What do you think?
Rate this book
Population 10 Billion
An in depth examination of the impact that a global population of 10 billion will have on the planet and how we will have to adapt to cope with it.
Before May 2011 the top demographics experts of the United Nations had suggested that world population would peak at 9.1 billion in 2100, and then fall to 8.5 billion people by 2150. In contrast, the 2011 revision suggested that 9.1 billion would be achieved much earlier, maybe by 2050 or before, and by 2100 there would be 10.1 billion of us. What's more, they implied that global human population might still be slightly rising in our total numbers a century from now. So what shall we do? Are there too many people on the planet? Is this the end of life as we know it?
Distinguished geographer Professor Danny Dorling thinks we should not worry so much and that, whatever impending doom may be around the corner, we will deal with it when it comes. In a series of fascinating chapters he charts the rise of the human race from its origins to its end-point of population 10 billion. Thus he shows that while it took until about 1988 to reach 5 billion we reached 6 billion by 2000, 7 billion eleven years later and will reach 8 billion by 2025.
By recording how we got here, Dorling is able to show us the key issues that we face in the coming decades: how we will deal with scarcity of resources; how our cities will grow and become more female; why the change that we should really prepare for is the population decline that will occur after 10 billion.
Population 10 Billion is a major work by one of the world's leading geographers and will change the way you think about the future. Packed full of counter-intuitive ideas and observations, this book is a tool kit to prepare for the future and to help us ask the right questions
Before May 2011 the top demographics experts of the United Nations had suggested that world population would peak at 9.1 billion in 2100, and then fall to 8.5 billion people by 2150. In contrast, the 2011 revision suggested that 9.1 billion would be achieved much earlier, maybe by 2050 or before, and by 2100 there would be 10.1 billion of us. What's more, they implied that global human population might still be slightly rising in our total numbers a century from now. So what shall we do? Are there too many people on the planet? Is this the end of life as we know it?
Distinguished geographer Professor Danny Dorling thinks we should not worry so much and that, whatever impending doom may be around the corner, we will deal with it when it comes. In a series of fascinating chapters he charts the rise of the human race from its origins to its end-point of population 10 billion. Thus he shows that while it took until about 1988 to reach 5 billion we reached 6 billion by 2000, 7 billion eleven years later and will reach 8 billion by 2025.
By recording how we got here, Dorling is able to show us the key issues that we face in the coming decades: how we will deal with scarcity of resources; how our cities will grow and become more female; why the change that we should really prepare for is the population decline that will occur after 10 billion.
Population 10 Billion is a major work by one of the world's leading geographers and will change the way you think about the future. Packed full of counter-intuitive ideas and observations, this book is a tool kit to prepare for the future and to help us ask the right questions
448 pages, Paperback
First published June 11, 2013
About the author
Danny Dorling
68 books98 followersDanny Dorling is a British social geographer researching inequality and human geography. He is the Halford Mackinder Professor of Geography of the School of Geography and the Environment of the University of Oxford.
Danny Dorling has lived all his life in England. To try to counter his myopic world view, in 2006, Danny started working with a group of researchers on a project to remap the world (www.worldmapper.org).
He has published with many colleagues more than a dozen books on issues related to social inequalities in Britain and several hundred journal papers. Much of this work is available open access and will be added to this website soon.
His work concerns issues of housing, health, employment, education and poverty. Danny was employed as a play-worker in children’s summer play-schemes. He learnt the ethos of pre-school education where the underlying rationale was that playing is learning for living. He tries not to forget this. He is an Academician of the Academy of the Learned Societies in the Social Sciences, Honorary President of the Society of Cartographers and a patron of Roadpeace, the national charity for road crash victims.
Danny Dorling has lived all his life in England. To try to counter his myopic world view, in 2006, Danny started working with a group of researchers on a project to remap the world (www.worldmapper.org).
He has published with many colleagues more than a dozen books on issues related to social inequalities in Britain and several hundred journal papers. Much of this work is available open access and will be added to this website soon.
