Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000204 EndHTML:0000057399 StartFragment:0000027373 EndFragment:0000057363 SourceURL:file:///Users/eiichiroochiai/Documents/sustainability/SustnbltyBook/SustnbltySocImage.e
AN IMAGE OF A SUSTAINABLE
FUTURE CIVILIZATION (3)
By Eiichiro Ochiai
Chapter 3 The Population Problems
Two issues are addressed here. One is the “population and the food supply”, and the other is “population control”. The issue of “population control” is often shied away, because whether you produce another human being or not is considered to be a private matter. However, in many societies, the United States in particular, the issue is quite political or rather politicized due to the religious belief among religious zealots.
Yes, indeed “population” is a grave political and economic issue, not in the sense of the religious zealots. The current population growth on the earth is now overwhelming its food supply, and is creating serious political and economic turmoil. First we look at how the food supply available would be able to cope with the population pressure, and, second, how we might control the population.
3.1. World Population and the Food Supply
The world population is estimated to have reached at 6.7 billions as of Nov. 2008. The population in 2050 is estimated by the authorities at UN to be about 10.9 billions at the highest and 7.4 billions at the lowest; the median is 9.0 billions. We assume that it may reach as high as 9.0 billions in the near future in our discussion below.
The worldwide total grain yield in 2007 was 2.13 billion tons. Out of this, approximately 1.0 billion tons were used to feed the human beings, about 800 millions were used for animal feeds (cow, pig, chicken, etc), and 100 million tons were used to create biofuel. Suppose that the grain yield in 2008 is the same as last year and the distribution is about the same as well, and that 1.0 billion tons of grain is distributed equally among 6.7 billion people of the world, then each person can have 150 kg of grain per year (2008). It is equivalent to 410 g (of grain) per day. With an assumption (a little too optimistic) of 4 kcal/gram (of grain), one can have on average 1640 kcal/day. Suppose also that all the meat and milk, etc. produced by the grain is consumed by the human beings, and if this portion of calories is added to the grain portion, one can have approximately 1800 kcal/day. Loss is inevitable in the transportation and storage, and hence the entire amount cannot enter human mouth. If the loss is assumed to be about 15% on average, one can have about 1530 kcal/day, if all the grain and meat were distributed equally among all the people.
The people in the so-called developed nations are consuming a lot more than the people in the other nations. Suppose that 20% of the whole population (in developed countries) is consuming about 2500 kcal/day (including waste) on average, then the rest of the world population (80%) would be able to have about 1300 kcal/day on the average. This is barely enough to subsist. Even among the people in the nations of the latter category, some eat a lot more than the other; that is, many people may not even have this minimum amount. Of course they can supplement their meal with other than the grain, and the caloric values mentioned so far may be increased somewhat (up to 10% on average), if this is taken account of. (Note: “Grain” means rice, wheat, corn, soy, potatoes and the like.)
Yet, it can be gleaned that many people may not be eating enough. It is true enough, in view of the many food riots that took place in many nations in 2008. Of course, this year’s problems have been exacerbated by mal-distribution of the grain caused by speculation in the market economy. However, the analysis above implies that the food shortage is real, and the solutions of the problems may require more than equitable distribution.
According to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), as of the end of 2008, 963 million people, 14% of the world population, cannot eat enough nutrition daily, and are starving (The Guardian, Dec. 10, 2008).
Well, let’s suppose that all the human beings have become vegetarian and the feed for animals has been reduced by 80%, and hence that 1.6 billions of grain can go into human stomachs, then every body can have 2200 kcal/day, enough calories, and hence 6.7 billion people can live, if the food is equitably distributed, as far as subsisting energy is concerned.
How about the future, i.e., with 9.0 billions people to feed in 2050? The problem is that we have no reliable estimate of food production in that future. The food production was the highest in 2007 during the last decade, and is not expected to rise significantly anymore. The arable land has been developed almost to the limit by now, and the natural conditions for agriculture are not expected to improve, rather deteriorate instead, because of the further loss of surface soil and available water and of the climate change due to the global warming. Hence, the grain production may not be significantly more than that of 2007. If the grain production in 2050 is the same as that in 2007, and approximately 1.6 billion tons is available for human consumption, each person (out of 9 billions) would have 1640 kcal/day (from grain alone) in 2050, if the grain is equally distributed and everybody is vegetarian. This implies that the whole population can barely subsist if all these conditions are met. If the food production decreases instead of remaining the same (because the increase of population would definitely reduce the land arable and also due to the likely climate change), the earth would not be able to support 9 billion people. The issue of quality of food is also important but ignored here.
