(Categorize based on keywords)
 
(27 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
There are strong reasons for helping people to manage their reproduction, in terms of reducing poverty. Spending the same resources to take care of a smaller number of children helps to ensure better outcomes for those children.
{{Topic notice}}


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.
[[File:Fertility rate world map 2.png|thumb|Global fertility rates]]


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''.
{{Merge|Population size}}


== Population growth and climate change ==
There is a popular myth that population growth alone determines our impact on the environment.<ref>http://www.urbansprout.co.za/population_growth_has_no_relation_to_global_warming</ref> In reality though, it is the combination of both the population size, as the (degree of) [[Consumerism|participation of each member on the economy]], as the way in which each member chooses to use this wealth that determines this.<ref>For example, someone with millions on his bank account can decide to park it there until he dies, while someone with a limited budget can still have a major negative impact on the environment (e.g. by starting a forest fire) and/or can also have other negative impacts (e.g. by disposing all his organically non-decomposable waste in the environment).</ref>


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.  
That being said, the decision of not reproducing is one of the most effective actions we can take. In practice, some families will be able to propagate and some not as we are all entitled to about 0,57 children.<ref>Having 2 children maintains population size, divided by 3,5 makes 0,57</ref><ref>The decision on who can and can not reproduce will probably depend on financial means (to be able to support children), and [[Eugenics|genetic makeup]]</ref> This does not mean of course that we can not have any children at all, because adoption is still an option, as this does not increase the population size.


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.
== See also ==


A study by Dr David Satterthwaite<ref>[http://www.iied.org/human-settlements/media/study-shatters-myth-population-growth-major-driver-climate-change 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.</ref> 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.
* [[Population size]]


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.
== Notes and references ==


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.”
<references />


“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.”
== External links ==


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?
* [https://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 in developed countries through population policy, as growth is already falling about as fast as can be expected. Thus emissions reductions in these countries must come through technology and governance.


Tt seems incredibly unfair for all the “developed” countries to put the blame on the little brown “developing” countries.
{{Page data
| keywords = ecological footprint, growth, population, population and sustainability
}}


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?
[[Category:Ecological footprint]]
 
[[Category:Growth]]
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]]. ([[Europe]]an 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{{fact}} 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.
 
== 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.
 
{{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:Growth]]  
[[Category:Population]]
[[Category:Population]]
[[Category:Population and sustainability]]

Latest revision as of 12:45, 23 October 2023

This is a topic page.Appropedia's focus is on original research, but this page provides useful context and helps navigate the site. You can help Appropedia by improving this page.Read more...
Global fertility rates
This page or section should probably be merged with Population size.See the talk page here or there for more.Read more...

There is a popular myth that population growth alone determines our impact on the environment.[1] In reality though, it is the combination of both the population size, as the (degree of) participation of each member on the economy, as the way in which each member chooses to use this wealth that determines this.[2]

That being said, the decision of not reproducing is one of the most effective actions we can take. In practice, some families will be able to propagate and some not as we are all entitled to about 0,57 children.[3][4] This does not mean of course that we can not have any children at all, because adoption is still an option, as this does not increase the population size.

See also[edit | edit source]

Notes and references[edit | edit source]

  1. ↑ http://www.urbansprout.co.za/population_growth_has_no_relation_to_global_warming
  2. ↑ For example, someone with millions on his bank account can decide to park it there until he dies, while someone with a limited budget can still have a major negative impact on the environment (e.g. by starting a forest fire) and/or can also have other negative impacts (e.g. by disposing all his organically non-decomposable waste in the environment).
  3. ↑ Having 2 children maintains population size, divided by 3,5 makes 0,57
  4. ↑ The decision on who can and can not reproduce will probably depend on financial means (to be able to support children), and genetic makeup

External links[edit | edit source]

  • Falling fertility, The Economist, Oct 29th 2009. Argues that there is little more to be achieved in developed countries through population policy, as growth is already falling about as fast as can be expected. Thus emissions reductions in these countries must come through technology and governance.
FA info icon.svg Angle down icon.svg Page data
Keywords ecological footprint, growth, population, population and sustainability
Authors Chris Watkins, KVDP
License CC-BY-SA-3.0
Language English (en)
Translations Hindi, Arabic
Related 2 subpages, 26 pages link here
Aliases Human population, Overpopulation
Impact 2,170 page views
Created October 1, 2009 by Chris Watkins
Modified October 23, 2023 by Maintenance script
Cite as Chris Watkins, KVDP (2009–2023). "Population growth". Appropedia. Retrieved April 25, 2024.
API queries basic, semantic, html, files, more
Retrieved from "https://www.appropedia.org/w/index.php?title=Population_growth&oldid=1032384"
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.