His work concerns issues of housing, health, employment, education and poverty. Danny was employed as a play-worker in children’s summer play-schemes. He learnt the ethos of pre-school education where the underlying rationale was that playing is learning for living. He tries not to forget this. He is an Academician of the Academy of the Learned Societies in the Social Sciences, Honorary President of the Society of Cartographers and a patron of Roadpeace, the national charity for road crash victims.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
June 22, 2014
Very interesting read. It is probably one of the most realistic book out there written on the subject matter. There is no scare tactics in this book. Just rational speculation on what we need to do to cope with the future. I wish there are more books like that out there, giving people a realistic view on the kind of economy we live in now and how we can live better by being less selfish, having less money, working less but living more.
April 20, 2016
It's rare that I will give a book I fundamentally agree with such a low rating, but in this case it was necessary. It reads like a first "throw everything down on the page" draft; it could and should have been half the length, with some free and pointed use of the editor's pen. The structure of the book could have worked, with chapter for each additional billion people on earth, but it practice it is a pointless conceit. The chapters and subchapters themselves jump around from topic to topic, with very thin narrative or thematic threads to sustain coherence (and my attention...). This aspect of the book could have done with serious editing.
A related issue is when Dorling refers to areas outside his own area of expertise (which is frequently, given the broader implications that population growth has), he is too often content to resort to ad hominem dismissals on the one hand, and appeals to authority to justify his own - apparently unexamined - assumptions. This is a problem, as I enjoy reading a book where someone ventures outside their speciality, and learn things that surprise them. It's a sign of a curious mind. A topic such as this is profoundly political, which is to say it is contested. Right answers are rarely to be found in such contexts, and more often it's a matter of trade-offs and discussion. There should have been more of this.
As to the evidence referred to in the book, we could do without being subjected to comments from below the line on HuffPo or the Guardian, but it was not to be. Dorling, referencing Hans Rosling, calls himself a practical possibilist, and this is a stance I think a lot of people would be in much agreement with. We may have to wait until Hans Rosling himself writes a book from this perspective.
A related issue is when Dorling refers to areas outside his own area of expertise (which is frequently, given the broader implications that population growth has), he is too often content to resort to ad hominem dismissals on the one hand, and appeals to authority to justify his own - apparently unexamined - assumptions. This is a problem, as I enjoy reading a book where someone ventures outside their speciality, and learn things that surprise them. It's a sign of a curious mind. A topic such as this is profoundly political, which is to say it is contested. Right answers are rarely to be found in such contexts, and more often it's a matter of trade-offs and discussion. There should have been more of this.
As to the evidence referred to in the book, we could do without being subjected to comments from below the line on HuffPo or the Guardian, but it was not to be. Dorling, referencing Hans Rosling, calls himself a practical possibilist, and this is a stance I think a lot of people would be in much agreement with. We may have to wait until Hans Rosling himself writes a book from this perspective.
August 20, 2017
3.5, rounding up to 4 stars. It's nice to see some optimism in science, and this book made me think about population in ways that I hadn't before. I found a lot of it to be convincing - the point about immigration contributing positively to a decline in population growth makes absolute sense, for instance. And I enjoy that Dorling takes a wider perspective in some areas, for example in his discussion of economic inequality (aka The Spirit Level argument). That said he gets a bit misty-eyed when it comes to children. Oh, we can't blame children, it's all the stupid adults! Well, yes, but children require clean water as well as adults, and regardless of fault. Oh, but children contribute to the sum of human happiness! Which doesn't mean squat to the species going extinct because they're being crowded out of habitat.
This is a very human-centric book, is what I'm saying. There is some small acknowledgement that we share the Earth with other species, but not much care about what happens to them as long as we're alright. And while Dorling's point about resource use vs. population is well-taken, he seems to me over-optimistic in the idea that we'll find a happy medium of ecological responsibility. (I note that the copy of the book that I'm reading says nothing about being printed on FSC approved paper, for instance.)
