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
Reply

Reply to O’Neill et al. and O’Sullivan: Fertility reduction will help, but only in the long term

Corey J. A. Bradshaw and Barry W. Brook
PNAS February 10, 2015 112 (6) E508-E509; first published January 23, 2015; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1423102112
Corey J. A. Bradshaw
aThe Environment Institute and School of Biological Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: corey.bradshaw@adelaide.edu.au
Barry W. Brook
bSchool of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, Engineering & Technology, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS 7005, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site

This article has Letters. Please see:

  • Plausible reductions in future population growth and implications for the environment - January 23, 2015
  • Population stabilization potential and its benefits underestimated - January 23, 2015

See related content:

  • No quick fix to reduce human population size
    - Oct 27, 2014
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

O’Neill et al. (1) and O’Sullivan (2) argue that the results of our global population scenarios (3) are not credible. Here we demonstrate that their arguments are peripheral and that our conclusions are robust.

Both O’Neill et al. (1) and O’Sullivan (2) overlook that the demographic rates we used were not raw, global averages. O’Neill et al.’s (1) claim that our model “treats all people in the world as identical” is incorrect. Instead, we applied population size-weighted averages of the rates across the 14 WHO-CHOICE regions (www.who.int/choice). Thus, both the survival and fertility rates we used for the global projections reflect regional demographic trends. To demonstrate why this is essential, the example of Nigeria (1) is telling. Treating this country independently would yield an implausible projection of nearly 2 billion Nigerians by 2100 (175 million people today at 2.8% annual growth).

O’Sullivan’s (2) recommendation that we should have used country-specific demographic data suggests a lack of awareness of the state of demographic datasets. For example, many countries, especially large-population developing nations, report no age-specific (yearly) vital rates. Even if such data existed, it would be an assumption-laden exercise to link each country’s projection to all others via cross-migration. As we mention in our paper (3), migration remains one of the most difficult parameters to forecast for the future human population (4).

As O’Neill et al. (1) point out, had we not accounted for regional variation in demographic rates via the weighting procedure, the projected population size would have been around 20 billion (1, 5). In fact, our business-as-usual deterministic projection to 2100 (10.4 billion; see figure 1A in ref. 3) closely matched the median of 10.9 billion predicted by the United Nations (5) and falls within the revised range projected by one of the commenter’s (P.G. of the letter in ref. 1) own models (9.6–12.3 billion) (6). Clearly, our baseline models are therefore as realistic as any existing demographic model for the aggregate global human population.

O’Sullivan’s (2) critique that our regional sums are greater than the global model’s projections is irrelevant because it ignores the weightings; it is a demographic tautology that the regional sums will exceed the aggregate (weighted) model’s projection. As we emphasize in our paper (3), the purpose of the regional projections was merely to provide a relative rank for those areas of the Earth where biodiversity would likely be most threatened, as indicated by human population pressures on global Biodiversity Hotspots (7).

More importantly, both O’Neill et al. (1) and O’Sullivan (2) disregarded our statement that the scenarios were not intended to predict total population size. Rather, our principal goal was to test the sensitivity of human population projections to adjustments in fertility and survival through various “storylines.” In other words, the final population sizes that arise from our models, although realistic in comparison with existing projections, are not predictions; they are instead principally useful as comparative demographic futures. As such, O’Neill et al.’s (1) complaint that our scenarios are “arbitrary” is of no consequence: we designed them to be illustrative of a broad range of possible outcomes.

