By the year 2050, scientists have estimated that our population could rise to well over nine billion people. The rising population, which occurs mostly in Africa and South Asia, will deplete what resources we have. The more people there are, the more consumption there is, but we still have the same planet. Luckily, population experts support a significantly greater amount of funding for family planning programs which should, at least somewhat, control the population.
8 comments:
This doesn't come to much surprise, seeing as how the population has been rising greatly over the years. But the thing about consumption is, is that not many people are really willing to cut down the amount of resources they use. Big production companies aren't going to miraculously start using less so that the population will have a better future; they are going to use just as much as they have been using because they want to produce the same amounts that they have been producing. Individuals are the same way. Someone who drinks coffee every single day isn't going to necessarily be willing to cut down to once or twice a week just like that. That sort of change takes time. Along with time, it takes a sort of wake-up call. Statistics should be shown; presentations should be offered. "An Inconvenient Truth" captured the big issue of fuel consumption and caught the attention of many, but there are still many companies that consume the same amount of fuel, especially since it brings in the big bucks.
All of what was said previously, of course, is in regards to the general public. There are obviously people who conserve the amount of resources they use, whether the resources are related to food, technology, fuel, etc. The point is is that even with family planning programs, there is still a lot to be done about the rising population. We all know that China has already enacted laws about having too many children in the household, but is there any more that we can do? The need to reproduce is obviously evident, but I guess the very simple option is either that people stop reproducing or people stop using as many resources as possible. We cannot necessarily have as many people as we want on the planet, but we can control the amount of resources that people use.
I think we can control the amount of resources we use but big changes require time and eventually we will just have to adjust. I believe zoe mentioned that companies arent going to start using fewer resources. Even though the big production companies arent taking the step to a better future, in some ways the average person is. With the go green movement and new recycling system where we have to divide plastic, garbage, compost, paper, etc into separate bins, we are slowly taking baby steps to a better future for the large population of the next generation.
This doesn't really surprise me since we already know that the Earth is overpopulated. I just hope that we can extent the use of our resources and be able to use them efficiently, without wasting them or running out of them. I agree with Zoe, in that "An Inconvenient Truth" depicted the issue that is affecting our planet in a negative way. I saw this documentary in eighth grade for the first time and it really grabbed my attention of how bad our planet is doing, regarding fuel consumption, climate change, and other problems. From that point on, I made a resolution for myself to try and help the planet I live on, to allow it to become "healthy" once again or at least improve with the little actions that us, human beings, can take part in on a daily basis.
This isn't surprising as Zoe says, however it is quite scary to think of such a huge number. The thing is, there will be a plateu soon. There is no unlimited food resources and supply so a sort of top - to - bottom check on the population will need to happen to balance out the population's numbers.
Countries in Africa and Asia are leaving the preindustrial stage of population growth and entering the transitional stage - the second of four stages - in which birth rates remain high as death rates begin to fall as a result of better medicine, technology, increased food supplies and distribution, improved sanitation, safe water supplies, etc. Eventually, they should follow the demographic transition model and enter stage three - the industrial stage, which the U.S. is currently in - in which birth rates begin to fall in order to level out with death rates. But will this transition come soon enough? It is estimated that in 2050, there will be approximately nine billion people in the world - most likely resulting in falling water tables, inability to produce enough food to sustain the massive population, and huge rates of unemployment.
It seems that the best way to combat overpopulation is to institute family planning in developing countries. Family planning provides educational and clinical services that help people choose how many children to have and when to have them, and they provide information on birth control and health care for pregnant women and infants.
Overpopulation can also be combated by giving women in developing countries access to education and employment opportunities. This goes hand-in-hand with family planning. In my opinion, this kills two birds with one stone - educating women is a vital step in the progress of any society. This will in turn help to eradicate poverty, slowing population growth.
You know that one-child-only policy that was active in China for many years? Why didn't that work? China (or I guess it would be more correct to say Asia in general) still has one of the fastest population growth rates in the world. Any ideas?
Don't you also love how Republicans in Congress are trying to get rid of Planned Parenthood? Sure, they may disagree with abortion. But how can they, given the state of our environment and overpopulation, restrict free access to birth control and education by shutting down these highly educational facilities? Like I said, it makes sense that they are opposed to abortion, but instead of shutting down the family planning aspect of society, why don't they reform it if they have such a huge problem with in instead of putting us at risk. Of that's right. Because the old farts in Congress probably won't be around in 2050 anyway, so it's not their problem, right? Right. I love online sarcasm, don't you?
Echoing Jessia, I think we'd all be surprised by which crises could be solved by education. What worries me is that by the time our world leaders figure that out, it will be too late. The colonies on other planets won't work and we will crowd each other out. I'm really looking forward to 2050, when my children and grandchildren are being packed like sardines into classes with 50 kids in them.
there needs to be a two pronged attack: education + contraception--which includes abortion.
I think philanthropy is sweet but misguided--we see pictures of starving children constantly, and of course the compassionate thing to do is to give them food to sustain themselves. But why isn't there a greater emphasis on preventing the suffering caused by raising a child in the third world? Why isn't there a greater emphasis on raising awareness about contraceptives and "family planning?" Is it because it doesn't sound as philanthropic? Because it seems cruel? How many of these women actually wanted those children? We need to take a closer look at what's truly philanthropic and make decisions about who gets to live and who doesn't get to live if we want to survive. That's the hard, cold truth.
Post a Comment