Zero population growth is the idea that if each woman has a certain amount of children in her lifetime, population growth will zero out, and will no longer increase. In countries with health care, that number is 2.1 kids per woman. In the 1960's through the 1970's, this movement exploded, and Americans genuinely began to worry about how many people Earth can actually sustain for the first time. The number 2.1 was brought forth originally by a group called Population Connection, founded by Paul Ehrlich, who argued for immediate population control. Students in college campuses across the nation advocated for ZPG, and pledged to stop at two children. Later, Richard Nixon gave a speech about the dangers of overpopulation, creating the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, which would research the USA's ideal level of growth. Meanwhile, birth control was being more widely used, a Supreme Court case determined that states could not restrict contraceptives, and the presence of women in the workforce started a steady decline in our fertility rate which continues today. People look back on Ehrlich's condemning words as having been more of a doomsday prediction than anything, since humankind seems to still be thriving today. He couldn't have predicted the changes in family planning across the nation. Of course that doesn't mean food shortages, income inequality, and climate change aren't happening - they just haven't entirely obliterated the planet yet, as he predicted. This article strongly urges people to consider the impacts of overpopulation during World Population Day (July 11th), and to not ignore the continued growth the world is still experiencing (the US is set to double in population in 70 years, for example).
ARTICLE: Here’s When Americans Really Started to Panic About Overpopulation by Olivia B. Waxman http://time.com/4388565/zero-population-growth-world-population-day-2016/
Article: Overpopulation is Not the Problem by Erle C. Ellis URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/14/opinion/overpopulation-is-not-the-problem.html
Since the beginning of humankind, we've adapted and practiced new technologies, made changes to our environment, and advanced sustainable life styles for more people. The author, an ecologist, argues that there is no environmental reason for people to go hungry now or in the future. There is no need to use any more land to sustain humanity — increasing land productivity using existing technologies can boost global supplies and even leave more land for nature — a goal that is both "more popular and more possible than ever". Of course we all learn about population dynamics or ecosystems with their carrying capacity, but Ellis stresses that humans define all laws. He stresses that the population is only limited to our imaginations and ability to innovate.
Human population will reach about 11 billion people by the end of the century, and still there isn't a lot of discussion on overpopulation in the media. Overpopulation is difficult to quantify because we don't have an exact ideal number of people in order to maintain sustainability. With the world already overpopulated every additional person requires additional resources some of which are non- renewable. The United States makes up such a small percentage of the world population and still uses so many resources. The article talks a lot about educating women in developing countries and how that would effect population along with providing effective birth control. Overpopulation is the most relevant environmental issue in the world currently and therefore it should be discussed.
This article basically talks about how we shouldn't really worry about any large increases in population size. It says that in 34 years from now the population will have grown to about 10 billion. The article outlines that this increase is not at all a disaster. Their first piece of reasoning comes from their analysis of the early 1980s. When population was at 4.5 billion, 42% of whom lived in extreme poverty. At that time people were worried that that population growth would outpace agricultural production and result in more global poverty. The article states of that did not happen at all. In fact now with a population of about 7.5 billion, only 10% of that total population live in extreme poverty. The rest of the article talks about how if the countries that have a large working-age population focus more on welfare, healthcare, and investment into the workforce, then these countries will be able to combat the adverse effects of population growth. They also talk about countries needing to focus on demographic dividends and having an understanding about the people that live to target the specific needs and identify what exactly needs to be done in each case. According to the article, the last 35 years have shown us we do not need to worry about excessive population growth.
The article starts by talking about how a ten-year-old girl has been taking classes at her school and that she loves history. Then it says that people like her are very important to the future and need to be educated because they are going to have a massive effect for the future economy. The UN said that “getting girls through secondary school could reap billions of dollars a year for poorer countries.” Twice as many girls as boys will never start school and the UN believes this needs to be changed. It says earnings could rise by half if all girls in poor countries graduated from school. It says the average women makes 12% more if they graduate from school. The UN said the ten-year-old girl challenge is the most important of the 17 sustainable development goals. Approximately half of the world’s ten-year-old girls live in the world's 50 countries with the largest gender inequality. It also says that if this challenge is not met it is unlikely that sustainability can be achieved. The article finishes by repeating one last time that the future of ten-year-old girls is the future of everyone.
