Science Snippets: Human Population Underestimated as Honeybee Colonies Collapse

Draft script:

As you probably know, the human population on Earth now exceeds eight billion. That’s too many people on a finite planet. The human population is still growing. What you might not know is that we have probably dramatically underestimated the human population. This is an especially acute problem in rural areas. Just when I thought the situation could not get worse, additional data indicates otherwise.

According to a peer-reviewed, open-access paper in the renowned Nature series, there are more people on Earth than previously known. Previous efforts have badly underestimated the human population. The paper is titled Global gridded population datasets systematically underrepresent rural population. It was written by three scholars and published in Nature Communications on 18 March 2025.

The Abstract begins with surprising information, at least to me: “Numerous initiatives towards sustainable development rely on global gridded population data. Such data have been calibrated primarily for urban environments, but their accuracy in the rural domain remains largely unexplored. This study systematically validates global gridded population datasets in rural areas, based on reported human resettlement from 307 large dam construction projects in 35 countries. We find large discrepancies between the examined datasets, and, without exception, significant negative biases …” The Abstract indicates the biases range from −53% to −84%, depending upon the dataset used. In other words, even the most conservative bias underestimates the rural human population by more than 50%. The bias of -53% comes from the WorldPop dataset. At the other end of the spectrum, the Global Human Settlement Population, or GHS-POP, underestimates the rural human population by 84%. These are not small numbers. This is not an insignificant issue. Mining and using data from 35 countries is no small task.

I learned about the IPAT model when I was in college. IPAT is often expressed as I = P x A x T. It is widely used to estimate the environmental impact, represented by I, as a function of population size, times affluence, times technology. The terms on the right side of the equal sign refer to humans and their impact. Briefly, more humans, times more affluence, times more technology, multiplies to greater environmental impact. And, yes, it multiplies. These terms are not simply additive. Who among us has the greatest environmental impact? Wealthy humans using advanced technology and creating multiple copies of themselves via reproduction. The actions of Elon Musk are not helpful if our goal is to minimize environmental impact, thereby preserving more of the living planet for future generations. On the other hand, if your goal is to destroy the living planet as quickly as possible, then I encourage you to treat Musk as your superhero. Maybe he’ll give you a one-way trip to Mars after we make this planet uninhabitable for our species. Once on Mars, you’ll realize what the term uninhabitable means. We’ll all know, soon enough, thanks to our collective actions here on Earth.

As I said, I learned about the IPAT model when I was in college. However, I understood the idea long before I learned it in a classroom. I was 19 years old when I realized that more people pursuing more material possessions would lead to disaster within my lifetime. That’s when I decided not to bring more people into a world I realized was overcrowded. About two years later, I was introduced to IPAT. It made perfect sense. It still does, unless you’re a fan of more people demanding more material possessions.

A short expression I have used for many years explains the future of every human on Earth: Birth is a sexually transmitted disease that has proven fatal in every case. We know how life turns out. What we do, as individuals, between our birth and our death defines us. It defines our ability to accept evidence. It defines our character. It tells us, and others, who we are.

In what might sound like a non sequitur, honeybee colonies are threatened with collapse. Considering the importance of honeybees for pollinating food crops, this is not a non sequitur. In fact, it’s a sequitur, which means “the conclusion of an inference.” So indicates the online Merriam-Webster dictionary.

According to a headline at NBC News, Scientists warn of severe honeybee losses in 2025. Here’s the lede: “Honeybee colonies in the United States are projected to decline by up to 70% in 2025, entomologists at Washington State University said ...” The next paragraph indicates relevant details: “The university said in a news release that in the past decade, honeybee colony losses have averaged 40% to 50% annually. But this year, a combination of nutrition deficiencies, mite infestations, viral diseases and possible pesticide exposure during the previous pollinating season led to higher losses ...”

Colony losses of 40% to 50% annually seem like a lot. A decline of 70% seems catastrophic.

Later in the story at NBC News, we read “[t]he implications could be huge.” Wait, didn’t I just reach the same conclusion? In fact, [a]bout 35% of the world’s food depends on pollinators, according to the National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

A Professor of pollinator ecology at … [Washington State University], said in a statement accompanying the release that higher losses could also lead to higher costs for farmers who depend on bee colonies: “I don’t want to be a fear-monger, but this level of national loss could mean increased bankruptcies amongst beekeepers. Growers of crops downstream from almonds may need to scramble if the beekeeper they’ve relied on to pollinate their apple trees, for example, isn’t in business anymore.”

You probably noticed my pronunciation of almonds. I learned this pronunciation when I was on a speaking tour in California’s almond country many years ago. Almonds are harvested by shaking the stem of tree when the almonds are ripe. To quote a grower of these valuable nuts, “you shake the L out of them.” Following this approach, there is no L in almond.

The Professor of pollinator ecology at Washington State University said, “I don’t want to be a fear-monger.” I understand his sentiment. Nobody wants to be afraid. Nobody wants the language of others to sound fearful or to invoke fear. After all, humans have long believed we have an easily applied solution to every problem. Fear suggests otherwise, despite death being the ultimate destination for each of us.

I am not here to cast fear. I encourage people to be prepared for the future. Preparation includes an understanding of death for every living creature so far. If there is one thing we will not escape, it’s death. What we do in the short time between now and then defines us.