July 11--World Population Day PDF Print E-mail
Our Blue Earth - Our Blue Earth
Written by Craig Etchison   
Friday, 10 July 2009 22:13

Today, July 11, is World Population Day: Fight Poverty, Educate Girls.  My guess is that few if any reading this article were aware that this was World Population Day.  Yet population, or rather the population explosion the world has seen in the past fifty years, is at the heart of most, if not all, the major problems humanity faces—environmental, political, and social.  If we don’t address the population problem, what we do in other areas, and right now that is pathetically small in the environmental arena, as only one example among many,  whatever we do will be of little consequence.  Curbing population growth must be central to every policy agenda around the world if the Earth and its inhabitants are to survive.

 

Population growth in the last half century has been staggering.  Between 1950 and 1990, the population doubled from 2.5 to 5 billion.  Another billion plus were added before the end of the century.  Estimates now suggest that before the end of the 21st century, the Earth will have between eight and twelve billion people vying for food, water, and energy.

 

The last sentence should be viewed in the light of some present facts—that over a billion people now go hungry, that approximately 100,000 people die each day of hunger and hunger related diseases, that 2 billion people try to exist on $2 a day or less, and that the world’s ecosystem seems to be collapsing.  And more and more people grasping for decreasing resources can only lead to conflict.  One of the most vital resources already in short supply is fresh water, and projections suggest this resource will become even scarcer in many parts of the world in the near future.  The U.S. southwest, for one, is looking at significant shortages.

 

Over population is felt across the globe, but those areas with the fastest growing populations are also among the poorest.  Sub-Saharan Africa is growing the fastest, which only intensifies problems like disease, famine, and wars over resources—one example being Darfur.  Alex Ezeh, executive director of the Africa Population and health Research Centre, says, “We are looking at tens of millions more mouths to feed, children to school, and people to house in the countries that are least able to accommodate that.”

 

Unfortunately, family planning programs have stagnated over the past fifteen years, and eight years of the Bush policy only helped exacerbate the problem.  Mr. Ezeh says that, “If we introduce effective family planning programs now, we are able to actually forestall the continuing high rates of population growth 15, 20, 30 years from now.”

 

Family planning also empowers women.  Around the world each year, over half a million women die during pregnancy and childbirth, and for every death, twenty women suffer lifelong injuries and disabilities.  As Fatima Mrisho of the Tanzania Commission for Aids says about family planning, “It gives women more opportunities for development, it makes herself as an individual survive better, it makes her children survive better, but as importantly, it also improves the general condition of a country.

 

Of course, there has been a great taboo about speaking candidly about population growth, and the Catholic Church has worked actively against curbing population.  Yet the Earth is a finite resource that cannot support an infinite number of people.  And it is highly unlikely that some “deus ex machina” is going to appear to relieve us of making difficult decisions.  Such “magical” thinking almost guarantees a massive catastrophe where billions die, most likely within the lifetime of today’s children, and certainly in the lifetime of their children.  I wonder if that is what our legacy will be?  What will they say about the politicians who dithered and did nothing?

 

Jack Hart suggests five ways to help the planet, which seem appropriate on this World Population Day.

 

  1. Eliminate the taboo that keeps us from talking about the root cause of our environmental—and many other—problems.  Concern about overpopulation is not racist, communist, sexist or biased against the Third World.  We all have a stake in this.

 

  1. Quit mistaking per-capita pollution numbers as a sign of progress.  Let’s track the totals, of carbon dioxide and every other human pollutant.

 

  1. Reward politicians who support population control with your votes.  Eliminate tax breaks for more than two children.  Focus foreign aid on population-control programs.  Campaign for a new worldwide ethic in favor of small families.

 

  1. Keep your own family small.  World population will eventually level off only if we hold average births per woman to 2.06.  We’ll reduce the world population to a sustainable size only if women average no more than 1.7 children.

 

  1. Stop treating growth as not only inevitable, but also positive.  Despite recent reports, a slowdown in metro-area housing starts is not bad news.

 

 

 

Last Updated on Friday, 10 July 2009 22:16
 
Comments (8)
World Population Day
SitIZen
Saturday, 11 July 2009 03:19
Yet another propaganda for Marxist ideals in dilluting the world. No matter how you water it down it is what it is and the true founder of these ideals is Marx.
World Population --twin challenges
Kara RogersThomas
Saturday, 11 July 2009 08:09
The Population dilemma is very complex. When teaching the Sociology of the Environment at FSU, I like to show NOVA - World in the Balance: The Population Paradox (2004)--hoping they'll do another soon. Part One of the film does an excellent job of exploring the complexities of population increase in some regions and population loss in others. But, no matter how you slice it--population change is one of the world's most pressing problems.
The problem is over-consumption, not over-population.
J.D.Tuckley
Saturday, 11 July 2009 09:18
Once again, the bugaboo about too many people...which people? Too many developed world types, who over-consume like greedy monsters? Too many under-developed types, who scare the upper middle class life-stylers with their seemingly burgeoning numbers (why, they may use
up all our stuff!) and demands for a better quality of life?

If societies develop materially, their people become as "brilliant" as most of us, and don't have dozens of children per family. Especially women, who become better educated and better able to control their own bodies and thus no longer limited to being used as baby-makers, exclusively.

They really don't need us to teach them to use birth control and not have so many children. They need us to stop devouring the earth's resources and insisting that their societies either go along with our process, or risk total destruction, at our hands.