3.2. Population Control
The majority of the current Homo sapiens do not find an ethical problem in increasing population, and many are against controlling procreation, ethically and religiously. This tendency is strong in the three great religions that emerged in the desert areas, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The God in Judaism, the oldest of the three, was for increasing population. It was necessary to bear children as often as possible, because the future growth of a child was quite uncertain in those early days. Hence the God encouraged procreation. Besides, the carrying capacity of the region was increasing at the time because of the progresses in farming and other food providing techniques. As the population grew and started to overwhelm the carrying capacity of that period, diseases and poverty caused wide-spread miseries among the ordinary people. Movements to comfort the suffering people appeared; one of them proclaimed a universal loving God. This religion grabbed the hearts of many people, and those who believe in this religion and the related ones seem to regard the controlling of procreation to be against the will of God, a sin.
The human species is just one of several million species of living organisms which constitute an ecosystem. The ecosystem seems to have been functioning quite well until perhaps several centuries ago. The humankind invented “industry” powered by fossil fuel (first coal and then petroleum in recent decades) and produced a prodigious amount of goods, threatening exhaustion of natural resources. Additional population would hasten the destruction of the earth’s ecosystem and the natural resource bases.
The mankind needs to reduce the consumption of material as a whole to avoid the collapse of the Earth’s overall environment. There are two ways to do so; one is to reduce the consumption per capita or the second is to reduce or stabilize the population. In fact it is necessary to do both simultaneously. This article is addressed to the second issue.
Population control is wide-spread among animals. When the population density becomes too high in a species, the individual bodies start behaving in various ways to reduce the population density. It manifests in various physiological and behavioral aspects; decrease in the reproductive ability (decreases in the number of sperms and eggs, difficulty in intercourse, etc.), eat the newly born or the young, increase in disease and others. These are controlled at the gene level. In other words, animals have population-controlling mechanisms embedded in the gene.
Homo sapiens should also have such physiological control mechanisms, though they manifest rarely. Usually, the population controlling mechanism seems to be incorporated in the culture of societies, because the human being is a social animal and their behaviors are controlled by the brain rather than the gene. Such mechanisms include direct action: restriction of pregnancy or birth or infanticide; or indirect action: marriage at later ages or no-marriage, etc. Under some circumstances, laws may be enacted to restrict the number of children to be had by a family, as in current China. If the carrying capacity is exceeded and yet no cultural control mechanism is set in motion, the population will be forced to decline through starvation and other natural means such as infectious disease.
Human history has witnessed a number of occasions in which such cultural mechanisms played a role in controlling the population [1, 2]. In ancient Rome infanticide was practiced often. The law made by Romulus the founder of Rome included a clause that prohibited abandonment of children younger than three years old [3]. The people had strong tendency to control their population by various means including abortion and infanticide, though the emperors (e.g., Augustus of 1st century CE, Trajan of 2nd century CE and others) issued laws to urge people to increase children. The emperors wanted to have more people to provide soldiers for its army, but many people and slaves were poverty-stricken. In other words, the people knew that their population had reached the then-carrying capacity.
This happened not only in the ancient time, but also even in recent centuries. The population of England was reduced to about 2 millions due to the pest during 14th to 15th century. Needless to say this was a natural cause. It increased to about 6 millions around 1630 and was stagnated at the value for a while until the industrial revolution increased her carrying capacity. The marriage age of women was as high as 26, and women who were never married was as high as 30% of all the women during 17-18th century. Contraception, abortion, and lengthening of nursing period were practiced. Even infanticide was widely practiced, though most of those affected were labeled as accidental death. Malthus in his essays on population cites many more examples [2]. This writer offered an example of the Edo period of Japan, in which the population was quite steady for the period of 1720 through 1870 [4]. These cultural practices to control population are not based on disrespect for life, but on recognition of the overall importance of restraints.
As implied above, the carrying capacity of a region can change over the time due to the progresses in food producing techniques and developments. The population in many developed nations today seems to be stable or even be slightly decreasing. It reflects the fact that the population there has exceeded the carrying capacity, and the cultural mechanisms seem to be operating to keep it that way. One important issue regarding the population in the developed countries is that the people there are relying on the borrowed carrying capacity. That is, the developed nations exploit the resources and carrying capacity (in the form of imported material) of the other, developing nations. This in turn robs possible carrying capacity of those developing nations.