This is a very human-centric book, is what I'm saying. There is some small acknowledgement that we share the Earth with other species, but not much care about what happens to them as long as we're alright. And while Dorling's point about resource use vs. population is well-taken, he seems to me over-optimistic in the idea that we'll find a happy medium of ecological responsibility. (I note that the copy of the book that I'm reading says nothing about being printed on FSC approved paper, for instance.)
March 2, 2014
Overall very informative and interesting reading, but definitely somewhat longer than it needs to be. The same arguments and facts could easily have been fit into a book of half this length. I found the style of inserting direct quotations into the text, with attributions only in the end notes, tends to disrupt the flow and makes much of the content less coherent. It's also probably the biggest factor influencing the length of the book.
Political conservatives will dislike the overtly anti-conservative tone, but to me it's just a case of a book about reality reflecting reality's well-known liberal bias.
Political conservatives will dislike the overtly anti-conservative tone, but to me it's just a case of a book about reality reflecting reality's well-known liberal bias.
January 9, 2021
Inciteful book on how or if we do reach 10 billion, maybe we'll reach that number at a different stage but helpful to prepare for the worst
June 13, 2021
"It is time to give a politics of reasonableness a chance, to stop the politics of purge from ushering in the calamity it purports to avoid."
I did not finish this book. The introduction was really relevant to the title and was great for me in debunking many myths about population growth. After that I made it 200 more pages but it was essentially a somewhat entertaining rant about a variety of very unrelated topics. I would love to have a conversation with the author but I can't read anymore of a book that has no logical flow from one point to the next.
Learning points below:
It turns out that since the 1980s growth has been slowing. Overall the world still has above replacement levels of growth but this is largely due to countries in Africa still developing. From year 1 to 1000 AD human growth was relatively stable and did not reach 1 billion until the year 1820, but the 2nd billion was achieved by 1926 (in this time the use of condoms was began but was expensive) and the population rates in rich countries was beginning to fall, then the third billion by 1960 and the year the COCP was invented. By 1988 there were 5 billion people and the fear began about how many more we would have. If these numbers continued at this pre millennial rate, by 2200 there would be 1.77 trillion humans and by 2300 133 trillion.
There is a strong correlation between female education levels and lower fertility rates and so with Communist China economically invading Africa fertility rates should fall from the 4.3 they are currently at.
The UN estimates that between 2050 and 2100 our population should peak at 10 billion and then fall. Already in Europe fertility rates are 1.4, well below a replacement rate of at least 2.1, India is 2.2, China is 1.3, US is 1.8. This means that Europe actually has need of the immigrants they start a Brexit for, otherwise who will support their economy as their population ages? If it is population control they are worried about then it would be interesting to inform them that people take on the fertility rates of the countries they move to and so increased immigration will actually further slow human growth.
Population growth isn't the problem, consumption is.
Between 1980 and 2000 houses increased by 40% but average people per household dropped. In 1900s Chinese people lived in over 3000 per mile, compared with 60 per mile in the US.
Fortunately consumption peaks in the richest countries already started to decline before the financial crisis: oil, water, food(!), Fertiliser but not fashion
Shops employ 1 person per 50k annual pounds while supermarkets employ 1 per 250k. Supermarkets increase unemployment by a factor of 5
Proletariat - people whose only wealth is their children.
In rich countries most people can only last 13 weeks on average before their wealth runs out after redundancy
World GDP in 2011 70 trillion. If this was divided by 7 billion each person would only have $10000 each per year. In actual fact, 1% of people have 40% of all assets. But to be in the top 10% you need to have an annual household income of $40k NZ or $80k in assets. If you are above these numbers but below $80k per year and $700k in assets you are likely disillusioned, feeling poor in affluent neighborhoods.
But even in the top 1% the inequality is worse than the other percentiles, of these 70 million in 2013 only 1/7 are US millionaires, mostly tied up in assets or pensions. 100000 of these have assets worth more than $70mil nz.
