NPG IS PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE THE WINNERS OF OUR 2023 ESSAY SCHOLARSHIP CONTESTS

NPG IS PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE THE WINNERS OF OUR 2023 ESSAY SCHOLARSHIP CONTESTS

NPG
July 10, 2023
Scholarship
0 Comments

NPG is pleased to offer challenging contests as part of our mission to enlist a new generation of activists who will be focused on calling attention to the dangers of population growth. We send our thanks to all of our members and friends who have so generously contributed, as well as our appreciation for the tens of thousands of students who have competed in our contests. It is your support and participation that make this critical program possible!

Please scroll down to see the winners from both our Essay Scholarship Contests!

2023 Graduate Students Essay Scholarship Topic

Experts from the U.S. Census Bureau predict U.S. population may reach 404 million by 2060 unless we change course. That means we may be living with an additional 70 million people in less than 40 years. What aspects of your life will be most affected by this growth? In order to protect our environment and quality of life for future generations, should the US government encourage policies designed to reduce growth to a smaller, truly sustainable, level?

Click on each name to view the text of the winning essay.

Award	Winner Name	School
$5,000 - The Donald W. Mann Memorial Scholarship for Population Studies	Alex Blake	University of Nevada, Las Vegas
$2,500	Veronica Irwin	NYU Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute
$1,500	Leanne Deng	Georgetown University
$1,500	Ashlyn Puckett	Georgia State University College of Law
$1,000 - The Dr. Donald C. Spencer NPG Memorial Scholarship	Lorena Elizabeth Diaz	Strayer University
$1,000	Grace Katzmar	Columbia University, Teachers College
$1,000	Brian Lum	University of Arkansas (Fayetteville)
$1,000	Michael Soaries	Union Theological Seminary New York

2023 High School Seniors & Undergraduate Students Essay Scholarship Topic

Click on each name to view the text of the winning essay.

Award	Winner Name	School
$2,500	Peter Sloniewsky	Georgetown University
$2,000	Curtis Halpin	Penn State University
$2,000	Amanda Jorjorian-Furcho	Valencia College
$2,000	Morgan Pursley	University of Tennessee
$1,500	Sebastian Henson	Lake Forest College
$1,500	Connor Karpilovsky	St. Joseph's University
$1,000	Simran Bhogle	Irvine Valley College
$1,000	Madelyn Heckert	Portland State University
$1,000	Domnica Reutov	Portland State University

NPG

New Survey Indicates Growing Disdain for Situation at US-Mexico Border

$5,000 – The Donald W. Mann Memorial Scholarship for Population Studies
Alex Blake
University of Nevada, Las Vegas

The world we inhabit contains finite resources that we depend on. As the population increases, the strain we place on both our limited resources and our infrastructure puts our livelihoods at risk. National policies should be implemented that aim to achieve an optimum population, sustain our finite resources, and improve the quality of life for our present and future generations.

Over the course of a century, the United States’ population has skyrocketed. The population grew from 111 million in 1923 to almost 340 million in 2023. As a result of advancements in medicine and accelerating migration, our carrying capacity – the maximum population size that can be sustained in an environment based on its available resources – has been exceeded. In his article, Way Too Many For Us, Hillel J. Hoffmann of Cornell University’s Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology projected the U.S. carrying capacity to be 200 million. If the U.S. population is predicted to reach 404 million by 2060, our government needs to take action. This growth will impact many aspects of our daily lives by amplifying existing issues such as traffic congestion, resource depletion, and a competitive workforce. With regard to our society’s urbanization, an additional 70 million people would drastically increase commute times in a city that relies heavily on vehicular transportation resulting in lower air quality. Severe supply chain issues would arise from the projected population growth due to a heavier demand for limited resources similar to the global supply chain crisis we witnessed during the COVID-19 pandemic. The rise in automation and artificial intelligence has already impacted the workforce’s limited capacity. Finding good, secure jobs will become incredibly competitive with the increase in population. These issues merely scratch the surface of the impact our projected population growth will have without the proper policy implementation.

The United States has the highest immigrant population in the world with nearly 50 million as of 2020, which accounts for 15% of the population. The second largest immigrant population in the world is Germany with about 15 million. In 2020, the United States granted 707,362 people with lawful permanent resident status. This is a significant decrease from the typical average of over a million. According to Brookings, “the bulk of last year’s increase in population growth (about 86%) was due to a rise in immigration.” In an effort to achieve a sustainable growth in population, the rate of immigration should be limited to a drastically lower number.

As a democratic society, the United States government should not dictate the family planning of the general public. The decision-making needed to combat overpopulation will be driven largely by a general public that is well-informed. Ideally, the government’s role should be to inform people about the causes and effects of overpopulation and provide incentives to families that adhere to sizes suitable for offsetting population increase. Implementing such policies may not necessarily be a priority, however. U.S. census data indicates that fertility rates are at an all-time low with an average of 1.62 births per woman in 2020. Although the average family has reached a sustainable size, the sheer number of families is still a factor not to be overlooked. The policies the U.S. government should focus on are those that modernize our infrastructure by taking into account the population growth that has already taken place.

In order to protect our environment and quality of life, the foundation of our infrastructure needs to be restructured. Cities that solely rely on vehicular transportation are not sustainable for the growing population. Policies that fund public transportation and fixed-route transit services would benefit both the economy and the environment through their ability to serve the masses. According to the American Public Transportation Association, “an investment of $10 million in public transportation generates about $32 million in increased business sales” and creates tens of thousands of jobs. Public transportation can accommodate 90 to 100 times more people than individual automobiles which significantly reduces traffic congestion and air pollution. Policies that directly aim at removing air pollution would improve our quality of life and protect our environment for future generations. The U.S. government should prioritize our shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy such as wind and solar. Our reliance on non-renewable energy sources is detrimental as these limited sources of energy cannot sustain our growing population in the near nor distant future.

Reaching an optimum population will require a conscious effort from the general public and advocacy from the government through policy implementation. Responsible family planning as well as policies that limit immigration into the United States will aid in a gradual decline in our population growth. Having already exceeded our projected carrying capacity, it is crucial to also support policies that take into account our existing growth by addressing issues of infrastructure and sustainable energy. Quality of life is a notion that we should strive to improve upon for not only the present but more importantly the future.

$2,500
Veronica Irwin
NYU Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute

As a resident of San Francisco, I am acutely aware of the harm that population growth can inflict. San Francisco has been densely populated since its transition from a Gold Rush town in the late 1800s, and the constant influx of people in the time since has only exacerbated the issues we face as a small, coastal city. Every day, San Franciscans are reminded of the impacts of population growth on the local environment and cost of living, whether it be because of rising sea levels flooding the Embarcadero or crowds of homeless people filling the downtown core. Because of my experience living here, I have come to believe that proactive federal action is necessary to slow population growth to a sustainable level and save major American cities like my own.

