Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 5:21 pm
Diomedes71,
Sorry - I lost this thread for a while. The reason I don't agree with argument is that over-population is another dimension of these very same problems – but globally presents a huge and complex picture with a different face in different regions. Further, population predictions are notoriously difficult because of the number of assumptions that have to be adopted into the calculation, and the geometric disparity projected into the future from even the slightest error in those initial assumptions.
Quoting a U.N. report that suggests global population is set to level off at around 9 billion by 2050, Brian Whitaker’s article in the Guardian, 06/11/04 goes on to explain:
'The latest calculation is based on "medium-level" expectations that fertility rates will decline significantly - to about two children per woman - even in developing nations, and then rise again slightly.
But the report, issued by the UN's population division, gives warning that even slight variations - "as little as one-quarter of a child" - below or above this two-child norm could produce dramatic swings, resulting in world totals ranging from as little as 2.3 billion up to 36.4 billion by 2050.’
The medium level prediction of the U.N.’s population division is echoed in the above table from the U.S. Census Bureau, showing a steady rate of population increase over the course of a century. The table below is compiled from longer-term population trends; and casts into stark relief the assumptions upon which the U.N./U.S. predictions are based.
From 1800 to 2000 we see something in the region of a six-fold increase in global population. Coincident with the industrial revolution in the West, this population explosion from 1800 may have been caused by the very same factors upon which the U.N./U.S. rely to suggest that population will level off; namely, economic development resulting in reduced infant moratality, allowing people in developing nations to rationally reduce fertility. for
For population growth to slow to a stop at 9 billion would require as dramatic a change in the long-term trend as that which occurred from the beginning of the industrial revolution. While it has been suggested above that China and India, the two most populous nations on earth are developing rapidly, even so, such an argument assumes that economic development in developing countries will be reasonably equitable, allowing for the emergence of a healthy and educated middle-class inclined to smaller families – rather than a stark polarity between the few very rich and many desperately poor.
The U.N./U.S. figures infer that economic development will manage over-population – even while economic development means greater use of resources and energy – depleting remaining oil reserves and adding to climate change. At present the richest 20% of nations consume 86 percent of world resources, while the poorest 20% use only 1.3 percent. On the basis of the U.N./U.S. figures the 58 million people born in developed countries during the 1990’s pollute more than the 915 million people born in developing countries during the same period.
But for the 9bn figure to prove nearly accurate, the benefits of economic development would need to be fairly evenly distributed, though this would still constitute an imbalanced equation between population, resource use and environmental sustainability – it’s impossible to believe can be righted by technology capitalism cannot afford to apply.
According to Wikipedia: ‘Brazil is today South America's largest economy, the world's ninth largest economy, and fifth most populous nation.’ Clearly, exploiting these resources has generated a great deal of wealth, however, the article continues:
‘By the 1990s, more than one out of four Brazilians continued to survive on less than one dollar a day.’
From Encarta we note: ‘In 1950 Brazil had 51,944,000 inhabitants, and by 1980 the population had more than doubled, rising to 119,002,700. The most recent census, in 2000, recorded a population of 169,799,170. A 2005 estimate placed the population at 186,112,794.’
Thus, Brazil’s population has more than tripled in the past 55 years, and while massive exploitation of the natural environment has generated huge wealth for the few, the benefits of economic development have failed to reach the poorest 25% of the population.
Therefore, despite the massive exploitation of environmental resources, in absolute terms there are just as many people living a hand to mouth existence as there were 50 years ago. It’s simply the wrong approach. As mentioned above, the top 20% of nation-states consume something like 83% of the world’s resources while the bottom 20% get just 1.3% between them. This bears a striking similarity to the distribution of wealth within capitalist societies; according to www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk, in the U.K. the top 1% own 23% of the wealth, the top 10% own more than half, while the top 50% of the population own 94% of the wealth. In the U.S., the top 1% own 38.1%, the top 10% own 59.4% while the top 50% of the population own over 95% of the wealth.
This tells us something about capitalist economics as a mechanism. Within the world, as within capitalist societies the function of capitalist economics is not to efficiently distribute resources, but to accumulate more wealth in fewer hands – and consequently, there’s no discernable validity to the hypothesis that economic development will tackle population growth.
mb.