Joseph Chamie, an independent consulting demographer and former director of the United Nations Population Division’s article on Yale Global titled “Africa's Population Growth Could Undermine Sustainability Goals”, factually summarizes the issues relating to population that Africa faces. He first gives the results of the data collected regarding the population growth occurring in Africa. It states that Africa is the fastest growing continent, and has by far the highest average number of births per woman comparing to the rest of the world. After this explanation of data, he claims that these issues will lead to the inability for the world to be able to meet the requirements needed to become sustainable. He finishes with his ideas for how Africa can accelerate its process to reaching a stable and sustainable level of population. His ideas are to increase fundamental education to these growing new generations, create meaningful and sustainably oriented jobs, and to lower the high fertility rates.
For my 2 media sources I believe are unbiased, I chose the BBC, and the New York Times
As world population booms will its resources be enough for us? Dennis Dimick, a journalist for National Geographic This article mainly discussed the question of population growth in the years to come. It stated that when and if the population will reach 9 billion by the year 2050. We have currently amassed more than 7 billion people on our planet and as stated in the article; even if world total fertility rate drastically decreased to 2.1 the population will inevitably keep growing. It is not a question of whether or not those 9 billion people will be born or not anymore. It is inevitable, simply because of our generations existence. We shall procreate and therefore the population will be on the increase despite the number of children we have. There is a predicted world food shortage that will accompany rapid population growth, naturally. And although we have not yet experienced this food shortage it to is inevitable. However unlike the increase of world population, this fact can be evaded, or at least curved a bit. This is only possible through expanded and advanced sustainable farming and economic development in terms of education. The true issue stressed in the article was not the growing people of earth but of our unsustainable processes and consumerism that is taking more resources than ever before. This is something the earth can simply no longer support.
To make sure my sources were unbiased chose The New York Times and National Geographic
This article was about how we are controlling birth and if it will work. It says that what we are doing is wrong. We are thinking of only short term effects and we need to focus on the long term effects. In the world today if we control our birth to about 1 baby per human we will still stay between 5 - 10 billion humans. Scientists are saying that we can't stop it. And then the article mentions that the population problem is the “elephant in the room” which I found to be very true. It’s a big problem but we never talk about it and we all know its a problem. So to conclude this I would have to say that this was a very interesting article and it is definitely worth the read. It had some very good points backed up by good sources and I feel that it is a very trustworthy article.
How quickly can China come back from its one-child policy? By Meera Senthilingam, CNN Thu October 13, 2016 URL: http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/13/health/china-one-child-policy-population-growth/index.html
As of January 2016, China's single child policy was overturned after over 30 years since it was first implemented in 1980. The policy, which had the goal of decreasing the population rate has been extremely controversial from economists and humanitarians. The new policy allows families to have two children compared to the previous one child. After so many years with the policy in place with low and decreasing population rate, the Chinese government now wants to increase the population. The Single child policy has had many effects. First, There is a huge disparity between men and women. China currently has the most skewed gender ratio in the world of 1.15 males to every female born in China in 2016. The paper predicts that almost 30 years of the one-child policy will, by 2020, leave an excess of 30 million men who are unlikely to marry and that this ratio will take time to even out. There is simply too many men in China compared to women. As well, There are two many people ready to retire and not enough of a workforce to care for them. Although the policy has helped lower the population in China, it will take over 30 years for the population to increase enough for healthy economic growth.