O’Neill et al. (1) also claim that our assumed future reduction in mortality will have “substantial effects on population growth” compared with one where juvenile and adult mortality trends are decoupled. The authors are incorrect. We reran our Scenario 2a by maintaining the halving of juvenile mortality to 2100, but instead invoking only a one-quarter reduction in mortality of older ages, to emulate a more heavily tapered change in demographic rates that were already low. This approach resulted in a population size in 2100 of 9.79 billion [a difference of 5.4% compared with the outcome of Scenario 2a in the original paper (3)]. Compared with the larger fertility-reduction scenarios (e.g., worldwide one-child policy: Scenario 3), this aspect makes little difference. Similarly, removing the redistribution of fertility to older age classes from Scenario 2a (all other parameters identical) changed the 2100 population size by only 0.1% (10.36 vs. 10.35 billion). The critique that we “unfairly” combined declines in mortality and fertility (2) is also demonstrably false: the mean correlation between total fertility (children/female) and juvenile (<5 y) mortality (per 1,000 live births) from 1970 to 2012 (data available from gapminder.org) for a sample of 24 representative countries (Argentina, Botswana, Brazil, Cameroon, China, Colombia, Ethiopia, Guatemala, India, Japan, Liberia, Malawi, Mexico, Mozambique, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Russia, United Republic of Tanzania, Thailand, Uganda, Zimbabwe) was 0.86 ± 0.19 (SD; Pearson’s correlation coefficient).

Contrary to O’Neill et al.’s (1) claim, we did include a midrange fertility reduction to 2.0 children per female by 2020 (see Discussion in ref. 3), which gave 0.78 billion fewer people globally by 2050 than the business-as-usual scenario. However, such midrange scenarios of 1.5 children per female are practically irrelevant given the original conclusion that even a one-child policy would not, in itself, produce environmentally sustainable outcomes by 2100.

It is worth reiterating that our paper (3) advocates explicitly for a greater global emphasis on fertility reduction via humane family planning, However, our main conclusion—which has not been altered by these critiques—is that over the next century at least, our largest and most immediate gains in sustainability will necessarily come from reductions in per capita consumption, whereas the benefits of fertility reduction will improve humanity’s prospects cumulatively over the long term. It is all a question of where society can have the biggest sustainability bang for its social engineering buck in the near term. In this context, although the population-related reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions suggested by O’Neill et al. (1) might be plausible, they will be small relative to the extensive decarbonization that could be achieved through social and technological innovation. If human population size is an elephant in the room, there are even bigger pachyderms roaming through the house.

Our conclusions are therefore robust and remain valid.

Footnotes

  • ↵1To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: corey.bradshaw{at}adelaide.edu.au.
  • Author contributions: C.J.A.B. and B.W.B. designed research; C.J.A.B. and B.W.B. performed research; C.J.A.B. analyzed data; and C.J.A.B. and B.W.B. wrote the paper.

  • The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. ↵
    1. O’Neill BC,
    2. Jiang L,
    3. Gerland P
    (2015) Plausible reductions in future population growth and implications for the environment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112:E506
    .
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. O'Sullivan JN
    (2015) Population stabilization potential and its benefits underestimated. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112:E507
    .
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    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
  4. ↵
    1. Cohen JE
    (2003) Human population: The next half century. Science 302(5648):1172–1175
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. United Nations
    (2013) World Population Prospects: The 2012 Revision, Key Findings and Advance Tables. Working Paper No. ESA/P/WP.227 (United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, New York)
    .
  6. ↵
    1. Gerland P, et al.
    (2014) World population stabilization unlikely this century. Science 346(6206):234–237
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Myers N,
    2. Mittermeier RA,
    3. Mittermeier CG,
    4. da Fonseca GAB,
    5. Kent J
    (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403(6772):853–858
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
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.
Reply to O’Neill et al. and O’Sullivan: Fertility reduction will help, but only in the long term
(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
Humans are too many to reduce quickly
Corey J. A. Bradshaw, Barry W. Brook
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Feb 2015, 112 (6) E508-E509; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1423102112

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Humans are too many to reduce quickly
Corey J. A. Bradshaw, Barry W. Brook
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Feb 2015, 112 (6) E508-E509; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1423102112
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
Birds nestling on tree branches
Parent–offspring conflict in songbird fledging
Some songbird parents might improve their own fitness by manipulating their offspring into leaving the nest early, at the cost of fledgling survival, a study finds.
Image credit: Gil Eckrich (photographer).

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