One of the most significant problems that population growth has caused in San Francisco is the skyrocketing cost of living. As more people move to the city, the demand for housing increases, and landlords can charge exorbitant rents. San Francisco is constantly battling New York City for being the most unaffordable place to live in the country, leading to four decades of steadily increasing homelessness. Just between 2005 and 2022 homelessness increased 43.5% in San Francisco, according to the city’s official point-in-time counts. Many long-term residents are forced to leave the city in search of more affordable living arrangements. Meanwhile, those who remain put a strain on our public transportation system and housing supply, leading to overcrowding, transit delays, and rising crime that impact both residents and visitors.

Another major issue that population growth has created in San Francisco is environmental degradation. The city is already prone to natural disasters: earthquakes because of its proximity to major fault lines, fires because of a state-wide drought and the close proximity of buildings, and a shrinking coastline on all three exposed sides of the peninsula. But the construction of new buildings and infrastructure has destroyed green spaces the city is known for and native wildlife’s natural habitats, leading to a loss of biodiversity and increased pollution. The sheer number of people in the city has also put a strain on our water and energy resources, making it increasingly difficult to maintain a sustainable way of life. According to the New York Times, even San Francisco’s iconic fog is disappearing due to local climate changes.

Fortunately, there are solutions that the US government could implement to help mitigate the negative impacts of population growth on coastal cities like San Francisco. For one, metropolitan public transit systems could be provided with funding to extend further into city suburbs, making it easier for people to both work in the city and live in less densely populated areas. When the Bay Area Public Transit System (BART) was first designed, for example, it stretched deep into cities up to a 90-minute drive from San Francisco. If it had been developed as originally intended, and not had its plans shrunk due to lobbying from the automobile industry, many of the city’s workers could comfortably live in cities like Fremont, Santa Rafael, and Redwood City, nearly twice as far from the city center as the BART lines extend now. Tax breaks and other subsidies could also be used to further incentivize people to trade the commute for more space in the suburbs. The government could also invest in infrastructure and job creation in these areas to make them more attractive to potential residents.

Another solution would be to invest more in dense, affordable housing and transportation options in coastal cities like San Francisco. This would help alleviate some of the strain that population growth has put on our housing supply, reducing homelessness and the waste that comes with people living on the city streets. Additionally, dense housing has been shown to reduce households’ carbon footprint. A collaborative 2022 study from the New York Times and UC Berkeley, for example, showed that dense neighborhoods in Manhattan expended nearly 50 tons of CO2 less per household than more spread-out neighborhoods in the New Jersey suburbs. Additional investments in renewable energy and water conservation efforts, particularly via subsidies for more environmentally friendly systems in this dense housing, would improve this solution.

Finally, the government could implement policies that encourage people to have fewer children. This could be achieved through more public education campaigns that promote family planning and birth control, as well as through tax incentives for families that choose to have fewer children. Investments in reproductive health care would also make it easier for people to make strong, informed decisions about their reproductive choices.

Since moving to the city in 2019, I have witnessed the firsthand harm that population growth has caused. In fact, I’ve seen it accelerate in just the four years I’ve been here, as cost of living spikes post-pandemic and people return to the re-awakening downtown. Personally, I am frightened — not only for our population, as a whole, but for my own future ability to afford to live and work in an urban area.

From the high cost of living to environmental degradation, population growth has created a host of problems that must be addressed if we want to create a sustainable future for our communities. By enabling and incentivizing people to move to less populated suburbs, investing in dense affordable housing options, and encouraging families to have fewer children, the US government can help to reduce population growth and create a better future for all of us. It is time for us to take actions and protect our cities and our planet from the harmful effects of population growth.

$1,500
Leanne Deng
Georgetown University

A Call to Manage Overpopulation in the United States

As an immigrant from China living in the United States and now a nurse working every day and caring for patients, I want to bring a different take to limiting population growth in the United States. Immigration for many people is life changing. It has personally given me the opportunity to move out of a tiny village in China, obtain my master’s degree in nursing, and now pursue a career as a nurse practitioner. It is hard for someone like me who was given the opportunities to be in favor of policies designed to reduce population in the United States because at least one of them would probably involve limiting immigration. However, based on the claims of experts from the U.S. Census Bureau that we will have a 70 million increase in population in less than 40 years, the United States will need to start incorporating policies to limit population growth in order for its residents to live quality lives.

I believe legalizing abortion and providing individuals with additional education on the use of contraceptives would be a step in the right direction to mitigate overpopulation in the United States. I am fully aware that abortion rights are a whole separate battle with many other factors and cannot limit population growth alone. However, having abortion as an option would help maintain our population numbers and decrease abandoned children. I had a patient come from Texas to my hospital in Oregon for an abortion because it was illegal in that state. If my patient did not have the financial ability to travel, she probably would’ve kept the child and contributed to unwanted population growth. In a study of population growth in 116 of the world’s largest countries, the use of contraception and abortion was able to keep the growth rate low. The results showed that abortion is necessary but not sufficient alone to lower the growth rate. Legalizing abortion and promoting education of contraceptive use in high school would be beneficial in reducing our growth rate.

I also agree that aspects of immigration should be limited such as stopping illegal immigration and prohibiting anchor babies. In 2016, about 250,000 babies were born to unauthorized immigrant parents in the United States making up 6% of the total birth that year. I strongly believe the United States should discourage unintentional fertility through high school education on the use of contraceptives and the high cost of raising children. The United States should also endorse families to limit their household to two children. I was born in China while the one child per household policy was in effect, and while it was harsh and radical, it did help China’s population become more sustainable. While I do not believe the United States should do something as harsh as China, I do believe the United States should provide more benefits for couples to have less children. This will help promote smaller families and help them financially.

Slowly but surely, everyone will be affected by the large population surge in the next 40 years. Working in surgery, I am able to see how fast technology is advancing and that life expectancy has been longer than ever before. In the 1960s, the average life expectancy of Americans was 69.77 years old and currently it is at 77.28 years old with a slight decrease due to the COVID-19 pandemic. What will most likely happen is that we will expand our cities and there will be an increase in deforestation resulting in an increase in carbon dioxide into our environment. From a nurse’s perspective, losing even more trees and natural reserves which are healing to the mind and body can lead to an increase in mental health problems more than ever before. In a worldwide ecological study, deforestation was shown to be strongly associated with poor mental health including higher suicide rates. Aside from mental health, we will most likely also be living in overcrowded cities allowing contagious diseases to spread quickly. Decreasing our growth rate will slow down deforestation to expand our cities.

I do believe the United States government needs to establish policies to prohibit illegal immigration and anchor babies while approving and supporting abortion rights for women and education on contraceptive use. The combination of these actions will help maintain our population, and from thereon we can promote proper education for families to prevent having more than two children per household, showing them health benefits. As an immigrant, I do support immigration through family reunification because I would never be the way I am without being raised in a nuclear family and having the support of both my parents. As a nurse, I believe population should be limited so we can slow expansion of cities and deforestation leading to mental health and stress with the loss of nature which can be healing for many. We need to look at the bigger picture and ahead for the future of our next generations and support limiting population growth.

