No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
==Benefits of population management==
==Benefits of population management==
As the number of people goes down, the financial wealth per person increases. This, by itself, is allready a sufficient reason to reduce the population growth, especially as today, there are billions of people living in extreme [[poverty]].<ref>[http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPOVERTY/EXTPA/0,,contentMDK:20040961~menuPK:435040~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:430367~isCURL:Y,00.html 1,29 billion people living in extreme poverty]</ref> By helping people to manage their reproduction we can thus reduce poverty. Spending the same resources to take care of a smaller number of children helps to ensure better outcomes for those children.
As the number of people goes down, the financial wealth per person increases. This, by itself, is allready a sufficient reason to reduce the population growth, especially as today, there are billions of people living in extreme [[poverty]].<ref>[http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPOVERTY/EXTPA/0,,contentMDK:20040961~menuPK:435040~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:430367~isCURL:Y,00.html 1,29 billion people living in extreme poverty]</ref> By helping people to manage their reproduction we can thus reduce poverty. Spending the same resources to take care of a smaller number of children helps to ensure better outcomes for those children.


An effective way for a population to reduce its population growth is to become wealthier. Wealthier, more educated people have more choices, and on the whole choose to have less children. (If we analyze more carefully, is the association more close with health and other indicators of human welfare, or with actual wealth?) There is also a strong argument for information on family planning (contraception) to be made widely available, to empower people to effectively carry out their choices; however this is often opposed by more traditional groups in most societies.
==Attitude towards population management==
As the population becomes wealthier (and with it, enjoys a higher education and has the ability to make more choices in life) it begins to see the benefits of having less children and will be eager to continue following the doctrine. This, in effect makes continued use of population manegement easier.


Amartya Sen compares population control measures in Kerala (based on education and free choice) with China (often forced) and finds that Kerala's were actually slightly more effective. This is discussed in his book ''Development as Freedom''.  
People that have not yet seen the benefits of population management (ie traditional groups in most societies) are often opposed to population management.
An effective way for a population to reduce its population growth is to become wealthier. Wealthier, more educated people have more choices, and on the whole choose to have less children. (If we analyze more carefully, is the association more close with health and other indicators of human welfare, or with actual wealth?) ; however this is often opposed by more .


== Population growth and climate change ==
== Population growth and climate change ==
Line 39: Line 41:
==See also==
==See also==
* [[Population size]]
* [[Population size]]
==Literature==
Iin his book ''Development as Freedom'', Amartya Sen compares population control measures in Kerala (based on education and free choice) with China (often forced) and finds that Kerala's were actually slightly more effective.
{{attrib|url=http://www.urbansprout.co.za/population_growth_has_no_relation_to_global_warming|author=Ahmed|license=CC-BY-SA}}
==Notes and references==
{{reflist}}


== External links  ==
== External links  ==
*[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/sep/28/population-growth-super-rich Stop blaming the poor. It's the wally yachters who are burning the planet], George Monbiot, guardian.co.uk, 28 September 2009.
*[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/sep/28/population-growth-super-rich Stop blaming the poor. It's the wally yachters who are burning the planet], George Monbiot, guardian.co.uk, 28 September 2009.
* [http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14744915&source=hptextfeature Falling fertility], ''The Economist'', Oct 29th 2009. Argues that there is little more to be achieved through population policy, as growth is already falling about as fast as can be expected. Thus reductions in impact must come through technology and governance.
* [http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14744915&source=hptextfeature Falling fertility], ''The Economist'', Oct 29th 2009. Argues that there is little more to be achieved through population policy, as growth is already falling about as fast as can be expected. Thus reductions in impact must come through technology and governance.
{{attrib|url=http://www.urbansprout.co.za/population_growth_has_no_relation_to_global_warming|author=Ahmed|license=CC-BY-SA}}
==Notes==
<small><references/></small>


[[Category:Ecological footprint]]  
[[Category:Ecological footprint]]  

Revision as of 12:38, 7 November 2012

Benefits of population management

As the number of people goes down, the financial wealth per person increases. This, by itself, is allready a sufficient reason to reduce the population growth, especially as today, there are billions of people living in extreme poverty.[1] By helping people to manage their reproduction we can thus reduce poverty. Spending the same resources to take care of a smaller number of children helps to ensure better outcomes for those children.

