During the Roman empire, Romans had approximate life expectancy of 22 to 25 years. In 1900, the world life expectancy was approximately 30 years and in 1985 it was about 62 years, just two years short of today’s life expectancy.
***
It used to be that population size was controlled by wars and disease – nature’s servo-mechanism – but humanity has more or less conquered that.
Let’s do a thought experiment- if the birth rate remained constant at the replacement rate of 2 births per woman – but people lived longer due to better treatment of disease and avoidance of conflict, in due time you’ll have a logarithmic population explosion.
This situation is akin to an algal bloom – an algal bloom or marine bloom or water bloom is a rapid increase in the population of algae in an aquatic system.
The recipe for blooms is abundant sunlight, nutrients and the right water conditions. Phytoplankton blooms are a natural occurrence in spring. Blooms can also occur in summer and fall when there is an increase in nutrients from natural sources such as wind-driven mixing of surface waters with deeper waters, or human sources, such as wastewater treatment plants. As phytoplankton use up the nutrients in the surface waters, their growth slows and cells eventually die. Dying blooms can be an environmental concern because as the cells sink and decay, bacteria decompose the organic material, which in turn strips oxygen from the water. This microbial oxygen demand at times leads to very low oxygen conditions in the bottom waters.
******
Nature evolves new pathogens – while humans are also preempting nature through technology. In the process we live longer – and introduce new drug-resistant pathogens. 
As we live longer from 25 years to 75 years (although Africa today has avg life expectancy of 35 y.O) – where a piece of earth is occupied by one individual for only 25 years – the increased life expectancy means that the same piece of land will now be occupied by more people – three times longer – even though people are giving birth at the same rate or even reduced rates – at the ideal replacement level of 2 births per woman.
Picture a restaurant. Customer come to the restaurant at the rate of two persons per table per hour. It used to be that guests will come in, order food, eat it, and are out of there in half an hour. Then the restaurant provides more options and entertainment. People still come in at the same rate – but are staying longer. Normally, as the guest leaves, the table is freed up for new guests. But because the guests now stay longer, even if the rate of new orders is constant as before – there will be a bottleneck – because the outflow is slower than the inflow. People are taking more time to order, are eating the food slower, and taking more time to finish. Guess what happens to those who are still waiting for their turn?
What this implies is there’s more to poverty than overpopulation.
It also implies that the assertion of the reproduction rate as a culprit for overpopulation is doubtful. Or that overpopulation as the cause of poverty is more doubtful.
Some people describe poverty as a lack of essential items – such as food, clothing, water, and shelter – needed for proper living. At the UN’s world summit on social development, the ‘Copenhagen declaration’ described poverty as “…a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information.” when people are unable to eat, go to school, or have any access to health care, then they can be considered to be in poverty, regardless of their income. To measure poverty in any statistical way, however, more rigid definitions must be used.
Let’s look at hard data and see if the RH bill’s argument that overpopulation causes poverty is spot on.
Indonesia
* has a population of 240 million
* Land Area: 1,811,569 sq km
* GDP – per capita (ppp): $4,300 (2010 est.)
Philippines
* has 90 million population-
* land area: 298,170 sq km
* GDP per capita – $3,500 (2010 est.)
Japan
* 120 million population;
* land area – 364,485 sq km –
* GDP – per capita (ppp): $34,200 (2010 est.)
North Korea
* has 24.5 million population;
* land area – 120,538 sq km –
* GDP – per capita (ppp): $1,800 (2010 est.)
The argument that overpopulation is a cause of poverty is negated because for such a principle to hold true then Japan, too should have the same GDP per capita as the Philippines and Indonesia. Obviously – the numbers don’t add up.
There is so much wealth in the world today that can provide food, clothing, water, and shelter – however access to it such wealth or the lack of it is a function of economic policy – regardless of whether you have no child, one child, or five children. In an environment where economic policy is skewed in favor of vested interests – you can have small family sizes – and people with very low purchasing power. For example, North Korea has 1.9 births per woman and GDP per capita of $1,800. If one were to buy the argument that lesser population size equals prosperity, North Korea should be roaring over the Philippines GDP per capita income right now. Obviously that’s not the case.
For short – the RH bill’s attempt to connect overpopulation with poverty is quite a stretch. The facts show that the position is not defensible. Therefore am not buying the assertion that overpopulation causes poverty.
***
Carrying capacity, however, is another matter.
Going back to our analogy of the restaurant, it can be said that as the the restaurant is becoming packed – and more people are waiting – it’s carrying capacity is being stretched. The restaurant’s options are
* Increase capacity – provide more tables and chairs to squeeze in more customers; optimize processes to ensure customers are served in clock work fashion;
* Increase throughput outflow – change the offerings in order to speed up the outflow;
* Reduce inflow – increase the price of admission; and,
* Recommend other restaurants.
Have we looked at all our options or are we just looking at the options which have the highest number of proponents – but not necessarily the best option.
Have we looked at technologies that change the carrying capacity – just like when carrying capacity changed as we went from steam, to coal, to nukes, to fossils, to renewables – and to a blend of all these technologies.
Like an algal bloom, the human population bloom can affect the environment in temporary or long-term ways. The environment can change such that it is no longer habitable for humans. That is disastrous for the human species. But bacteria which live in hostile environments will continue to exist and life goes on in the planet – albeit without humans. Humanity can reach the height of prosperity – and then kaboom – have an extinction level event due to our shortsightedness as a species.
Will that mean the earth will go extinct too? I doubt very much. Unless the nukes go off or an asteroid hits the earth to blow it up – the planet goes on. After all, humanity is but a speck of dust in the billions of years that took to form terra firma.
Whether integrated resource management of our external environment and our population is best addressed by the market or government is a raging battle as the wisdom of bigger government spending and its ability to deliver cost-effective results is put under the microscope.
This enough I know – when it comes to public finances, I don’t trust the Philippine government. I’d rather spend my money and give it direct to the beneficiary instead of giving my money to government who in turn will disburse it “for the greater good”.
Oh by the way, the Road User’s Tax has just been used by Congress to give itself a raise and more perks.
New results from the same old approaches? – good ole Albert Einstein had a word for that.
No comments:
Post a Comment