This article talks about how there’s no way anyone can really predict the possible consequences of having populations of over 11 billion people (the number of people our planet is predicted to hold by the year 2100) because we haven’t attained that number before. Although there is no way to really predict the outcome of having that many people on our planet, we can get clues based off of what countries are currently growing and shrinking. Right now, countries that make low to middle-income are growing most rapidly, while many high income countries’ growth rates are slowly declining. Low to middle income countries currently don’t consume much and don’t emit high levels of CO2 relative to most high income countries, and overall have a fairly small ecological footprint. On the other hand, more affluent, high-income countries, are emitting high levels of CO2 into the atmosphere, and consume far more than low to middle-income countries, but these countries are shrinking. If current population growth trends were to continue, and low to middle-income countries continued to have a small ecological footprint, then the world would be able to hold 11 billion people without a problem, but this most likely isn’t going to happen. As the world becomes more and more technologically advanced, low-income countries are likely to develop lifestyles that are more dependent on energy sources that give off CO2 emissions. The rapidly increasing world population isn’t the problem, but rather the rapidly rising global consumption. We desperately need to fix our consumption habits and levels of CO2 emissions, but even if changes are made, it’s likely that we’ll still need to stabilize the population (hopefully at around 9 billion people) due to the inability to really change what we’ve already done to the environment, and the inevitable increase of access to technology and goods to consume globally, and we'll be able to achieve a more stabilized population by education and job opportunities.
This article estimates that we will reach 8 billion in the next 10 years because of the high birth rates and low death rates (especially in developing countries.) It suggests that sub-sahran is growing more rapidly than east Asia. Because of the differing birthrates and death rates, this article suggests that there is going to be a shift in the population share in regions around the world.
In some places they are addressing over population. In other countries they are addressing a decrease in population. This article talks about how people are missing a sense of community and are willing to move somewhere else to get it. Many places are considering giving away land to draw people to the area and increase population and community.
"The Real Threat of an Aging Population" This article discussed the aging population of the United States and the implications this could have on the U.S. economy. The baby boomers are retiring and there simply aren't enough people to replace or support them. In the 1950s, there were about 15 people in the workforce for every retired senior, but now there are only two. Other countries facing similar problems are offering monetary incentives to couples to convince them to have more children. This article suggested that the U.S. do something similar by increasing the tax credit given to families with multiple children. The author also suggested that the U.S. encourage immigration balance out the age distribution in the United States. http://time.com/4356425/aging-population/?iid=sr-link4
ARTICLE: Population growth is not necessarily a disaster, if we handle it right theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2016/nov/02/population-growth-is-not-necessarily-a-disaster-if-we-handle-it-right
This article begins with describing what we imagined our current population was going to look like, before we had anywhere near this many people. The expectations where extreme, with many of them based around the idea that population growth would be faster than agricultural production, creating even more poverty. The numbers of today, however, tell a very different story. A very small percentage of the population are actually living in extreme poverty, and some of the countries with the quickest growing population have actually been the most successful at increasing the incomes and health of lower class citizens. Across the world we can see countries with very different concentrations of population, some with huge numbers of children too young to enter the workforce and some with a growing majority of elderly people. While each of these predicaments has their challenges if handled correctly they can become successful. With the new knowledge we have garnered over the last 35 years we have the potential to make this growing population work and to see more successful economies, more healthy citizens with longer life expectancies, and more stability across the board.
My article essentially said that even though fertility rates around the world are dropping, faster in more developed countries and slower in less, the world's population will still be growing to an estimated 9.7 billion by 2050. This is due to two main factors, in less developed countries even though the fertility rate is dropping its still very high, and that old people are living longer. Estimates point towards India and a fair portion of Africa continuing to grow while the more developed places begin to slow down in the coming years, India supposedly to take over China as the highest population by 2030.
Dr. Ian Dawson of the Southampton Business School's Centre for Risk Research conducted a study on the public concern for population growth and the 10 billion people projected to be inhabiting the Earth by 2060. The idea was to gauge the extent to which the public was concerned and how much they knew about population growth. He also wanted to know how much policy for change the people would be willing to advocate for. The study included a telephone survey with 47 questions. Together with his colleague; Professor Johnnie Johnson, Dr. Dawson contacted 300 people in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The participants expressed concern about ecological damage, resource shortages and violent conflict. They agreed that the effects would take a huge toll on those living in poverty. Around half of the participants agreed that the government had more control over this issue and they should be taking more steps to address population growth. The older participants were much less willing to change their behaviors than the younger ones who were more in favor of migration acts. Dr. Dawson concluded that the public concern for global population growth was somewhat high for something that is not often addressed, and that this issue should become a bigger part of the conversation when it comes to government.
