Why
should we be concerned about population growth rates of 1,2,
and 3 percent a year?
Why
are developing countries experiencing rapid population growth?
Isn't
it true that the entire world population could fit inside Texas?
Isn't
overpopulation only a problem in areas where population density
if high?
Why
has there been so much attention paid to improving the staus
of women?
Question: Why should we be concerned
about population growth rates of 1, 2 and 3 percent a year? Doesn't
that mean that population is growing very slowly?
Answer: Small percentages of very large numbers add
up quickly. For example, the world's current population is estimated
to be 5.7 billion, with an annual growth rate of 1.5 percent.
Yet, at this rate, 88 million people (more than the population
of Germany) will be added to the population this year alone.
That's nearly a quarter of a million additional people to feed
every 24 hours!
Another way to see the impact of growth rates is to consider
the doubling time of a population. In Kenya, for example, the
population is growing at the rate of 3.3 percent and if this
rate continues, it will double in just 21 years. That isn't
much time to build roads, houses, schools and sanitation facilities
to accommodate twice as many people. At the world's present
growth rate of 1.5 percent, the Earth's population will double
in just 47 years.
(Note: In order to calculate the doubling time of a population,
divide the annual growth rate into 70. For example, 70/1.5 =
47 years [doubling time for world population]. The "magic
number" 70 is derived from a logarithmic equation.)
Back to top...
Question: Why are developing countries
experiencing rapid population growth while developed countries
are either growing more slowly or not at all?
Answer:While both developed and developing countries
have experienced significant declines in their death rates,
developing nations continue to have the highest birth rates.
A country's birth rate is strongly linked to the extent of industrialization,
economic development, availability of quality medical care and
family planning services, the educational level of the population
and the status of women.
The Industrial Revolution in Western Europe and North America
improved living conditions through advances in medicine, sanitation
and nutrition. These changes led to declines in death rates,
especially among infants and small children, many more of whom
survived their early years than before. Birth rates remained
high, however, and soon the population swelled.
As these regions gradually moved away from an agrarian way
of life and became more urbanized, large families became less
practical and more expensive. Machinery was used more frequently
to plant and harvest food, reducing the need for children as
farm workers. Urban families bought food instead of harvesting
it. Over the course of the 19th and early 20th centuries, birth
rates dropped dramatically in these areas as people experienced
the advantages of having smaller families.
Developing areas like Africa, Latin America and parts of Asia
are still primarily agrarian; therefore, incentives for having
larger families still exist. The fast-growing cities in developing
countries are filled with young men looking for work, while
many of the women remain with their children in rural areas,
providing most of the work for food production. Because the
technology that improved living conditions was imported from
industrialized countries, death rates plunged dramatically.
As a result, these populations are growing rapidly.
In many countries, the low status of women is another contributing
factor to high birth rates. Women are often denied educational
opportunities and have fewer alternatives to their childbearing
roles. Many people throughout the world wish to limit their
family size but lack access to modern contraceptives, family
planning education, and other health services.
Back to top...
Question: Isn't it true that the
entire population of the world could fit inside Texas?
Answer: If you divided the world's 5.7 billion humans
into Texas's 261,914 square miles, each person could claim .03
acres of land. It is obvious, however, that the land in Texas,
(or even the land in North America for that matter), would not
be able to sustain these people. Resource experts say a minimum
of 0.17 acres of arable land is needed to sustain a person on
a largely vegetarian diet without the intense use of fertilizers
and pest controls.
An estimated 253 million people currently live in countries
with scarce arable land -- which have on average no more than
0.17 acres available per person -- and this population is expected
to at least triple by 2025 if current trends continue. Only
11 percent of the Earth consists of arable land, and that area
is rapidly diminishing due to erosion, salinization and a decline
in the practice of fallowing land.
Back to top...
Question: Isn't overpopulation only
a problem in areas where population density is high?
Answer: "The key to understanding overpopulation is
not population density but the numbers of people in an area
relative to its resources and the capacity of the environment
to sustain human activities; that is, to the area's carrying
capacity. In short, if the long-term carrying capacity of an
area is clearly being degraded by its current human occupants,
that area is overpopulated," according to Paul and Anne Ehrlich
in The Population Explosion.
In areas where density is high, some effects, such as traffic
and air pollution, are readily apparent. But other consequences
of overpopulation are less visible. For instance, people in
cities often forget that certain resources and services, such
as oil, food and water, are provided by transporting the items
from outlying areas.
It is generally agreed that overpopulation exists if the activities
of the current population are depleting the capacity of the
environment to provide for the future. By this standard, according
to the Ehrlichs, "virtually every nation is overpopulated" because
natural resources, such as forests and soil, are being depleted.
According to recent statistics provided by the Population Reference
Bureau, the Netherlands can support 1,180 people per square
mile, but that country is a major importer of resources such
as minerals and food. "Saying that the Netherlands is thriving
with a density of 1,180 people per square mile simply ignores
that those 1,180 Dutch people far exceed the carrying capacity
of that square mile," the Ehrlichs write.
Back to top...
Question: Why has there been so much
attention paid to improving the status of women in developing
countries?
Answer: Combining family planning practices with programs
that improve women's health, social status, educational opportunities
and economic well-being are effective ways to lower fertility
rates. The empowerment of women is key to providing them with
choices about their reproductive health.
"The connection is clear and the rationale compelling: Fertility
falls when women can profit from their work outside the agricultural
sector or home," notes Virginia Abernethy, a professor of psychiatry
at the Vanderbilt University. "A woman with an independent income
does not have to marry young or barter sex or childbearing for
support."
Source: Pamela Wassserman, 'Frequently Asked Questions: Things
You Ought to Know About Population', Zero Population Growth Inc.
World Wide Web, 1997.
Back to top..