I'm 2012 there would 1226 billionaires and now in 2021 there are 2755 the US holding 724 and China 698
"Capital is dead labour which, vampire-like, only lives by sucking living labour"
Karl Marx
I did not finish this book. The introduction was really relevant to the title and was great for me in debunking many myths about population growth. After that I made it 200 more pages but it was essentially a somewhat entertaining rant about a variety of very unrelated topics. I would love to have a conversation with the author but I can't read anymore of a book that has no logical flow from one point to the next.
Learning points below:
It turns out that since the 1980s growth has been slowing. Overall the world still has above replacement levels of growth but this is largely due to countries in Africa still developing. From year 1 to 1000 AD human growth was relatively stable and did not reach 1 billion until the year 1820, but the 2nd billion was achieved by 1926 (in this time the use of condoms was began but was expensive) and the population rates in rich countries was beginning to fall, then the third billion by 1960 and the year the COCP was invented. By 1988 there were 5 billion people and the fear began about how many more we would have. If these numbers continued at this pre millennial rate, by 2200 there would be 1.77 trillion humans and by 2300 133 trillion.
There is a strong correlation between female education levels and lower fertility rates and so with Communist China economically invading Africa fertility rates should fall from the 4.3 they are currently at.
The UN estimates that between 2050 and 2100 our population should peak at 10 billion and then fall. Already in Europe fertility rates are 1.4, well below a replacement rate of at least 2.1, India is 2.2, China is 1.3, US is 1.8. This means that Europe actually has need of the immigrants they start a Brexit for, otherwise who will support their economy as their population ages? If it is population control they are worried about then it would be interesting to inform them that people take on the fertility rates of the countries they move to and so increased immigration will actually further slow human growth.
Population growth isn't the problem, consumption is.
Between 1980 and 2000 houses increased by 40% but average people per household dropped. In 1900s Chinese people lived in over 3000 per mile, compared with 60 per mile in the US.
Fortunately consumption peaks in the richest countries already started to decline before the financial crisis: oil, water, food(!), Fertiliser but not fashion
Shops employ 1 person per 50k annual pounds while supermarkets employ 1 per 250k. Supermarkets increase unemployment by a factor of 5
Proletariat - people whose only wealth is their children.
In rich countries most people can only last 13 weeks on average before their wealth runs out after redundancy
World GDP in 2011 70 trillion. If this was divided by 7 billion each person would only have $10000 each per year. In actual fact, 1% of people have 40% of all assets. But to be in the top 10% you need to have an annual household income of $40k NZ or $80k in assets. If you are above these numbers but below $80k per year and $700k in assets you are likely disillusioned, feeling poor in affluent neighborhoods.
But even in the top 1% the inequality is worse than the other percentiles, of these 70 million in 2013 only 1/7 are US millionaires, mostly tied up in assets or pensions. 100000 of these have assets worth more than $70mil nz.
I'm 2012 there would 1226 billionaires and now in 2021 there are 2755 the US holding 724 and China 698
"Capital is dead labour which, vampire-like, only lives by sucking living labour"
Karl Marx
October 14, 2018
I bought a few of Danny Dorling's books on my e-reader after listening to him on podcasts. He has some interesting points, but to be honest his writing isn't compelling to me. It can be hard to follow as sometimes it seems like jumbled ideas lumped together, and at other times, it is just pretty boring to read. I think he has some great points to make - I know he has made excellent cartographic publications and has done some great research on inequality. But I personally didn't find his books all that engrossing. Perhaps others will.