Projected 10 billion world population drives moderate-to-high risk worries
My article was about the population issue in Israel. Israel is a very young country and home to various religions. The population has reached 8.5 million from 68 years ago when it was merely 800,000. Israel is extremely densely populated considering it a 10th the size of Oregon. The article talks about how Jews and Arabs had a demographic competition that pushed Israelis to have more children to out number each other. This article taught me that competition between different ethnic groups can be a cause of accelerating population growth. It is the fastest populating developed country in the world. The population rise is effecting the biodiversity in the country leading hedgehogs and hyenas into extinction. The article highlights the poverty levels in the country with a quarter of the children being under the poverty line. By surprise, the amount of people immigrating and emigrating in Israel is just about even but the CDR is still very high.
Title: Are eco-friendly initiatives pointless unless we tackle overpopulation? URL: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/jan/26/overpopulation-sustainability-environment-eco-friendly-initiatives
This article explains how overpopulation is not the main issue, but how much and at what rate we consume resources. Africa has a far more greater population than North America, yet they produce 250 times less carbon emissions than Americans. Developed countries like America, the UK and Australia consume the most, and the birth rates have fallen steadily since the 1970s, while in developing countries like Africa which has about 1.2 billion people, they consume far less than Americans. Though we could save 1.2 billion tons of carbon emissions if we slow down population growth, climate change still wouldn’t change as much as we want and need it to. People need to be educated on world population growth and climate change if we want it to change, for example, buy locally, eliminate waste, and reduce consumption.
In Overpopulation and Climate Change, Arthur H. Westing, a New York Times op-ed contributor, explains how, “ Population is a double-barreled environmental problem,” going into talk about how as population increases so does emissions per capita. Westing talks about in 1970 the population was 3.6 billion and has increased to 7 billion, he also states in that same period of time worldwide emissions from fossil fuels have increased from 14 billion tons to 29 billion. He explains that even with our heightened awareness of emissions we still have raised our emissions from 3.8 tons per capita to 4.2. Westing expresses his frustration with independent research groups and governments for not thinking of, “ population as a contribution to global warming.” Westing goes on to say that we need to increase our education in global warming as a step in the right direction to solving the problem. He describes the atmosphere as, “ a common heritage of mankind.” Westing proposes we introduce a levy on emissions in countries and for humanity to generally adopt a frugal approach to living from now on. He also explains that in order for the world to enact more legislation to help the environment, we ought to eradicate corruption in the administrative powers of the world. Westing ends the article with a sentimental note of saying that we have an obligation to share this world with other organisms and in order to achieve this we must reduce, “ our population-driven demands on its natural resources.”
With birth rates falling in countries like Germany, Japan, Russia and Singapore, the government is starting to provide financial incentives and even national conception holidays in efforts to increase population. China, on the other hand, still fines couples who have more than two children, or have children out of wedlock, even though China will face the same issues experienced by other developed countries in the coming years, due to their lowest fertility rate in the world (1.05). Another issue is that same sex marriages are not allowed, so even fewer people can have children freely. Activist groups are pushing for the restrictions to be lifted for the benefit of China as a whole. Keeping the population stable is crucial to continue the development and technological advancement of China.
Zero population growth is the idea that if each woman has a certain amount of children in her lifetime, population growth will zero out, and will no longer increase. In countries with health care, that number is 2.1 kids per woman. In the 1960's through the 1970's, this movement exploded, and Americans genuinely began to worry about how many people Earth can actually sustain for the first time. The number 2.1 was brought forth originally by a group called Population Connection, founded by Paul Ehrlich, who argued for immediate population control. Students in college campuses across the nation advocated for ZPG, and pledged to stop at two children. Later, Richard Nixon gave a speech about the dangers of overpopulation, creating the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, which would research the USA's ideal level of growth. Meanwhile, birth control was being more widely used, a Supreme Court case determined that states could not restrict contraceptives, and the presence of women in the workforce started a steady decline in our fertility rate which continues today. People look back on Ehrlich's condemning words as having been more of a doomsday prediction than anything, since humankind seems to still be thriving today. He couldn't have predicted the changes in family planning across the nation. Of course that doesn't mean food shortages, income inequality, and climate change aren't happening - they just haven't entirely obliterated the planet yet, as he predicted. This article strongly urges people to consider the impacts of overpopulation during World Population Day (July 11th), and to not ignore the continued growth the world is still experiencing (the US is set to double in population in 70 years, for example).
