Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, September 21, 1994 TAG: 9409230007
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-10 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: By BARBARA McEWAN
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
The general drift seems to be that it's impossible to project future populations, and hence the recent Cairo conference on population was suspect in its intentions. This assumption's accuracy must be challenged. For all practical purposes in judging problems ahead of us, the figures projected for the next decade are frightening enough. Let me examine his contentions.
Despite 35 years of involvement in environmental matters, I've never heard anyone claim that world population was declining. And indeed, there's every indication it is soaring, particularly in the Third World. Only in a few countries are populations steady or declining. This is all we need to know, not precise figures for each country going back x number of years.
Since such a large percentage of the world's present population is still fertile, we have a built-in engine for growth. Even the best family-planning programs cannot get all women in this age group on board promptly because of cost, male intransigence and/or religion. Growth will continue to occur.
Weigel says, ``Population science cannot tell us when (much less how) fertility rates will decline.'' So what? This will and has varied from country to country. The point is: Except in a very few nations, the numbers of children per fertile woman has commonly been substantially above the two-per-female goal, with seven or eight offspring per female not at all unusual. To get those figures cut quickly isn't a practical reality short of massive deaths due to disease or war.
Weigle says, ``Population science has no scientifically precise definition for `overpopulation.''' He hasn't done his homework. To be sustainable, a nation's population cannot exceed the carrying capacity of its finite and/or nonrenewable resources. Dependency on other nation's resources may allow the United States and Japan, for example, to have comparatively high population densities. But this isn't a sustainable situation for us or exporting countries whose citizens must then do without their share. As it is, 25 percent of the world's population (of which the United States' share is 5 percent) annually consumes 75 percent of world production of finite and/or nonrenewable raw materials. Is this ethical?
Participants in the recent Cairo conference were well aware that the number of people already on Earth is greatly straining its capacity, to a point where a large segment of humanity is malnourished and otherwise impoverished (30 million in the United States alone).
But exact numbers are immaterial. These delegates understand the central point: The situation can only get worse. If enough food is currently being produced, why are the hungry not being fed now? If we can't remove the obstacles for this to occur for our present population, how can we possibly expect to do so with even more people?
At the known rate now of an additional 250,000 babies every day - or, a city the size of New York every month, and another China in just 10 years - the future can only spell trouble. No one knows how to grow that much extra food, how to build that much extra housing, schools, hospitals, etc. Since we can't by definition create more finite and/or nonrenewable resources such as arable land and water, our only recourse is to reduce population levels if everyone is to have access to sufficient food, water, basic housing, schooling and medical attention.
Barbara McEwan of Forest is co-owner of a landscape design business in Bedford County and author of several books on horticulture and agriculture.
by CNB