$1,500
Ashlyn Puckett
Georgia State University College of Law

The rush of millions of minds crowds the streets in Houston, TX. Their metropolitan area boasts a population of over seven million and growing. Almost 1.7 million immigrants and refugees call Houston home, which accounts for roughly a quarter of their population. While these relocations have made Houston the diverse cultural center it is today, they have also threatened the wellbeing of the residents who live there. Without a strict immigration policy, areas like Houston will become overpopulated. To combat this, the United States should enforce a stricter immigration policy to prevent overpopulation, which would ultimately harm both the environment, and our citizens’ quality of life.

Although the fundamental idea of immigration is not a threat to the United States, the effects of it, should it continue in the proportions it is now, could lead to overpopulation. Immigration is “a major driver of population growth” in the United States, meaning that decreasing the number of immigrants who come in will lower the population growth dramatically. Especially because many of the immigrants who enter are illegal, improving security on the border could have great effects. Contrarily, “the number of babies born in the U.S. hit its lowest level in more than three decades last year.” This further proves that the most efficient way to limit the U.S. population growth is by decreasing incoming immigrants. If the number of babies born in the U.S. remains low, and immigration is slowed, then the U.S. will maintain a stagnant growth rate, allowing it to avoid many overpopulation related issues in the future.

Overpopulation both increases climate change and decreases one’s quality of life. Climate change is, in part, fueled by the amount of people on the planet. The industrial revolution occurred in the 19^th century, and sparked a wide culture of innovation, causing humans to use more of their natural resources. Despite the industrial revolution, “if we had invented steam engines and coal- powered electrical grids and automobiles but kept global population at 1800 levels – climate change would be much less of an issue” In the 19^th century, population levels were much lower than they are today, meaning that the scale of pollution was much smaller. With a reduced level of pollution, earth’s natural cycles could easily keep up with the waste created. However, this is not the case today, as the global population has skyrocketed, so has pollution. If the United States wants to remain, in terms of reference to other countries, one of the leaders in global environmentalism, keeping populations down is a necessity. Another large effect of overpopulation is the lowered quality of life that comes with population density. If the United States becomes too overcrowded, there will be a “rise [in] unemployment,” an increase of the cost of living, and “starvation, [will] become more likely.” Protecting the citizens of the U.S. from these occurrences can only be done through monitoring population growth. Without it, there will be a dramatic decrease in the quality of life in the U.S, and in the quality of the environment.

In order to protect the United States from the effects of overpopulation, the best policies to decrease illegal immigration include the use of E-Verify like systems, and the removal of dangerous foreign nationals. Previous administrations have enforced the use of E-Verify, which “checks the social security numbers of newly hired employees against Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security records to help ensure that they are genuinely eligible to work in the U.S.” By accounting for every employee’s eligibility to work in the U.S, employers help take a step to enforce documentation of immigrants. Those that make it into the U.S. undocumented will find it difficult to be there and will thereby be encouraged to go through the legal immigration process. Additionally, the U.S. should “arrest, detain, and remove criminals, fugitives, and other dangerous foreign nationals by leveraging federal information […] and working with the Department of Justice to ensure more timely hearing of immigration cases and appeals.” The U.S. immigration system has long been a part of its journey to one of the most powerful nations in the world. It is important to keep this essential factor well-oiled and polished, even if it means enforcing verification systems and removing those who are illegally in the country. By restricting illegal immigration, the U.S. will be able to lower growth rates and prevent overpopulation.

With the global population projected to reach eight billion this year, the earth is reaching its carrying capacity. With a limited number of resources, it is vital that measures are taken to decrease population growth rates, not just in the United States, but across the globe. However, as one of the most influential nations in the world, it is important that the United States takes this important step toward human survival.

$1,000
Lorena Elizabeth Diaz
Strayer University

The Threat

Albert Einstein once said, “Overpopulation in various countries has become a serious threat to the well-being of many people and a grave obstacle to any attempt to organize peace on this planet of ours.” (1) I wholeheartedly agree with him. In the United States’ overpopulation has become one of the most serious threats to the environment’s health, natural resources, ecosystems, and quality of life. Many factors contribute to this serious threat, the most impactful are uncontrolled immigration and higher birth rates. The United States government must make decisions and policies aimed at reducing population growth to preserve our country’s resources and quality of life for future generations. Failure to do so could have a destructive effect, including environmental deterioration, starvation, stress, and even violence.

Overpopulation and Immigration Crisis

According to Merriam-Webster, the term overpopulation is defined as “the condition of having a population so dense as to cause environmental deterioration, an impaired quality of life, or a population crash.” (2) I believe that overpopulation occurs when there are no longer sufficient natural resources to sustain the lives of all people inhabiting the earth and still leave behind a healthy planet for future generations. To put this definition into perspective and give it the credence it deserves, I present data from the United States Census Bureau. According to data provided by the Unites States Census Bureau, as of March 2023, the total estimated U.S. population will have reached 334,545,826 people. (3) Their data further shows that the estimated population continues to increase exponentially every year. The chart below shows population growth in the U.S. over the past four years.

Additionally, the data from the United States Census Bureau suggests that a leading cause to the threat of overpopulation is immigration. Data from the United States Census Bureau indicates that there is precisely one migrant to the U.S. every 22 seconds .(5) At present, there is an alarming inflow of undocumented immigrants coming through the U.S. southern borders. For example, in my home state of Florida, there have been at least 8,000 immigrants apprehended on the waters off the coast of Florida since August 2022. (6) There are also examples of numerous immigrants who reach the shores of Florida by boat every day. Many times, these boats are left on shore for local authorities to dispose of, creating an environmental hazard. (7).According to Migration Policy Institute, in 2021 Florida had the third most immigrants of any state, at approximately 4.6 million. (4) Regrettably, it is not feasible for Florida to continue to accept everyone who wants to come in without extreme repercussions to the state’s natural resources.

While immigration may have some positive impacts on our communities, such as providing skilled, documented immigrant workers who contribute to the health of the economy. Undocumented immigrants, on the other hand, bring more issues because they are not vetted and their ability to financially support themselves could be lacking. (6) This issue directly impacts our communities by way of unaffordable housing and overcrowded classrooms. Undocumented immigrants contribute to the issue of run-down neighborhoods, which in turn increases crime, pollution, and unsanitary living conditions. Not to mention, the tremendous strain on our local authorities and social services that do not have the resources to accommodate such a large influx of immigrants. (7) It is important for the health of our communities that the government take initiatives to make polices about reducing immigration on our shores.

Oh Baby

It is also imperative that we acknowledge that higher birth rates contribute to the threat of overpopulation .(5) According to the United States Census Bureau, there is one birth every 9 seconds. (5) Impoverished areas are experiencing higher birth rates due to lack of educational resources. It is the government’s responsibility to conduct research and identify areas of need and provide free contraception and education for boys and girls. Education among young women and teenage girls can have several positive effects, including delayed motherhood, and an increase in labor force contribution. (9) The government must increase Its efforts to share information about family planning and expose myths about contraception. This will surely help with the high birth rate in the U.S, which is currently a leading factor in the threat of overpopulation.

