Reading: Global thoughts Only room for one?

1Look at the title, subheading and sentences A–E. What do you think the blog entry is about? Choose the correct option. 

The problem of people having fewer and fewer children.The destruction of the environment.The need to control population growth.

• AI mean, there's no point worrying about destroying the environment and then putting a few more billion people in it!

  BThe planet clearly couldn't cope with that.

  CSurely it's not necessary when we have smaller families already?

  DIn 1970, there were 3.5 billion people on the Earth.

  EBy 2050, the population will have grown by a further 50%, to 10.5 billion.

2Read the text and check your answer in exercise 1. 

Global thoughts

Only room for one?

I've been discussing the issues behind our continuing economic problems and the increase in extreme weather events in some of my recent blogs. Thanks for all your comments.

Today I'm going to write about an issue which isn't often addressed, and has become a bit of a taboo in the western world – population control. We passed the 7 billion mark for global population not long ago, which raised some awareness of the issue. Some people were saying that we needn't worry because the rate of population growth has actually been going down since 1970.

That's true, but to say we shouldn't worry shows a misunderstanding of the maths of population growth. ___ It's doubled since then to more than 7 billion, so even though the percentage growth rate is lower, we're now adding eighty million people to the planet every year. ___

We behave as if we had two or three Earths to live on, not just the one, and this idea of endless growth is a fantasy. It's a popular one because modern humans don't like the idea of having limits. Economists in particular rely on the idea of growth. Kenneth Boulding once said that anyone who believed that growth can go on forever in a world with limited resources is either crazy, or an economist – and he was an economist! We have to think about limiting our population. ___

Now, it seems it's OK to talk about overpopulation as long it's in the developing world – we all know that that's where population growth is out of control. But

the idea that we should control the size of families in Europe or America is rarely discussed. ___ And anyway, what about our freedom to choose? Most people in the West are demanding less government control over their private lives, and a policy for one-child families would almost certainly be met with mass protests.

Nevertheless, we in the West do need to have fewer children. That's because the world's problem isn't so much overpopulation, but overconsumption, and it's westerners who use most of the planet's resources. Here's an amazing fact: if China and India and other developing countries reached the same levels of consumption as the West, that would be the same as the global population increasing to 72 billion! ___

In the fight for limited resources, we westerners won't be able to carry on taking the lion's share, so we'll need to limit both the amount we consume and our numbers.

The British charity Population Matters is campaigning to get the UK government only to give support to families with two children, and no more. But what about the idea of one child per family? People often say that would be a social disaster, because only children find it difficult to get on with others. However, recent research suggests that this isn't true – it seems they often have good relationships because they've had all the attention they need and don't need to fight for more. If all the families in the world were limited to one child, the world's population would fall to 1.6 billion by 2100, which is what it was in 1900. Would that make it a happier world? Let me know your thoughts.

3Decide if sentences A–E are Opinion, Fact, or Speculation. Then match sentences A–E to gaps 1–5 in the blog entry. 

• AI mean, there's no point worrying about destroying the environment and then putting a few more billion people in it!

  OpinionFactSpeculation

  BThe planet clearly couldn't cope with that.

  OpinionFactSpeculation

  CSurely it's not necessary when we have smaller families already?

  OpinionFactSpeculation

  DIn 1970, there were 3.5 billion people on the Earth.

  OpinionFactSpeculation

  EBy 2050, the population will have grown by a further 50%, to 10.5 billion.

  OpinionFactSpeculation

Global thoughts

Only room for one?

I've been discussing the issues behind our continuing economic problems and the increase in extreme weather events in some of my recent blogs. Thanks for all your comments.

Today I'm going to write about an issue which isn't often addressed, and has become a bit of a taboo in the western world – population control. We passed the 7 billion mark for global population not long ago, which raised some awareness of the issue. Some people were saying that we needn't worry because the rate of population growth has actually been going down since 1970.

That's true, but to say we shouldn't worry shows a misunderstanding of the maths of population growth. 

