In the spirit of Amartya Sen I wanted to respond to Comrade Nash and Pippa with their earlier thoughts on population growth.
I want to pick up where the controversy ‘rears its ugly head’ as you aptly put it. When you talk about these vast hordes in Africa and Asia you don’t seem to take into account the relative share of the global population. So as 63.7% of the worlds population in 1950 was from Asia/Africa, which rose to 71.2% in 1990 and is estimated to reach roughly 78.5% in 2050. This would mean that by 2050 Africa/Asias share of the worlds population would just be reverting to what it was in 1650. In fact the only reason why Europe/North America grew as a greater proportion of the worlds population was owing to the Industrial Revolution. This means that prior to Industrialisation when we might be able to view things as ‘all things being equal,’ the population levels resembled what they are becoming rather than what they are now. This leads us to believe that the population growth is merely a case of the worlds share of population ‘righting’ itself.
We must also take into account that the rate of world population growth is declining overall with its rate of growth falling from 2.2% per year between 1970 and 1980 to 1.7% from 1980 to 1992. It further likely that this will level off in the future.
You then talk about Chinas One Child policy as possibly being a solution, when there are far better solutions and policies than the one child solution, which hasn’t even been proven to be effective and diverts money from policies that are. The best solution to general population growth I would argue is development. When we look closer at India and China we can see an example of this. While in general education levels in India are lower than China, in those places in India that have a comparable levels of health and education the population growth is less than that in China. The low levels do not require state coercion. There are a number of reasons why those places in India grow less (womens education etc) but it still shows that the One Child Policy is not the answer.
When we look at which countries have the highest levels of population growth it is those least developed in sub-Saharan Africa, (with 3-4% increases) and that in those countries that are experiencing higher development rates such as India and China they have a declining growth rate, this also the case in Latin America.
In relation to Pippas Malthus-esq point, I would argue that he was wrong 200 years ago and the ideas are likely to be wrong today. Firstly we find that in general there is a growth of food production (per person as well as total) so this idea that we are running out of food is a fallacy.
In fact as well as having a growth in food production while the prices are cheap (relatively speaking when we compare it to the past – inc when Malthus was alive) and the incentive to grow thereby being less, we also see that much of the growth in food production is from areas that have a high (absolute) population growth, so we see that the per capita food production rose by 39% in China and roughly 23% in India.
This tends to lead us to the conclusion that those areas that do experience famine tend to be as a result of wider political and economic structures and have little bearing on whether people are having babies or not.
In agreement as far as the “development as a solution” argument goes. My biggest concern with that is just that with very high growth rates, you are effectively outpacing development. Creating new jobs or expanding/reforming agriculture may only reduce the extent of the detrimental effects of pop. growth. Overstretched health and education systems may be little better than no systems at all.
On the Malthus point, I disagree. While he may have failed to predict the effect that technology has had on increasing the efficiency on our global resource base, what he got essential right (in my opinion) was the fact that this resource base is essentially finite; the Earth’s carrying capacity is not finite.
On “One-Child”. I’ll concede that such measures aren’t the *only* solution. Given that we’re essentially “what-if?” questions as to its success, I think I’m in danger of verging into the purely academic.
By the way, where did you come across your data for population share by continent? The growth graphs i recall from years back didn’t illustrate pre-1900 levels all that well. Would be interesting (in an incredibly geeky way) to see some more figures.
The whole point of the argument though is that with development you will get a curtailing off birth rate anyway ala Europe/North America/Japan. This will obviously assist with the overstretched health and education systems etc. Although I think that the reasons that a health or education system might be overstretched are rarely owing to the size of the population and often in relation to the structure, funding and running of such organisations.
I agree in thoery that there could be a point in the future where food outstrips population, but there is little proof that we are anywhere near that or indeed that we will make it that far. The neo-Malthusian point of view that we are reaching our limit therefore just appears to be scaremongering in the same way Malthus was when he predicted the same thing to happen in the past.
In fact as far as basic resources (food etc) go we have more food than people, the issues more often relate to our ability on distribution and our actions rather than the resources.
In terms of specifically the environmental impact, which is an issue that deserves a lot of attention, then the issue is not size of the population but how it’s being used : ) and adjusting our lifestyles would be a better use of our time.
The reason I picked up on “One-Child” is because I don’t believe there is really any proof that it is having a dramatic effect so to extol its virtues and propose it as part of a solution I think would be detrimental in tackling birth rates. I think declining birth rates in China (relatively) are down to development and education and I would say this bears out when looking at a comparison with say India.
We should be putting greater effort into women’s education, good governance/democratic processes, general economic development, quelling conflict/war etc etc. These are what will bring populations down.
In regards to the figures go to “Amartya Sen, Population: Delusion and Reality.”