Conversations about population control present ethical challenges, especially when referring to the number of children a household should have. However, we should not be deterred from having these conversations. In the end, these conversations could prove to have an everlasting positive effect on the topic of overpopulation that threatens our small world. Pope Francis once said, “Some people think that — excuse my expression here — that in order to be good Catholics we have to be like rabbits. No. Parenthood is about being responsible. This is clear.” (8) I believe what the Pope was trying to say is that procreation should never be regarded as a requirement, and instead we must look outward and claim responsibility for choices in creating a family. Certainly, participating in responsible population growth is one of the most reliable and economic methods of helping our environment and securing a sustainable future.

In Summary

Overpopulation is the biggest threat we are currently facing, and it will become a more complex issue in the coming decades. This issue has a devastating impact on the Earth’s limited supply of natural resources, and leads to problems such as environmental degradation and adverse effects on our forests and oceans. The biggest contributors to U.S. overpopulation are illegal immigration and higher birth rates in impoverished areas. Overpopulation negatively impacts our communities in many ways, including increasing pollution and contributing to the lack of affordable housing, which leads to homelessness and overcrowded classrooms. Recognizing the issue is not sufficient. The United States Government must act immediately and incessantly adopt policies to solve the issue before it worsens.

$1,000
Grace Katzmar
Columbia University, Teachers College

With a projected increase of 70 million people by 2060, the United States is facing a population growth crisis which would lead to increased damage to the environment and put further pressure on the housing crisis and the economy. On a personal level, my life as a teacher would be greatly impacted by population growth, as the American education system is already breaking under the strain of too much need, and too few resources. The American Government has a responsibility to enact policies intended to limit further growth to protect the health of the environment and increase equity and sustainable living for Americans.

As a teacher in American public schools, I have experienced crowded classrooms, with abysmally low funding and little support. The education system is on the verge of a breaking point, and it’s hard to imagine the additional stress an increasing population would put on already overwhelmed teachers. Between housing insecurity, hunger, poverty, environmental change, community violence and infrastructural decline, schools feel the ripple effects of all societal crises. With an increased population, the cost of housing, healthcare, and food would likely skyrocket, leaving communities in need with even fewer resources, and schools would be taking on even more responsibility to pick up the slack. For my students in New York City, the price of housing is already a severe problem in many of their lives, an increased population would only create more demand for housing, and fewer resources from educational and social agencies to support an increased number of students experiencing houselessness. The National Center for Education Statistics predicts that the number of students enrolled in American schools could double by 2100. Such an increase would be untenable under the current education system without government intervention to curb population growth and support American schools.

Based on my experiences as a teacher, I feel that the U.S. Government has a responsibility to enact policies designed to limit population growth in ways that increase quality of life for American citizens through greater access to women’s healthcare and education. The ethical dilemma in population growth policies lies in creating more access and more equity without violating human rights. The primary way to limit population growth while upholding equity would be universal support of women’s healthcare including affordable and accessible birth control methods, and nation-wide abortion access. By inhibiting women’s access to birth control and abortion, American women are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies, even in cases of rape and incest. With the power to make decisions about their own healthcare, even women without insurance could make the decision not to have children or have the agency to prevent unwanted pregnancy in the first place. Data from the University of Washington shows a significant link between the rise in contraceptive use and a decline in fertility rates in El Salvador, citing, “the country’s total fertility rate went from 5.44 births per woman in the mid-1970s — when 28% of women used birth control — to 2.72 births in the mid-2000s, when contraceptive prevalence had more than doubled”. The solution to make contraception more accessible and affordable empowers communities while also addressing population growth.

Furthermore, more access to educational programs would empower Americans to make informed decisions about having children. Many people who have more than the average amount of children do so due to lack of other options. Societies with higher levels of education also have lower population levels. The public forum cites research from the Population Council which shows, overall, educated women have significantly fewer children than women who have not received formal education, “We’ve seen some astonishing transitions, especially in the 1970s in what were then poor countries where fertility rates fell when levels of education went up” (Murray). There is a direct link between low birth rates and education around contraception and women’s health, but also when it comes to education in general.

When people are educated and have universal access to contraceptive methods, they can make more informed decisions about their fertility. Based on several studies on the link between contraception, education, and lower birth rates, I posit that creating educational programs surrounding women’s health and family planning, as well as offering universal and affordable contraception and access to abortion are positive first steps for the U.S. Government to take to address the threat of overpopulation.

$1,000
Brian Lum
University of Arkansas

It is predicted in the year 2060, the U.S. population may reach 404 million. This should be an alarming number for everyone. It does not matter your political affiliation, background, economic status, or location. Everyone will be drastically impacted. That includes me. I will be forced into the effects of overpopulation.

My entire life has been spent in the most rural areas of Iowa or Arkansas. My lifestyle is an evolution of living rural and remote. At 47 years old, I now reside in an unincorporated community with a population of 223. Our community has one gas station, which is only open Monday through Saturday for eight hours each day. I can only see one house from any point on our five-acre property. On any day, there are less than a hundred cars that pass the house. One of the big factors that contributed to me and my wife, Jenn, choosing this property was its lack of population and attractions to the area.

I am a technical trainer for a large thermoforming plastic company. At our facility, we produce food packaging made from polyethylene terephthalate (PET). Yes, the evil plastic is the means that provides my income.

Now that the picture is painted of my current position, we can begin to complicate it with projections from the rapid growth of population.

In the last couple of decades, Jenn and I have noticed the area between our small community and the larger metropolitan areas dwindling down. More and more farmlands are being turned into subdivisions. The forests are shrinking in size to accommodate for more businesses, housing, parking lots, and roadways. During late night drives, as we get closer to the city, the stars in the sky begin to disappear as the lights of the hustle and bustle take over the sky. At home, we can sleep with the windows open and only awakened by the sound of a cow, or one of our chickens, that has an apparent internal broken clock. When at a friend’s house in the city, there is the constant noise of a sleepless population.

Our meals are usually food provided by our farm or neighboring farms. With several farmers in the area selling fresh from the farm products, traveling to the grocery store is minimized. These farms have been in their families for many generations and have provided their livelihoods. As word runs rapid through our community when someone sells their farm to developers, conversations are started. Questions are asked about when it reaches us, what will happen. Will we sell? Will we be forced into buying our meat, vegetables, milk, and eggs from some big-name store that buys from big producers? Will we be the last generation of farmers in our family?

The company I work for has been growing at record rates in the last decade as the demand for food packaging has increased at a parallel rate as population. This might be the only positive impact population growth has for me. However, irresponsibility of recycling is a huge problem. A large part of our product is made with post-consumer recycled material. The unfortunate side, some of our customers require that their products be made with 100% virgin materials. The most common reason is for the appearance of the packaging. It saddens me to think the product we produce can be recycled repeatedly, making a small mark on our environment, but there is a huge part of the population that either does not care or do not have a means of recycling reusable products. Our product, when mishandled, will end up in a landfill for 500-700 years. This is outrageous and action need to be taken.

