Is a question I have pondered for a long time. But first some background:
In 1992, the global population was ~5.5 billion. In 1952 the population was about 2.75 billion. The global population had about doubled in a mere 40 years. By comparison it had taken all human history for the species to reach the 1 billion mark in about 1800. In another 100 years (1900), the population reached about 2 billion. By the 1990’s, about 1 billion people are added to the population every 11 or 12 years. The rate of population growth was at a historical high of 2.0% in 1970. It had fallen to 1.7% in 1992. In 1992, the population was increasing by approximately 88 million people/year. Average fertility rates at ~3.0 birth/woman were still above the replacement rate of 2.1. Even if the fertility rates dropped to 2.0, the world population would still increase 8 billion around 2050 before stabilizing. To make matters worse much of this rapid growth was occurring in very ecologically impoverished places least able to absorb it.
China realized the detrimental effects of having such a large number of people and therefore implemented the 1 child policy in 1979. Today, 1 in every 4 people is Chinese
Most recently, man power in China was evident by becoming the number one exporter of good in the planet, surpassing Germany. But everything ha s a price; China has one of the most environmentally polluted environments in the world and its one of the main contributors of CO2. China was also one of the great producers of CFCs which contributed to the depletion of the Ozone Layer.
I’m not trying to make China seem like the big monster who wants to destroy the world and take away our clean air, the U.S. is a big contributor of CO2 that is increasing the temperature of the planet and wiping out species at a very depressing rate. But the U.S. shows more care about their environment, that’s why they send their waste to China and some countries in Africa. Let someone else deal with it.
At this point, would decreasing the population (either by awareness, religious cooperation, and prevention) really help? And how can we approach this problem? Today, the poorest countries are the most populated, why? Do they not realize that having more children will make them poorer? Religion also plays a major role in the amount of children families have, or if they should have (once they are pregnant).
How can we begin to tell people that they should not have children because they are poor? And that having children or more children will destroy the environment? Which is more important? A poor country with a high population can not progress if the environment is not able to sustain them. Be by not having clean water, food, or other resources. Today around the world unemployment is very high, and the economy is on a coma. Guess who suffers the most.
In countries in which children are venerated, and most people are pro-life (because of religion majority) the problem of population will persist unless there are waves of change, culturally. In other places in which the majority of citizens are highly educated (and prefer to wait longer to have children) their economic success will likely persist. Having said that, the population problem is not happening simultaneously on a global scale; several countries are actually struggling to replace the older generation (i.e. Japan).
To address the concern of overpopulation in their countries, individual governments have –to certain extent-the responsibility to educate and help those who would like to prevent having more children by distributing birth control to those who want it and promoting the use of condoms and eliminating cultural barriers and taboos. Promoting logical thinking wouldn’t hurt either…
references: UMUCENV644CASE1
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100110/ap_on_bi_ge/as_china_trade
Maybe a realistic way is spending time and energy to educate kids (but where, if there aren't schools?) before to educate parents and adults. I believe making aware new generations is easier than change the way of thinking of adult people, that is structured by now.
ReplyDeleteEducation certainly makes a difference, as people who are more educated will most likely wait longer to have children (if they actually do have children) and we can see that on industrialized countries. But, can industralized countries tell the poorer countries not to have as many children they want? after being the ones tha are actually destroying everything and actually used their resources to their advantage? in fact they have the responsability to help.
ReplyDeleteThis is a huge problem leading to numerous environmental and health problems across the globe and I think all the countries in the world should come up with programs that would help stop the population growth.
ReplyDeleteEducation seems to be the most important factor and actually a study of The Independent in UK says that women who complete secondary education programs are likely to focus on the "quality" of their children rather than the "quantity," which translates into having fewer children over the course of a lifetime.
Birth control is another way of dealing with this but in some countries the religious leaders believe that this goes against the theological teachings. Anyway access to family planning and to condoms would allow women to be more informed and therefore it would limit the number of children.
Also each county could create a set of incentives for families with less than 2 children ( of course that shouldn't apply in case a family has a child and then they get twins or triplets lol ) meaning tax breaks, education projects and other benefits that would make people be more inclined to choose to have smaller families.
Rich countries impose western culture to Africa's, Asian's, or Latin America's countries. They should be help them without destroy their culture, but the practice is to export "democracy" today...
ReplyDeleteIn that way, we risk to build a green world with grey people. A good way to realize the colors of our planet is to visit the American Museum of Natural History of NY...
Can we make aware people of poor countries without to interfere with their wonderful culture? (and of what? are we sure that our way of control birth is the best? i know, if you are poor it is better don't bring to life a lot of children, but it doesn't look so simple)
Bodgan, you have very good points. Your last paragraph seems like a very good idea that some countries could implement. In fact, Russia last time I read was offering money for people to have children. Apparently they are having issues with the newest generation compromising to start families. But in a country with so many issies-perhaps not all issies about money-what would encorage this generation to have kids? can money do it? it certainly seems like a good idea because people's concern are mostly about money security. Specially the the westernized world. Now, I want to concentrate in those countries in which information is limited, healthcare is limited, and birthcontrol is limited. Those tends to be the poorest
ReplyDeleteYes, we should be understand what kind of countries we're talking about. Of course, we are not talking about first world countries, because for example, in Italy, in which there is a low birth-rate, the problem is the opposite and government pays who wants to give birth. If we are talking about really poor countries, we should be consider that often in those there isn't any real government, there are civil wars, there are military dictatorships or worse fake democracies (banana republic) with a lot of corruption, so that laws and bills don't work (or can work in the future, if something changes) and helps can come only by international organizations and aid agencies (there aren't banks to pay cheques to the families, or social credit cards to recharge - like in Italy for old poor people). We can make a list of the countries we are talking about so that we can analyse them better.
ReplyDeleteThat is a very good point Francesco
ReplyDelete