we will have to revert to a way of life that is in many ways similar to that of the villages of the 1800’s, where every necessity of life is within walking distance. The available fuel will have to be conserved for the public transport of people, food and other goods, not for private travel. This will demand a complete change in the way we consider property development and will totally alter our social and business philosophies.

As the supply of oil is diminished it will inevitably impact our supply of electricity. Much of the power generated in this country uses oil or natural gas as the fuel and therefore the cost will rise. There are still some power stations fueled by coal and it may well be that we will have to revert to this again temporarily until it too is used up in the more distant future. That is if we can develop some effective way of removing the contaminating smoke and gasses from the generating system. The only alternative at the present time is atomic power and in spite of the many objections from the environmentalists, this appears to be the only reliable long-term power source of the future. The question then becomes "How do we get rid of the spent fuel?" This may well be the environmental problem of the next century or until we can develop other generating systems using atomic fusion or replaceable resources.

Electrical power will, with clean water and oil, be among the first shortages that will affect our overall way of life, indeed we have already seen this occurring with the "rolling blackouts" in California. Our nation is terribly wasteful of electricity. One has only to look out of the window of any airplane flying over our country at night to note the abuse of electrical power. Millions of kilowatts advertise goods and services. Street lighting runs from dusk to dawn on many mostly empty streets. Totally empty playing fields are flood lit all night, and many other similar wasteful examples of the use of power are readily visible. In our homes we are equally wasteful: rooms are lit when no one is present, outside lights are run solely for appearances or as protection against marauders, many pieces of equipment use power continuously to eliminate the inconvenience of having to switch them on or off.

The "rolling blackouts" that are currently affecting California are a prime symptom of the effect of overpopulation. Their basic cause is simple to understand; there is insufficient power being generated. However during the past few years there has been considerable opposition to building more power stations. Atomic power has been shouted down because no one wants the power stations in their neighborhood, largely because of totally inaccurate publicity regarding the potential dangers from this source. Waterpower from the many dams is criticized because it "imprisons the rivers", oil and natural gas is turned down because of the possibility of adding to the pollution of the area. In other words the "Not in my backyard" syndrome is the popular attitude, but does not offer any solution to the problem. If no additional generation is contemplated then all the users, both private and business must immediately start conserving electricity and it may well be necessary to consider rationing supplies. Perhaps this power shortage is one of the most immediate signs of the effect of overpopulation and indicates what will happen in the next few years in many of our states. A reduction in the population would reduce the need for additional power generation and provide a longer time frame in which to plan for the future of mankind.

The future then has to be seen as a totally new way of living. The only readily available power will be electricity from atomic power stations, with the additional but lesser sources of hydropower; coal fired generator systems, possibly electricity from wind and perhaps some from tidal systems, geo thermal and solar devices. It is unlikely that electricity will ever be as readily available as it is today. In the near future we will have to learn to use it much more economically. We will have to make the difficult choices between maintaining environmental sanctity and providing adequate power and water. Several dams that provide power and water for both drinking and irrigation now corral the Colorado River that ran so proudly through the Grand Canyon. As a result it no longer discharges into the sea but ends up as a dismal dribble that eventually disappears into the desert. This may well be the future for many of our rivers, and raise the difficult question as to which is more important, electrical power or a free running river?

There are other signs of shortages of the world’s resources of which the general public are largely unaware. For example fish is now generally expensive, and a delicacy whereas fifty years ago it was very cheap and the food of the poor man. "Fish and chips" wrapped in a newspaper and eaten with the fingers while walking home from the movies was the favorite of many English families in the 40’s and 50’s. The Arctic was literally swarming with fish after WW2 during which time few if any trawlers ventured into that ocean. The author was at that time designing "fish finding" sonar systems and remembers one trip to the arctic on a deep sea trawler where the catch was so great that the contents of one haul of the net took almost 24 hours to process. Now the fishing at the best is poor, and some countries are banning fishing at various times in an attempt to allow the fish to re stock the seas. The fast growing population of the world has far outweighed the ability of nature and the oceans to keep up with the demand for fish.

Only recently the newspapers reported on the dramatic reduction of the lobster catch in recent years in the waters of the East Coast of the USA in the New England region. The reason given was the increase in pollution levels of the sea water in this area, from the high levels of smog, the contaminants from the sewage systems that drain into the sea and the general effects from the high level of population in the area. It is fascinating to note that of all the proposals for reducing this effect, not one suggests that we just have too many people jammed into one small area of the country. In the same paper was an article describing a recent report stating that the contamination of the environment from automobile exhaust emissions causes more deaths from breathing problems that are caused by accidents. However because they are seldom seen as being directly connected to the environment, these deaths are rarely linked to this source of pollution.

