I came across this article on msn.com today, and thought it fit well with our discussions on population growth and its economic and environmental impacts. If you have about five minutes to read the full article, I highly suggest it:
The article, written by David Crary of the Associated Press, takes a hard look at the concern of over-population, stating that by October 31st of this year, the world population will reach 7 million people. While this is no surprise to those of us in this class, (and others in the sustainability field), and we’ve had conversations about earth’s carrying capacity and ways to reduce the human footprint, this does bring the urgency of action to the forefront for environmental, social, and economic professionals. While growth in developed nations means contributing to greater levels of climate change and ozone layer depletion through our extensive burning of fossil fuels, emission of carbon dioxide, halocarbons, and methane, growth in developing nations means a direct depletion of the food, water, and jobs needed to support the burgeoning population. The article asks the all-consuming question of our course: “Is catastrophe inevitable? Not necessarily. But experts say most of Africa — and other high-growth developing nations such as Afghanistan and Pakistan — will be hard-pressed to furnish enough food, water and jobs for their people, especially without major new family-planning initiatives” (Crary, 2011).
Godfrey Olukya / AP
Ahmed Kasadha, center, on the porch of his house in Iganga, Uganda, with one of his wives and six of his 14 children on Oct. 1. A polygamist, Kasadha says large families are a sign of success and God's blessing.
By DAVID CRARYHowever, focusing on educational programs for adolescents and young women that empower them to make better decisions would prove to be a powerful tool in the fight against overpopulation. “The executive director of the U.N. Population Fund, former Nigerian health minister Babatunde Osotimehin, describes the 7 billion milestone as a call to action — especially in the realm of enabling adolescent girls to stay in school and empowering women to control the number of children they have” (Crary, 2011). These types of efforts create cascading effects; what is learned in the fight against overpopulation and other social constructs will trickle down to effect changes in economic problems and environmental stressors, as well.
I sure hope that the population of Earth doesn't reach 7 million people by the 31st. That would be a pretty cataclysmic die-off. (Just kidding, I'm sure you meant 7 billion. :) )
ReplyDeleteBut you bring up a good point. Overpopulation is huge problem in the grand scheme of things. It is making the goal of a sustainable planet that much more unattainable. The problem is that no one wants to mention or address this issue, for good reason; it'd be political suicide. But just because the fact that we have too many people is an uncomfortable topic to discuss and deal with, it doesn't mean that we should ignore it.
Keelyn, you bring up good points and you certainly are right on track with issues concerning over-population and a significant way to reduce it in developing countries. Try to tie this more into the readings.
ReplyDeleteWhoops, yep... 7 billion :)
ReplyDeleteWhile family planning initiatives are (as Scott put it perfectly) indeed "political suicide", fostering women's empowerment and education (which Keelyn also mentioned) is a big winner. Better yet? Microloans for women entrepreneurs to support themselves and their families.
ReplyDeleteCheck out Kiva (http://www.kiva.org/), a non-profit where you can make a $25 loan online and it all goes towards a start-up business of your choice in empoverished areas of the world that lack (reliable) banking systems. You can lend according to gender (more than 80% of loans are made to women entrepreneurs), business sector, or global region. You can track the progress online, and get reimbursed when the business pays off their loan to Kiva (repayment rate is an amazing 98.89%). It's a sound investment with a conscience.
I love the concept of Kiva!
ReplyDeleteThink about this, according to the Global Footprint Network, the average footprint of a person in the US is 8gha/person versus the average footprint of a person in Pakistan which is 0.77 gha/person. Then, ask yourself should we focus our dollars on reducing the population of people in countries such as Pakistan or really focus on reducing the global footprint of those in countries like the US? Which will have the greatest impact when thinking about the sustainability of our planet and global climate change? Just a thought.
I think basically people will keep having babies until a) child mortality declines to a point where we no longer have to have oodles of kids replace those that die, and/or b) it becomes economically unnecessary for us to have more kids. The problem we have (and I've tried to make this point before) is that improving this situation requires an increase in standards of living. I don't think mere family planning is enough; I think it requires education and jobs to really make a difference. However, if we give people those, all of a sudden that might wanna consume more. Then we're in a Catch-22: fewer people consuming more vs. more people consuming less. It's a tough trap to escape.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the great comments, everyone! Reen, I think I was trying to get across Laura's point (in a very poor way...), that basically, by focusing on empowering women and educating impoverished countries in general, we can decrease birth rates- thereby lowering the individual footprints that are contributing to climate change and other air quality issues. Though, Laura's point is well taken, that these efforts need to be trained on the developed, rather than developing, countries whose footprints have significantly more impact!
ReplyDeleteThis is one of my dirty-little-secret favorite topics. It's a dirty little secret because it's politically abhorrent and it's one of my favorites because it's the elephant in the room that is only ignored because its ethical implications are extremely convoluted and the human passions behind the arguments, on any angle of the problem, are extreme.
ReplyDeleteI guess the best way to start is to address some other posts. First, I'll second Scott; well played. Second, I'll confess to Laura that I don't understand which conclusion -- of the two possible conclusions that you're implying -- is the most apparent...I suppose it should be obvious, but the question of where we should focus our reproductive-management efforts isn't obvious to me. I'm confused because the rates listed are demand-side and per-capita, whereas I think that those figures are based on the aggregate potentiality of the supply-side: the structural availability of real gha/person conditions the quantity of the numerator. By which I mean that the ludicrously high availability of supply in the US -- because of climatalogical, technological, and geological factors -- makes it much easier for per-capita rates to be higher, which, nonetheless, are directly correlated with population size. If supply was equal in the US & Pakistan, the US per-capita gha rate would be substantially lower than that of Pakistan. If we were really to make a comparative calculation of the relative effectiveness of reproductive-management policy-implementation, the answer would likely be found by balancing the denominators and allowing the Pakistani numerator to be multiplied by the same factor necessary to equalize the denominator (population); doing this would allow us to see, hypothetically, what real gha would be necessary to support the current Pakistani gha rate; then, once this is found,the hypothetical Pakistani (aggregate for the whole country) gha could be compared to estimates of the maximum-available real gha that Pakistan's climate, geography, technology, and geology allow for, and the differential between these would be a weighting-factor to be applied to the originally stated rates...then, weighting the rates would allow one to compare how consumptive the behaviors of US folks are compared to Pakistani folks.
Now that I've snapped out of my metrical trance, I'm realizing that the gha comparison you mention is completely adequate for the implied conclusion; and, that it's not so much that I think that that comparison is questionable -- because it is, in itself, valid and clear -- but that I think there is a metrical difference between gha and "real gha," the latter of which being something that could be estimated by combining known resource-base measurements with GIS data.
Man, I'm a nerd.
And, wow, that was an absurd methodological tangent...but if this kind of math hasn't been done yet, then I got an article to write.
/rant. Let me know if this sounds legit to anyone else and if you know of any work being done on this; now I'm really really curious.
Hi Keelyn - Awesome topic, interesting to note that the article doesn't mention one positive statistic that is slightly reassuring, which is that the rate of acceleration of population growth is now decreasing. The peak of of world population growth rate occured in the 1960's, and the peak of the world population can be forecast to occur within the next century. Here's a good article which summarizes the most recent info: http://www.economist.com/node/21533364
ReplyDeletePopulation will indeed level off at some point. Are we smart enough to choose how that occurs? Or, will we let nature take its course? Starvation is the default form of population control in natural ecosystems.
ReplyDelete