If other societies develop higher material standards of living, the so-called population problem would be no greater than it is here in the USA. There are too many drivers, too many pollution vehicles and too many wasteful practices of marketing that adhere to principles of private profit and not public need. But we don't have too many people; just too many people who perpetuate systems of waste, bigotry and murder.

If we change our system to one focused on democracy and humanity and get rid of those people in power who promote rapacious greed and wanton destruction, we'll do more to help the rest of the world better its standards of living than by sending them family planning info, which is loved by liberals but is useless if you haven't got a plan for anything else.
And furthermore--
J.D.Tuckley
Saturday, 11 July 2009 09:58
Here are some (slightly dated) figures on population density (people per square mile):


China: 342
Eritrea: 90
Ethiopia: 143
France: 281
Italy: 495
Germany: 601
India: 825
Bahrain: 2,642
Bangladesh: 2,324
UK: 631
Israel: 728
Congo: 21
Democratic Republic of Congo: 57
Cuba: 260
Mexico: 132
USA: 73
South Korea: 1,248


The point? As you can see, predicting the areas of greatest hunger, resource usage, etc. is impossible: It simply is not the case that overpopulation alone can account for environmental destruction and human misery.


Throughout the 20th Century, but especially since the end of the Second World War, the rich industrialized nations of the north have been draining the poor nations of the southern hemisphere of money and resources. World Bank and International Monetary Fund mega-loans of untold billions (if not trillions) of dollars serve to keep the poor south in economic bondage because, in many cases, interest payments alone on these loans amount to a 75% or higher percentage of the entire annual productive wealth of these impoverished countries. And while billions in "loans" may sound like actual foreign aid to the uninitiated, much of this money never leaves the United States to begin with. Large construction firms like KBR, Bechtel, Halliburton and others simply pocket the money in exchange for building massive hydroelectric dams and super-highways in countries like Bolivia; projects that benefit only the wealthy elite anyway. And the strings attached to these World Bank and IMF loans often require that countries like Columbia and Uruguay allow for U.S. military bases in their region and spend much of the money on the purchase of U.S.-made military weaponry to prop up their militaries in support of their rich elite to begin with; invariably to the detriment of the poor and impoverished segment of the population.


And to the comment that Mr. Etchison's article is Marxist, his commentary is Mathuist, not Marxist. My comments are Marxist. Get your dead white European philosophers straight.
Thomas R. Malthus and Consumption
Kara RogersThomas
Saturday, 11 July 2009 13:32
This is a nice resource page on Thomas Malthus (1766-1834)--with links to his primary source material.
http://homepage.newschool.edu/het//profiles/malthus.htm
Malthus' theory has been discredited by many over the years. However, much of that is due to the fact that few bother to visit his own words. Understood in the context of the timeframe, the Malthusian theory does have some merit.

And, for those interested in following up on the consumption debate, I strongly recommend http://www.storyofstuff.com/
Perhaps, but during Malthus' day---
J.D.Tuckley
Saturday, 11 July 2009 19:15
---humankind had yet to derive any benefit from the (then) vast amount of ancient sunlight energy stored within the earth. To me, this fact alone renders his hypothesis irrelevant. There's no point in debating Malthus for the purpose of either proving or disproving his theories.


Our species hit the lottery jackpot with the discovery of oil and its many developed uses. And we've been living on those lottery winnings for well over one hundred years. Without oil, the global population of our species might still be two billion rather than almost seven billion. People in the obscenely over-consumptive west (this includes segments of Asia) wouldn't be able to live in geographical areas otherwise completely unfit for human life. Without oil, foodstuffs produced in one geographical area of the world could not be transported 10,000 miles to feed humans living in areas unfit for agrarian production. There would be no central heating or air conditioning. Bakersfield, California would still be an arid desert as would most of Arizona.


Personally, I find the notion of "teaching" impoverished peoples about birth-control and family planning to be rather arrogant in addition to being simplistic. Peak-oil is upon us. Global production is falling. And the wealthy elite are engaged in the sordid business of waging illegal warfare across the world for the purpose of securing the remaining, and rapidly dwindling, oil reserves for their benefit. It is a two-pronged approach: Wipe-out indigenous societies for the purpose of creating markets for consumer goods according to the failed model of global capitalism, while simultaneously raping these area of natural resources while disallowing the transfer of any significant monetary benefit to the poorer 2/3 of these population. Witness Nigeria.


Ten years ago, Susan George wrote an excellent book on the topic: "The Lugano Report: On Preserving Capitalism in the Twenty-first Century." Highly recommended. Hopefully it is not out-of-print, and no, you can't borrow my copy.
Excuse me?
J.D.Tuckley
Saturday, 11 July 2009 19:57
Am I suggesting that the global elite are interested in culling the lower-class populations of the world? Yes I am. But they aren't interested in doing so by promoting birth control and family planning. No profit in that. They would rather that enormous numbers of people first be born so they can proceed to systematically starve them to death. The ensuring chaos can then seemingly only be quelled by selling (and smuggling) weapons, which the global elite (conveniently) produce.
The problems with overpopulation.
James M. Gillen
Saturday, 11 July 2009 20:28
It is all too simple. Not enough of those that have share.
There is space enough. There is food enough. There is technology enough. Getting them to share is what is complicated.
Population control ideas are skirting the main issue. Those who ARE trying to do something to help are always coming up against those who fight out of greed, fear, ignorance and desire for power.
The U.N. is an example.
Please register or login to add your comments to this article.
 
Webappindie.org