Attitude towards population management

As the population becomes wealthier (and with it, enjoys a higher education and has the ability to make more choices in life) it begins to see the benefits of having less children and will be eager to continue following the doctrine. This, in effect makes continued use of population manegement easier.

People that have not yet seen the benefits of population management (ie traditional groups in most societies) are often opposed to population management.

An effective way for a population to reduce its population growth is to become wealthier. Wealthier, more educated people have more choices, and on the whole choose to have less children. (If we analyze more carefully, is the association more close with health and other indicators of human welfare, or with actual wealth?) ; however this is often opposed by more .

Population growth and climate change

Global fertility rates

There is a popular myth that population growth, especially in poor countries, is a cause of our environmental problems. In fact, the impact of the wealthy, though very few in number, is far greater than the impact of the poor, even in areas where population is large and/or rapidly growing.

For some, it has always been assumed that climate change and population growth are inextricably linked. They have always had good enough reason to believe this. Think about it logically; if we are going to talk about resources, it makes sense to bring up the impact the exponential growth of our species is having. But, since the topic is dogged down by its taboo nature, we haven’t been able to discuss it much – especially in our mainstream media.

A study by Dr David Satterthwaite[2] of the International Institute for Environment and Development analyzed changes in population and in greenhouse gas emissions for the entire world. His research, which assessed data between 1980 and 2005 reveals that population growth’s contribution to the rise in greenhouse gases are almost negligible.

Sub-Saharan Africa, which had 18.5% of the world’s population growth had only 2.4% of the total carbon dioxide emissions, whilst the United States, with 3.4% population growth had 12.6% growth in carbon dioxide emissions.

The study illustrates that low-income countries have a higher rate of population growth, as opposed to higher income countries who maintained a low population rate, but also that they contribute less to global warming than all of us would believe. The study further asserts that the real problem is the growth in consumers and consumerism– not just “people.”

“A child borne into a very poor African household who during their life never escapes from poverty contributes very little to climate change, especially if they die young, as many do,” says Satterthwaite. “A child born into a wealthy household in North America or Europe and enjoys a full life and a high-consumption lifestyle contributes far more – thousands or even tens of thousands of times more.”

Lets take a look at China, a country that has strict limits on the growth of their population. In fact, their rates of population growth have decreased enormously. Yet, the rate of their greenhouse gas emissions have increased. Is it their increasing industrial smog? Their open-armed embrace of the MacLifestyle?

It seems incredibly unfair for all the “developed” countries to put the blame on the little brown “developing” countries.

This leads activists to ask questions such as: Is this what development really is? Is this the benchmark that our countries aim to achieve? If the rampant rise of consumerism is the real cause of global warming, then shouldn’t that be targeted? Shouldn’t the free-market be held accountable? Shouldn’t Europe or the United States be held responsible?

Why do the developing countries get all the flak? They don’t have enough resources as it is, then they get blamed for destroying the planet because they don’t want to use the pill.

Population growth in wealthy countries

It is far more logical to target population growth in countries where each individual has a large impact on the environment, such as the USA and Australia. (European countries tend to have a not-quite-as-large impact compared to the USA, and very low birthrates.)

Considering almost half of pregnancies in the USA are unplanned[verification needed] there is a strong environmental argument for information on family planning to be made widely available.

However, the effects of birthrates are cumulative and act over the long-term. Reducing birthrates may be positive, but does not address the need to greatly reduce our impact on climate in the short term.

See also

Literature

Iin his book Development as Freedom, Amartya Sen compares population control measures in Kerala (based on education and free choice) with China (often forced) and finds that Kerala's were actually slightly more effective.

Template:Attrib

Notes and references

Template:Reflist

External links

  1. 1,29 billion people living in extreme poverty
  2. Study shatters myth that population growth is a major driver of climate change, September, 2009, summary on the website of the International Institute for Environment and Development, and download link for report.
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.