Very often you can see people arguing for population control as a means to decrease famine.
The main argument is very simple, less born kids will leave more food for the people on earth.
The resources on earth are limited, so the argument is difficult to debate.
However, we should still ask some questions about it.
The first questions are, of course:
I am not saying that the earth can allow for infinite number of inhabitants... but I am saying that the direct relation between over-population and famine is not as simple as some people is trying to make it. Blaming the 6 million starving people in Syria on over-population (as Frank Götmark seems to be doing) is to simplify the problem.
The main argument is very simple, less born kids will leave more food for the people on earth.
The resources on earth are limited, so the argument is difficult to debate.
However, we should still ask some questions about it.
The first questions are, of course:
- Who knows the limit? And...
- .. which is the limit?
But there are other questions to be asked...
- Shall the limit be defined per region/country?
- Once again... who decides the limit per country?
What is clear is that, in general, there are people in Europe who thinks they "know" the limit...and they are also able to identify the problem geographically. More directly, to the "3rd world".
- Karl-Erik Norrman, Carl Wahren, Lars Wedén och Anders Wijkman "knows" that the absolute limit is below 10 billion habitants.
- Frank Götmark "knows" that the problem with famine in Syria is a population problem.
Famine is not a big problem in Europe.
If we accept that famine is caused by over-population, then we can also draw the conclusion that Europe is not over-populated (some people argue that over-population is the root cause for the unemployment in Europe. I won't even enter that discussion today).
If we accept that famine is caused by over-population, then we can also draw the conclusion that Europe is not over-populated (some people argue that over-population is the root cause for the unemployment in Europe. I won't even enter that discussion today).
Hmmm,...
Since then, the population in Europe has multiplied with 5.
So, clearly... the famine in Europe can not be blamed on any absolute limit of which population the earth could maintain.
- What if somebody in another, more developed, continent had seen Europe during the 14th century?
- Maybe they had found some way to stop population growth in Europe?
- Would we have better lives in Europe now?
I am not saying that the earth can allow for infinite number of inhabitants... but I am saying that the direct relation between over-population and famine is not as simple as some people is trying to make it. Blaming the 6 million starving people in Syria on over-population (as Frank Götmark seems to be doing) is to simplify the problem.
Also, according to Wikipedia...
- In Germany the population density is 228 (inhabitants per km2)
- In Syria it is 115
Meanwhile, the percentage of cultivated land is 34% in Germany vs 29% in Syria.
So, theoretically, there should be more food per person in Syria than in Germany. To be provocative...
- Is the Germans buying food from poor countries... and by that way maintaining a too high population density?
- Should we forbid export of food and, in that way, make sure that, for instance, Germans do not cause famine in other countries by buying their food?
Obviously, there are other factors in play and the correlation famine <-> population density is not as direct as Frank seems to insinuate.
The fact that...
- Europe has no famine and have a higher population density than the large part of the rest of the world...
- in the same time as the Europeans seems to identify the problem as being population growth in the "3rd world"
... is a reason to be concerned.
As mentioned...obviously there is a limit for what earth can provide for. Probably this limit is not a very absolute one (improved technology will increase the production, and allow for the "absolute" limit to increase).
But, I like Hans Rosling's approach to this (which actually is the approach which is attacked by Wijkman et al) where the families will limit them selves once their living quality improves... not the other way around, where an imposed "population control" is supposed to improve the quality of life.
For Hans Rosling's take on this... see this TED-talk.
