I was listening to your programme Friday night when the subject of overpopulation came up. You contend that overpopulation is a myth. I do not agree with you. There are a number of points which I want to discuss. Since an emotional appeal will likely fall upon deaf ears, and I will be categorised as a "stupid liberal", I will try instead to appeal to your sense of logic.
I would first like to state that you were not completely honest with your young caller when you used the example of Israel in dismissing overpopulation. He stated that Somalia, while not overpopulated in the sense that people could not move, was overpopulated in the sense that there were more people than could be supported by the land. You countered him by stating that Israel, also once barren, was made to bloom through the hard work of its citizens. You are correct that respect; it is a credit to the Israeli people that they were able to make the land productive once more. However you did leave out one critical reason why Israel was able to make the desert bloom while the Somalis could not, and at this moment can not, do the same. The people of Israel have benefited from a great deal of economic support from the United States and Europe. Such support is not afforded to Somalia, which only receives support in emergency food aid. Israel is also much wealthier than Somalia. The GNP of Somalia per capita is $131 US 1n 1993 while that of Israel is $13 920. When one has the money, it is not as difficult to alter one's environment so that it might support a larger population. Perhaps if Somalia received the same economic aid, then their GNP would rise to a level that they to could follow the example of Israel, but this aid is not forth coming. You might wish to mention that you left out that important piece of information out when you discussed overpopulation on Friday's programme.
You are also correct in stating that much of the debate about overpopulation has had racist undertones, at least in the past. There may even still be an element of that racism still among us; I've listened to racist radio programmes which describe the people of developing countries as a "tumour" which needs to be cut out in order for the "white race" to thrive. With speech such as that, it is no wonder people such as yourself and those in the developing nations are suspicious of those advocating a decline in births. Most of the current thoughts on the subject see overpopulation as a symptom of a larger problem, poverty. In many developing nations, families are large because children act as primary wage earners. Many children are needed so that a family can be supported. Another problem is the high infant mortality rate. Women have more children because they know many will die before their second birthday from diseases that have all but disappeared in the west. Finally, the status of women plays an important part in how many children will be born to a family. In developing countries, poor women have no access to education, marry sooner, and, thus, begin having children sooner.
Rather than addressing over population as the problem, we must begin to look at the real problem of poverty. A number of things should, in fact must, be done in order to right this problem. The west which has often exploited the developing nations to enrich themselves, must in the form of economic aid (with no strings attached) assist the developing nations to attain a higher standard of living. One thing that also can be done is to look at the status of women. By providing access to education (which often raises the marriage age) and access to family planning (which I know that you do not agree with), women will have fewer children. Fertility also decreases when women work and receive wages outside the home. With greater affluence, children will have less of a role in the labour market. Finally, the availability of pensions allows elder citizens to live without relying on children for support (thus, they have fewer children).
I doubt that you will agree with me. I only hope you will not dismiss what I said without first giving it some thought. Perhaps the problem of over population could best be shown through a true story. Easter Island was once covered by trees and had few other resources when it was first colonised. Indigenous to the Island were a few insect, two types of lizards, a few sea fish, and no mammals. The colonisers brought with them chickens, rats, and sweet potatoes (likely yams). The climate was to severe to grow most of the food they were used to, but the potatoes grew well and, along with the chickens, were their main diet. At first, only 20-50 people colonised the island. The population increased due to natural increase and some immigration which occurred for a few hundred years. The basic unit was the extended family which eventually formed into lineages and clans. They revered their ancestors, and the clan chiefs organised spiritual sites where the large Moui (statues) were erected on Ahu (alters) to venerate important ancestors. Eventually, 300 Ahu were created, holding between 1 and 12 Moui each. At one time, Easter Island could have been considered to be the most advanced Polynesian society. However, the way the people moved their statues provide clues as to why their society collapsed. By 1550, the population of the island acheived a maximum of 7000 people, but it soon began to decline. In order for the statues to be moved to their sites, the people cut down trees to act as rollers (the people provided the energy). As the island became less forested, the soil started to become degraded through erosion and salt water. Crop yields began to decrease. At this point, clan competition increased. More statues were built, more trees cut down, more soil degradation occurred. Though the soil would not support potatoes as it once did, the chickens were unaffected and became the primary food on the island. Rival clans would try to steal each other’s chickens, resulting in warfare. Finally, the last tree must have been cut. The people could not build their statues, could not build or heat their homes. Nor could they build boats to leave the island. They were, for better or worse, trapped on the island. Perhaps because of anger or as part of the clan warfare which was occurring, the statues were toppled. The population declined, the foundation of society shattered. Clan warfare increased for scarce resources. Slavery became common and there is evidence that cannibalism took place. Europeans in the 1700s saw a few toppled statues; all were toppled by the 1800s. The population was finally and definitively decimated by European disease and their enslavement. Today, there are only a handful of islanders who can trace their origin back to those people who created the greatest Polynesian civilisation, then destroyed it.
The moral of this tale is that, like Easter Island, the Earth is also an island, but on a larger scale. Though seemingly limitless, the resources of Earth are also finite. And like those on Easter Island, the Earth is the only home we have.
Let us know what you find out?
