Here’s a random fun fact: they say that in 2030, Kolkata will become so crowded that on the streets, there will only be enough room to stand shoulder to shoulder. India, by 2020, will be the most populated country in the world, if not sooner.
Global population has increased tenfold in the last 150 years. This chart should paint a good picture. This increase is due to human’s growing ability to control illness and aging through better scientific studies. Specialization in the economy has allowed mass production of materials and goods to be available to the greater public, also allowing humans to find methods to extend the coming of death.
Oddly enough however, if you look at individual populations of nations you’ll find that some countries have a very small, and sometimes negative population growth. In some cases such as Italy, the youth are committing to family structures less, getting married later or not at all and having far less children than our ancestors. In these cases, such as America and its baby boomer age, there is turning out to be an equal amount of youth and aged which our economy is not used to.
But what about India, and other developing nations? Their population is still growing at a rapid rate. Some countries such as China have curved their population through their One Child rule. Malaysia has also curtailed population through governmental institutions. And then there’s India, still increasing at a huge rate. Talking to Indian professors and my homestay mother were helpful on shedding light on this subject – so here’s what I discovered.
My professor, Arnab Ray, after stating the fact above, started to explain that the population increase is rooted in the poor. The elite of India are adopting to Western values and ideas: marrying later (far more less arranged marriage in the upper class) and having fewer children. A lot of the female friends I’ve met here are from upper class families and across the board agree that they do not want to marry until their studies are finished. The lower class however, has a different attitude.
First of all, let me state that gendercide is a common threat to baby girls in India. Females are not seen to be valuable to many poor families. Females cannot procure jobs and a source of income, and the women’s family still must pay a dowry to her husband’s family. Seen as a waste of time and money, some families might abort their baby if they know it’s female, or abandon or kill her once she’s born. The ratio of male to female in India 1000:973 which is much different than the global ratio where females outnumber males.
Still with the murdering of baby girls, the population continues to grow. My professors and homestay mother both told me that the poor has nothing else to entertain them but sex. While sex outside of marriage is not common (Hindu culture believes that sex is reserved for the gods and married couples) once committed, the production of many children is inevitable. They believe that the more children they have, the more they can use them for labour to reap income. Labour laws are pretty lax for children, for I buy my oranges more from 13 year old boys who are not in school. In the end, however, with more children, the families simply have more mouths to feed.
India tried to imply a ‘One Child’ rule similar to China but there was outrage from religious groups in India. The percentages of religions in India are approximately: Hindus 80%, Muslims 15%, Christians, Sheiks, Jains and Buddhists 2%. The outrage did not come from Hindu groups, but the Muslim and Christians (Hinduism does not have a specific stand on birth control, Islam and Christianity does.) While they encourage fewer children, there are no rewards in place as in China.
I cannot help but wonder, is it ethnocentric to push Western methods of family planning on poor families in the East? They are not aware that these methods will benefit them economically, for having fewer children is the best family structure for this economy. But is that what they want? Do they want to be a part of this economy? This is something I struggle with all the time: where does helping someone cross the line of imposing your beliefs on them?
Still, I argue with myself: if teaching the unaware how to use the little resources available to assert their self-agency, giving more choice – how is that imposing?
Memorial for Saba
12 years ago
2 comments:
Amanda, you're obviously someone who is troubled by the prospect of a population continuing to grow at today's rate.
I share that concern. In fact, the very chart that you have linked in your post is one that I saw on a wall at the St. Louis Science Center in 1993. It so troubled me that it set my imagination racing, trying to imagine mankind's ultimate fate if this growth continued.
The result is a book I recently self-published, titled "Five Short Blasts: A New Economic Theory Exposes The Fatal Flaw in Globalization and Its Consequences for America." To make a long story short, this new theory proposes that, as population density rises beyond some optimum level, per capita consumption begins to decline because the need to conserve space makes it impossible to use and store products. Falling per capita consumption, in the face of rising productivity (which always rises) inevitably yields rising unemployment and poverty.
This theory has major ramifications for U.S. policies toward population (especially immigration) and trade. The implications for population policy are obvious, but why trade? It's because the effects of a high population density - unemployment and poverty - are actually imported by attempting to trade freely with nations much more densely populated than our own.
If you'd like to learn more about this theory, please visit my web site at OpenWindowPublishingCo.com. There you can read the preface for free and purchase the book if you like. (It's also available at Amazon.com.) I have written this book in plain language (not economic gibberish) and have targeted it at average Americans. I especially hope that young people will see the value of this new theory.
Finally, Amanda, if I may be so bold, I'd like to suggest that your professor may have his cause and effect relationship between population growth and poverty backwards. Refer to your chart. Throughout human history, it was poverty that held population growth in check. A high birth rate was necessary to counteract a high death rate and ensure the survival of our species. Then, along came the industrial revolution and wealth began to grow. As a result, the death rate began to plunge while the birth rate declined much more slowly. This pattern has repeated itself in every place where the advances of western civilization have been introduced. Poverty does not cause a high birth rate. It was high to begin with. Rather, wealth drives down the death rate very quickly, creating a population explosion as the birth rate declines much more slowly.
I hope that you and other young people continue to raise questions like these!
Pete Murphy
Author, Five Short Blasts
i have to agree with what pete says about "A high birth rate was necessary to counteract a high death rate". i am taking a class now where we are learning about why humans behave the way they do. The other day we learned about how species are vehicles of design information. They exist soley as a way to pass their information on and on, in a genetic sense at least. Therefore in an area where there is a high threat of many of their children dying, it profits their design information to have as many children possible to be able to do so. And because they have so many children it makes them poor so in order for them to be most successful it is easier for them to put recources into their sons.
However, although this is what it means to be any species on earth, because we are uniquely human we want to impose ways on societies that are more "humane" but sometimes this is viewed as corrupting an "eastern society" by the "west". But perhaps there are ways to not corrupt them by any means but in terms of preventing gendercide we can show them that for instance, woman are good insurance for raising children. This may seem wrong to a western society but for instance in bird populations many sisters help the parents to raise their younger siblings, particularly brothers. I know this is not ideal to a western thinker who wants a woman to be able to be free to do what she wants, but perhaps this could be a first step and then with worth of them for one thing could spur freedom one day, at least it could help prevent gendercide.
Also, as far as the overpopulation, it seems it is a vicious cycle. And I know it seems impossible but it seems if we could help to eliminate poverty (which i know is caused by this overpopulation) then it would limit overpopulation. this is a trick and as this problem continues to grow will be the problem for modern day sociologists, economists, etc. It seems silly but if there was a way to raise enough money for birth control after a family had what they deemed enough children to profit them in the future this could help greatly,as well as incentive programs of some sort: if they are poor and need the money perhaps incentives to not have more kids will help their first ones live better and not in poverty.
and finally, i like that you raise the point of overpopulation because in this world that continues to grow water will be a growing concern. there could be wars fought in say 50 yrs soley over who gets the different water sources in the world, particularly clean water. the faster the population grows the worse this problem will be, so thank you for raising this point!
Post a Comment