What is the approach to protect the night sky, farm to table foods, silence in the night, the trees, the animals, and the environment? Should the government intervene and make aggressive policies to push change? I am a “less government is better” kind of guy, but not in this case. I support policies to reduce growth to a smaller, truly sustainable level. I wish there were other avenues to consider and try, but I am convinced that most businesses and individuals are selfish in their approach to environmental conservation. As a teacher, I see how difficult it is to impress an idea on someone that is not affected immediately or directly and must resort to changing company policies and procedures to force team members to abide.

What will my life look like in 40 years? Well, I imagine my 87 year-old self will no longer be able to live the rural life I love and crave. I am sure I will have neighbors living in my backyard (in my front and side yards also). My diet will consist primarily of processed and packaged foods. I could see noise pollution will be unbearable. Crime, I do not even want to think about crime. Clean water problems will become the norm for our area. Resources will be depleted and scarce. It will be a different world entirely forced to change by overpopulation. It will not be the “good ole days” any longer.

$1,000
Michael Soaries
Union Theological Seminary New York

I moved into the community in which I now live approximately 25+ years ago. It was a mixed income community and a diverse population. While there were still the problems of race, gender, economics, I think the relative small size, coupled with a demographic who lived and engaged through the 1960s, allowed for a better working out of these issues. However, over time gentrification set in and the population increased as well as became less diverse. This has resulted in some issues that I believe correspond to the projected increase in world population.

A simple change has been more buildings needed to house more people. This means constant construction, closing of businesses for space, and increased rents and property values as well as noise and other pollutions. Then there is the increase in automobile traffic resulting in jams on the two main avenues at the going to work and coming home from work hours – as well as the school pick up and drop offs that result in congestion nightmares. More cars also mean more pollution which means more breathing and other related health problems that then contribute to an even larger flow into the emergency rooms for treatments. Health costs are enormous.

Add to that the after-pandemic affects of workforce changes, the struggling economy that is seeing tech companies dropping thousands of jobs and with a population increase that will only fuel potentials for fighting over already limited resources – we see this already playing out with immigration fights in the US and other countries.

Other qualities of life will definitely be impacted. We will need to manage resources much better. We’ve seen in the past in some African countries where the problem of hunger could have been alleviated much quicker had the obstacles to the needed resources getting in been dealt with. We already have an historic model for what can happen if we don’t become more aware, on an individual basis, of how we use and misuse resources. Hungry people eventually will not sit and wait for food. They will get up and go to where they think it is and not always peacefully. Can the US military withstand an onslaught of hungry people banging at the doors of the great wall? Maybe for a time but not forever. Especially when some of the hungry are within the wall itself. We already see the negative results of the political infighting, the racial divides, the gender gaps have on our way of life. Multiply that by 100 and add in unemployed anger, hungry children, the elderly, desperate people and it is a mess.

I’ve seen the stress growing up in low income black communities plagued with food deserts, a scarcity of jobs, over policing, overcrowded and underfunded schools – a mismanagement of resources in the sense that it generally was just a matter of time before a match was struck and somebody or group of bodies exploded in a rage that threatened to consume even the little that was there.

With advancements in technology I am not sure we would go back to that but I don’t know. Larger populations also mean a larger divide between the haves and the have-nots. Personally, I don’t believe in a war on the rich. However, as tempers get strained, as the competition for work gets greater and jobs harder to come by the have-nots will look to the haves and see them as the cause. And the haves will probably already put in place mechanisms of protection because psychologically it seems harder to give up money than to share.

We also have a model for population control already in place. China has been struggling with this for years. Their one child rule may have seemed like a good idea at the time to control growth but it has resulted in a deficit of people able to contribute to the economy and an increase in people aging out of the economy.
According to an article on Forbes.com:

“The key demographic in this regard is the relative size of the country’s working population. Because China’s one-child policy has over time come to limit the human resources available to support the country’s dependent population, largely China’s elderly, the nation will lose much of its ability to invest for future growth. The figures are stark. According to United Nations (UN) demographers, China’s workforce has already begun to shrink absolutely even as the country’s dependent elderly population has continued to grow rapidly. Of course, labor power is not the whole story. Technological advances and productivity increases will allow a more efficient use of China’s available human resources, but the demographic situation will nonetheless limit Beijing’s options, especially when it comes to the huge development projects that have awed so many around the world, including the so-called “Belt and Road,” as well as China’s military buildup.”

Here we can see that China has a problem. We also get a sense that they recognize it and have implemented some strategies of resource management that might prove a better solution than population control. By the way, China has increased the amount of children couples can have to three, a concession of sorts.

All that being said I do believe that governments, particularly the US government should continue to encourage policies that support slower/smaller more sustainable growth, with a heavy emphasis on educating individual members in regards to their impact and role in the process. I as an individual have had and continue to have to learn that my individuality is not endless. What I do impacts others here and in other countries. As what others do impacts me. Understanding what that means and then how to translate that into meaningful actions is where education and support might make the biggest difference.

$2,500
Peter Sloniewsky
Georgetown University

Among all of the other crises facing the members of my generation, few receive less attention than the impending reality of overpopulation. In the United States, a country defined by its existing inequalities, the consequences look dire for those unable to afford an escape. For myself, as an individual beginning my college education next year, the progressing tides look to threaten not only my potential for a secure livelihood but also that of my children.

The earth is groaning beneath our feet, and we must learn to walk more lightly upon it.

– John Muir, “My First Summer in the Sierra”

Overpopulation seeks to threaten the most existential threat faced by those in my generation: the effect of humanity on the Earth’s climate. People generate waste; more people will result in increased usage of goods and needs for energy, which will lead to increased pollution and depletion of our natural resources. Some have declared that the climate disaster is already here; we are already beginning to see unprecedented increases in the frequency and intensity of massive storms and extreme weather events, and overpopulation threatens to accelerate that environmental decline by a significant margin. It is a sincere possibility that more than four hundred million Americans, including myself, will live in a world, within forty years, both unrecognizable and significantly less habitable than the one we enjoy today.

We have lived our lives / in the shadow of towering buildings / Where the air is thick with the smell / of fear and despair.

– Langston Hughes, “The Dream Keeper and Other Poems”

As the population expands, the inequalities which divide America today have no clear future beyond expansion. A lack of effective social services, housing, and infrastructure lead to diaspora and widen the gap between rich and poor. Additionally, a significant expansion of population increases demand for jobs that may just not exist, as it is likely that job market growth will not be able to compete with rapid changes in population. As the gap between rich and poor widens as well, those in areas which cannot support their populations will crumble, exacerbated by climate change. The economic decline which grows from a trend of stressed industrial systems and local economies will undoubtedly come to affect me in a personal way, in part due to the economic vulnerability attached to this period wherein I am meant to be spent acquiring the wealth which will secure my future.

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere / The ceremony of innocence is drowned.

