The Problem of Population Growth and the Solution of Population Planning
Jane Litwiller
Goshen College
Fall 2004
THESIS: Population planning techniques and policies can effectively help limit human population growth.
Human population growth, overpopulation, and earth’s biological carrying capacity have been concerns of scientists for many years. In 1679 Antoni van Leeuwenhoek estimated that the maximum number of people Earth can support is 13.4 billion and estimates have continued to vary drastically since then (Cohen, 1995). There are many ecological indicators, including desertification and water problems, which point to the likelihood that we are approaching our limit. There are many sub issues within this overall problem that must be addressed in order to work towards solving this problem, including sustainable living, water shortages, etc. However, the purpose of this paper is to focus on the idea of population control as one possible starting point for a solution.
It is important to remember that carrying capacity can change with new technology, different use of resources and better resource management. Carrying capacity can also change in the opposite direction due to a catastrophic event or overexploitation of resources.
As was mentioned previously, there have been many estimates made on Earth’s carrying capacity since 1679. Estimates have varied greatly, ranging from <1 billion to >1000 billion. Currently the UN’s projection is that Earth can support around 9 billion people (www.prb.org). It is expected that the human population will reach that size by 2050. The current world population is around 6.3 billion. So, many believe that this is becoming, and has been, an imminent problem.
According to Cohen, there have been six different methods that have been used to estimate Earth’s human carrying capacity. One method used by geographers was to divide the Earth into regions and then assume a maximum supportable population density. This was then multiplied by the area of the region and then all the regions were summed. Another method used by analysts was fitting mathematical curves to historical population sizes and extrapolating them into the future. A third method was to focus on a single assumed constraint on population, such as food, and how much of that constraint is needed for survival. However, this method does not take into account other constraints. A fourth method used was to reduce multiple requirements needed for survival to the amount of a single factor. For example, food, paper, timber, etc. were reduced to the area of land required to grow or produce them. A fifth method used involves the idea of population size being constrained by multiple independent factors, or the sum total of constraints. Liebig’s law of the minimum is used here, which states that the population size of a species is constrained by whatever resource is in shortest supply. The sixth method used involves the idea that population size is constrained by multiple interdependent factors and scientists have used system models to describe this. This method is probably the most accurate since it allows for changes in endogenous and exogenous variables. It takes into account that carrying capacity is always changing and is not static. Another idea that has been brought up, but not employed, is that nations should calculate their human carrying capacity separately. However, resources needed often cross the boundaries of nations which requires it to be calculated globally.
Cohen also briefly discussed four different mathematical equations that may be used to calculate carrying capacity. The Malthus equation deals with current human carrying capacity, time and the Malthusian constant. The Condorcet equation deals with the idea that the rate of change of carrying capacity is directly proportional to the rate of change in the population size. The Condorcet-Mill equation deals with the idea that a stationary population is both inevitable and desirable. Lastly, the Malthus-Condorcet-Mill model addresses variability and change in relation to rapid population growth and changing human carrying capacity.
None of the most recent sources address which method and mathematical model is currently being used to estimate carrying capacity. However, it can probably be assumed that the sixth method, which involves the idea that population size is constrained by multiple interdependent factors, is used and that the Malthus-Condorcet-Mill model is used to calculate the current projections.
POPULATION GROWTH RATES AND FERTILITY RATES
Currently, world population is at 6.3 billion and growing at a rate of 1.2 percent annually. This means that an additional 77 million people are added to world population each year. Granted, this is considerably lower than the peak annual growth rate of over 2 percent in the early 1970’s (Hagga, 2003). However, the population is still increasing and taking its toll on the natural environment. Ninety-six percent of the projected population growth will occur in developing countries (UNFPA, 2004). However, the 2002 revision of the United Nations Population Prospects shows that, by the year 2050, 75 percent of all less developed countries will experience below-replacement fertility. This means these countries will have a fertility rate lower than 2.1 children per woman. Therefore, the UN’s estimate of population size by 2050 has been lowered to 8.9 billion instead of 9.3 billion. About half of the 400 million difference is due to taking into account the higher projected levels of HIV. The other half of the difference is due to the prediction of lower fertility levels (Haaga, 2003).
However, it is important to remember that all of these projections depend on the rate of which the fertility rates fall. If the decline slows so that it is only down to 2.5 children per woman by 2050 then the population will be around 10.6 billion. If the fertility rate declines quickly to 1.5 by 2050 then the population will be around 7.4 billion (Haaga, 2003). Regardless, one reason why the population will continue to grow in the next four decades is that a high number of people are just entering their childbearing years. Currently, according to the Population Reference Bureau’s website, www.prb.org, the fertility rates range from 1.2 in industrialized countries to 8 children per woman in Niger .
The United Nations’ projections of slower population growth are based on the idea that more couples will be able to choose to have smaller families. Therefore, greater investments need to be made to ensure greater access to reproductive health information and services, including family planning.
