Population growth and our communities. Part 1

In no uncertain terms population growth is directly responsible for the destruction of communities around the world. The growth in areas has caused a number of social and basic-infrastructure problems. Most people think of growth as being inevitable or perhaps even a great thing, but on the ground it amounts to traffic congestion, lack of sewage capacity, lack of water, lack of electricity, and too few seats in schools. Cities, counties, and even nations around the world are forced into debt in order to create infrastructure for the increased population.

In America people often point to the fact that we are relatively sparsely populated in terms of density. This is true, but it is also true that no other nation on the planet consumes as many resources as we do. In fact there are people working on a regular basis to determine if there are enough resources left for the future generations. This holistic view of the planet as a place of limits, that can actually be depleted of the resources necessary to support biological organisms such as ourselves is a good place to start, and one would expect that given such a scenario shortages would begin to appear all over the Earth. Even in America.

Asheville, NC is currently experiencing a development boom. A number of people from the area are allying themselves with environmental groups in order to try to stop rapid development. People are building residences on the sides of steep mountain slopes, on ridge tops, and are packing in houses in the preexisting cities and towns. The people who have lived in the area their entire lives, as did their parents, grandparents are being taxed off of their land. This displacement of original inhabitants is coupled with the terrible fact that life here is nothing like it once was. There are buildings and houses being built in locations that make even visitors to the area cringe.

Housing in Asheville is rapidly becoming unaffordable for the very people who are needed to maintain the community: policemen, firemen, teachers, and a host of employees of the tourist industry businesses around town. There are hundreds of people who are essentially forced to sell their homes because they can’t afford the increase in taxes on a fixed income. People who came to the area just a few years ago in order to retire are being forced to sell as well. Rents are increasing and renters are being evicted so that property owners can sell their houses. The community is literally being devastated by the increase in the population.

This scenario has played out in other parts of the world, and few places have had the foresight or resources to properly resist such a drastic change to the way of life of those who live in their community. Lives are ruined by this rapid population growth, congestion increases, and life becomes not only uncomfortable but also a mere shadow of what it once was for people. Solid local policies that can manage and control growth are a good solution to this dilemma, but the rapidity of the development leaves people without the proper leadership or staff in place to respond. Our efforts to confront this population growth requires a great deal of diplomacy and also a public willing to respond properly to this crisis. We have to change the way we think about growth on our relatively small planet.

When Will We Put Population on the Agenda?

Today, Monday March 19th, the N.Y.Times carried an article stating that 180 New Hampshire towns are voting on whether to ask the Federal government to address Global Warming with innovative technologies and various other means. Global warming is only one among many important effects of our now having far too many people on this planet. Species extinction, mass starvation, water scarcety and depletion of aquefers, energy shortages, rising housing costs, commute times, crowding in cities, in towns, at recreational facilities... you name 'em. Maybe wars and genocide belong on the list as well, as our species behaves more and more like those Norway rats packed too closely in their cages.

The cures for this population explosion are easy. Better education and job opportunities for women worldwide. A culture favoring small families. Elimination of government incentives to have more than two children. Better access to birthcontrol.

When will We Put Population on the Agenda?

The Philippines Comes Around on Growth

The Philippines has adopted a sensible goal: reducing population growth to 1.9 percent annually by 2010, down from 2.36 percent in 2000 and an estimated 2 percent today. The Filipino government realizes the benefits of low growth for development prospects, and has made it a priority to distribute birth control and implement sensible family planning to make sure the population continues to grow at a slower rate.

The government has delegated responsibility for family planning and contraception programs to local governments. Again, this is sensible. A main barrier to responsible growth reduction initiatives is the perception that often they are forcibly imposed by a large central figure. To give local governments the responsibility will help to alleviate those concerns, as how they are implemented is largely left to local governments.

And, once the planning programs are in place, it can create a cycle of development. Low population growth promotes quicker development, as fewer people must share the pool of resources that become available with development, and quicker development allows for the better health care, education and distribution of new technologies that promotes slowing growth.

The Philippines are right to introduce a sensible growth reduction target; too much of a reduction could cause tension or coercion by local authorities, while ignoring high growth belies that there is a problem at all. Other governments and international groups should follow the Philippines’ lead and aim to reduce growth by manageable levels to quicken economic development.

More on Climate Change and a Rising Population

It is interesting to note that while Conrad Lautenbacher, the head of climate and weather research in the United States, sees growing population in the world as a major issue for quality of life but does not offer a means of reducing that growth. Instead, he has expressed interest in coming up with ideas for accommodating a growing population. While such measures are certainly beneficial, it is only by complimenting them with ideas for reducing growth that we will see positive long-term results.

Lautenbacher argues that, given global warming and a potentially high rise in sea level, there are more dangers to humans than ever before. This is especially true for people living in coastal areas; in the United States, that means about half the population. As the size of the overall population grows, Lautenbacher says, there will be even more people scrambling to the coastal areas that could be worst affected by the consequences of global warming. Therefore, he concludes, we need to put into place mechanisms to protect people living in the ever-more crowded coastal regions.

