Mark Carwardine said, in BBC Wildlife (December, 2011 edition) at the conclusion of a discussion of human population growth, "if we don't take radical action, there will be terrible consequences. The human population will crash - whether as a result of famine, disease or wars over resources. Ultimately, there has to be a limit". Reference was also made of the effects of access to medical care and family planning.
It is interesting to note that population growth appears to be slowing in what we might call the 'developed nations'. Maybe this is down to expectations as well as support systems in these countries. Couples choosing to have fewer children (or none) to an extent that the number of births are not compensating for the number of deaths. Of course, immigration and emmigration can mask the effects in any given country as far as total population is concerned. To maintain our standards of living and to 'provide' for our children the best we can, it makes sense to have fewer children. Why, then, is world population increasing? I haven't checked, but I suspect this is happening more in some areas than others. Children might be the only 'social security' some populations have. Combine this with better health care and population increase is inevitable. Is this an advert for improving the social conditions of these populations?
In countries like the UK have reduced births and increased longevity, support for the elderly becomes harder to deal with - haven't we been hearing about this in the news recently?
Whatever the causes of population increase, greater numbers of humans must, as Mark Carwardine says in his column, put greater pressure on the available resources.
No comments:
Post a Comment