Friends highlight population growth
Quaker Concern Over Population applies to become a listed informal group
Quaker Concern Over Population (QCOP) has applied to become a listed informal group
The group was formed in the wake of the Canterbury Commitment and the statement in the Britain Yearly Meeting epistle of 2011, which said that ‘we can no longer ignore the fact that our planet is finite’.
‘The aims of the group are to inform Friends of the dangers of population growth, and of the means by which growth can be addressed without coercion,’ QCOP member Roger Plenty said.
The group also hopes ‘to encourage Friends to discuss the subject, in the hope that the Society might collectively arrive at a position on population growth; to communicate informally with the various bodies within the Society of Friends; to enable them to become aware of the issues and to allow that awareness to inform their work,’ Roger explained to the Friend.
Comments
I think it’s important we test these concerns.
A growing population clearly demands greater resources and our planet is already struggling. However, the issue is a bit more complicated than that. I recommend a talk by a Swedish doctor and statistician, Hans Rosling, to all Friends. He makes it clear that the world population is likely to stabilise at 9-10 billion (and that further growth towards this figure is somewhat inevitable due to demographics - he explains why in the longer version of his talk below).
Hans suggests that what determines population growth are child survival rates. Most population growth occurs in insecure populations where child survival rates are low. When child mortality improves, population growth declines (quickly reaching zero). As a result of improvements in living conditions, the rate of population growth has halved worldwide during the past 50 years. With further improvements in wealth and health it will quickly stabilise - as is already the case in Bangladesh, for instance. I believe this indicates that the underlying issues are poverty and inequality rather than population growth per se. Watch Hans Rosling’s explanation and see if you agree.
The short version:
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth?language=en
The long version (much more detailed and more satisfying, for those with an hour at hand):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA5BM7CE5-8
By ivanhutnik on 28th August 2015 - 11:00
Rosling’s film is unreliable and has not met with approval from most demographers. He can be challenged at several points
For example, ‘He makes it clear that …population is likely to stabilise at 9-10 billion’. This has been overtaken by the raising of the UN projections, which now project medium figures of 9.7 bn. for 2050 and 11.2 bn. for 2100, continuing to grow. These are not predictions of certainty, and UN makes that clear: actual figures could well be above or below that, depending on what we do now, but the tendency is generally upward..
In his talk, he produces the example of Bangladesh as an example of how fertility can drop. This is disingenuous: he does not mention the fact that this decline did not happen by itself, but is the result of a proper programme of education, clinics, publicity and supply of contraception, a programme of precisely the sort that is promoted by population advocates. Bangladesh and some other countries are often quoted as examples of what can be done if the issue is taken seriously
He neglects to mention that there is a huge amount of suffering around the failure to provide family planning. Two hundred and twenty five million women have no access to modern contraception for a variety of reasons: as a result there are 42 million abortions annually, of which 20 million are unsafe. Sixty eight thousand of these women die, and amongst the rest there are two million long term or permanent disabilities. Two hundred thousand women die each year from pregnancies they did not want.
All my figures are from UN or WHO
By RogerP on 30th August 2015 - 15:30
Friend,
I share your concerns that we need to ensure that the poor in our world not only have improved access to contraception but also to the medical benefits that can reduce maternal and infant mortality. Adopting the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals will hopefully go a long way to helping us achieve this.
I think Hans Rosling would be the first to agree with you (and me) that Bangladesh’s achievements in halving its birth rate since its independence from Pakistan were in part due to a programme of education, clinics, publicity and supply of contraception. Indeed, a large part of his presentation on Bangladesh focuses on this.
I celebrate Bangladesh’s achievement. It is wonderful that the prospects of Bangladeshis have been completely turned around since 1971.
It is important to acknowledge the critical role increased wealth plays in contributing to improved wellbeing. Hans Rosling’s talks make it clear that increasing income from less than $1 a day to $2 a day or more produces a step change. (The UN defines income of $1.25 a day as absolute poverty because below this level it is not possible to ensure the basics of food and shelter required to sustain life.) Hans shows that at above $2 a day access to basic healthcare improves. Countries with incomes that average $10 a day are sufficiently wealthy to put in place basic healthcare systems. All the evidence shows that once 90% of children survive infancy, birth rates rapidly fall to replication levels.
None of these things are absolute, of course: individuals, families, communities and governments make choices – where to invest and who to help. However, all the statistics show that it is the absolute poor who have by far the largest families and who suffer disproportionately. As the SDGs make clear, if we are to restrict population growth we must first improve the wellbeing of the poorest two billion people.
Hans Rosling is a statistician and professor of International Health. He is a consultant to WHO and the UN and well regarded by health professionals. Nevertheless, I would be interested to read criticism about his analysis. The number for the population estimate is my mistake (faulty remembering): Hans Rosling said 10-11 billion.
By ivanhutnik on 3rd September 2015 - 12:34
Please login to add a comment