ReplyDeleteARTICLE: Here’s When Americans Really Started to Panic About Overpopulation
by Olivia B. Waxman
http://time.com/4388565/zero-population-growth-world-population-day-2016/
Article: Overpopulation is Not the Problem by Erle C. Ellis
ReplyDeleteURL: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/14/opinion/overpopulation-is-not-the-problem.html
Since the beginning of humankind, we've adapted and practiced new technologies, made changes to our environment, and advanced sustainable life styles for more people. The author, an ecologist, argues that there is no environmental reason for people to go hungry now or in the future. There is no need to use any more land to sustain humanity — increasing land productivity using existing technologies can boost global supplies and even leave more land for nature — a goal that is both "more popular and more possible than ever". Of course we all learn about population dynamics or ecosystems with their carrying capacity, but Ellis stresses that humans define all laws. He stresses that the population is only limited to our imaginations and ability to innovate.
Human population will reach about 11 billion people by the end of the century, and still there isn't a lot of discussion on overpopulation in the media. Overpopulation is difficult to quantify because we don't have an exact ideal number of people in order to maintain sustainability. With the world already overpopulated every additional person requires additional resources some of which are non- renewable. The United States makes up such a small percentage of the world population and still uses so many resources. The article talks a lot about educating women in developing countries and how that would effect population along with providing effective birth control. Overpopulation is the most relevant environmental issue in the world currently and therefore it should be discussed.
ReplyDeleteArticle: http://www.stanforddaily.com/2014/10/06/human-overpopulation-when-no-news-is-bad-news/
theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2016/nov/02/population-growth-is-not-necessariy-a-disaster-if-we-handle-it-right
ReplyDeleteThis article basically talks about how we shouldn't really worry about any large increases in population size. It says that in 34 years from now the population will have grown to about 10 billion. The article outlines that this increase is not at all a disaster. Their first piece of reasoning comes from their analysis of the early 1980s. When population was at 4.5 billion, 42% of whom lived in extreme poverty. At that time people were worried that that population growth would outpace agricultural production and result in more global poverty. The article states of that did not happen at all. In fact now with a population of about 7.5 billion, only 10% of that total population live in extreme poverty. The rest of the article talks about how if the countries that have a large working-age population focus more on welfare, healthcare, and investment into the workforce, then these countries will be able to combat the adverse effects of population growth. They also talk about countries needing to focus on demographic dividends and having an understanding about the people that live to target the specific needs and identify what exactly needs to be done in each case. According to the article, the last 35 years have shown us we do not need to worry about excessive population growth.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/oct/20/world-future-hangs-on-supporting-10-year-old-girls-un-population-fund
ReplyDeleteThe article starts by talking about how a ten-year-old girl has been taking classes at her school and that she loves history. Then it says that people like her are very important to the future and need to be educated because they are going to have a massive effect for the future economy. The UN said that “getting girls through secondary school could reap billions of dollars a year for poorer countries.” Twice as many girls as boys will never start school and the UN believes this needs to be changed. It says earnings could rise by half if all girls in poor countries graduated from school. It says the average women makes 12% more if they graduate from school. The UN said the ten-year-old girl challenge is the most important of the 17 sustainable development goals. Approximately half of the world’s ten-year-old girls live in the world's 50 countries with the largest gender inequality. It also says that if this challenge is not met it is unlikely that sustainability can be achieved. The article finishes by repeating one last time that the future of ten-year-old girls is the future of everyone.
