Comments on: It’s a Planet of Slums

By: OldStone50

OldStone50 — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:25:22 +0000

Comparison of "poverty" then and now requires that the measurement system be equivalent, something that is not indicated in either the blog or the comments celebrating "progress."

But the blog entry was not about poverty. It was about the increasing urbanization of human population and the consequent increasing use of energy. The increasing demand for cheap energy will make the transition into a non-carbon based energy system extremely difficult during a period of, yes still, exploding population size combined with imploding biological systems.

The danger of a positive feedback cycle among population size, energy demand and biological systems is very real and very imminent. Of those three elements, I estimate that the most manageable and most humane way to break the feedback would be intervention in population size. Unfortunately, just as anthropogenic greenhouse warming denialists persist, there are many shouters who deny that population size has any impact.

As the saying goes, "The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades."

By: OldStone50

OldStone50 — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 05:25:22 +0000

By: Cindy6

Cindy6 — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 20:44:27 +0000

The world is overpopulated. Without addressing this issue, every other effort at fixing the environment is futile. Malthus will be vindicated.

By: Suzi-Q

Suzi-Q — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:28:29 +0000

Robert Kaplan's The Coming Anarchy describes the social and environmental problems from mass urbanization in developing world.

By: hbobrien

hbobrien — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:10:57 +0000

To put it more simply, here's the ratio of poverty to non-poverty population in the world in 1975, in billions:

2/2

Here's the ratio today:

1.36/5.44

How can that be seen as anything other than progress?

By: hbobrien

hbobrien — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:00:37 +0000

This is why it’s rather absurd for many to carelessly assert now that the concerns expressed in the 1970’s, about the future of food, water, and health were largely unfounded. Unfounded? Really? A fifth of of the planet lives in poverty now. And not just mild poverty. A sixth of the planet lacks sufficient access to safe drinking water.

Hrm. This would mean your own estimate is 4/5 of the planet does not live in poverty, and that 5/6 do have access to safe drinking water.

According to the US Census Bureau, world population is at roughly 6.8 billion.

So, 5.44 billion do not live in poverty, and 5.67 billion have access to safe drinking water.

World population passed 4 billion in 1975. The World Bank, in its report "The Assault on World Poverty" released in 1975 (quoted here), estimated poverty to effect 2 billion -- or 50% of the world -- in that year.

Therefore, the number of people living in poverty has been cut by 640 million in absolute numbers, and the proportion living in poverty has been cut by 30 points, or 3/5.

Meanwhile, the number of people not living in poverty is 136% of the total world population of 1975, and appears to be 100% of the level of world population as recently as 1994, or 15 years ago. That's probably the shortest such time lag in history (ie, using poverty as a trailing indicator).

Has poverty been eliminated? No. But to discount the progress made since the 1970s would be, um... careless and absurd.