May 31, 2017
The premise of the book is that population increase is leveling off of its own accord and is basically nothing to worry about. It is clear that the exponential growth is leveling off and I did find his reminder of this and his somewhat optimistic bent somewhat refreshing, as opposed to the usual doom and gloom this issue normally inspires. Because I do have a tendency that everything is going to basically be OK. Yes, things are going to get worse. Climate change is taking place. Mankind is causing a major extinction event. I definitely lament these things, particularly the latter. But, in a large part we have been powerless to stop the cause of it, the human population explosion. I am thankful to all those who have attempted to mitigate the damage - save species, save natural areas, encourage birth control and family planning. They have helped keep things from being even worse. But I am encouraged that we are pursuing renewable resources for our energy, people are becoming somewhat more aware of conservation issues. We are a greedy and excessively destructive species. The good news is that hopefully the winding down of the explosion will someday somehow allow an end to the destruction. In either case, the Earth abides. It continued on after all the previous extinction events and it will continue on after this one. I hate that we are eliminating so many beautiful and valuable species forever but that has been mankind's nature since the beginning. I hope that this vicious destructive cycle will somehow stop growing, level off, and then decline in the future. I definitely view it as linked to human population growth so I take hope and encouragement from the fact that this horrible growth seems to somehow finally be coming to an end. Beyond that, he simply seems to discuss income inequality quite a bit but I'm not sure to what end. Beyond his optimistic outlook, I didn't get much from this book. His statistics seem to be rather scattered and random and don't do a lot to point in any particular direction.
October 31, 2022
It was a fairly decent read. I admit I didn’t read the entire book but read through the beginning and final chapters.
There was lots of very interesting information (perhaps too much even in my opinion) but little narrative given. I felt like I was reading from the Internet half the time - like I said there was too much information. I think the book lacked the main content from the blurb such as the consequences of an increasing population, why growth rate is slowing down and the part I was most eager to read: why underpopulation is worrying.
I was slightly disappointed with the book, would read Hans Rosling instead.
There was lots of very interesting information (perhaps too much even in my opinion) but little narrative given. I felt like I was reading from the Internet half the time - like I said there was too much information. I think the book lacked the main content from the blurb such as the consequences of an increasing population, why growth rate is slowing down and the part I was most eager to read: why underpopulation is worrying.
I was slightly disappointed with the book, would read Hans Rosling instead.
April 20, 2020
A fairy tale with orcs, goblins and powerful wizards. A nightmare from which only a chosen one like Dorling can rescue you. And the public is already paying his living expenses and it is expected to pay a generous pension plan as well. Still, that is not enough for the likes of Dorling, he needs more from the public, as he is an ambitious one.
August 20, 2020
Some very interesting insights but it was dull in places and jumped around too much for my liking.
July 24, 2015
Perhaps the title should have been "Population 10 Billion - but DON'T PANIC!" Distinguished geographer Danny Dorling thinks we'll only get to 9.5 billion any way. Phew! that's a relief. The rate of growth in global population is declining. Hurrah! But I'm thinking, a decline in the rate of growth is like a fat person putting on 10lb one month, 8lb, the next and 6lb the month after. The person is still getting fatter. They haven't lost weight. Nevertheless sometime in the coming century it looks like global population numbers will start to fall.
Dorling describes himself as a 'Practical Possiblist' when considering the future of our planet (as opposed to 'rational optimists' or 'angry pessimists'). Fertility rates decline when a) women get more equality and b) the gap between the rich and poor gets narrower and c) there's more migration. Dorling sees all of these increasing through the 21st Century.
My problem is I'm not so sure. I think womens' rights are very recent and could easily start being taken away again. Doesn't The Times Rich List show that the rich are getting substantially richer, even in this time of recession. And what's happening in Europe at the moment doesn't encourage me in thinking it will become any easier for people to move from poorer to richer parts of the planet.
I suspect Dorling is right though when he quotes Baird: "The 'problem' with global population - if there is one - is too many rich people consuming too much, not too many poor people." A slowdown in the rate of increase in population is going to have consequences most of us haven't got our heads round yet - not least a decline in GDP. In the final chapter Dorling presents a future which is far more equal and happier than at the moment. It's official folks. Population increase ain't gonna be the problem. The problem for the 21st century is still climate change.