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/africas-population-growth-could-undermine-sustainability-goals
ReplyDeleteJoseph Chamie, an independent consulting demographer and former director of the United Nations Population Division’s article on Yale Global titled “Africa's Population Growth Could Undermine Sustainability Goals”, factually summarizes the issues relating to population that Africa faces. He first gives the results of the data collected regarding the population growth occurring in Africa. It states that Africa is the fastest growing continent, and has by far the highest average number of births per woman comparing to the rest of the world. After this explanation of data, he claims that these issues will lead to the inability for the world to be able to meet the requirements needed to become sustainable. He finishes with his ideas for how Africa can accelerate its process to reaching a stable and sustainable level of population. His ideas are to increase fundamental education to these growing new generations, create meaningful and sustainably oriented jobs, and to lower the high fertility rates.
For my 2 media sources I believe are unbiased, I chose the BBC, and the New York Times
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/09/140920-population-11billion-demographics-anthropocene/
ReplyDeleteAs world population booms will its resources be enough for us? Dennis Dimick, a journalist for National Geographic This article mainly discussed the question of population growth in the years to come. It stated that when and if the population will reach 9 billion by the year 2050. We have currently amassed more than 7 billion people on our planet and as stated in the article; even if world total fertility rate drastically decreased to 2.1 the population will inevitably keep growing. It is not a question of whether or not those 9 billion people will be born or not anymore. It is inevitable, simply because of our generations existence. We shall procreate and therefore the population will be on the increase despite the number of children we have. There is a predicted world food shortage that will accompany rapid population growth, naturally. And although we have not yet experienced this food shortage it to is inevitable. However unlike the increase of world population, this fact can be evaded, or at least curved a bit. This is only possible through expanded and advanced sustainable farming and economic development in terms of education.
The true issue stressed in the article was not the growing people of earth but of our unsustainable processes and consumerism that is taking more resources than ever before. This is something the earth can simply no longer support.
To make sure my sources were unbiased chose The New York Times and National Geographic
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29788754
ReplyDeleteThis article was about how we are controlling birth and if it will work. It says that what we are doing is wrong. We are thinking of only short term effects and we need to focus on the long term effects. In the world today if we control our birth to about 1 baby per human we will still stay between 5 - 10 billion humans. Scientists are saying that we can't stop it. And then the article mentions that the population problem is the “elephant in the room” which I found to be very true. It’s a big problem but we never talk about it and we all know its a problem. So to conclude this I would have to say that this was a very interesting article and it is definitely worth the read. It had some very good points backed up by good sources and I feel that it is a very trustworthy article.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHow quickly can China come back from its one-child policy?
ReplyDeleteBy Meera Senthilingam, CNN
Thu October 13, 2016
URL: http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/13/health/china-one-child-policy-population-growth/index.html
As of January 2016, China's single child policy was overturned after over 30 years since it was first implemented in 1980. The policy, which had the goal of decreasing the population rate has been extremely controversial from economists and humanitarians. The new policy allows families to have two children compared to the previous one child. After so many years with the policy in place with low and decreasing population rate, the Chinese government now wants to increase the population. The Single child policy has had many effects. First, There is a huge disparity between men and women. China currently has the most skewed gender ratio in the world of 1.15 males to every female born in China in 2016. The paper predicts that almost 30 years of the one-child policy will, by 2020, leave an excess of 30 million men who are unlikely to marry and that this ratio will take time to even out. There is simply too many men in China compared to women. As well, There are two many people ready to retire and not enough of a workforce to care for them. Although the policy has helped lower the population in China, it will take over 30 years for the population to increase enough for healthy economic growth.
This article talks about how there’s no way anyone can really predict the possible consequences of having populations of over 11 billion people (the number of people our planet is predicted to hold by the year 2100) because we haven’t attained that number before. Although there is no way to really predict the outcome of having that many people on our planet, we can get clues based off of what countries are currently growing and shrinking. Right now, countries that make low to middle-income are growing most rapidly, while many high income countries’ growth rates are slowly declining. Low to middle income countries currently don’t consume much and don’t emit high levels of CO2 relative to most high income countries, and overall have a fairly small ecological footprint. On the other hand, more affluent, high-income countries, are emitting high levels of CO2 into the atmosphere, and consume far more than low to middle-income countries, but these countries are shrinking. If current population growth trends were to continue, and low to middle-income countries continued to have a small ecological footprint, then the world would be able to hold 11 billion people without a problem, but this most likely isn’t going to happen. As the world becomes more and more technologically advanced, low-income countries are likely to develop lifestyles that are more dependent on energy sources that give off CO2 emissions. The rapidly increasing world population isn’t the problem, but rather the rapidly rising global consumption. We desperately need to fix our consumption habits and levels of CO2 emissions, but even if changes are made, it’s likely that we’ll still need to stabilize the population (hopefully at around 9 billion people) due to the inability to really change what we’ve already done to the environment, and the inevitable increase of access to technology and goods to consume globally, and we'll be able to achieve a more stabilized population by education and job opportunities.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160311-how-many-people-can-our-planet-really-support
How the world population has changed and when it will reach 8 billion
ReplyDeletehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/global-population-how-the-worlds-population-has-changed-and-when/
This article estimates that we will reach 8 billion in the next 10 years because of the high birth rates and low death rates (especially in developing countries.) It suggests that sub-sahran is growing more rapidly than east Asia. Because of the differing birthrates and death rates, this article suggests that there is going to be a shift in the population share in regions around the world.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/world/americas/cape-breton-whycocomagh-free-land.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FPopulation&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection&referer=http://www.nytimes.com/topic/subject/population
ReplyDeleteIn some places they are addressing over population. In other countries they are addressing a decrease in population. This article talks about how people are missing a sense of community and are willing to move somewhere else to get it. Many places are considering giving away land to draw people to the area and increase population and community.
"The Real Threat of an Aging Population"
ReplyDeleteThis article discussed the aging population of the United States and the implications this could have on the U.S. economy. The baby boomers are retiring and there simply aren't enough people to replace or support them. In the 1950s, there were about 15 people in the workforce for every retired senior, but now there are only two. Other countries facing similar problems are offering monetary incentives to couples to convince them to have more children. This article suggested that the U.S. do something similar by increasing the tax credit given to families with multiple children. The author also suggested that the U.S. encourage immigration balance out the age distribution in the United States.
http://time.com/4356425/aging-population/?iid=sr-link4
ARTICLE: Population growth is not necessarily a disaster, if we handle it right
ReplyDeletetheguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2016/nov/02/population-growth-is-not-necessarily-a-disaster-if-we-handle-it-right
This article begins with describing what we imagined our current population was going to look like, before we had anywhere near this many people. The expectations where extreme, with many of them based around the idea that population growth would be faster than agricultural production, creating even more poverty. The numbers of today, however, tell a very different story. A very small percentage of the population are actually living in extreme poverty, and some of the countries with the quickest growing population have actually been the most successful at increasing the incomes and health of lower class citizens. Across the world we can see countries with very different concentrations of population, some with huge numbers of children too young to enter the workforce and some with a growing majority of elderly people. While each of these predicaments has their challenges if handled correctly they can become successful. With the new knowledge we have garnered over the last 35 years we have the potential to make this growing population work and to see more successful economies, more healthy citizens with longer life expectancies, and more stability across the board.
My article essentially said that even though fertility rates around the world are dropping, faster in more developed countries and slower in less, the world's population will still be growing to an estimated 9.7 billion by 2050. This is due to two main factors, in less developed countries even though the fertility rate is dropping its still very high, and that old people are living longer. Estimates point towards India and a fair portion of Africa continuing to grow while the more developed places begin to slow down in the coming years, India supposedly to take over China as the highest population by 2030.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/jul/29/un-world-population-prospects-the-2015-revision-9-7-billion-2050-fertility
Dr. Ian Dawson of the Southampton Business School's Centre for Risk Research conducted a study on the public concern for population growth and the 10 billion people projected to be inhabiting the Earth by 2060. The idea was to gauge the extent to which the public was concerned and how much they knew about population growth. He also wanted to know how much policy for change the people would be willing to advocate for. The study included a telephone survey with 47 questions. Together with his colleague; Professor Johnnie Johnson, Dr. Dawson contacted 300 people in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The participants expressed concern about ecological damage, resource shortages and violent conflict. They agreed that the effects would take a huge toll on those living in poverty. Around half of the participants agreed that the government had more control over this issue and they should be taking more steps to address population growth. The older participants were much less willing to change their behaviors than the younger ones who were more in favor of migration acts. Dr. Dawson concluded that the public concern for global population growth was somewhat high for something that is not often addressed, and that this issue should become a bigger part of the conversation when it comes to government.
