The population explosion: a challenging piece of knowledge

[August]

Originally Posted by Deathridesahorse

Radical solution???...why don't we give the developing countrys solar power on the proviso they lower their birthrates to acceptable levels?

I'm a social anthropologist by education, and I am seriously interested in maintaining a rational view of the situation. I know too much about third world extended family systems and clan based cultures. Local custom and tradition informs all members of society of the importance of giving birth to a relatively large number of children per family unit. It is the fabric of society, and also a vital part of the local economy. Remember: there may not be any national pensions systems available to people: consequently the old folks rely on their children and children's children in order to cover their basic needs. Many children per family is desirable from a customary view, and a necessity from an economic perspective, so it is fair to conclude that a reduction of child-births is a very tall order indeed.

Local government action is required. But so long as the population issue itself remains a taboo topic even in the western world, there can be no reason to believe that a structural and administrative change of political philosophy as concerns the population bomb is going to be initiated anytime soon.

[August]

For the record: it is not as if this is a discussion that is exclusive to The Environment Site. And I sort of feel like having some of my personal and professional comments of opinion and understanding filed at one place. Now, this is the place, okay? -

-

Papal Consumption Crusade; Ethics for a Small Planet - Dot Earth - Climate Change and Sustainability - New York Times Blog



Mike Roddy (Comment #17): “Nice to see the Pope express concern about the end result of materialism. The Catholic religion is present in all parts of the globe, and in all economic sectors, so has weight just on that basis. Let’s see if he’s a big enough person to enlist leaders of other major world religions in this effort.”

Agreed. This would be important. And let it be said: Pope Benedict has on numerous occasions stressed the importance of fruitful conversation between followers and leaders of different faiths and religions. In this respect, his track record is much better than that of his predecessor.

-

Mike Roddy (#17): “In too many cases, Third World poverty is linked to rapid population growth in already crowded and deteriorating conditions.”

Which is a problem that not many administrators around the globe is taking seriously; which is the reason why most all third world country towns (not capital cities) are in a state of infrastructural mess. Much more third world countries should be looking to India, where in most cases central government town planning demands are followed up as a matter of commonsense.

-

Mike Roddy (#17): “This of course leads to the queazy position that population culling through starvation or disease is in order. Nobody wants to take that position. But what if the alternative is a global population of, say, 15 billion people, mostly in the increasingly overheated and denuded tropics? These moral choices are much tougher than whether to use fossil fuels or solar.”

This is where the concern of the world community comes in. Mass starvation in the third world would come as extremely bad news to the western world, as it would give rise to mass migration and also a lot of security concerns. I believe that a well-meaning form of insistence on the introduction of family planning programs and women’s liberation around the world should be the prerogative of a long range of United Nations organizations. And I say this in respect of the notion that a future of mass starvation and panicky migration might be a tragedy that the world as a whole can expect to be forced to deal with in due time. I mean: there is already evidence that demand for food exceeds the supply, which is the reason why global food prices are soaring.

-

Mike Roddy (#17): “If the Pope wants to decrease pressure on the environment, he needs to halt their ludicrous stands against birth control, and accept that large families, starvation, and desperate pursuits of any material comforts go hand in hand.”

That’s right. Religious leaders and also ordinary followers of faiths (Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Animists, etc.) must come to understand that the reality of the population explosion is a serious threat to the welfare of all. The fact that God creaed us with the ability to produce as many as eighteen or even twenty children per family unit must also be seen as a basic fact of human nature that must be put under some kind of control. All in all, religious leaders of many a kind must come to understand that the population explosion is real, and that it is relevant to all discussions concerned with future sustainability, peace, and social security. ...

-

[spadlet]

Originally Posted by August

Spadlet,

Yes. That is true. In the western world populations have stabilized. It is good news indeed.

So if we exaimine reasons why population has stabalised in the western world, issues such as womens rights to engage in the running of the country, people's rights to access to contraception and abortion along with people's rights to accessing education all come up as significant factors, no?

[August]

Spadlet,

Those would be significant factors, I guess. In learning from the western world population dynamics experience, I am particularly concerned about women's rights. 'Cause let's face it: there's an enormous amount of third world cultures in which women are perceived as not much else than some child birth machines who are also quite capable of doing some cooking and cleaning around the house. - There is also the notion that women do not have the necessary psycho-social skills needed to be taking an active part in politics, nor to be involved with any serious office work. - --- Oh, you know all about so much of this male biased bigotry around the world, now don't you?

I am talking about parts of the world in which women who do not give birth to at least a couple of sons (daughters don't matter much) may be ridiculed and stigmatized as incapable of performing their duties towards their husband and husband's family.

But what is so often the case is that the women I am referring to here are all quite used to this situation, and actually take it for granted, much as if this was a law of nature in its own right. On top of that they really want to have as many children as they possibly can, simply because it has a way of raising their social standing in society, and especially so in their relationship with other women.

The thing is: third world population dynamics are the product of age old traditions, customs and culture, and this leaves us with a long range of general knowledge but very few answers to the inevitability of problems concerned with overpopulation.

[Deathridesahorse]

[August, it's all just address space...I like to organise my thoughts and then bomb different sites with my organised wit but and use a site as a dynamic and changeable filing thing-a-magiggy is the height of GOOD THINKING IMHO...it's tailor made for it: plus we all learn megaheaps at the same time.

Personally I encourage it!]