Dorling describes himself as a 'Practical Possiblist' when considering the future of our planet (as opposed to 'rational optimists' or 'angry pessimists'). Fertility rates decline when a) women get more equality and b) the gap between the rich and poor gets narrower and c) there's more migration. Dorling sees all of these increasing through the 21st Century.
My problem is I'm not so sure. I think womens' rights are very recent and could easily start being taken away again. Doesn't The Times Rich List show that the rich are getting substantially richer, even in this time of recession. And what's happening in Europe at the moment doesn't encourage me in thinking it will become any easier for people to move from poorer to richer parts of the planet.
I suspect Dorling is right though when he quotes Baird: "The 'problem' with global population - if there is one - is too many rich people consuming too much, not too many poor people." A slowdown in the rate of increase in population is going to have consequences most of us haven't got our heads round yet - not least a decline in GDP. In the final chapter Dorling presents a future which is far more equal and happier than at the moment. It's official folks. Population increase ain't gonna be the problem. The problem for the 21st century is still climate change.
December 27, 2013
A little too statistical for a casual reader, so I skipped some of that. Lots of interesting information though, particularly in terms of humanity's capacity to cope with an increased population and, of course, the notion that our population may well be plateauing. In addition, I never realized that a good reason for immigration is the fact that new immigrants tend to have similar sized (and invariably smaller) families, thereby reducing population growth.
Having said that, I found his book somewhat discouraging of attempts to control population, stating they are unnecessary. Unnecessary, possibly, but surely a good idea in terms of creating a better world with less strain on resources?
Finally, a question that has struck me in the past and one the book touched on but didn't answer satisfactorily: immigration from poorer to richer countries has so many benefits (as mentioned above among numerous others for both the host country and the immigrant). Yet, we know that people living in developed countries tend to live somewhat unsustainably; therefore, when people move from sustainable (though potentially very difficult) lives to a richer country and then buy an SUV, take regular flights etc. isn't this a bad thing for our planet? I'm by no means against immigration, but isn't that a disadvantage of immigration for our planet as a whole?
I'd appreciate any thoughts on this matter :)
Having said that, I found his book somewhat discouraging of attempts to control population, stating they are unnecessary. Unnecessary, possibly, but surely a good idea in terms of creating a better world with less strain on resources?
Finally, a question that has struck me in the past and one the book touched on but didn't answer satisfactorily: immigration from poorer to richer countries has so many benefits (as mentioned above among numerous others for both the host country and the immigrant). Yet, we know that people living in developed countries tend to live somewhat unsustainably; therefore, when people move from sustainable (though potentially very difficult) lives to a richer country and then buy an SUV, take regular flights etc. isn't this a bad thing for our planet? I'm by no means against immigration, but isn't that a disadvantage of immigration for our planet as a whole?
I'd appreciate any thoughts on this matter :)
January 16, 2016
No firm conclusions but the first panic-free, almost agenda-free statistical I've read that looks at population growth and decline. It appears unlikely that the Earth will go above 10 billion unless some serious event occurs to make the world start baby booming again. So, there is enough of everything to go around if world leaders (governments, businesses) can be bothered to care about things other than profit. I wonder if this idea for a new moral imperative will become the zeitgeist in my time here. Here's hoping :)
July 26, 2013
Seems to talk a fair bit about inequality in 'spirit level' esque style and suggests reducing consumption and growth of rich nations/populations. Doesn't give much in way of suggestion as to how to accomplish this.
Overly long and frequently jumps around to various topics which don't flow from one to another. Average, only a couple of glimpses of interesting analysis.
Overly long and frequently jumps around to various topics which don't flow from one to another. Average, only a couple of glimpses of interesting analysis.
December 3, 2014
The title of this book is totally misleading, like a click-bait headline. That said, it's fascinating. I'd recommend anyone who's interested in issues affecting humanity or ecology read this book. It gives you many reasons to be positive.
April 22, 2016
Did not realise the book would be entirely biased by the author's personal views, wish I had reviewed his bibliography prior to reading this. This could have been much better if it had been a purely factual account.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews