The most overpopulated nation.

PIP: A stable population in the US in 1943 would have resulted in just 135 million people today making the import of foreign oil unnecessary. A population exerts an impact on the environment based on 3 factors: the size of the population (P), the level of per capita consumption or affluence (A), and the measure of the impact of technology (T). In the US the P factor is huge: 250 million people. The sum of A and T factors (per-capita environmental impact) is 1 1/2 times that of the Soviet Union, twice that of Britain, Sweden, France, or Australia, 14 times that of China, and 40 times that of India. Americans burn 1/4 of the world's fossil fuels spewing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and use chlorofluorocarbons extensively that also add to the greenhouse effect and deplete the vital ozone shield. The key to civilization's survival is the reduction of the P, A, and T factors. In rich nations this can be accomplished by much more efficient use of energy and transition toward negative population growth. The best strategy is the Holdren scenario: rich countries would reduce their per capita energy use from almost 8 kilowatts to 3 kilowatts. In poor countries, per capita use would increase from 1.2 to 3 kilowatts resulting in the same standard of living at the end of a century. To prevent longterm deterioration it will be necessary to reduce population size substantially below 10 billion. The optimum population size of the US would be around 75 million people, a permanently sustainable nation with a high quality of life.^ieng

The population explosion. Why isn't everyone as scared as we are?

PIP: Outreproducing other members of your population is the very basis of natural selection and is the driving force in the evolutionary process, however against taboo discussing over population must be discarded in order to avoid millions of people prematurely dying of hunger and disease and to maintain an environmental balance. The public mentality must be of awareness, humane action, and success in lowering population below the death rate in a very short time. The failure to do so provides fertile ground for warfare, environmental degradation, poverty, racism, religious prejudice, or sexism. America and other rich nations will experience more frequent droughts, damaged crops and famines, dying forests, smog, international conflicts, epidemics, gridlock, drugs, and crime. The authors describe the nature of the population problem and the problem of inaction in dealing with population growth. We swerve within seconds, when confronted with a car in our path, we are outraged at the Alaska oil spill for a few months, yet there is no perception of the danger of a world population growth of 7% in 4 years. Most of the world's population doubt that there are compelling reasons to halt population growth. There are dramatic ways to represent this growth and examples are given. A world population of 10 billion is just around the corner. The environmental problems looming ahead are far greater than anything confronted in the 1960s. Global warming, which leads to droughts and crop failures, and flooding, acid rain, depletion of the ozone layer, vulnerability to epidemics, and exhaustion of soils and groundwater are all related to population growth. Nature will solve the population problem if people do not choose birth control. Those people preventing population control are unaware that early death from widespread famines or epidemics will solve the problem. Scientists belonging to the Club of Earth in 1988 and participating in the international scientific forum, Global Change, in 1989, are aware of population growth's contribution to catastrophe. Media coverage is weak, but major attention is focused on Pope Paul's antibirth-control encyclicals which are an important barrier to solutions. Theoretical positions about the potential availability of food for 40 billion belies the current realities of maldistribution and the management issues in redistribution of foods.^ieng

Long-term biological consequences of nuclear war.

Subfreezing temperatures, low light levels, and high doses of ionizing and ultraviolet radiation extending for many months after a large-scale nuclear war could destroy the biological support systems of civilization, at least in the Northern Hemisphere. Productivity in natural and agricultural ecosystems could be severely restricted for a year or more. Postwar survivors would face starvation as well as freezing conditions in the dark and be exposed to near-lethal doses of radiation. If, as now seems possible, the Southern Hemisphere were affected also, global disruption of the biosphere could ensue. In any event, there would be severe consequences, even in the areas not affected directly, because of the interdependence of the world economy. In either case the extinction of a large fraction of the Earth's animals, plants, and microorganisms seems possible. The population size of Homo sapiens conceivably could be reduced to prehistoric levels or below, and extinction of the human species itself cannot be excluded.