Skip to main content
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses

New Research In

Physical Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Applied Mathematics
  • Applied Physical Sciences
  • Astronomy
  • Computer Sciences
  • Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
  • Engineering
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Mathematics
  • Statistics

Social Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Economic Sciences
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Political Sciences
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Social Sciences

Biological Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Agricultural Sciences
  • Anthropology
  • Applied Biological Sciences
  • Biochemistry
  • Biophysics and Computational Biology
  • Cell Biology
  • Developmental Biology
  • Ecology
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Evolution
  • Genetics
  • Immunology and Inflammation
  • Medical Sciences
  • Microbiology
  • Neuroscience
  • Pharmacology
  • Physiology
  • Plant Biology
  • Population Biology
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Sustainability Science
  • Systems Biology
Letter

Population stabilization potential and its benefits underestimated

Jane N. O’Sullivan
PNAS February 10, 2015 112 (6) E507; first published January 23, 2015; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1422507112
Jane N. O’Sullivan
School of Agriculture and Food Sciences, University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: j.osullivan@uq.edu.au

This Letter has a Reply and related content. Please see:

  • Human population reduction is not a quick fix for environmental problems - October 27, 2014
  • Reply to O’Neill et al. and O’Sullivan: Fertility reduction will help, but only in the long term - January 23, 2015

See related content:

  • Plausible reductions in future population growth
    - Jan 23, 2015
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Bradshaw and Brook’s report “Human population reduction is not a quick fix for environmental problems” (1) argues that plausible efforts to reduce birth rates will make little difference to the course of human population this century. Although they emphasize that population reduction is highly desirable from an environmental perspective, and that greater support for voluntary fertility reduction is much needed, the authors argue that the benefits will be generations away.

However, apart from unfairly combining declines in fertility and mortality as if they are codependent, Bradshaw and Brook’s (1) global scenarios ignore the important impact of country-to-country variability. Holding current age-specific fertility and mortality rates constant would lead to a rapid increase in high-fertility countries’ share of the total population. Fertility reduction focused in these countries has a far greater impact on future population than the globally averaged course the authors project. This effect is evident in their own subregional projections. At the global level, Bradshaw and Brook’s (1) “business-as-usual” scenario (Scenario 1) is almost the same as the “realistic” scenario (Scenario 2a), in which global fertility falls slowly to 2.0 by 2100 but mortality also halves. In 2100, the scenarios reach 10.42 and 10.35 billion, respectively. However, when the same scenarios are applied to subregions, Bradshaw and Brook find “the final mean population densities [in 2100] were between 16% and 37% lower [for subregions in the 2a projection] … than those predicted assuming constant vital rates” (1). Given constant land area, this finding clearly contradicts the global result and the paper’s title. The sum of subregional populations, which can be calculated from tables S2 and S3 in ref. 1, are 14.5 billion for Scenario 1, and 9.8 billion for Scenario 2a, a difference of almost one-third. The difference would be even greater if the projections were done on national data rather than subregions: the United Nation’s “constant fertility” projection reaches 28 billion by 2100 (2).

Bradshaw and Brook (1) claim that fertility reduction is a solution from which only “our great-great-great-great-grandchildren might ultimately benefit.” This statement is belied by the enormous social and economic benefits that family-planning–adopting nations have experienced in one generation, compared with their nonadopting neighbors (3). Bradshaw and Brook (1) attribute the general lowering of fertility over past decades to rising affluence, education, and the empowerment of women. More accurately, “general” lowering is the result of rapid lowering in individual countries at different times as they adopted voluntary family-planning programs, averaged together with those who saw little decline because they did little. There can be little doubt that a renewed commitment to such voluntary programs could achieve below-replacement fertility globally, much sooner than Bradshaw and Brook consider realistic, with enormous benefits this century.

Thus, Bradshaw and Brook’s (1) paper seriously understates the hazard of our current population course, and underestimates the impact of fertility-reduction efforts. The authors clearly intend to reinforce the importance of population on total environmental impact, but the effect of this paper can only be perversely to diminish political will for family-planning efforts.

Footnotes

  • ↵1Email: j.osullivan{at}uq.edu.au.
  • Author contributions: J.N.O. wrote the paper.

  • The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Bradshaw CJA,
    2. Brook BW
    (2014) Human population reduction is not a quick fix for environmental problems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111(46):16610–16615
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division
    (2013) World Population Prospects: The 2012 Revision. (United Nations, New York). Available at esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/index.htm. Accessed January 12, 2015
    .
  3. ↵
    1. O’Sullivan JN
    (2013) Revisiting demographic transition: Correlation and causation in the rate of development and fertility decline. 27th International Population Conference, IUSSP, Busan, South Korea, August 26–31, 2013. Available at www.iussp.org/en/event/17/programme/paper/4775. Accessed January 12, 2015
    .
PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Population stabilization potential and its benefits underestimated
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Population stabilization potential underestimated
Jane N. O’Sullivan
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Feb 2015, 112 (6) E507; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1422507112

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Population stabilization potential underestimated
Jane N. O’Sullivan
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Feb 2015, 112 (6) E507; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1422507112
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 112 (6)
Table of Contents

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Article Classifications

  • Biological Sciences
  • Population Biology

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Surgeons hands during surgery
Inner Workings: Advances in infectious disease treatment promise to expand the pool of donor organs
Despite myriad challenges, clinicians see room for progress.
Image credit: Shutterstock/David Tadevosian.
Setting sun over a sun-baked dirt landscape
Core Concept: Popular integrated assessment climate policy models have key caveats
Better explicating the strengths and shortcomings of these models will help refine projections and improve transparency in the years ahead.
Image credit: Witsawat.S.
Double helix
Journal Club: Noncoding DNA shown to underlie function, cause limb malformations
Using CRISPR, researchers showed that a region some used to label “junk DNA” has a major role in a rare genetic disorder.
Image credit: Nathan Devery.
Steamboat Geyser eruption.
Eruption of Steamboat Geyser
Mara Reed and Michael Manga explore why Yellowstone's Steamboat Geyser resumed erupting in 2018.
Listen
Past PodcastsSubscribe
Multi-color molecular model
Enzymatic breakdown of PET plastic
A study demonstrates how two enzymes—MHETase and PETase—work synergistically to depolymerize the plastic pollutant PET.
Image credit: Aaron McGeehan (artist).

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Special Feature Articles – Most Recent
  • List of Issues

PNAS Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science
  • Teaching Resources

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Librarians
  • Press
  • Site Map
  • PNAS Updates

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490