Environmentalists ranging
from Malthus to Brundtland fret that the earth is exploding from
overpopulation. Citing numbers like those depicted in the Figure below, they
complain that the earth has reached a turning point. Man has become one
pathetic fecund animal that reproduces without limit. In contrast, they contend
that the earth’s resources are finite and, and its ecosystem fragile. If the
current trend continues, man will not only have insufficient means to survive,
but could also destroy the earth’s fragile ecosystem, polluting its water and
air resources, and bringing about catastrophic phenomena such as global
warming.
Most environmentalists find
enough ground in this to reject economic growth, thus emphasizing a new
movement towards ‘economic de-growth'[1].
Some could even trace the roots of unbridled population growth back to the
commencement of uninterrupted economic growth, largely since the late 19th century.
Needless to say, the rise in
human populations coincides with the era of economic growth. Modern food
production that made available abundant, if nonorganic, food supplies
significantly reduced deaths from starvation. Similarly, the invention of
modern medication from the penicillin to an endless variety of vaccines has
significantly lowered child mortality rates and contributed to higher life
expectancy. However, to contend that sustainable human population growth can be
achieved only by economic ‘degrowth’ is quite unwarranted.
One of the key scientifically
established relationships in social sciences is what is known as “the
demographic transition.” This refers to the observation that population growth
rates fall with economic growth, an observation that can be easily ascertained
from the Figure below. How does this come about? There are several ways in
which economic growth contributes to lower population growth.
First, better economic growth
brings about more and better quality of education. Perhaps there are many ways
in which education reduces fertility. But one important mechanism is the
feeling of empowerment education brings about, especially to women. With better
education, individuals can break the mold of inherited societal roles, and get
the ability to envision and plan their own future. This weakens the lethargic
perception that adolescence is naturally followed by a family and a lot of
children. With the empowerment of education, couples take the future into their
own hands, and responsibly plan when and how many children to have.
Second, and related, economic
development makes child rearing an expensive venture. The benefit of having one
more children must be weighed against the financial bites ensuing from it. This
is what economists call the opportunity cost of time. When having a baby the
mother has to stay home for period of at least half a year, and perhaps even
longer than a year, which is quite a lot of money lost if she has to stop
working. In the meantime, career plans have to be kept on hold. As time goes on
more financial costs come in, including the cost for additional accommodation,
means of transportation (perhaps a new car), and future costs of child care and
education. Not just financially, but even emotionally, child rearing is an
expensive business, if both couples are working and come home tired from a full
day of work. All this increases the incentive for couples to having smaller and
manageable families, with increased emphasis on the ‘quality’ of the child in
terms of education and other resources devoted rather than the mere number of
children.
There are many more reasons
why population falls with economic growth. For example, the incentive for
having more children as a means of ‘social security’ declines, since with
increased economic prosperity the state often provides support for the retired. Even among families that are not fortunate enough
to get the advantages of education and employment, economic growth makes
contraceptives more accessible thus making family planning possible.
Overall, economic development
is perhaps the best answer for the ills of overpopulation the earth is facing.
As one famous person said before, it is indeed true that "development is
the best contraceptive."[2]
[1] Seek
the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth
[2] Karan
Singh as quoted in :David N. Weil (2004). Economic Growth. Addison-Wesley. p.
111.
No comments:
Post a Comment