There was also a long report noting that the Midwest region was heading towards a water shortage that would affect not only the drinking water supplies, but of even more universal importance, the water required to irrigate the crops. In almost every edition of our local paper there are smaller but equally significant reports of local water problems, ranging from failing wells to pollution of the supplies in certain areas. The signs are all around us and so easy to see. It is totally incomprehensible to understand why they are not recognized as the warning that our entire society is on the brink of a major catastrophe.

In the area of non-renewable resources there are other present shortages. For political and environmental reasons the electronics industry has been asked to eliminate lead from it’s solders. While working a few years ago on the development of "lead-free" solders, it soon became evident that some alloys were impractical because there was insufficient world supplies of certain metals. This triggered off a review of the known world resources, and it was surprising just how many will be exhausted in the not too distant future. Even our renewable resources can be permanently damaged if they are not used wisely, for example the forests of England and Scotland were being quickly cut down in the Middle Ages to provide timber for the new British Fleet and the charcoal required for the smelting of iron and steel. They were completely decimated and have never recovered.

At the present time there is no overall plan to limit the growth of the world’s population. The future of our civilization is relying on the philosophy that briefly states "As the standard of living and the degree of education in the various countries improves, the birthrate will automatically slow down". Perhaps this may eventually occur, and certainly at the present time it seems to be the only voluntary system that has any chance of success.

However this philosophy is largely unproven, and the predicted figure for the peak of the world’s population varies so much from one authority to another that it can be taken as nothing more than a "best guess". One study suggests that the population will peak at 9 billion in about another 70 years and will not start to decline until the 22^nd century. Another study suggests that it may stop growing in the next century. However another expert comments that "You can’t predict the future" and this appears to be the situation.

In the last 50 years the world’s population almost doubled to just over 6 billion people. The United Nations gave an assessment in 1998 that the world’s population would increase by a further 3 billion in the next 50 years. An expert from one of our most prestigious universities predicts that the world population will reach 12 billion before it begins to decline. He predicts that this eventual reduction in the world’s population will occur only because of shortages of food, fuel and other essential resources that will cause widespread deaths from famine.

Because of various religious and political pressures, the expected reduction from social changes may indeed never occur. For these very same reasons, in some countries, an improved standard of living may trigger off even larger families. Even if an increasing standard of living causing a reduction in the birth rate, by the time that the world’s population has stabilized it may have increased by at least a further 50%. The present level of population may well have already exceeded the total number of people that the world can support without permanently depleting some of our replaceable resources. We have to ask ourselves how we are going to support a further 3 billion or more people. As one Third World official told me, "We are heading for the worst famine the world has ever seen and there is nothing that we can do about it".

China is the only nation in the world that has taken any truly effective steps to hold their population in check. Their action caused an outcry from many other nations, but the Chinese authorities should have been applauded for recognizing the danger that was facing their country and taking appropriate action. Certainly they have at times used draconian methods to limit the number of children per family, but it is not easy to see what else they could have done. When visiting China I have never seen the hordes of sickly, hungry children that are so obvious in some of the neighboring countries. The children of China appeared healthy, educated and well cared for. In addition they were obviously loved and treasured as the caretakers of the country’s traditions and way of life. India has tried a more voluntary approach, offering men the equivalent of one year’s wages if they will submit to sterilization. I have been told that this has made very little difference to the overall birthrate, largely because of traditional and religious reasons.

Many other countries have made some attempts to hold their population in check, but to date they have had only limited and temporary success. There are so many practical and physiological reasons why large families can be desirable, and even more reasons for failing to take the necessary precautions to prevent conception. Efforts to date have been piecemeal and without an overall world plan. This has resulted in reductions in some areas that have been negated by an inrush of people from those areas where the population continues to increase unabated. This movement is inevitable as people struggle to improve their quality of life, but will almost certainly eventually trigger off antagonism and even physical violence as residents of a particular area experience a lowering of their standard of living because of the incoming flood of newcomers. We have already seen signs of such a conflict on the Mexican/USA border, where Mexican citizens risk their lives to illegally enter the United States and then work for minimal wages often under miserable conditions that are however much better than they could find in Mexico. Similar conditions apply to India and Pakistan, and their peoples can be found in menial jobs throughout the Middle East.

There has been no coordinated world effort to hold down population growth; indeed in some countries the people have been encouraged to produce large families, largely to provide support for a particular religious or political group or policy. It was recently reported that one African country was proposing that polygamy should be made legal so as to increase the number of births and thus the population. The Roman Catholic Church actively discourages birth control except by somewhat ineffective so called "natural" means. Without worldwide planning and agreement it is unlikely that we will ever achieve any permanent control of the world’s population. It will certainly never be realized until the consequences of overpopulation are described in plain terms and given the publicity that will take the message to all peoples everywhere.

