I'M not as worried as perhaps I should be that the world population is about to reach 6 billion, nearly four times what the 20th century started with. World can sustain
many more peopleNo. 1, I think the growth will slow down. Trends show it always does as countries become richer and more developed.
No. 2, I'm sure it's possible for 10 billion or even 20 billion people to live congenially on this planet if we work at it.
My Exhibit A is Singapore. People there are quite well off by world standards. They have attractive parks, commercial sections, highways and streets and lots of high-rise condos where living standards are good.
Owning a car is so expensive there are far fewer per capita than here, but public transportation is good. Health standards are good also. So are the schools and universities.
Singapore, which lies very close to the equator, is so attractive that tourists flock to it by the millions. It draws them even though its climate is less congenial than Hawaii's, it has no beautiful hills or mountains, and swimming beaches are very few.
What's amazing is that its population is 3 million, and its land area less than the island of Molokai with a population of only 7,000.
What's further amazing is that intensively developed cities are population magnets worldwide. They lure people from surrounding rural areas, often to live in squalor you won't find in Singapore.
My Exhibit B supports the last point. Western Samoa is one of the most beautiful, bucolic places in the world. Many of its people live off the land and the surrounding sea in an agreeable climate. Disciples of "Small Is Better" have to love Western Samoa. But guess what: One-fourth of Western Samoans have migrated to centers like Auckland, New Zealand, where they live in crowded districts not nearly as attractive as their homeland. Jobs and excitement are the draw.
There are those among us who love to be alone -- sheep herders in remote areas, for example. But those of us who like to be near others are a vast majority.
More than any other place I know, Singapore shows crowding can be congenial. The big price there is a government that is quite authoritarian. Its excesses seem to have been reined in, however, by outside criticism of its toughest measures.
American-style punishment and public decision-making delays to afford due process of law sometimes drag out for years. No place as tightly packed as Singapore can afford these luxuries of delay. This is Singapore's greatest weakness as a model for the future. Even so, it is a better place to live than many and it still retains tethered freedom.
No way am I recommending we all live in Singapores, but it certainly lessens my fear of world crowding.
It shows the importance of developing a strong public infrastructure and economy to protect health, provide transportation and keep living congenial.
I can imagine Hawaii accommodating a multi-million population in the future if we plan well enough and grow reasonably gradually.
Who will feed us all? Where will we get our energy? Those seem like solvable problems. Much, much more food and energy could be produced locally. The sea around us has water waiting to be desalinated. If we develop a viable economic structure, we can, like Singapore, earn the money to buy the products we can't produce ourselves.
Hawaii in total has as much land as 27 Singapores. Oahu alone has enough square footage to allot about 2.5 feet of standing room to each of 6 billion people.
World crowding is not so much to be feared as the lack of sound, strong, intelligent, foresighted and environmentally sensitive leadership.
A.A. Smyser is the contributing editor
and former editor of the the Star-Bulletin
His column runs Tuesday and Thursday.