ReplyDeleteProjected 10 billion world population drives moderate-to-high risk worries
http://phys.org/news/2016-03-billion-world-population-moderate-to-high.html
My article was about the population issue in Israel. Israel is a very young country and home to various religions. The population has reached 8.5 million from 68 years ago when it was merely 800,000. Israel is extremely densely populated considering it a 10th the size of Oregon. The article talks about how Jews and Arabs had a demographic competition that pushed Israelis to have more children to out number each other. This article taught me that competition between different ethnic groups can be a cause of accelerating population growth. It is the fastest populating developed country in the world. The population rise is effecting the biodiversity in the country leading hedgehogs and hyenas into extinction. The article highlights the poverty levels in the country with a quarter of the children being under the poverty line. By surprise, the amount of people immigrating and emigrating in Israel is just about even but the CDR is still very high.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/opinion/israels-looming-demographic-crisis.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FPopulation&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection
Title: Are eco-friendly initiatives pointless unless we tackle overpopulation?
ReplyDeleteURL: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/jan/26/overpopulation-sustainability-environment-eco-friendly-initiatives
This article explains how overpopulation is not the main issue, but how much and at what rate we consume resources. Africa has a far more greater population than North America, yet they produce 250 times less carbon emissions than Americans. Developed countries like America, the UK and Australia consume the most, and the birth rates have fallen steadily since the 1970s, while in developing countries like Africa which has about 1.2 billion people, they consume far less than Americans. Though we could save 1.2 billion tons of carbon emissions if we slow down population growth, climate change still wouldn’t change as much as we want and need it to. People need to be educated on world population growth and climate change if we want it to change, for example, buy locally, eliminate waste, and reduce consumption.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn Overpopulation and Climate Change, Arthur H. Westing, a New York Times op-ed contributor, explains how, “ Population is a double-barreled environmental problem,” going into talk about how as population increases so does emissions per capita. Westing talks about in 1970 the population was 3.6 billion and has increased to 7 billion, he also states in that same period of time worldwide emissions from fossil fuels have increased from 14 billion tons to 29 billion. He explains that even with our heightened awareness of emissions we still have raised our emissions from 3.8 tons per capita to 4.2. Westing expresses his frustration with independent research groups and governments for not thinking of, “ population as a contribution to global warming.” Westing goes on to say that we need to increase our education in global warming as a step in the right direction to solving the problem. He describes the atmosphere as, “ a common heritage of mankind.” Westing proposes we introduce a levy on emissions in countries and for humanity to generally adopt a frugal approach to living from now on. He also explains that in order for the world to enact more legislation to help the environment, we ought to eradicate corruption in the administrative powers of the world. Westing ends the article with a sentimental note of saying that we have an obligation to share this world with other organisms and in order to achieve this we must reduce, “ our population-driven demands on its natural resources.”
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/18/opinion/18iht-edwesting.html
With birth rates falling in countries like Germany, Japan, Russia and Singapore, the government is starting to provide financial incentives and even national conception holidays in efforts to increase population. China, on the other hand, still fines couples who have more than two children, or have children out of wedlock, even though China will face the same issues experienced by other developed countries in the coming years, due to their lowest fertility rate in the world (1.05). Another issue is that same sex marriages are not allowed, so even fewer people can have children freely. Activist groups are pushing for the restrictions to be lifted for the benefit of China as a whole. Keeping the population stable is crucial to continue the development and technological advancement of China.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/world/asia/china-fertility-birth.html?_r=0