Unfortunately the cause and effects of population growth involves such matters as birth control, sexuality, and other subjects that are generally not discussed openly. Religion and personal beliefs also color this entire matter and consequently it becomes difficult to review the subject objectively. One individual explained to me that the philosophy promoted by his religion is that a large family is perfectly natural and should be encouraged. He told me that "There is no need to be concerned, God will provide". Unfortunately as a visit to any of the third world countries will show, the only things that have been provided are hunger, sickness and misery.

Politics inevitably enter into the matter, as some leaders struggle for power and look to the support of the people through adopting the more popular beliefs. The final and in many respects the strongest opposition to controlling the world’s population comes indirectly from business and industry.

The current life style in most of the major industrial countries depends on capitalism, competition and a growing demand for the many products and services that we produce. For some years in the future this demand can be sustained by steadily improving the economy in many of the less advanced countries. However to maintain this growth eventually demands a constantly increasing number of consumers. This in turn will require a growing population. This then infers an increasing consumption of the world’s resources, and a subsequent increase in pollution. We are already seeing many signs that demand is outgrowing resources, and in spite of all of the efforts to control pollution it is a growing matter of concern in many of our major industrial and urban areas. With a greater understanding of the effects of pollution on our environment this is also fast becoming a rural problem. We can see clearly the immediate effects of pollution but the long term effects are not truly understood and may not be discovered until years into the future, when it may be too late to correct the resulting situation.

Competition has in the past proved an excellent method of allowing the best to survive, forcing business and industry to seek the most efficient methods of producing the products that their customers demand. However, as the raw materials that industry uses become scarcer, this system will not work. We are already seeing this in the oil industry, where the OPEC organization now controls the price of oil simply because their members own the major part of the world’s supplies. This form of monopolistic control will continue to grow, as the sources of other raw materials become scarcer. This is currently being accepted with respect to oil, but what happens as the supply becomes reduced still further and the price rises to $10 or even $20 per gallon. What happens when there is a similar shortage of food or clean water? Will the suppliers be permitted to charge whatever the market place will accept, even when people are starving?

When we consider all of these factors, it starts to become obvious that taking truly effective corrective actions to reduce or even control the world’s population will involve a total change in many of our cherished beliefs. Depending on the ultimate level at which the population can be stabilized, we may well see erosion of our freedom to live as we wish. When we see shortages of essential materials pushing prices beyond that which the ordinary family can afford, there will inevitably be a demand for rationing. This in turn will require very tight control of the storage and distributions of the materials in short supply. Inevitably this will bring about controls on how and where we can live and the curtailment of many other freedoms to which we have become accustomed. Many older people have seen examples of this happening during World War 2..

Who would have believed fifty years ago that we would be limited as to the fertilizer we are allowed to use on our lawns, the composition of the paints we use on our houses or the color of the bags in which we place our garbage? Twenty years ago I could burn the brush in my garden whenever the weather was suitable. Now I have to obtain a permit and call the local police before and after burning. Slowly our freedom to live as we wish is being eroded, to assure that we do not harm our neighbors or the environment. As the population of the world increases and more people are packed closer together these things are inevitable. We are steadily becoming enmeshed in a web of laws that are primarily intended to nurture and protect us, but inevitable take away our freedom to live as we wish.

So in summary we have done very little or nothing to even attempt to control the growing population of our world. Indeed we have pushed the subject aside as if it did not exist, or was of no concern. It is rarely if ever considered in our political deliberations or even mentioned in the press or on our TV programs. Certainly it can be an embarrassing and touchy subject as it strikes at the very heart of our society. The suggestion that families should restrict the number of their children runs contrary to many generally held views. It can also be damaging politically as it attacks so many popular emotions. However none of this will change until the facts are laid out in a simple and unbiased manner for open discussion.

We have refrained from taking action because of social, religious and political attitudes, and also because our present economic system is based on a growing consumption. Depending on the way we approach this problem in the future, we can look forward to a chaotic and cruel end to society, as we know it, or a longer and more tranquil, though more controlled existence. If we look at all the facts objectively and without prejudice or bias, it becomes obvious that disaster looms very close, and even if we take immediate action we may be too late to eliminate many of the dangers that await our civilization.

Even if we begin immediately to control the world’s population this will only be the beginning of several long and at times difficult tasks. First to calculate just how many people the world can maintain over the long term. This will demand that we consider the eventual life style that we will accept, and even more difficult, we will have to ask ourselves if we are "Our brother’s keeper". Are we prepared to lower our standard of living and ration our food so that other peoples can avoid starvation? Are we prepared to give up our personal transport so that food and other necessities can be delivered to the masses in other countries? These are not simple questions and the answers are even more complex. However these are questions that will eventually have to be answered. The need for all the peoples of this world to work together in harmony towards a common goal is without any doubt the most difficult aspect of the entire situation.

We must quickly and honestly meet together without nationalistic or other personal prejudice and agree on a plan to first halt the world’s population growth. Then we must work to reduce the number of people in the world to a level that can be sustained for the long term. If we cannot do this, then the alternative is too horrible to consider.