population problems?

Between the three-year averages of 1979-1981 and 1991-1993, food production per person in the world rose by 3 percent, while in Europe it only went up 2 percent and went down by nearly 5 percent in North America. In contrast, per capita food production shot up by 22 percent in Asia generally, including 23 percent in India and 39 percent in China. Where food production is outstripping population growth most dramatically, there is hunger, because, of course, social institutions not distributing the food in the interest of elites, regardless of the widespread poverty and hunger for others that this causes.

But is food production keeping pace with population, and even outstripping it, because we are abusing nature and taking all this food? If this was true, even with inadequately attentive market prices, still, there would be diminishing returns and thus higher prices as it got progressively harder and more costly to produce the food and good soil becoming rare. Well, once again, the opposite is true. For example, a UN report recorded a 38 percent fall in the relative prices of basic foods over the last ten years. And, in comparing the period 1953-1955 to the period from 1983-1985 we show declines in the adjusted prices of, for example, rice (42 percent), wheat (57 percent), sorghum (39 percent), and maize (37 percent)."

Finally, to cap the argument, food production far from being driven to excessive heights by pressure from a demanding public is instead widely held back by the difficulty of profiting by its sale in current market conditions, not to mention by outright subsidies to reduce production.

It seems that there is not an immediate struggle crisis of population that must be attended to. Population growth is not outstripping growth in product or of food production. Current hardships for humanity such as environmental pollution, and, even worse, starvation, rampant curable disease, poverty, lack of education and health care, etc., are all functions of social systems aimed at profit for the few regardless of the devastation wrecked on the well being of the many. Still, it is unquestionably true that population can't just keep growing without eventually causing serious ecological consequences, so reducing rates of growth of population to a point of steady state is an important item on any progressive agenda, even if it isn't the apocalyptic priority that some people suggest.

What is known about reducing population growth? Everyone agrees that there can be little doubt that economic and social development, in general, has been associated with huge reductions in birth rates and the surfacing of small families as the norm. This was a pattern that was, of course, clearly observed in Europe and North America as they experienced industrialization, but that experience has been repeated in many other parts of the world. Additionally, even cursory examination reveals that regions that delay in social development, education and rights of women, also have highest birth rates. And, also, where there are increases in standard of living, rights of women, education, health generally, birth rates in turn decline. And the explanation is clear. People are more secure and do not procreate as insurance against old age, to increase the hands available to work, and as a guard against the likelihood that some children will, in any event, die young. Why isn't this the end of the discussion? In country after country the birth rate has come down with more female education, the reduction of mortality rates, the expansion of economic means and security, and greater public discussion of ways of living. Why doesn't this recognition lead to the conclusion that as social development ultimately curbs population growth, and is otherwise preferable to coercion since social development is in its own right positive, whereas coercion is negative, the pursuit of social development is the way to curb population growth rates?

Well, the reason is, because even though development may consistently work to stabilize population if it is given enough time, there may not be, it is argued, time enough to give. In other words, those concerned about population growth can and do argue that while it would be nice to wait until development reduces population growth rates, we do not have that luxury. The need for reduction is too urgent. Also, the death rate often falls very fast with more widely available health care, better sanitation, and improved nutrition, while the birth rate may fall slower. Much growth of population may meanwhile occur before the decline in birth becomes dominant and population growth rates decline, as every historical instance confirms.

http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/albert3.htm