Which is all well and good. But while Lautenbacher talks of accommodating a growing population, there is another side of the population coin he doesn’t touch on – namely, how to make sure population, especially in the at-risk coastal areas that are the subject of his report, does not grow to an unmanageable size. In addition to talking of accommodating growth, he should push for zoning laws that will naturally cap coastal population. To be sure, we need to deal with the current levels of growth and make sure that those living in coastal areas will be safe in case of catastrophic events. But we also need to think of ways to encourage growth away from coastal areas and promote lower overall growth.

Doing so will not only mean fewer people living in danger zones. It will also reduce levels of emissions that cause global warming in the first place. I touched on this in an earlier entry, but it should be fairly obvious that fewer total households lead to lower overall levels of emissions. Likewise, fewer households in any particular region means that each person in that region has better access to services and that there will be less local pollution in that region as well.

So it’s a circle: more people create more emissions, and those emissions put more people at risk because of high population concentration. This applies as much to the United States as it does to developing nations. Lautenbacher and others in positions of similar authority should bring into focus that high population growth itself is the root of many of the problems they are trying to solve.

Where Population Growth Fits in the Big Development Picture

The New Nation’s editorial page has it exactly right. The Bangladeshi news source points to high population growth as an inhibitor to economic growth. Yes, as this editorial points out, it is possible for an economy to grow and a country’s conditions to improve despite high population growth; as the piece notes, a lower proportion of Bangladeshis live in poverty now than when the overall population was half what it is. However, given the competition for limited resources, the piece also points out that lower population growth could push better economic growth.

This editorial paints a picture that is rare these days in the population debate. As with too many other political issues, population is seen in black and white. Many population control advocates would point to the fact that there are more poor people in Bangladesh today than ever before as the reason why any measure to control population is necessary. Meanwhile, their counterparts would likely argue that Bangladesh’s economic growth even with a high population growth rate proves that population control is unnecessary.

The reality is far more complex. As Bangladesh has shown, high economic growth is possible even with high population growth. What Bangladesh also shows is that economic growth with high population comes at a cost. Even as Bangladesh has grown, it has used far more resources than it can hope to replenish, and, as the editorial points out, there are still far too many poor people. Lower population growth would allow fewer resources to be used to achieve the same economic growth, and for fewer individuals and families to be left behind.

Population growth is a complex issue. But the New Nation seems to have figured out how and why it’s a problem. Now, we need a solution.

On Population Movement and Global Warming

Here is an interesting article about the effects of the population transfer from warm southern climates to colder climes in the north. According to the piece, which recently appeared in the Canadian Free Press, carbon emissions for those dwelling in the north are significantly higher than southerners’ emissions.

Such a result is not altogether unexpected. Most of the world’s developing countries are in tropical or subtropical climates, and these countries’ lack of access to technology means fewer emissions. The need for heat in the colder north also plays a role; according to the piece, the average resident of Japan is responsible for barely more than half the amount of emissions as the average Canadian.

Nonetheless, the article sheds light on a very important issue, one that is largely being ignored in the global warming debate. It is understandable those residing in less developed countries are more likely to immigrate to developed nations than vice versa. But that fact should give us yet another incentive to assist developing nations; even those southern nations with high levels of development are more environmentally friendly than their counterparts further north.

The article also shows that we should focus on reducing population growth, as each individual leaves an emissions footprint detrimental to our environment. And here is where it gets both easy and complicated: sustainable development programs in the third world not only allow the nations to develop technologically and economically, they also work to reduce population growth in third world nations. So, at least in theory, there will be fewer people in these nations, each with a smaller impact than their counterparts in the north, and with less incentive to immigrate north (should that option be open at all).

The piece highlights the link between population movement and carbon emissions. It also sheds light on the ways in which development will curb that movement and, potentially, reduce the average human’s impact on the environment. And one thing we have going for us is that many of the mechanisms to reduce the average footprint are the same as those that will help lower population growth.

Distorting the Population Agenda

Here is an article that takes valid points, changes their context and uses them to make a political point. The article, published by LifeSite (which, hard as it is to believe, is a pro-life site) takes comments supporting population control measures, discounts the organizations behind those comments as being irrationally pro-abortion and discounts every point made in those comments.

In reality, abortion and even contraception are only part of the population control movement. Family planning and improved social services, which might well be endorsed by the organizations whose interests LifeSite claims to represent, are as important in initiating long-term population growth reduction. Even anti-abortion religious organizations would be hard-pressed to come up with logical arguments against population control initiatives that work by improving access to health, education and family planning.

