STUDENTS SHOW SENSITIVITY TO POPULATION ISSUES

Using a variety of materials provided by the Population Press during World Population Awareness Week 2000, environmental studies students at the University of Redlands wrote research papers. Most of these students were freshmen. It was most heartening to see their concern for, and grasp of, population issues. The following are some brief excepts from their essays.

Many Children Make You Poor:
It's not just a catchy Buddhist saying anymore

Sarah Holbert

The earth is a turbulent planet. Since its origins, life has flourished here. The earth behaves like a living, breathing organism, because so much life exists both below and above ground, in the deepest oceans and up towards the stratosphere. Ecosystems keep the earth functioning, through the intricate roles each part of them must play. Plants and animals of millions of species have managed to live with each other, maintaining the delicate balance of each ecosystem, so necessary for the success of life on earth.

And then the first human was made and the earth began to suffer. . . . In the name of progress we have polluted the air and our oceans. We have used up countless nonrenewable resources. We have destroyed rainforests, slaughtered animals, packaged every product imaginable, and so forth, all because we can. We are contempocentrics, meaning that we have a lack of regard for future generations, except for the fact that humans still think that populating the planet further and then some is completely necessary in life. . . .

Population growth affects everything on the planet. . . . A worldwide movement must take place to stop the growth. We know it is possible, when we examine success stories like Thailand.

In 1971, Thailand adopted a national policy to stabilize its population. When the program began, the country's population was growing at a rate of 3.2% per year and the average Thai family had 6.4 children. Through a creative government-supported family planning program (handing out condoms everywhere, singing catchy songs about birth control), a high literacy rate among women (90%), an increasing economic role for women, advances in women's rights, better health care for mothers and children, and support of family planning by the country's religious leaders (95% of Thais are Buddhist), within 15 years, Thailand's population growth rate was cut in half-to1.6%. By 1998, the rate had fallen to 1.1% and the average number of children per family was 2.0

We can learn from Thailand. As Americans, we cannot abuse our affluence and be greedy with the number of children we have, regardless of economic resources. We should use our affluence and knowledge to help educate people in developing countries, with programs like Thailand's. We own it to future generations. We owe it to ourselves. The time to change is now.

The Danger of America's Population Trend

Jaime Mapes

If the U.S. population continues growing at its current rate, the Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the number of cars on American roads will increase to 271 million over the next 10 years. Currently over 110 regions in the country already exceed public health standards for ozone and carbon monoxide pollution under the Clean Air Act. Automobiles are the major producers of these pollutants despite the fact that today's cars are relatively clean.

Despite the obvious correlation between the destruction of our environment and overpopulation there are still those few who refuse to make the connection. The idea that the number of people per square mile is a key determinant of population pressure is as widespread as it is wrong. In Apocalypse Not, published by the Cato Institute, economist Ben Bolch and chemist Harold Lyons point out that if the 1990 world population were placed in Texas (less than half of 1% of the earth's land surface) "each person would have an area equal to the floor space of a typical U.S. home."

The key issue in judging overpopulation is not how many people can fit into any given space, but whether the earth can supply the population's long-term requirements for food, water, and other resources. Most of the "empty" land in the U.S. either grows the food essential to the well being of Americans, supplies us with forest products needed to build homes-or it lacks water, good soil and suitable climate. In fact, humanity has already overshot earth's carrying capacity by a simple measure: no nation is supporting its present population on a sustainable flow of renewable resources.

United States: Aim for Zero Population Growth

Katie Heran

I feel that population growth is a huge problem mainly because it is the root of so many other problems faced by humans and the environment. In order to solve this problem I believe we must first aim for zero population growth, beginning with ourselves in the United States. With the impact each person living in the U.S. has on the environment, it seems only right that we take the initiative and set some standards. With zero population growth our birth and immigration rates should equal our death and emigration rates. After stabilizing our population, we can then look to more efficient ways of resource consumption and industrialization. Only with a serious effort can we attempt to reverse the damage already caused by humans.

Population Growth & Status of Women

Beth Nerrie

Studies show that women tend to have fewer children and live longer when they have access to education and to paying jobs outside the home, and when they live in societies in which their individual rights are not suppressed. Therefore the dominance of patriarchal societies seems to be the main obstacle in the attempt to reduce the rate of world population growth.

It is fundamentally difficult to convince those in power that they should give up some of that power. In societies which believe there is a natural power structure in which males dominate females and have more value, making a convincing argument for the reasons why women should have rights and power is a difficult prospect.

Population Growth & Status of Women

Rick DiFlorio

In addition to lack of access to programs and services, another major cause of population growth is the low social status of women. Greater access to schooling for young women, especially beyond the early grades, leads to lower birth rates in almost all countries and cultures. Access to secondary school education correlates with later marriage, knowledge and us of contraception, and smaller family size. Secondary schooling also increases the likelihood that women will take paying jobs and launch small businesses.

In Peru, a woman who has completed 10 years of education typically has 2 or 3 children. A woman who has never seen a classroom has 7 or 8. In 23 developing nations, the average women with a secondary school education has her first child three and a half years later in life than a woman with no schooling. College graduates in the U.S. typically have 1.6-2.0 children. High school graduates have about 2.7 children, and high school dropouts have about 3.2 children.

Providing opportunities for women to gain income for their work enhances status and well being. Evidence suggests that this, too, may encourage the use of family planning and thus contribute to slower population growth.

Overpopulation & Poverty:
Causes & Barriers to Solutions

Jennifer Robbins

Birthrate is not only affected by biological factors, such as fertility and contraception, but by equally powerful social factors such as poverty. Population stabilization in a country depends on lowering birth rates and fertility rates. Some key issues in lowering a country's birth rates are: the level of education of its citizens, the role of children in the workforce, the cost of raising and educating children, urbanization, educational and employment opportunities for women, the rate of infant mortality, the average age of marriage, the availability of some form of social security, the availability of reliable forms of birth control, as well as religious and cultural beliefs. Many of these issues are interconnected themselves and are also caused or contributed to by poverty.

The most effective way to slow population growth and poverty would be to increase the economic strength of third world nations. In this way, families would begin to become financially stable, thus breaking the cycle of poverty.

However, the Ehrlichs write, ". . . for now and for the foreseeable future, Africa and the United States will remain overpopulated [defined as the human occupants of an area degrading the long-term carrying capacity of that area] . . . to say they are not because, if people changed, overpopulation might be eliminated, is simply wrong. Overpopulation is defined by the animals that occupy the turf, behaving as they naturally behave, not by a hypothetical group that might be substituted for them."

These authors believe that overpopulation will never be overcome since humans will always degrade the environment in which they live. Other interesting questions are: Can poverty ever really be overcome, or must there always be some poor in the world to balance the rich in the world? If poverty can never be defeated then neither will overpopulation based on large family size. I would like to think this is not the case. I would rather believe that eventually humans can empathize enough with their earth and their fellow humans so that poverty, overpopulation and hence the environmental degradation caused by both, are eliminated.