[Deathridesahorse]

I'm just wondering if a limit of ten children per househould/couple for, say, a free allocation of 10kwhrs(electrical energy) per day would be a workable solution.

...would that work with a limit of seven or even 5 children per household/couple?!?

More electricity would cost and on a progressively sliding(i.e. exponential) scale(which is what we should have here, btw, IMHO)...

[August]

Maths don't matter?

-

As shown in the above thread on the mathematics of population growth, the only way of stopping the population explosion from happening is to have NO MORE THAN TWO CHILDREN per woman. - Three children per woman will inevitably lead to a continuation of the population explosion.

As a social anthropologist by education, and having extended family and clan based cultures on my mind, I'm afraid I've got to admit that a reform like this is a very tall order indeed. It would certainly amount to a third world social revolution of the previously unprecedented kind. Not easy.

[August]

World Population Clock - Worldometers


"The world population counter displayed on Worldometers is based on analysis of data from two major sources: the United Nations and the U.S. Census Bureau."

- --


World Population Prospects: The 2006 Revision Population Database


World population data showing that the world's population has increased from 3 billion in 1960 to 6.5 billion in 2005, which gives us a population doubling time of less than forty years.

According to the United Nation's Population Division, the world's population is expecting to increase to more than 9 billlion people by 2050.

- --

Selected nations data (UN estimates; cf. the above link):

Burundi
1960: 2.9 million
2005: 7.8 million
2020: 13.0 million
2050: 28.3 million

Ethiopia
1960: 22.9 million
2005: 78.9 million
2020: 112.8 million
2050: 183.4 million

Nigeria
1960: 42.3 million
2005: 141.3 million
2020: 193.0 million
2050: 288.6 million

China
1960: 657.4 million
2005: 1.3 billion
2020: 1.4 billion
2050: 1.4 billion

Japan
1960: 94.0 million
2005: 127.8 million
2020: 124.4 million
2050: 102.5 million

Bangladesh
1960: 54.2 million
2005: 153.2 million
2020: 193.3 million
2050: 254.0 million

India
1960: 445.9 million
2005: 1.1 billion
2020: 1.3 billion
2050: 1.6 billion

Indonesia
1960: 95.9 million
2005: 226.0 million
2020: 261.8 million
2050: 296.8 million

Russian Federation
1960: 119.9 million
2005: 143.9 million
2020: 132.4 million
2050: 107.8 million

United Kingdom
1960: 52.3 million
2005: 60.2 million
2020: 64.0 million
2050: 68.7 million

Italy
1960: 50.2 million
2005: 58.6 million
2020: 58.6 million
2050: 54.6 million

South America
1960: 148.4 million
2005: 373.6 million
2020: 441.8 million
2050: 516.7 million

Canada
1960: 17.9 million
2005: 32.2 million
2020: 36.5 million
2050: 42.7 million

United States of America
1960: 186.1 million
2005: 299.8 million
2020: 342.5 million
2050: 402.4 million

Australia
1960: 10.2 million
2005: 20.3 million
2020: 23.4 million
2050: 28.0 million

[Deathridesahorse]

Originally Posted by August

Maths don't matter?

-

As shown in the above thread on the mathematics of population growth, the only way of stopping the population explosion from happening is to have NO MORE THAN TWO CHILDREN per woman. - Three children per woman will inevitably lead to a continuation of the population explosion.

As a social anthropologist by education, and having extended family and clan based cultures on my mind, I'm afraid I've got to admit that a reform like this is a very tall order indeed. It would certainly amount to a third world social revolution of the previously unprecedented kind. Not easy.

I disagree...the population explosion, as evidenced in the curve of world population over time, if slowed would be a partial solution.

A partial solution is better than no solution. Anything can happen from there: once hope is installed anything can happen...

With their pure numbers they may develop better technological solutions to the worlds problems, population or other, than we ever dreamed.

I'm of the opinion we, in the developed world, are scared of their pure numbers and therefore aren't helping for the purposes of our own self defence.

Did you hear how Stephen Hawking recently went to go and find the African Einstein??? I'd be really interested to see how that went?

Like, "really and truly interested!"

Surely there is a silver lining to all this if we look?!?

[August]

Originally Posted by Deathridesahorse

I disagree...the population explosion, as evidenced in the curve of world population over time, if slowed would be a partial solution.

Of course! And yes: a partial solution would be better than no solution at all. Remember: I am in no way ignorant of the fact that family planning is something that is being thought about in many different locations on this planet. And that is a start.

Originally Posted by Deathridesahorse

I'm of the opinion we, in the developed world, are scared of their pure numbers and therefore aren't helping for the purposes of our own self defence.

That is true. As a matter of fact, I fear that far too many people, and far too many administrators, are so fearful of the population explosion that it simply numbs them. Population explosion is mainly considered to be some insurmountable problem which noone can do much about. This may even be true! But it shouldn't stop us from treating the issue as a challenge to be faced! Because face it we must. - So let's make plans for it, and not only treat it as a piece of information of rather an apocalyptic kind. - That would be irresponsible. That would be stupid.

Originally Posted by Deathridesahorse

Surely there is a silver lining to all this if we look?!?

Well: as the population of this world keeps increasing, and as technologies keep evolving, I guess there is every chance that the so-called "family of humanity" is going to become ever more interconnected as time goes by. It could even be a good thing? Who knows?