Pop Audio:
John Bongaarts on the Impacts of Demographic Change in the Developing World
“The UN projects about 9.1 billion people by 2050, and then population growth will likely level off around 9.5 billion later in the century. Can the planet handle 9 billion? The answer is probably yes. Is it a desirable trajectory? The answer is no,” said John Bongaarts, vice president of the Policy Research Division at the Population Council, in this interview with ECSP.
Although family planning was largely brushed aside by international policymakers following the 1994 UN International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, Bongaarts said he is hopeful because it is now enjoying a higher profile globally – and receiving greater funding.
“I am optimistic about the understanding now, both in developing and developed world, and in the donor community, that [family planning] is an important issue that should be getting more attention,” Bongaarts said. “And therefore I think the chances of ending up with a positive demographic outlook are now larger than they were a few years ago.”
The “Pop Audio” series is also available as podcasts on iTunes.
3 comments:
Worth pointing out that the UN projections for 9.1 billion by 2050 assume a pretty steep decline in total fertility in sub-Saharan Africa, as Richard Cincotta and Jennifer Sciubba point out. Such a decline would be more likely if family planning is given its due, as Bongaarts argues.
RE: CAN THE PLANET HANDLE 9 BILLION --
--- NOT A CHANCE !!
Readers may find some interest in the following
two essays which also offer CLICKABLE web site /URLs for further reading.
As you will see these essays drill down to the roots of the human dilemma and our VERY SHAKY relationship with the ecosystems upon which we are completely dependent.
++++
FIRST --------- John Feeney's VERY SHORT(and well referenced) new article entiltled:
'Agriculture: Ending the world as we know it'
at:
http://www.canyoncountryzephyr.com/newzephyr/august-september2010/html/aug10-20.htm
This essay deals with the reality of the human condition, an how our willingness to destroy natural ecosystems with our population and economic expansion for the last 10,000 years has brought us to the point where POPULATION REDUCTION (planned or orchestrated by resource scarcity) is now inevitable in our future.
++++
SECOND - I wish I had known about "the quinacrine pellet method of nonsurgical permanent female contraception - QS"- see: http://www.isafonline.org - that appears to offer a very efficacious method of fertility control by individuals who are convinced that this is the right thing to do --- when I wrote the article (see URL access below).
I believe that we are now seeing the ramifications of a global 10,000 year old debt crisis (PONZI SCHEME) characterized by the creation of money that supposedly represented actual wealth which is the ability to produce food and fibre for the needs of the Earth's human population. This 10,000 year old 'PONZI SCHEME' has incorrectly assumed that environmental services such as soil fertility and other supposedly renewable natural resources were externalities with infinite capacity that need not be accounted for.
My thesis suggests the first and most important resource humans have used non renewably (long before fossil fuel depletion/peak oil) is the arable soil on the planet; soil mining by cultivation agriculture began ~ 10,000 years ago. This is the culmination of my ~ 40 year investigation into the relationship between humans and their supporting ecosystems. If my thesis is correct -- then the 'population bomb', that continues to make natural resource management problematic, exploded a long, long time ago, see:
'Long term agricultural overshoot'
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6048
(YOU MAY HAVE TO PASTE THIS INTO YOUR BROWSER)
My 'guesstimate' for sustainable human numbers in the 100s of millions, if correct, suggests that the present global population has so far overshot the carrying capacity of its supporting ecosystems that most analyses of the relationship of excessive human numbers to SPECIFIC ASPECTS of environmental damage are simply indulgent academic exercises.
There are more people on the planet (and have been for millennia) than it can sustainably support.
Many of us have concluded that even TWO CHILD FAMILIES -- that would only slowly stabilize the human population -- are not an adequate response to this problem.
We require the VOLUNTARY adoption of NO or ONE CHILD PER FAMILY behavior to orchestrate the population decline that is necessary now, so that ultimately our numbers will be small enough to live OFF RESTORED INTACT ECOSYSTEMS ON THE LAND -------- as opposed to supporting ourselves by DESTROYING THE LAND BY IMPOSING SIMPLIFIED MANUFACTURED ECOSYSTEMS ON IT.
Comments, constructive criticisms and suggestions are welcome
Peter Salonius
email petersalonius@hotmail.com
we are very much worried about numbers.the solution to lower the fertility is not the only way. having a huge group of young is much better to have a large group of old age as dependents.investing on young is more fruitful.Role of mother in house is much greater than as an wage earner because she enables more members to earn by managing household.encouraging more women to concentrate on child upbringing will make planet more beautiful.Extremes are never good.look at the countries which have negative fertility.Education should be linked with earning skills so that these young dependants should become independents.mothers need programes to improve child rearing skills.mothers should get appreciation for household mangement although they are doing an unpaid and thankless job.We should look for their health and acknowledge their contributions to economic development.so look for a balanced solution rather than going for an unbalanced one.
Post a Comment