– W.B. Yeats, “The Second Coming”

Lastly, the strain of increased population will perhaps most prominently and decisively manifest itself within my life in social tension, namely through the spread of disease, increased crime, and an increase in competition for important natural resources. Correlations are clear between overpopulation and groups with a high tendency to spread disease not unlike the pandemic which so powerfully affected my upbringing. Increases in crime as cities begin to crowd even further are inevitable, which has the potential to fuel political fires and inflammatory rhetoric. Competition for natural resources, now depleted even further, will become rampant to serve to reinforce our socioeconomic divides and distinguish the rich from the poor even more distinctly from today.

It is easy to diminish the problem of overpopulation as alarmist, or simply not an issue of extreme concern in a period of time which seems plagued by an infinite list of catastrophes. However, this dilemma holds the potential to severely diminish the futures of myself and others my age as we grow up in an America which cannot give as much as we take.

$2,000
Curtis J. Halpin
Penn State University

Annihilation by Population

The time bomb is ticking with every heartbeat that is created. The predicted increase of 70 million people by 2060 in the United States will have a detrimental effect on not only our country, but the citizens that populate our borders. Life is defined by balance. Actions have their consequences. Over the next several years, balancing the demands of a growing population will put a strain on the limited resources of the United States. When the seesaw of the ecological balance is overthrown by the density of a growing population, harsh realities such as pollution, urbanization, and increased conflicts will begin to arise.

For the past 16 years, I have had a front row seat to the pyrotechnic display from the coal powered steam plant five miles from my house. Daily, I can watch the white plumes of pollutants released from the towering, cannon-like smokestacks. According to the EPA, these pollutants contribute to the decline of the ozone layer and numerous health issues. Not only are hazardous chemicals being released into the air, the chemicals found in coal ash are also imposing health and environmental problems. In the year 2014, the harms of coal ash became personal. A spill at a retired Eden, NC power plant carried between 50,000 tons and 82,000 tons of cancer-causing chemicals and hazardous pollutants to my doorstep. The effects of this accident and the tons of coal ash that are still stockpiled in the United States will continue to pose health issues, environmental hazards, and increased consumer electrical costs well into our future.

The density of a growing population has erupted through rural towns across the United States. Urbanization is spreading at an uncontrollable rate. It is predicted by 2040 that North Carolina will be ranked second in the United States for losing the most farmland to urbanization. Urbanization does not just result in the loss of land, but it creates a demand for infrastructure to support the growing neighborhoods. Our local high school enrollment exceeds the size of the building and has entire grade levels housed in trailers. The local communities are funding regional water studies to identify outside water supplies. Several areas of North Carolina experienced rolling blackouts in December because the local grid was not able to handle the power demand. As urbanization continues to spread, the chances of dark hours, crowded spaces, and increased water costs will haunt our future.

In addition to the infrastructure conflicts that are caused by population growth in our borders, vast worldwide conflicts are experienced on a global scale as we compete for more crude resources. Already, wars are being fought in the Middle East and other regions for these resources. The war in Ukraine is centered on acquiring more land and control of a nuclear power plant. The hunger for more, as the result of starvation and destruction, will come at the cost of lives being lost in conflicts and the annihilation of nations.

Power versus waste byproducts, urbanization versus farmland, conflicts versus resolutions – the predicted population growth by the year 2060 is the ticking time bomb threatening our ecological seesaw. Our actions, inventions, and technological advancements that have enabled our population to grow may ultimately seal our fate by 2060. If nothing is done now to counterbalance, our demands will continue to come at a cost that is higher than our earth can afford.

$2,000
Amanda Jorjorian-Furcho
Valencia College

The Effects of an Increased Population on Florida Beautiful

Earth, air, fire, and water. Four elements that are essential to life as we know it. As the world population increases, we are the puppeteers in the delicate balancing of the stresses placed on these elements. On a personal level, a population increase would negatively affect my life within earth, air, and water elements. Looking ahead nearly 40 years, the U.S. population is predicted to reach 404 million adding additional pressure on my home state’s natural resources and ultimate quality of life. The first element – water surrounds the state on three sides and is one of the most essential elements to life.

Of the 71 percent of water on the planet, only about 0.3 percent is usable. Florida relies on water primarily from the Floridan Aquifer. This aquifer – one of the world’s most productive – is stressed with the current addition of 900 residents a day and could join nearly half of America’s water basins in experiencing significant water supply shortages in the next 50 years. A bird’s eye view would suggest the acceptance of a future without green lawns, but a closer look would showcase a future without water to clean dishes, take showers, limited access to water to drink and particularly for agriculture. Population growth would therefore have a detrimental effect on daily life and importantly as well, food supply.

Another aspect of my life that would be affected by population growth is air quality. I will be in retirement by 2060. Poor air quality can cause health problems towards humans, plants, and wildlife and research suggests that older adults are “more susceptible to air pollution-induced health effects”. An increased population means an increase in cars on the road and reduction in natural land or open space which has negative effects on the vibrant ecology of Florida.

For example, without continued protection and investment towards a wildlife corridor and conservation of lands due to urbanization, I may see the extinction of animals, such as the Florida Panther in my lifetime due to a loss of habitat and biodiversity. To me, this is the earth element that is vital to my spirit, peace and ultimately my wellbeing.

Not only could a population increase see the loss of unique animals, place strain on the water supply and air quality but the natural beauty of Florida including its pristine springs, the Florida everglades, and miles of glorious beaches have the potential to be damaged by increased human activity. Couple this with climate change and sea level rise causing homes to be moved or built further inland, an increase in population in Florida will have unfavorable effects on my life quality, health, and wellbeing and not be sustainable in balancing the four elements to keep Florida Beautiful.

$2,000
Morgan Pursley
University of Tennessee Chattanooga

In 2060 I will be 56 years old. If the population continues to grow at the expected rate, I imagine a world where healthcare will be harder to obtain, my children and I will be paying an unreasonable amount of taxes to support an overburdened education system, and my family and I will be facing water and food shortages.

I work at an Assisted Living. During the pandemic, there was such a shortage of beds at hospitals that our Covid positive residents would get turned away at the hospital, have to come back to the Assisted Living, and would pass away. The hospital could not support the amount of care that was needed, and if the population rises at the expected rate, it is unlikely the hospitals can support the rate of population growth, even when there is no disease or health crisis currently happening. Since the majority of population growth is coming from immigration, and non-insured people, The United States medical systems cannot continue to provide free services and stay in business.

My great Aunts are retired teachers in West Texas. They have witnessed firsthand the unbalance in resource allocation that it takes to get immigrant children up to grade level. Texas schools get their funding from property taxes. Because most illegal immigrants don’t own property or pay taxes, these school systems are forced to provide an unrealistic amount of educational resources to Spanish speaking children without the increase in funding to hire more teachers or other staff. The school system is legally required to provide Spanish translators for the children, leaving less resources to hire other staff or purchase supplies. In the next 40 years I believe the school systems all across the US will be experiencing the same burden that West Texas has faced for so long. My children and grandchildren will likely be taught by teachers who have to choose whether to help them reach their potential or get the immigrant children up to grade level. It’s not fair to give these immigrants false hope. We can’t sustain the education that we’ve been providing with the same amount of tax money if we have to provide interpreters for 30+ languages.

