Journalists like sensationalism and, when they find the opportunity, they seem to relish the prospect of warning us that Armageddon is approaching. Demography seems to be a topic particularly ripe for this kind of hyperbole, though few journalists seem aware that demography is an academic discipline or that there are quite a few people out there who might be able to provide expert comment on population related news items.
The other day The Guardian published a piece entitled “How to save the planet? Stop having children.” This piece, like many other before it, concentrated on headline grabbing, even though the body of the article included the more balanced view of a Professor of Environment and Society. The frustrating thing is that the demographic facts and figures contained within the article weren’t even up to date. The Guardian had gone straight to Population Matters (a pressure group) followed by an academic, but hadn’t stopped to ask an actual demographer. Consequently, they reported a UK fertility rate which is 10 years out of date; they also reported that world population will reach 9bn and stabilise by 2050, which is a direct contradiction to their headline from September reporting “World population to hit 11bn in 2100 – with 70% chance of continuous rise”. Meanwhile, the comments showed that this topic will always stir strong – and often irrational – feelings in the general public. Suggestions for solving the “population problem” ranged from Ebola through generally increasing the mortality rate in Africa to a worldwide one child policy.
The centrepiece of the most recent Guardian article seems to be some anecdotal evidence from some people who don’t want many children and a YouGov survey, which indicated some support for the idea that people in the UK should have no more than two children. However, people in the UK don’t have more than two children on average. In fact the fertility rate is 1.9 and 75% of fertility in the UK is accounted for by first and second births. The main reason the UK population keeps growing is actually net migration. Given that the fertility rate is actually lower than would be required for the population to replace itself, the remaining growth is actually a result of the age structure of the female population. Admittedly, the YouGov poll also found that 54% of respondents wanted to reduce immigration.
It should also be pointed out that the poll was commissioned by the pressure group Population Matters (formerly the Optimum Population Trust) and thus it might not have produced the most unbiased results. For example, how many people would directly support coercive population control such as China’s one child policy? The Guardian quotes a GP who thinks we wouldn’t need to be coercive to reduce the number of children to replacement level, but since the UK has long since reached replacement level on average, it seems unlikely that just talking about it will dissuade the minority who choose to have more than two children.
It is rather unclear whether The Guardian or Population Matters are really worried about UK population or world population. Given that UK population is driven by migration I think it is fair to say that consumption is the real issue here. In the UK we release 7.7 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere per person per year. In Burundi, where fertility is about 6.4 children per woman they release just 0.02 tonnes per person per year. In other words they have three times as many children, but we release over 300 times the amount of CO2.
Substantial population growth in Africa is a cause for concern, of course, but it is hardly news. Indeed, even if fertility throughout Africa instantly reduced to replacement level there would still be 75% more people by 2100. Of course projections suggest that the increase will be closer to 300%. The point is that continuous population growth in Africa until well after 2100 has long been a virtual guarantee thanks to population momentum. Not that I’m suggesting for a moment that we shouldn’t also concentrate on providing free and easy access to contraception. However, only a disaster – or disasters – on an unprecedented scale will prevent population increase now, so we need to innovate and find sustainable ways to cope rather than panicking.
The magnitude of the disaster required to halt the increasing population is something else poorly understood by the general public who seem to think that Ebola has already wiped out substantial portions of the West African populous; however, the estimated 4,900 dead so far will be made up for by natural increase of the world’s population in little more than half an hour. Even in the worst case scenario it is unlikely that the number of deaths will be equivalent to more than three or four days’ worth of natural increase. The effect of these events at a local level can be catastrophic, but the march of worldwide population increase will continue unabated.
Ultimately, population increase is an important issue, which should be discussed widely. However, the debate could do with an injection of properly researched facts and figures and without the media hype. Last year, Gapminder conducted a survey about ignorance of global population trends in the UK. They found, amongst other things, that nearly 90% of those surveyed thought that women in Bangladesh have at least 3.5 children and that almost 60% thought they had at least 4.5 children. In fact, fertility in Bangladesh is now just 2.3, which is barely above replacement level. The Guardian is also capable of some balance, as it recently published a comment piece entitled, “It’s not overpopulation that causes climate change, it’s overconsumption: Africa’s population growth is often linked to ecological risk – yet the real danger lies in the west’s infinite appetite for resources.”
However, sifting through UK newspapers news coverage and comment pieces concerning population it is incredibly rare to find any comments by demographers. This seems odd, when demography is the academic study of population. The BBC did help produce a wonderful documentary called “Don’t Panic – The Truth About Population”, which was based around the findings of the aforementioned Gapminder survey of ignorance.
So, don’t panic – let’s work together to dispel myths about demography and population. And, if you get the chance, try to educate a journalist, even if it’s just by pointing them in the direction of Hans Rosling YouTube videos.
About the Author
Dr Melanie Channon (Frost) is a Research Fellow at the Oxford Institute of Population Ageing, working on the Collen Programme. Melanie is a trained demographer and social statistician, and her primary areas of research interest are the drivers of fertility transition in developing countries, son preference, and gender statistics. She has expertise in the demography of both Asia and Africa, with a focus on Nepal and South Asia.
Opinions of the blogger is their own and not endorsed by the Institute
Comments Welcome: We welcome your comments on this or any of the Institute's blog posts. Please feel free to email comments to be posted on your behalf to administrator@ageing.ox.ac.uk or use the Disqus facility linked below.
