Technology vs. overpopulation

I’ve said it many times before: the crisis that will come determine the survival of the human race is the overpopulation crisis. The Earth has a finite “carrying capacity,” which we are coming closer and closer to with each passing day. Experts predict that in 2030 the world population will be 8.3 billion, and we are going to see serious shortages of food, water, and energy. Unless we can somehow manage to figure out how to more efficiently manage our resources or find more efficient ways of obtaining the resources we need, these shortages may result in complete economic and social collapse, possibly even the death of our race. What scares me (and many other people) most is the fact that 2030, when we will really have to face this crisis, is only 20 years away. In two decades—the blink of an eye, really—we will be faced with a crisis that could have disastrous results if mishandled.

But, strangely, a few people are incredibly confident about the whole thing. Why? They hold that though population increasing exponentially, so is technology. Soon, these optimists hold, technologies will be available that can solve the population crisis and increase the Earth’s carrying capacity. But is this simply misguided optimism? After all, since WWI we have seen that technology is often the cause of many problems, not the solution. Besides, is 20 years really enough time to solve a problem of such scope?

My answer is a very definite “sort of.” I suspect that technology will soften the blow, especially because technologies that will help us will be promoted over the next 20 years as the threat of food riots and economic collapse looms overhead. But I doubt that technology will not come close to fully solving the problem, for technological reasons, social ones, and economic ones.

The technological reason is simple: there just isn’t enough time. Granted, technological increase is exponential. But can we really find an unlimited source of food, an easier method of desalination, cheap energy, and a solution to air pollution in a mere 20 years, let alone implement these ideas in time? In order to develop the necessary technology, lots and lost of government-sponsored research is needed—and let’s face it, with the economy less and less of that is happening. Even if there is a space race-like surge in research, there is no guarantee that it will pay off.

Next, remember that the technology not only has to be available, it has to be cheap. For example, mass exodus to a moon colony is possible but wildly impractical because of the exorbitant cost. The same can be said for concepts such as vertical farming (farming in buildings) or similar urban farming projects. Water desalination is also economically unfeasible—we have the facilities and technology to distill more than enough seawater to meet our needs, but we cannot do it cheaply enough to make it economically viable.

Lastly, there is a social dimension to this crisis that could hinder efforts to resolve it. For example, environmentalists are opposed to genetically manipulated crops, which could prevent their widespread use. This social dimension is hard to measure, but until the populace realizes how dire the situation is I believe it will hinder efforts to solve the crisis. 

The final word is this: the crisis is coming. Technology can help us, but it won’t solve all of our problems.