¹

 

It's doubled since then to more than 7 billion, so even though the percentage growth rate is lower, we're now adding eighty million people to the planet every year. ²

We behave as if we had two or three Earths to live on, not just the one, and this idea of endless growth is a fantasy. It's a popular one because modern humans don't like the idea of having limits. Economists in particular rely on the idea of growth. Kenneth Boulding once said that anyone who believed that growth can go on forever in a world with limited resources is either crazy, or an economist – and he was an economist! We have to think about limiting our population. ³

Now, it seems it's OK to talk about overpopulation as long it's in the developing world – we all know that that's where population growth is out of control. But

the idea that we should control the size of families in Europe or America is rarely discussed. ⁴ And anyway, what about our freedom to choose? Most people in the West are demanding less government control over their private lives, and a policy for one-child families would almost certainly be met with mass protests.

Nevertheless, we in the West do need to have fewer children. That's because the world's problem isn't so much overpopulation, but overconsumption, and it's westerners who use most of the planet's resources. Here's an amazing fact: if China and India and other developing countries reached the same levels of consumption as the West, that would be the same as the global population increasing to 72 billion! ⁵

In the fight for limited resources, we westerners won't be able to carry on taking the lion's share, so we'll need to limit both the amount we consume and our numbers.

The British charity Population Matters is campaigning to get the UK government only to give support to families with two children, and no more. But what about the idea of one child per family? People often say that would be a social disaster, because only children find it difficult to get on with others. However, recent research suggests that this isn't true – it seems they often have good relationships because they've had all the attention they need and don't need to fight for more. If all the families in the world were limited to one child, the world's population would fall to 1.6 billion by 2100, which is what it was in 1900. Would that make it a happier world? Let me know your thoughts.

4Choose the correct answers. 

• 1Some people say that overpopulation isn't a problem because the global population is getting smaller.it's a taboo subject.the population is growing less quickly than in the past.people aren't worried about it.

• 2Global population is a problem because it's more than seven billion.it's less than double what it was in 1970.the growth rate is getting higher.it's still increasing by a huge amount every year.

• 3Endless growth is impossible because the Earth cannot support it.it's not something you can rely on.we can't accept limits.only economists believe in it.

• 4The population is growing most quickly in Europe.America.the developing world.the West.

• 5The author thinks that westerners need to have smaller families so that they can consume more.consume too much and need to have fewer children.should have only one child because it helps them build relationships with others.will be the largest part of the world's population in 2100.

Global thoughts

Only room for one?

I've been discussing the issues behind our continuing economic problems and the increase in extreme weather events in some of my recent blogs. Thanks for all your comments.

Today I'm going to write about an issue which isn't often addressed, and has become a bit of a taboo in the western world – population control. We passed the 7 billion mark for global population not long ago, which raised some awareness of the issue. Some people were saying that we needn't worry because the rate of population growth has actually been going down since 1970.

That's true, but to say we shouldn't worry shows a misunderstanding of the maths of population growth. ___ It's doubled since then to more than 7 billion, so even though the percentage growth rate is lower, we're now adding eighty million people to the planet every year. ___

We behave as if we had two or three Earths to live on, not just the one, and this idea of endless growth is a fantasy. It's a popular one because modern humans don't like the idea of having limits. Economists in particular rely on the idea of growth. Kenneth Boulding once said that anyone who believed that growth can go on forever in a world with limited resources is either crazy, or an economist – and he was an economist! We have to think about limiting our population. ___

Now, it seems it's OK to talk about overpopulation as long it's in the developing world – we all know that that's where population growth is out of control. But

the idea that we should control the size of families in Europe or America is rarely discussed. ___ And anyway, what about our freedom to choose? Most people in the West are demanding less government control over their private lives, and a policy for one-child families would almost certainly be met with mass protests.

Nevertheless, we in the West do need to have fewer children. That's because the world's problem isn't so much overpopulation, but overconsumption, and it's westerners who use most of the planet's resources. Here's an amazing fact: if China and India and other developing countries reached the same levels of consumption as the West, that would be the same as the global population increasing to 72 billion! ___

In the fight for limited resources, we westerners won't be able to carry on taking the lion's share, so we'll need to limit both the amount we consume and our numbers.