We do live in a finite world,
what are wars over……… resources, whether it be land, oil, water, money (which is created from trade of resources)
for general economic development you need to have the resource base to trade to gain income
good governance……… corruption is caused when group of people believe they want more resources to have a good life and leave others with an inadequate amount
the way the world works is based on the resources we have and the size of the resource base per head
i agree, there is currently enough food in the world and it is about distribution, but we are over harvesting fish stocks, causing land degradation with the amount of chemicals we use, tearing down rainforests to make room for cattle ranches, causing build up of salt in areas due to irrigation and using GM crops to get this food.
we cannot carry on indefinitely in this way with the population size we have, let alone with an increasing population.
although there is one way we can solve many of these problems,
EAT LESS MEAT!
The whole point though is that we have enough resources to distribute and people to live a life free of famine and destitute and it is not down to the population size its relating to human action. The way we harvest the food and its effect on climate change is a critical issue and I agree that this needs to be sorted out but that is another matter from the issue of resource distribution (except perhaps GM crops and it might be worth doing another blog on whether GM is a good or bad thing).
In fact the most crucial part of Malthus is generally a food thing (hence his ideas of famine being a natural cull of people, which I am arguing against) and I was concentrating the post on that and trying not to get side tracked by climate change as while this is an aspect it is not what I wanted to focus on for the aforementioned reasons.
Now of course this argument is essentially going to get down to a level of life that is acceptable. My argument being that with the current population and (with global development) the foreseeable future population everybody will be able to achieve a basic level of fundamental rights including nourishment, an opportunity to pursue more than just survival etc. This will not necessarily include the right to a PS3 or such.
Therefore while we may agree on much, the main point of contention for me is population size and its effect. Repeating what I said before its not the size it’s how you use it.
i didn’t even mention climate change.
my environment based stuff was to prove that the food production may decrease in the future due to us over farming now.
but i do agree it is how you use it not size that matters
sorry my bad, I assumed the environment based stuff was related to climate change.
I agree that we need to sort out cases of overfishing, deforestation etc. The effect they have had on food production (as opposed to climate) is debatable given food production has risen although the long term effects of some of these would obviously be detrimental, although I would argue not GM food production, which tends to be used as a trade barrier argument more than anything environmental.
Interesting conversation, but I feel as though I’m listening to people on the Titanic discussing whether moving to the other side of the ship would slow the rate at which it was sinking.
If global population is now well beyond carrying capacity, then all this discussion about what will or won’t have an impact on reducing the rate of population growth is meaningless. ANY population growth just adds to the level of future suffering. How about discussing how to reduce population – not the rate of growth?
We’ve already exceeded global carrying capacity. We are now in “overshoot”. (Visualize a car sailing smoothly, but quite temporarily, through the air after having been driven off of a cliff.)
Global population is nearing 7 billion. Different theorists using different methods seem to end up agreeing that global carrying capacity is probably about 2 billion. (This assumes some level of social justice and a moderate, low by US standards, standard of living. More is possible if you accept a cattle car / Matrix-esque “life”.)
In any case, we will get to that much-lower-than-7-billion number the hard way (wars, famine, disease, and their accompanying losses of environmental quality, freedom, and social justice) OR the less hard way (immediately and drastically reducing our population voluntarily). Yes, all of us, yes, everywhere. There is no scenario anywhere in which population growth is a “good thing” long term.
Yes a drop in population would cause problems, but none of those problems are as big as the problems, suffering, and environmental collapse that is certain to occur if we don’t.
I also disagree with any argument that there is some “right to reproduce”. If there is any “right to reproduce” it’s in the concept that one has the freedom to nurture a child or children and form some sort of family. Biological reproduction is not necessary to do that and there are many in need of this sort of nurturing. Also, there is a wide range of possible incarnations of “family”.
This is a global issue with local and nation-state consequences. For example, immigration is a consequence of overpopulation, not a cause of it. Likewise, global climate change is not impressed by national boundaries.
No technological / “alternative energy” options have the capacity or can be ramped up fast enough to avoid major global calamity. That isn’t to say we shouldn’t do them. Aggressively shifting to alternative energy is necessary, just not sufficient.
For more comprehensive analysis of all this I suggest
Bandura etc.
http://growthmadness.org/2008/02/18/impeding-ecological-sustainability-through-selective-moral-disengagement/
Albert Bartlett on the exponential function as it relates to population and oil:
http://c-realm.blogspot.com/2008/12/kmo-interview-with-albert-bartlett.html
Approaching the Limits http://www.paulchefurka.ca
Bruce Sundquist on environmental impact of overpopulation http://home.alltel.net/bsundquist1/
The Oil Drum Peak Oil Overview – June 2007 (www.theoildrum.com/node/2693)
…and of course the classic “Overshoot” by Catton
wow!!!
please comment more often, very interesting point of view!
in case i didn’t clarify in my original post, by reducing rates of growth, i meant as in negative growth rates; or population reduction as you say.
And to echo Pippa (proof that we are sometimes in agreement), more comments please!
interesting opinion but your idea that the worlds resources can only stretch to 2 billion is on the extremes of the debate regarding capacity.