According to the UNFPA’s State of World Population 2004, gaps in reproductive and sexual health care account for almost one fifth of the global burden of illness and premature death, and one third of the illness and death among women of reproductive age. The International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) defined reproductive health in 1994 as
“A state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, in all matters relating to the reproductive system and its functions and processes. Reproductive health therefore implies that people are able to have a satisfying and safe sex life and that they have the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so. Implicit in this last condition are the right of men and women to be informed and to have access to safe, effective, affordable, and acceptable methods of family planning of their choice, as well as other methods of their choice for regulation of fertility which are not against the law, and the right of access to appropriate health care services that will enable women to go safely through pregnancy and childbirth and provide couples with the best chance of having a healthy infant (UNFPA, 2004)).”
According to a 2003 survey conducted by UNFPA, progress has been made in this area. Countries indicate expanding access to reproductive health and in access to family planning. However, there still continue to be underserved groups and so an increasing emphasis has been placed on extending these opportunities to the poor. There have even been laws passed in some countries that give women more rights and hold men more responsible.
FAMILY PLANNING AND CONTRACEPTIVE USE
Family planning use has increased globally from 55 percent of married couples in 1994 to 61 percent in 2004. Use varies regionally, ranging from 25 percent in Africa to almost 65 percent in Asia and 70 percent in Latin America and the Caribbean and in developed regions (UNFPA, 2004).
According to UNFPA’s State of Population Report 2004, at a cost of $7.1 billion a year, modern contraceptive use currently prevents annually: 187 million unintended pregnancies; 60 million unplanned births; 105 million induced abortions; 2.7 million infant deaths; 215,000 pregnancy related deaths; and 685,000 children losing their mothers due to pregnancy related deaths. Also, there are roughly 201 million women with unmet need for effective contraception. Meeting these needs for about $3.9 billion a year would prevent about 52 million pregnancies each year. Preventing these pregnancies would therefore prevent an additional: 23 million unplanned births (a 72 percent reduction); 22 million induced abortions (a 64 percent reduction); 1.4 million infant deaths; 142,000 pregnancy related deaths; and 505,000 children losing their mothers because of pregnancy related deaths.
Unmet need and barriers to contraceptive use are due to many reasons, which include lack of accessible services and shortages of equipment, commodities and personnel; lack of method choices appropriate for the woman and her family; lack of knowledge about the safety, effectiveness and availability of choices; poor client-provider interaction; lack of community or spousal support; misinformation and rumors; side-effects for some and insufficient follow-up to provide adequate method; and financial constraints (UNFPA, 2004).
There are many contraceptive methods available for use today. However, according to a recent Population Reference Bureau report, sterilization seems to be the most preferred and most widely used method (Haub & Herstad, 2002). It has been estimated that approximately one out of four couples worldwide use sterilization with 21 percent of these being female sterilizations and 4 percent being male sterilizations. Of the other major methods, the IUD is the second most commonly used method worldwide at 15 percent, next the pill at 6 percent, then the condom at 5 percent, injectables at 2 percent and a variety of less commonly used methods such as the diaphragm, spermicides, female condom, etc totaling another 2 percent.
Sterilization has the major advantage of being a one-time procedure that is relatively cheap. About one third of all married women in India and China have been sterilized (Haub & Herstad, 2002). However, male and female condoms are the most effective in preventing the transmission of HIV.
There have been numerous studies over the last two decades that have analyzed the relationship between female education and fertility rates. They have concluded that the more education women have, the fewer children they bear (Brown, 2001). The United Nations Population Fund is one source that also claims countries that have made social investments in health, family planning, and education have slower population growth and faster economic growth than countries that have not made this investment. As female education increases, fertility, population growth, and infant and child mortality decrease, improving overall family health.
Education is the single most important determinant of both age at marriage and age at first birth (Roudi-Fahimi & Moghadam, 2003). Women who have been educated generally want smaller families and know how to make better use of family planning services in achieving their desired family size. Most women tend to know something about modern contraception but educated women tend to know about a wider range of options and where to get them.
One major factor that seems to be a side effect of education is the cost. Once couples decide they want to educate their children, they are faced with paying for it. This seems to have a limiting effect on the number of children family have. Another factor is the changing tradition of farming. It is no longer sufficient to make a living on and still have a large family. Children that were once an asset on the farm have now become somewhat of a liability.
Economist Lawrence Summers has analyzed this idea that education reduces fertility and claims that each additional year of female education reduces fertility by about 10 percent (Brown, 2001). He also then projected that the investment of educating women would yield a 20 percent return annually. Summers claims that education is the single most effective way for breaking the cycle of poverty.