Despite these situations (paucity of food, etc.), the developing nations are still increasing their population rapidly. Why? Don’t they have cultural controlling mechanisms? Many did, but it has been disrupted. A few examples are cited from an essay by Wilkinson [5].
An indigenous group called Abipon in Paraguay was in a happy situation using its population controlling practice such as prohibition of intercourse during the nursing period, and abortion. Christian missionaries who came to the region in 17th century abhorred the practice and taught the people to abolish such practices. As a result, the population increased, causing poverty and misery among the people.
Another example occurred on an island in Polynesia. There as well, Christian missionaries caused the abolishment of population-controlling practice among the native people, and hence the balance between the population and the ecology of the island was broken. A high living standard was maintained among a group on New Britain Island, practicing small family and late marriage. In 1896 the colonist UK introduced a new law, which caused changes in family styles and encouraged earlier marriage. The result was an increase of population and downgrading of the living standard of people.
People in many regions of the earth seem to have been forced to abandon the natural, long-standing cultural practices of population control by the seemingly modern moralistic Western influence. The Western morality, that of Christianity or rather Judaism is not quite modern or rather it is quite ancient in its origin, as implied above.
Another reason for population growth in the developing countries is an unbalance between technologies and the traditional culture. Medical progresses introduced in those countries are reducing infant mortality, and yet the childbearing is still controlled by men. When infant mortality rate was high, this resulted not in undue population growth. Now, infants survive better and the people are living longer, contributing to the population growth.
There are also natural causes for reduction of population. Starvation can be caused by failure of crop due to bad weather and other natural phenomena. Natural disasters such as devastating earth quake and hurricane/cyclone/typhoon are killing significant numbers of people every year. Some infectious diseases such as pest, corellas and, likely, bird flu can cause death of many people. Some of these are associated with malnutrition, lack of adequate food.
A basic problem of population is to determine what population can be adequately sustained by the Earth. However, it cannot be even argued in terms of the entire earth. The food and other basic necessities need to be supplied locally (i.e., within a nation or region), in order for the entire human race to sustain its civilization. The arguments for this assertion will be seen elsewhere in this treatment. Anyway, if this is so, the sustainable population should be determined in each region or country. This regional population cap should be determined by the local people, and should not be imposed on them by others including international organizations. Only the people in a region can determine their own population voluntarily and restrain their behaviors accordingly. It seems, though, that the necessity of such an ethic of voluntary restraint of procreation has not been recognized by the majority of people on the present Earth (see the note below). Well, it existed before at least in some cultures, as outlined above, but has been denounced by the “modern” thinking.
It is well to remind ourselves that we are only one of several million species of living things and sharing this finite planet with them. Then it is our duty to live in such a way not to exceed the carrying capacity of the Earth, taking into consideration of the other living organisms as well. One basic way to do so is to restrain our instinct of procreation and keep our population within a reasonable number. Another is to reduce our consumption of energy and material.
Note: Eugenics and the subsequent population control efforts
It may be unnecessary to point out but needs to be stated that the arguments mentioned above has nothing to do with the population control (depopulation) advocated by the eugenicists and subsequently disguised as a kind of population control by the same people [6]. The idea of “depopulation” (eugenics) is based on the assumption (conviction) that they who are in control are superior, and that the elimination of the inferior races (kinds of people) are to benefit the entire human race. It is alleged that they have implemented many programs in secret or in a disguised manner [6]. This is a pure racism, and could stem from religious convictions. The assumption, superiority of a race, has no scientific basis, and simply a fanaticism.
Reference
[1] Furuta, Takahiko, “How low would the Japanese Population go?”, (Gentoh-sha, Tokyo, 2008)
[2] Malthus, T. R., “An Essay on the Principles of Population”, 6th Ed., 1826
[3] Malthus, T. R., ibid, Book 1, Chapter XIV (p243-282), quote from “Dionysi Halicarnasensis Antiquaitatum Romanarum quae supersunt”
[4] Ochiai, Eiichiro, a Talk at WFVB (World Federalists Vancouver Branch) meeting, 2008.05; chapter 5 in this series.
[5] Wilkinson, R. G., “Poverty and Progress: An Ecological Model of Economic Development”, (1973)
[6] Engdahl, F. W., “Seeds of Destruction”, Chapts. 4 and 5, (Global Research, 2007)
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donate