My Grandmother lives on 10 acres near Austin, Texas. She has a well. I live in Chattanooga, Tennessee and we have city water. It is easy when the city provides water to think that it is unlimited, but it is not. When they build new neighborhoods in Texas near my grandmother’s place, the underground water table gets depleted and there’s not enough water for everyone to drink, much less flush their toilets, take showers, wash their clothes, etc. People need to understand that water is not unlimited and we cannot make more of it. As the population grows exponentially, and the water does not increase, it is very likely that within the next 40 years, my family and I will face dire water shortages. Without enough water to sustain agriculture, the United States will likely face severe shortages in our food supply as well.

In conclusion, by the time I am 56, The United States will hopefully have found a way to stop the current rates of overpopulation. I want my children and grandchildren to inherit the quality of life I have been fortunate to have in Chattanooga, Tennessee. I am grateful to NPG for bringing a voice to the concern of overpopulation in America. The process of writing this scholarship has opened my eyes on the problems we face from overpopulation. I hope to carry this message forward for the rest of my life.

$1,500
Sebastian Henson
Lake Forest College

How Will I Be Affected by Population Growth?

I don’t believe that any American can breathe fully without the touch of nature reminding us of our origins and gently guiding us on a path of calm, purpose, and joy. I certainly can’t—when I sit in my yard, take a breath of fresh air, and listen to the cardinals’ songs, I am reminded of my place in life. In these moments, we forget that nature may not always be our guiding light. As the U.S. population is expected to grow by 70 million people in the next forty years, I can only expect to see increased habitat destruction, and see my connection with nature, quality of life, and health decrease.

Living in an area with limited access to open space and nature preserves, I cherish every nature excursion or glimpse of it. Open forests give me room for contemplation, learning, and joy. But these havens may not be available forever. Population growth invariably means loss of land and loss of natural habitat, leading to the most irreversible loss, the extinction of species. From 2000 to 2017, the U.S. population increased by 37 million, resulting in almost 12,000 acres of land developed due to population related factors. With a population growth of 70 million, developed land could be calculated to increase by almost 23,000 acres. It’s hard to imagine the implications of losing a portion of open space the size of West Virginia. I fear the day when I tell children tales about times when nature was abundant, and our nation was rich with biodiversity.

I usually think of the United States as a country with copious agricultural resources, and a shelter from dangers present in other parts of the world. But with the projected population increase, even this may be challenged. As population increases, so does America’s carbon dioxide emissions, which intensifies global warming. This has a multitude of results. When temperatures rise, certain crops cannot grow as well, become more vulnerable to weeds, and can even lose their nutritional value. Increased development may also decrease available farmland. Both factors can decrease agricultural output, potentially making quality food less accessible for my family. Beyond food impacts, additional global warming will cause natural disasters that are far more frequent than now. This will put more homes, including mine, in danger of destruction from storms, tornadoes, earthquakes, and hurricanes, directly affecting my quality of life.

The increase will also affect our health. The COVID-19 pandemic put to light the dangers of a large population—heightened disease transmission and overcrowded medical facilities. As America’s cities become denser, we can only expect these problems to get worse. A population increase will also result in more pollution as there is a greater need for energy and consumer goods. This will result in lower air quality, which has been linked to numerous health conditions. Since I plan to become a physician, I anticipate that my career will be very different than those before me; there will be a greater focus on improving the health of a nation afflicted with overpopulation related illnesses.

All that said, there is always hope. With proper immigration, land use, and infrastructure legislation, as well as initiatives to educate on family-planning, it doesn’t have to come to this. Without intervention, however, we can expect to lose our connection with nature, safety and security, and health—all of which have been cornerstones of my life and pillars of our nation.

$1,500
Connor Karpilovsky
St. Joseph’s University – Long Island

My Future in a Growing Population

Twenty-one. Twenty, one. No, I am not talking about the legal drinking age in the United States nor am I referring to the 2008, critically panned film of the same name. Vespa et al. (2020) of the U.S. Census Bureau project that the United States’ population will reach roughly 404 million people by 2060, from a roughly 332 million population in 2020 (p. 4). The “twenty-one” I was referring to is the growth of about 21.6% in the U.S. population that would occur, which would certainly change the world as we know and see it today. By analyzing these projections, I can better understand how such an increase would affect my everyday life.

One aspect of my life that would be impacted with a drastic population increase would, in my view, be the housing market. Living on Long Island, I am no stranger to a housing market that is inconceivably expensive, but if you add in a 21.6% population increase then I believe that will be a recipe for disaster. More people means an increased demand for housing, and thus an amplified market. I believe that this projected population growth will only exacerbate the housing market crisis and make it even more difficult to purchase a home during my lifetime.

The food supply chain is another aspect of my life that would be impacted. We have seen shocks and constraints in the supply chain ever since the COVID-19 pandemic started back in 2020, so it is my assertion that a population increase of this magnitude would only create more shortages at local stores. Similar to the housing issue, additional people in the economy would equate to an increased demand for basic goods and if our supply chains are not improved upon in the next 40 years then that will pose a key problem. This would not only have a major impact on my own personal life, but it would have a wide-ranging effect on the entire country as people would start to struggle to find basic goods that we all consume.

Lastly, I believe the environmental impacts will be grave and dire with this population increase. Our country already has a tremendous number of issues with respecting our environment, ranging from pollution to worsening climate change to even just daily littering, all of which will continue to have negative environmental ramifications. This will affect me personally as it could mean the further destruction of parts of nature that I interact with and see daily. Spending time with my wife on Peconic Lake or traversing through the Pine Barrens could be ancient history if necessary actions are not taken to lessen the impact of a dramatic population increase.

A 21.6% increase in the population over the next 40 years would have a profound impact on a plethora of aspects of my life. If no changes are made in how we live our lives then there will be severe consequences for us all. It is my hope that we as a society can come together to ensure that such devastation does not happen for the betterment of, not only ourselves, but more importantly for future generations as well. We cannot keep pushing our problems to the side; we need to be the change that we want to see in the world.

$1,000
Simran Bhogle
Irvine Valley College

In its prime, population growth was the machine that revolutionized America’s power in the world. The country bled with newfound potential and scared the rest of the world into submission. The economy strengthened and culture found its muse through the arts. Yet, this benefactor slowly but surely turned to a disadvantage. The bustling transportation and manufacturing changed the climate, polluted the waterways, and contributed to social inequalities. Although population growth caused an influx in American wealth, it slowly destroys our success now. As I look around the world in the future, the three aspects of my life most affected by population growth will be climate, pollution, and social inequality.

Climate is an incredibly important aspect of life because it determines the availability of crops and other valuable resources, but human overpopulation changes these delicately-set functions. Population growth has been identified as an immediate cause of greenhouse emissions. These emissions are increased due to “increased material extraction, deforestation, industrial agriculture,” and many other forms of man-made production.[1] These acts take massive tolls on Earth’s resources because there is an influx of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses in the air. These acts would be necessary to support an overpopulated group of people, yet they would destroy nature’s balance with the resources and animals around it. This will affect my life along with others’ lives because we will face soul-blazing forest fires and unbearable weather conditions as long as overpopulation continues to harm Earth’s climate.