In fact when we look generally at the literature we find examples such as V. Smil [Popul. Dev. Rev. 20, 255 (1994)] estimated 10 to 11 billion; P. E. Waggoner (48 ) estimated at least 10 billion; and the Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid [(Scientific Council for the Dutch Government), Duurzame risicos: een blijvend gegeven (Sustainable risks: An enduring given) (Sdu Uitgeverij Plantijnstraat, Den Haag, Netherlands,1994), p. 9] estimated 11 to 44 billion depending on the scenario. where food is most abundant [J. Mayer, Daedalus 93, 830(1964)].
I think the idea of Malthusian scaremongering has reached new levels with this poster
.
Obviously calculations as to the earths capacity do vary and I would accept there are clearly some who believe that it is at 2 billion (such as yourself) but they are in the minority, when we browse the literature what we tend to find is that the median is around 11 billion. This is still a relatively low number but does effect the way we tackle the problem.
Well, being in the minority vs the “literature” of the dominant paradigm of the moment puts me and the others who agree with that ~ 2 billion estimate in pretty good company across history
In any case I must regretfully decline your award for reaching new levels of Malthusian scaremongering, since others on the internet have far surpassed me. By the way, Malthus wasn’t wrong, he was merely early.
All evidence I find most credible indicates that whatever the carrying capacity is, it’s much less than 7 billion and is decreasing as the population is increasing.
I would also argue that any carrying capacity estimate that assumes peak oil is not here now is worthy of being ignored.
I agree that carrying capacity is subject to broad interpretation and depends a great deal on the degree to which social justice and personal freedom are valued.
For the best single discussion of this matter (perhaps other than Catton’s “Overshoot”) I suggest this site:
http://www.ecofuture.org/pop/rpts/mccluney_maxpop.html
Do see the Bruce Sundquist site previously mentioned also.
Here is an excerpt from that McCluney site that summarizes assumptions vs a range of carrying capacity guessimates. (Note that under Item # 3 below, which lists some assumed government restrictions to accommodate a larger carrying capacity, restrictions on number of births is not mentioned, but I suspect would be likely.)
1. Everyone at the current U.S. standard of living and with all the health, nutrition, personal dignity and freedom that most Americans currently enjoy [Pimentel, 1999]. 2 billion
2. Everyone at the same affluence level as in 1, but with few restrictions on commerce, pollution, land use, personal behavior (within current law), etc. Basically a libertarian, laissez faire economy, with only limited environmental restrictions. This points out that there is a population price to pay for the current American way of commerce. 0.5 billion
3. Everyone at the same affluence as indicated in 1, but with many and onerous restrictions on freedoms relative to behaviors leading to environmental degradation. In order to accommodate population levels greater than 2 billion, restrictions such as the following would have to be instituted: Massive recycling. Driving restrictions (gasoline rationing, fuel rationing even to mass transit systems). Restrictions on the transport of food (food transported no more than 100 miles for example to its point of retail sales). Prohibitions against cutting of trees on one’s property. Limitations on the burning of fossil fuels in order to save these complex molecules for more valuable or durable uses, such as in the manufacture of plastics and pharmaceuticals. Limitations on the areas of open spaces that can be converted to renewable energy power plants, such as solar thermal, solar photovoltaic, and wind energy systems. This latter results from the need to preserve natural areas for atmospheric oxygen generation and food growing. Of course many rooftops can accept solar energy systems and this scenario basically assumes a nearly complete saturation of coverage of roof tops and covers over parking lots for solar energy production. 4 billion
4. Only people in the U.S. and Europe at current level of affluence. Everyone else at the current prosperity level of Mexico. 6 billion
5. Everyone in the world at Mexico’s current prosperity level. 20 billion
6. Everyone in the world at the current “prosperity” level of Northwest Africa. 40 billion
don’t get me wrong, your two billion estimate is part of the ‘literature’ on global capacity that also includes estimates of 11 and 40 billion, it’s just it is in a minority as far as deep academic investigative analysis goes. This isn’t to say that there’s no chance you’re right. I merely mean to mention that when others have gone through the same process of calculating resources the mathematics vary a great deal.
Your view is very much the end of extreme pessimist, which could be deemed a safe prudent position, which even if the calculations are wrong would be a better course to go down. Which I would accept as long as it doesn’t lead to culling of people or acceptance of poverty, famine and death through starvation as a morally justified norm. I would also accept that a in a world of 2 billion people there would also be the potential for a better quality of life than with 4 or 5, but to reiterate I think that it can become dangerous in relation to means not necessarily supporting ends.
Well, I’m glad to see we at least agree that less is better than more and that “..poverty, famine and death through starvation..” are unacceptable and to be avoided.
Note that the only means I have proposed to prevent horrific future poverty, famine, and death through starvation (and resource wars etc.) is that we all of us everywhere merely
voluntarily stop having children. More babies now equals exponentially greater human suffering later.
So tell me, if you observe an airplane flying at ever higher rates of speed directly toward a mountain; and noted that ‘if current trends continue’ the airplane would crash; and that the higher the speed and the closer the mountain, the more severe any corrective action to prevent disaster must be….are you a pessimist, or something else?