China implemented its one-child policy in 1979 which limited families to having only one child. Had it not implemented this policy, its population would be around 1.6 billion which is the number at which the country hopes to stabilize its population by 2050. This would have been an additional 300 million births in the last 25 years. Also many experts agree that it is also likely that 1.6 billion is the maximum number China ’s resources and carrying capacity can support (Meulenberg, 2004).
The implementation of such a large-scale family planning program proved to be very difficult to control, especially within the various levels of government. Birth planning bureaus were established in all counties to deal with the directives passed down from the central government.
There is varying documentation on how well the program was received by the public. There are stories of heavy sanctions for non-compliance, such as the doubling of health insurance and long-term income deductions as well as forced abortions and sterilizations (Meulenberg, 2004). Peasant families put up the most resistance and rural families desperately thought they were entitled to a son. However, in the opposite extreme, some couples submitted written commitments to following the program. In spite of this variation in public response, it is commonly accepted that one-child families receive preferential treatment in public services. Parents who abided by the one-child policy often received monthly bonuses until the child reached age 14. Another factor that authorities believe has a limiting effect and helps to control population is the cost of education for a child.
There are some exceptions to the one-child policy. Individuals who leave the country and return with a foreign spouse and passport are exempt from the one-child policy. It is also rumored that couples in which both members are only children will be allowed to have two children of their own (Meulenberg, 2004). Chinese national minorities have also been less restricted in birth planning. In addition, it appears that there has been a greater concentration of family planning efforts in urban areas as opposed to rural ones. Also, some rich people in cities have begun to have more children as a status symbol (Zi, 2004).
However, over time, Chinese population policy has moved towards a more service-based approach that is consistent with the consensus developed at the 1994 ICPD in Cairo . China claims to be no longer preaching population control and rather emphasizing quality of care in order to meet the needs of patients (Meulenberg, 2004). Family planning clinics are providing a wider range of contraceptive methods to the people.
“Experts universally hold that the aging population, the gender proportion, the declining population quality and the flowing population are the main problems,” (Zi, 2004). One major criticism has been the implications towards social security and old-age support. The older population will become larger than the younger population and therefore place a great strain on the younger generation. Another problem with this policy has been the traditional preference for sons. This has widened the ratio of males to females. The concern is increasing as the one-child generation approaches marriage age. The 2000 census reported a sex ratio of 117 boys to 100 girls (Meulenberg, 2004). The disparity is provoked by modern ultrasound technology that makes it possible for couples to abort female fetuses with the hope of producing a son later. This practice is illegal but still remains in use. However, some believe that this traditional preference for sons is decreasing among the younger generation. This is probably due to the idea that girls cost less and are easier to raise (Meulenberg, 2004).
In conclusion, China has started to effectively limit population growth. However, it will continue to grow as the younger generation approaches childbearing age. It now faces other problems that need to be addressed, as mentioned above. However, these problems are probably less severe than the ones the country would have faced had it not taken action to limit population growth.
The problem of the increasing global population is the cause of many environmental problems. So, it only seems logical to try to combat a problem at the root of it. Therefore it seems like population planning and population control is the most effective place to start and it seems to be the proactive approach to impending global chaos if nothing is done.
The problem is definitely complex and the rest of the world can learn a lot from China ’s example. Perhaps other countries could be better prepared to combat the side effects of population control based on what can be learned from China .
In the implementation of policies, it is crucial that governments be ethical. Some would say that it is unethical for governments to have this type of control over its people. However, it seems like the global population is being faced with multiple other ethical issues as a result of the population problem. Therefore, it can be argued that the solution to this problem is the most ethical possible. We do not live in a perfect world and we are all in this together. So, we must choose the solution with the fewest adverse effects. Population planning is that solution.
References
Brown, L.R. (2001). Eco-Economy: Building and Economy for the Earth. New York : W. W. Norton and Company.
Cohen, J. E. (1995). Population Growth and Earth’s Human Carrying Capacity. Science, 269, 341-348.
Haaga, J. (March, 2003). UN Projects Slower Population Growth. Retrieved October 31, 2004 from: Population Reference Bureau www.prb.org.
Haub, C. & Herstad, B., (July, 2002). Sterilization World’s #1 Contraceptive Method. Retrieved October 31, 2004 from: Population Reference Bureau www.prb.org.
Meulenberg, C., (Sept./Oct. 2004). {Definitely}Probably One: A Generation Comes of Age Under China’s One-Child Policy. World Watch, 17, 31.
Roudi-Fahimi, F., & Moghadam, V.M., (November, 2003). Empowering Women, Developing Society: Female Education in the Middle East and North Africa. Retrieved October 31, 2004 from: Population Reference Bureau. www.prb.org.
UNFPA, (2004). State of the World Population: The Cairo Consensus at Ten: Population, Reproductive Health and the Global Effort to End Poverty. Retrieved October 31, 2004 from: www.unfpa.org.
Zi, L., (2004, July 8). Population Planning Paradox. Beijing Review, 47, 22.