Sorry - I lost this thread for a while. The reason I don't agree with argument is that over-population is another dimension of these very same problems – but globally presents a huge and complex picture with a different face in different regions. Further, population predictions are notoriously difficult because of the number of assumptions that have to be adopted into the calculation, and the geometric disparity projected into the future from even the slightest error in those initial assumptions.
Quoting a U.N. report that suggests global population is set to level off at around 9 billion by 2050, Brian Whitaker’s article in the Guardian, 06/11/04 goes on to explain:
'The latest calculation is based on "medium-level" expectations that fertility rates will decline significantly - to about two children per woman - even in developing nations, and then rise again slightly.
But the report, issued by the UN's population division, gives warning that even slight variations - "as little as one-quarter of a child" - below or above this two-child norm could produce dramatic swings, resulting in world totals ranging from as little as 2.3 billion up to 36.4 billion by 2050.’
The medium level prediction of the U.N.’s population division is echoed in the above table from the U.S. Census Bureau, showing a steady rate of population increase over the course of a century. The table below is compiled from longer-term population trends; and casts into stark relief the assumptions upon which the U.N./U.S. predictions are based.
From 1800 to 2000 we see something in the region of a six-fold increase in global population. Coincident with the industrial revolution in the West, this population explosion from 1800 may have been caused by the very same factors upon which the U.N./U.S. rely to suggest that population will level off; namely, economic development resulting in reduced infant moratality, allowing people in developing nations to rationally reduce fertility. for
For population growth to slow to a stop at 9 billion would require as dramatic a change in the long-term trend as that which occurred from the beginning of the industrial revolution. While it has been suggested above that China and India, the two most populous nations on earth are developing rapidly, even so, such an argument assumes that economic development in developing countries will be reasonably equitable, allowing for the emergence of a healthy and educated middle-class inclined to smaller families – rather than a stark polarity between the few very rich and many desperately poor.
The U.N./U.S. figures infer that economic development will manage over-population – even while economic development means greater use of resources and energy – depleting remaining oil reserves and adding to climate change. At present the richest 20% of nations consume 86 percent of world resources, while the poorest 20% use only 1.3 percent. On the basis of the U.N./U.S. figures the 58 million people born in developed countries during the 1990’s pollute more than the 915 million people born in developing countries during the same period.
But for the 9bn figure to prove nearly accurate, the benefits of economic development would need to be fairly evenly distributed, though this would still constitute an imbalanced equation between population, resource use and environmental sustainability – it’s impossible to believe can be righted by technology capitalism cannot afford to apply.
According to Wikipedia: ‘Brazil is today South America's largest economy, the world's ninth largest economy, and fifth most populous nation.’ Clearly, exploiting these resources has generated a great deal of wealth, however, the article continues:
‘By the 1990s, more than one out of four Brazilians continued to survive on less than one dollar a day.’
From Encarta we note: ‘In 1950 Brazil had 51,944,000 inhabitants, and by 1980 the population had more than doubled, rising to 119,002,700. The most recent census, in 2000, recorded a population of 169,799,170. A 2005 estimate placed the population at 186,112,794.’
Thus, Brazil’s population has more than tripled in the past 55 years, and while massive exploitation of the natural environment has generated huge wealth for the few, the benefits of economic development have failed to reach the poorest 25% of the population.
Therefore, despite the massive exploitation of environmental resources, in absolute terms there are just as many people living a hand to mouth existence as there were 50 years ago. It’s simply the wrong approach. As mentioned above, the top 20% of nation-states consume something like 83% of the world’s resources while the bottom 20% get just 1.3% between them. This bears a striking similarity to the distribution of wealth within capitalist societies; according to www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk, in the U.K. the top 1% own 23% of the wealth, the top 10% own more than half, while the top 50% of the population own 94% of the wealth. In the U.S., the top 1% own 38.1%, the top 10% own 59.4% while the top 50% of the population own over 95% of the wealth.
This tells us something about capitalist economics as a mechanism. Within the world, as within capitalist societies the function of capitalist economics is not to efficiently distribute resources, but to accumulate more wealth in fewer hands – and consequently, there’s no discernable validity to the hypothesis that economic development will tackle population growth.
mb.