It’s true that contraceptives such as condoms and birth control are part of family planning initiatives. Those who are opposed to contraception in any form might have qualms about family planning programs that explicitly advocate making contraceptives available. But family-planning programs, including those advocated by the International Planned Parenthood Federation, an organization to which LifeSite is opposed, also advocate proper childcare techniques, birth spacing and pre-natal care. Movements such as those pose no challenge to the pro-life agenda. Even condom distribution should not threaten LifeSite’s stance; far from promoting promiscuity, condom distribution programs in developing countries tend to focus on how to promote couples to have smaller, healthier, more manageable families.

And other measures that can decrease fertility are totally ignored by this piece as well. Improved education, health care, job training and physical infrastructure are just a few of the many measures that can promote small family size in developing countries. As such, religious leaders throughout the world have recently begun to advocate fertility reduction through family planning and improved social services. When LifeSite points out that an abstinence-based program in Uganda has worked to reduce HIV, it conveniently ignores the fact that other programs, including the recent instatement of universal primary education, might have also contributed to Uganda’s falling rate of HIV infections.

But the good folks at LifeSite aren’t done. The author points out that the current low population growth might have a detrimental effect in Europe in the near future. But even if we ignore what I touched on in my last entry – including the fact that the older population is healthier and works and lives longer than the younger generations that came before, and the fact that immigrants from Turkey and North Africa can largely make up for the reduced size of the European workforce if European nations open up to more immigrants – low fertility in sub-Saharan Africa is a completely different animal than low fertility in Europe.

For starters, the potential problems in Europe stem from the fact that, in many European countries, fertility is below the replacement rate of 2.1 children per childbearing women. In contrast, fertility rates in sub-Saharan Africa is sky-high; in some countries it is more than seven per childbearing woman, and in no country is it much below five. Furthermore, Europe has an established economic infrastructure that it must support; sub-Saharan Africa is just now working to develop a sustainable economy. So, while European nations are struggling to find ways to support an already-existing economic system (and can support that system if they take the proper steps, as detailed in my last entry), sub-Saharan African nations are struggling to create means of supporting their populations. If those populations continue to grow exponentially, it will be that much harder to support them.

To be sure, I am not praising all the points made by the organizations and the members of parliament toward which LifeSite is directing its criticism. I find it difficult to praise any Chinese population-control initiative, for example. I also agree with LifeSite that high population density is not always what contributes to pollution, although when the author of the piece notes that the US is a major polluter despite its low population density it conveniently ignores that much of the pollution comes from high-density areas. However, LifeSite and groups like it skew the population debate to meet their own political agendas. In order to address population issues, we need to have an honest debate about population growth all around the world – not use scare tactics and selective talking points to further agendas that are tangential to the issue at hand.

Aging EU Population Not the Biggest Problem

One issue that is often brought up as a concern when we talk about a reduction in population growth rates and, eventually, in overall population in a region or country is that one result might a shift in demographics to a population with more elderly people. But a new study by Standard Life Investments says that might not be such a bad thing.

According to the study, the population will tend to be older in an area with a shrinking rate of growth. But that older population will also tend to, simply put, act younger. The elderly would be more likely to work even if they had saved enough for retirement, and would be less of a burden on health care and other services because their overall health would be better. Older people tend also to spend the most in such economic sectors as travel and leisure. As the cliché goes, seventy is the new fifty.

So, if the Standard Life Study is to believed, Europe is not facing a crisis because of its aging population. Rather, it is facing the prospect of shifting priorities. The European Union’s economy will probably shift to a service and leisure-based economy, and technology will change to allow that. EU nations might be more inclined to accept immigration as necessary; according to some estimates, the population growth of potential EU member Turkey and EU neighbor Egypt, combined, could replace the loss of working-age adults in Europe if Europeans were willing to welcome immigrants with open arms. But regardless of the path Europe takes, the aging population is not a recipe for disaster so much as a recipe for positive change.

Something else that is often overlooked when people talk about how an aging population might damage the economy is that one reason the population is aging, and one reason families are getting smaller, is improved health care. In the developing world, population growth is high while life expectancy is low and many children die young from preventable diseases. As health care delivery improves, population growth tends to slow because each individual is more likely to survive to adulthood and be healthy in old age. In developed countries like most EU member nations, that same dynamic is present. Better health and education services might lead to the average family having fewer children, but each child is likely to lead a longer, more productive life than he would if he had more brothers and sisters but access to fewer essential services.

In the EU, that translates to a population that may be older, but also one that works longer and in which the average individual is more productive overall. The elderly population will work later in life not because they need to but because they can. The dynamic that leads to reduced population growth is the same dynamic that leads to a more productive older generation, which means that the fear of a decline in overall productivity that might happen in the EU is both overblown and avoidable.

This is not to say that the reduced population is something Europeans should not worry about at all. Indeed, many European countries must quickly and realistically address the looming demographic transition by changing economic and immigration policies. Germany, for example – which by some estimates will lose more than two thirds of its population by the end of the twenty first century – will have to seriously rethink its strict immigration policy in order to continue as Europe’s largest economy. But the demographic transition in EU countries should be seen not as a disaster but as an opportunity for positive change.