In some countries like Singapore and Japan, there are government incentives for citizens to have more children while in others, like China and Brazil, the government policy is to reduce population growth as close to zero, or replacement level, as possible.
The current family planning bill being debated in Congress has become a divisive social issue. But this is not surprising.
Population issues have become social problems all over the world.
Most of the debates have been caused by the fact that these population issues are viewed from different perspectives from different sectors of societies.
Those who oppose population control programs believe that abortion is immoral because a fetus is a human being. Those who oppose family planning believe that population control is against Church teachings that the original purpose of procreation is the birth of children and the deprivation of a human being’s opportunity to attain salvation and be "one" with God.
In some countries, therefore, religious beliefs, norms and cultural norms are factors that favor large families and strongly oppose abortion and most forms of birth control.
For others, population is a demographic issue. Demography is the study of the size, composition, growth, and distribution of human population. It emphasizes the relationship between population and environment. If a population increases dramatically, demographers look for changes in a people’s customs.
Thomas Malthus, an 18th-century English economist, wrote a major work, An Essay on the Principles of Population, that has become some kind of bible for those who believe in population control. In 1798, his thesis was that while population grows geometrically, that is, from 2 to 4 to 8 to 16 and so forth, the food supply grows only arithmetically, that is from 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 and so on. This means, he said, that if births go unchecked, the population of a country, or even the world, will outstrip the food supply.
The New Malthusians today may not espouse exactly the same mathematical progression as Malthus. However, they believe that if in the next 15 years, the world’s population will increase more than it did during the first 1,800 years after the birth of Christ, then we are headed toward a showdown between population and food. For example, India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh are expected to reach 1.8 billion by 2025, more than the entire world’s population 100 years ago. They believe we will soon run out of food if we do not curtail population growth.
The Anti-Malthusians believe that fitting the world’s current population growth curve and then projecting it into the future indefinitely is not the correct way to figure population growth. It ignores people’s intelligence and their rational planning when it comes to having children.
According to them, the historical record shows that people generally limit reproduction to match their available food.
The Anti-Malthusians present Europe’s demographic historical transition, which went through four stages, as proof.
Stage 1 consists of a fairly stable population -- high death rates offset the high birth rates. Most of Europe’s history was characterized by Stage 1.
Stage 2 is when the population surges because death rates decline rapidly but birth rates remain high. Europe entered this stage during the population explosion that occurred starting around 1750.
Stage 3 is when population stabilizes as people bring their birth rates in line with their lower death rates. Europe eventually entered this stage.
Stage 4 is when not enough children are being produced to replace people who die. Today Western Europe is facing the problem of "population shrinkage."
The Anti-Malthusians predict that this demographic transition will also occur in the poorer nations of the world, including the Philippines. Their current rapid growth indicates that they are in the second stage of the demographic transition. The argument is that the growth of the world’s population is growing. It took the world’s population 12 years to go from 4 to 5 billion, but then 15 years to go from 5 to 6 billion.
Thailand, in 1971, adopted a national policy to control and reduce its population growth. When the program began, the country’s population was growing at a rate of 3.2 % per year and the average Thai family had 6.4 children. Fifteen years later, the country’s population growth had been cut in half to 1.6%. By 1998 the rate had fallen to 1.1% and the average number of children per family was 2.0. Thailand population is projected to grow from 61 million in 1998 to 71 million in 2025.
Among the reasons cited for this success were: creativity of the government-supported family planning program; better health care for mothers and children; willingness of the government to encourage and financially support family planning; working with the private, non profit Population and Community Development Association (PCDA) ; and the support of family planning by the country’s religious leaders ( 95% of Thais are Budhists).
The world is facing a future where the potential outcomes could be two vastly different scenarios. We could face a future filled with famine and suffering or where conditions spur vast potential unrest that will topple governments if they do not curtail population growth.
On the other hand, we could face a future where nations can manage their resources, feed and clothe themselves and even provide a high standard of living for everyone without curtailing population growth. It might even be a future where the problem is that there will not be enough people.
As governments continue to search for the right policies on food and population, there are certain social issues that will have to be addressed. In many countries in Western Europe, like Sweden, people are developing different ideas about what they want out of life and children are seen as a burden and an inconvenience.
We need to address the observer who said that in the less developed countries in the world: "The rich get richer and the poor just have more children." At the same time do we really want to be like the Western Europeans who believe that there are other things that have more value than children like career, travel, education, money, spending time with friends and enjoying the "finer" things in life?
Dr. Elfren S. Cruz, DBA is a professor of Strategic Management at the MBA Program, College of Business, De La Salle University. Please send comments or questions to elfrencruz@gmail.com http://www.bworldonline.com/content.php?section=Opinion&title=Population-debate&id=29172 
No comments:
Post a Comment