Our planet's most serious and
fundamental problem, which is causing so many other problems, is overpopulation and
population explosion.
The following article may be worth reading:
Shouldn't we try to reduce
the number of people on our planet?
Could we - and should we in this case - control the
world's population to reduce poverty, suffering and the pressure on our
ecosystems? The question of population control and family planning has been
discussed at least since the 1700s but there is still no serious debate on the issue.
Imagine the following news: "Lengthy negotiations in the UN have been successful in Paris. A
binding agreement limiting growth of population has been signed by almost all
countries. The agreement means that the growth of the planets population will most
likely cease by 2050, reaching a target of 6 billion people. Scientists
estimate that this Agreement is equally important for the environment as
climate control agreements."
Unattainable? Unnecessary? Several countries are
already reducing their population and the global growth rate is reduced - it is
now 1 percent/year. In 1975 for example it was 1.8 percent. True, but the amount of
increase in 1975 led to 72 million more people per year; Today it leads to 73
million more per year. But people are better off today! Yes, the proportion who
are better off is increasing in a number of countries, but around 1 billion
live below the poverty line globally. Increased prosperity increases consumption leading to increasing pressure on the ecosystems that sustain us. The effects on
the environment is largely determined by the number of people times their consumption
of resources. Future climate change, war, disease, natural disasters and
resource shortages hit harder, and means more suffering as we grow in numbers.
UN population forecast was adjusted upwards in July.
But it was barely noticed in the media. Today we are 7.4 billion. By 2050 we
are expected to be 9,7 billion, and by 2100 - 11.2 billion. The heavviest population
growth will be the in parts of Africa, India, Pakistan and Indonesia. But
Central Europe generally has a higher population density than Africa. In
several countries close to Europe, the population has increased considerably. In
dry, arid countries like Syria, Saudi Arabia and Yemen from 8 -10 million in
1980 to 23-29 million per country in 2013. The current global fertility is 2.37
children per woman. A calculation shows that if it could be reduced to 2.0
children in 2020, we would feed 777 million fewer people in 2050, compared with
an unchanged fertility.
Media reported last
summer that "Six million people are starving in Yemen". If one
considers that less vulnerable and hungry people would be a humanitarian
progress, it is not only the world's uneven distribution of resources tha is
relevant, but also the population issue. The allocation of resources is often
the focus, while the global population growth gets very little attention today.
What suggestions have been forwarded on how to limit the population? The priest and economist Thomas Malthus
(1766-1834) became famous through his "A Treatise on Population Act,"
in which he warned that world population is growing faster than the resources. He
advocated education and that women bearing children at a higher age. This
trail, family planning, has since been passed on to our moder times. Georg
Borgström, Swedish naturalist (from 1956 Professor in the USA) studied famine and food security during
the 50s and 60s He stressed the need to control population growth
on our planet.
Inventions and industrial revolution led in the 1800s
and early 1900s to more efficient food production, something Malthus did not foresee.
The global population rose at that time also quite slowly. We were around 2
billion in the early 1900's. From about 1950 the population curve rises steeply
upwards, sometimes with an annual increase of over 2 percent as cheap oil
lubricated the global economy. Most population increases were in
non-industrialized countries, while per capita consumption increased markedly
in industrialized countries. This contributes strongly to today's global
environmental problems.
Kenneth Boulding (1910-1993), a liberal professor of
economics, presented in his book "The meaning of the Twentieth
Century" (1964) the least original proposal which could give a future
stable population. He started from birth, using the example of 2.2 children per
woman. Every newborn woman should get rights to "a number of births" (men could also be included) in a market
where birthrights can be bought or sold. This means that those who want many
children have to purchase additional units from the system, while those who
want to have few or no children can earn extra money.
David de la Croix and Axel Gosseries analyzed Bouldings
suggestions in 2009 (including countries with both growing and shrinking
population) seeking a global equilibrium. They found support for population
control à la Boulding could work on a global scale - and would ,under certain
circumstances, also benefit global economic justice and education. When
Bouldings book was reprinted in 1988, he in a preface stuck to his ideas, but
with a partially dark perspective. The light he saw was mainly the environmental
movement, "whose essential message included the love for variety to this
strange and beautiful planet."
During the 60s population increase was debated
intensely - different schools saw it as a big problem, a non-issue, or
beneficial - by innovation and new technologies the planet would benefit. Most famous for
advocating population control were Anne and Paul Ehrlich. In the book
"population explosion" (1968). In their book they suggest that the
United States, given its large consumption, should act as a model for other
countries. Economic support, it was suggested should be reduced the more children a
family had. They also proposed a special tax for cots, diapers etc., except
for the poor.
Making it costly to have many children should reduce
the size of families. They further proposed abortion rights for
women, that adoption would be supported financially, that men who were
sterilized after they had two children, could get a reward, that contraception
should be used more, education and additional things.
A controversial issue in the discussion was about rich
countries' giving aid to poor countries hit by famine. If the countries
received support in the form of food and other resources, it was argued that
the population could increase which, with increasing starvation as a result,
unless demands were made on Family Planning (assistance with related
requirements). By the time food production was increased ("The Green
Revolution") and population problems were disregarded. Today the situation
is different, with strained food production and climate change.
During the following decades the status of women was improved
in many countries. They had fewer children in rich countries with higher female
empowerment. But now attention became increasingly focused on multiculturalism.
Hardin, a scientist studing human ecology, stressed
severely limited migration between countries as an important factor to check the growth of worldpopulation. Countries would be able to compete in
setting good examples in population control and the environment, much as they
compete in sports, research and more. Tightly controlled borders require
international assistance in disasters and war, but Hardin argued that
population control should be included in the assistance.
Today it is often argued that countries with aging
population and low birth rate need to get addition of younger folks, and that
this could be solved by immigration. Demographers downplay the problems of
aging population. They note that the phenomenon already existed a longtime ago
and was handled in England.
In "Population:
Introduction to concepts and issues" (2012), John Weeks writes that
immigration today does not work as a general solution to the problem of aging
population. Sometimes it may instead cause social problems.
Climate agreements may be based on contributions to
emit carbon dioxide. This may strike against poor countries, on their road to
progress. Climate change is hitting the poor countries with growing populations
the hardest while increasing inequalities. In climate models it is assumed that
population will increase, according to UN forecasts. But sociologist Monica Das
Gupta reported a positive effect of population control in a model UN forecast
for 2005-2055. Food production there would need to increase 64 percent by 2055.
But if the population had remained at the 2005 level, production would only
have to increase 25 percent (due to the increasing global consumption per
capita). With climate degradation included, food production must increase
substantially more. Monica Das Gupta reports a series of studies that suggest
that family planning can effectively reduce fertility in developing countries.
Coercive family planning has occurred in dictatorships
like China (since 1970) and Iran (for about 15 years, until 2006). In India it
was conducted in the 70's by widespread forced sterilization of men - now a
criminal offense. What conditions, and what kinds of policy is required to be
acceptable in controling population growth in democracies? And could proposed
international agreements be possible? Malthus and his followers insisted that
measures to limit population would aim at reducing extensive human suffering,
while protecting ecosystems. A quote from Bouldings book of 1964 seems to still
be valid : "There is a need to devote substantial mental activity for this
problem. For some reason we do not do that?"
This article was written by Frank Götmark, a professor
of ecology at the University of Gothenburg. The article was published in
Svenska Dagbladet on 16 november 2015.
Also check:
http://axiom1b.blogspot.se/2015/12/circular-economy-needs-to-be-measured.html