The British charity Population Matters is campaigning to get the UK government only to give support to families with two children, and no more. But what about the idea of one child per family? People often say that would be a social disaster, because only children find it difficult to get on with others. However, recent research suggests that this isn't true – it seems they often have good relationships because they've had all the attention they need and don't need to fight for more. If all the families in the world were limited to one child, the world's population would fall to 1.6 billion by 2100, which is what it was in 1900. Would that make it a happier world? Let me know your thoughts.

5Find words and phrases in the text which match definitions 1–8. 

Global thoughts

Only room for one?

I've been discussing the issues behind our continuing economic problems and the increase in extreme weather events in some of my recent blogs. Thanks for all your comments.

Today I'm going to write about an issue which isn't often addressed, and has become a bit of a taboo in the western world – population control. We passed the 7 billion mark for global population not long ago, which raised some awareness of the issue. Some people were saying that we needn't worry because the rate of population growth has actually been going down since 1970.

That's true, but to say we shouldn't worry shows a misunderstanding of the maths of population growth. ___ It's doubled since then to more than 7 billion, so even though the percentage growth rate is lower, we're now adding eighty million people to the planet every year. ___

We behave as if we had two or three Earths to live on, not just the one, and this idea of endless growth is a fantasy. It's a popular one because modern humans don't like the idea of having limits. Economists in particular rely on the idea of growth. Kenneth Boulding once said that anyone who believed that growth can go on forever in a world with limited resources is either crazy, or an economist – and he was an economist! We have to think about limiting our population. ___

Now, it seems it's OK to talk about overpopulation as long it's in the developing world – we all know that that's where population growth is out of control. But

the idea that we should control the size of families in Europe or America is rarely discussed. ___ And anyway, what about our freedom to choose? Most people in the West are demanding less government control over their private lives, and a policy for one-child families would almost certainly be met with mass protests.

Nevertheless, we in the West do need to have fewer children. That's because the world's problem isn't so much overpopulation, but overconsumption, and it's westerners who use most of the planet's resources. Here's an amazing fact: if China and India and other developing countries reached the same levels of consumption as the West, that would be the same as the global population increasing to 72 billion! ___

In the fight for limited resources, we westerners won't be able to carry on taking the lion's share, so we'll need to limit both the amount we consume and our numbers.

The British charity Population Matters is campaigning to get the UK government only to give support to families with two children, and no more. But what about the idea of one child per family? People often say that would be a social disaster, because only children find it difficult to get on with others. However, recent research suggests that this isn't true – it seems they often have good relationships because they've had all the attention they need and don't need to fight for more. If all the families in the world were limited to one child, the world's population would fall to 1.6 billion by 2100, which is what it was in 1900. Would that make it a happier world? Let me know your thoughts.

• 1unusually bad storms and floods  (paragraph 1)

• 2something which society doesn't want people to talk about  (paragraph 2)

• 3how fast something happens  (paragraph 2)

• 4became twice as many  (paragraph 3)

• 5using too much of something  (paragraph 6)

• 6things which are there for people to use  (paragraph 6)

• 7the greatest part of something  (paragraph 7)

• 8children with no brothers or sisters  (paragraph 8)

6Complete the sentences with words and phrases in exercise 5. 

You need to use normal letters and capital letters correctly in this task.

• 1Africa is the world's poorest continent, yet it is very rich in natural .

• 2You shouldn't ask people in Britain how much they earn – it's a bit of a .

• 3The  at which cities have grown in China is incredible – 26% of the population lived in cities in 1990 and it's now  to 52%.

• 4 are becoming so common these days. There always seem to be severe floods somewhere in the world.

• 5We're all guilty of  in the modern world – we buy so many things that we don't need.

• 6My best friend and I were both  so the two of us always played together.

• 7We all helped, but Jason did  of the work, so you should thank him.

 

7 CHALLENGE! Write a comment on the blog, saying what you think of the arguments about overpopulation.   Write your task in another program (e.g. Word).  Save the file to your computer.  Upload your file.  If you want to add a note to your teacher, write it in the Comments box.  Select Submit to Dropbox to send your work to your teacher.