The 18th century economist and demographer, Rev. Thomas Malthus, highlighted the potential dangers of overpopulation in his famous work, An Essay on the Principles of Population. Malthus posited that while "the populations of the world would increase in geometric proportions the food resources available for them would increase only in arithmetic proportions". He painted a dismal picture of what would befall man if population growth was not checked. But, as the story goes, along the line, technological innovations that boosted agriculture, industry and health upset Malthus projections. People were not starved out of existence, rather, there was surplus.This month, demographers say the worlds population hits a seven billion mark, a leap of one billion from the six that was just 12 years ago. As the figures jump, the dangers of world population are being touted all over again. Again, are the fears real or its another Malthusian projection' I mean to ask, without trivialising a serious issue, that before the population explodes in our faces, would there be more technological innovations that, for instance, would make life on other planets habitable and some people would have moved up there' Or, innovations that would enable us to live on, say, water (since the land is just about 30 per cent of the earths space and water makes up the rest)' According to demographic studies, it took the world 50,000 years for the worlds population to hit a one billion mark in 1800 and by 1930, the figures had doubled. It reached three billion by 1960 and 51 years after, the world has added a whopping four billion people to itself. Demographic projections estimate that in another dozen years, the worlds population will have increased by another one billion. Estimates showed that in 1900, the worlds population was 1.6billion and just hundred years later, there were 6.1billon people in the world. A startling, though not unexpected geometric leap!On the one hand, an increase in world population appears to be positive; on the surface it shows positives: thanks to increased health care, more people are born alive and they live longer. On the other hand, the danger is, we will exceed the earths carrying capacity. As the world population increases, eyes are turned in the direction where the figures are surging and various analyses point fingers in the direction of Africa, more precisely, sub-Saharan Africa, the region which estimates say is the fastest growing in the world in terms of population but, incidentally, also the poorest. At this point, the image of Africa that is being presented is that of indigent people, traumatised and ravaged by war, famine and poverty, surrounded by dozens of malnourished children.But, is the population threat real in Africa' There are divergent opinions about this. Some demographic reports suggest that with a population density of a 65 people per square mile, Africas problem is not dense and is actually under-populated compared to England (1,010 people psm) or even Hong Kong with 14,000. Countries that are poor in Africa, they insist, are as a result of internecine wars which consequently resulted in famine and poverty; not a failure of the earth of Africa to sustain its peoples. Other studies say that by suggesting Africa doesnt have a population problem, we are downplaying a serious issue which will explode in our faces sooner or later.In Nigeria, the population growth is galloping, figures suggest. The Population Association of Nigeria says that the countrys population is currently estimated to be 160 million and could double by 2035, thus putting further strain on the resources natural and otherwise, we are currently competing for. That way, the quality of life will decline further because it is expected that the earth will get warmer; there will be less land space for agricultural purposes; declined forests and more consumption of aquatic products without replacement; more susceptibility to diseases, and poverty. In places like China and India, a large population is both an advantage and a disadvantage. The latter probably outweighing the former. Attempts to control the surge have had political and social consequences. Population control is ever a sensitive issue and thats largely because it deals with reproducing life and all the attendant sentiments. In one camp are people who believe that curbing population is antithetical to natures aim of putting us here to be fruitful and multiply and nature will find space to accommodate us. They claim the campaign is a Western agenda to slow down our numbers for their own advantage. Italy, Greece, Germany, Japan, Portugal and Spain have low birth rate and the claim is that those countries are more worried that eventually, their citizens will be displaced by migrants who will leave their countries in search of greener pastures to these places. In another camp are people whose worries are based on how far and how long our fast depleting resources will sustain us. For the later school of thought, there is the challenge of campaigning to people for whom children is wealth, to have less so we can have green forests and fishes in the ocean can multiply. One of the paradoxes of the West, in this regard, is the system that legalises human foetus abortion but could send you to jail for killing a dog. Various studies show that indigent people have many children as a claim to wealth; children do not make them poor, poverty makes them have children. In agrarian communities, a large family also has a functional purpose: you breed your own labour force. To suggest birth control, fewer children, to them, is probably to incur their wrath and have their fatalism thrust in your face.These, and more, form the complexities of controlling population growth. But then, if Nigerias population will be a problem in a few decades to come, it will not just be because women did not take enough birth control. Between two censuses -1991 and 2006-, Nigerias population growth shot up by 51 million people without a corresponding development in the economy. Given the politics of census in Nigeria, this figure could possibly be higher. Between 1991 and now, we have given birth to people who are in their teens and growing out of teens. A British Council report released last year said they are an army of young unemployed people who have growing needs and who should be urgently provided for. They are a bifurcated weapon in our hands that can either be a huge advantage or disadvantage. In short, those millions who were born in the 90s were not adequately planned for beyond the empty slogan of providing everything "for all by year 2000". A recent World Bank report suggests that four African countries excluding Nigeria will achieve the MDGs by 2015. In nine years time, if we are still caught napping on the Vision 2020, rapid population growth will not just be a problem, it will be catastrophic.
Click here to read full news..
