Jill Stanek makes the mistake of basing her argument on a document that directly contradicts her claim.
The article she links to is here
Stanek:
This was followed by a detailed report released last month that is quite shocking in its description of just how severe the world underpopulation crisis really is, particularly after we?ve been told the opposite for so long. I suspect the situation is worse than the report indicates, since the study was conducted by the very organization that was duped into causing this calamity in the first place.
Got that? An underpopulation crisis now.
But what does the UN say?:
The 2002 Revision confirms key conclusions from previous revisions. Despite the lower fertility levels projected and the increased mortality risks to which some populations will be subject, the population of the world is expected to increase by 2.6 billion during the next 47 years, from 6.3 billion today to 8.9 billion in 2050. However, the realization of these projections is contingent on ensuring that couples have access to family planning and that efforts to arrest the current spread of the HIV/AIDS epidemic are successful in reducing its growth momentum. The potential for considerable population increase remains high. According to the results of the 2002 Revision, if fertility were to remain constant in all countries at current levels, the total population of the globe could more than double by 2050, reaching 12.8 billion. Even a somewhat slower reduction of fertility than that projected in the medium variant would result in additional billions of people. Thus, if women were to have, on average, about half a child more than according to the medium variant, world population might rise to 10.6 billion in 2050 as projected in the high variant.
The other factor is that AIDs is having more of an impact than expected.
Whether Stanek is stupid or dishonest is left to the reader.
UP DATE: To make clear, I don’t buy catastrophic projections of population growth, but I do think the additional pressures from population are detrimental both environmentally and in terms of world stability. Addressing population growth in developing nations is important to maintain peace and avoid pressures due to overpopulation. She demonstrates no understanding of this and seems to believe the world population would be decreasing significantly. She only devotes on sentence to policy problems in the developed world.
That said, Stanek’s article is even worse when you read further down,
But there?s still more. Due to medical advances, and despite the AIDS epidemic, the world population is living longer. This is great, except elder care programs such as Social Security will be unsustainable because there won?t be enough of the younger generation to pay for them.
But never fear. The U.N. proposes the same solution for ?overpopulation? at the end of life as at the beginning, saying, "The proposal is that, if projected life expectancy at the country level turns out to consistently surpass 100 years for both sexes combined, a limit of 100 years will be imposed artificially? (page 35, #96).
For a glimpse of that future, rent the supposedly ?science fiction? 1973 movie classic, Soylent Green, this weekend.
One problem, she is quoting a passage from a section on how to calculate long range projections of mortality. It isn’t a policy prescription, it is a methodological note.
ArchPundit