Along with greenhouse gasses released in the air due to overpopulation, there will also be added pollution. This will affect my life and others’ lives incredibly because pollution decimates the resources people can use for nutrition and recreation. As an example, “In 2004, 31 states had statewide fish consumption advisories in place because of toxic pollution.”[2] Since overpopulation leads to a lesser amount of fish, people would have to limit their consumption. In the future, this would not just apply to fish, but to a multitude of animals and plants that many people once enjoyed. Added pollution will be one of the largest effects of overpopulation in the future, which will affect my life greatly because there may be many shortages of goods once enjoyed around the world.

Along with climate change and pollution, social inequality would be a large aspect of the future due to overpopulation. When there is a lack of resources in the world, it becomes difficult “for low-income and lower-middle-income countries to commit sufficient resources to improving the health and education of their populations.”[3] This means that overpopulation would lead to a further imbalance in society in which people are limited in their ability to succeed. Without an equal playing field, people may lose hope in society and find a lack of joy in everyday life. This would be significant for my life and the lives of others because a life without hope of advancement would be unbearably bleak. If overpopulation continues at the rate predicted by the U.S. Census Bureau, a lack of social and economic equality would be incredibly apparent.

As I look around the world in the future, the three aspects of my life most affected by population growth will be climate, pollution, and social inequality. Life would be surrounded by disastrous natural events due to climate change, scarcities of precious animals and plants, and social imbalances in society. In order to ensure a bright future filled with pleasant climate, an abundance of natural resources, and greater life satisfaction, we must take action to slow the population growth.

$1,000
Madelyn Heckert
Portland State University

Not a Movie Title but Real Life: The Impending Crush of People in 2060

A few years ago, my dad’s company eliminated his job, and we moved in with my grandparents. The house was a decent size, but even so, my grandpa got really stressed out about the noise and the lack of privacy. There weren’t enough seats for everyone to sit at the kitchen table and there were never enough snacks. Eventually, my dad found a job, we moved out, and my grandparents got their quiet house back. Unfortunately, it’s not as easy to solve when it’s not a house that’s overcrowded, but the whole United States. This country is expected to grow from 334 million people in 2020 to 404 million by 2060. If we don’t make changes to stop this from happening, the repercussions will be significant. I will be impacted by the resulting climate change, the shortages of resources, and the psychological distress of being stuck in a clown car from which there is no escape.

We’re already seeing climate change. We’ve known for a long time that human activities that create greenhouse gases like CO2 cause climate change. Adding more people will accelerate climate change. The results would be a catastrophic chain of events, causing weather-related crises and widespread diseases, threatening our health/overall well-being. I would have to suffer through more pandemics and more natural disasters, while watching sadly as habitats disappear and animals go extinct.

Remember how there were never enough snacks for everyone in my grandma’s house? Well, if the United States population grows to 404 million, the problem will be more than just a snack shortage. Demand for food in general will increase and food shortages like the kind we experienced during COVID will be common. Food won’t be the only commodity affected. We’ll have to change the way we collect and/or use water as it would be impossible to meet the growing demand. Virtually, everything we consume would be affected. When more people compete for a limited amount of something, like housing, prices skyrocket. I will likely spend a lot of time worrying over how to afford the necessities.

Another effect of population growth will be psychological. Dense neighborhoods drive up noise and crime, negatively impacting psychological well-being. It will be like that terrible crush of holiday traffic at the beginning of a long weekend, but instead it will be all the time, all year round. Every time you leave home, it will be like what happens when you leave a sports game; you’ll be surrounded by people, everywhere you look. In addition to the stress of overcrowding, there’s also the stress of the other effects – having to deal with climate change and its terrible repercussions, combined with the endless economic struggle of sky high prices.

It sounds like a survivalist movie – too many people and not enough water or food or housing – but it will be the reality of this country if we don’t make changes. Just like there weren’t endless amounts of chairs around my grandma’s kitchen table, there aren’t endless spaces here in the United States. We need to be careful to not overpopulate our planet so that all of the people living in the future have the same opportunities for health and well-being that people living right now have. Let’s make changes now before it’s too late.

$1,000
Domnica Reutov
Portland State University

The U.S. Census Bureau predicts the U.S. population may reach 404 million by 2060. This increase in population creates a slew of problems, such as an increase in disease outbreaks, water insecurity, and an increase in emissions which contribute to climate change.

In March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the COVID-19 outbreak a global pandemic. As cases of COVID-19 increased, weaknesses in the United States healthcare system began revealing themselves. This, mixed with citizens’ reluctance to follow guidelines and the lack of coordination from government offices, proved that action needs to be taken to prevent future pandemics. “However, infectious disease outbreaks have been increasing over the last decades. The exponential growth of the human population has led to increased urbanization which accelerates epidemics, as was the case with COVID-19 in Wuhan” (Spernovasilis at el.). Overpopulation and urbanization go hand in hand. Densely populated areas accelerate disease outbreaks. This was very apparent in New York City. New York is the largest city in the United States, which is a significant reason why the city consistently ranked highest for confirmed cases and deaths of COVID-19 (Bean). If actions against overpopulation are not taken, pandemics such as COVID-19 will become more frequent.

Fresh water is a fundamental human right. However, many people need to remember that it is a finite resource becoming less and less available. Humans rely on water to consume, cook, wash, and clean. It is estimated that in this year, 2023, “2.2 million people in the United States are without running water and basic indoor plumbing, and more than 44 million people have inadequate water systems” (Rees). Many Americans face water insecurity due to groundwater exhaustion, climate change conditions, and contamination, and with an increased population, these causes will only be exaggerated. Wells will dry out faster on account of increased use; climate change will worsen due to the rise in greenhouse gasses released due to a higher demand for products and services from the larger population, causing millions of Americans to be without water. Although America is a developed country, millions of its citizens face issues obtaining a fundamental human need: water. If this is already a problem, it will only intensify with a larger population.

Climate change creates long term-shifts in temperature and weather patterns, and since the 1800s, human activity has been the main driver of climate change (United Nations). Climate change can worsen our air and water quality, increase the spread of certain diseases and change the frequency and intensity of severe weather events (EPA). As greenhouse emissions increase, these issues will become more common. It is stated by Population Connection that:

Population growth and increasing consumption tend to increase emissions of climate-changing greenhouse gasses. Moreover, rapid population growth worsens the impacts of climate change by straining resources and exposing more people to climate-related risks—especially in low-resource regions (Population Connection).

Climate change affects everyone, and as the population grows, the intensity of climate change will grow with it.

It is clear that the United States has limited resources, and with those limitations, there is a limit on the number of people the country can support. An increase in exposure to disease outbreaks, water scarcity, and the effects of climate change don’t only affect an individual but the entire country. Because of this, action must be taken to prevent issues like these from progressing.