Social Development and Population

Worldwatch Live Online Discussion

Brian Halweil and Danielle Nierenberg : Worldwatch Researchers

March 1, 2002 - 1:00pm EDT

This week's guests are Brian Halweil and Danielle Nierenberg, co-authors of Chapter 6 (also with Bob Engelman), "Rethinking Population, Improving Lives." Rapid population growth is often seen as the root cause of many environmental and social problems, from resource overuse to persistent poverty. However, continued population growth throughout the developing world, might be more accurately viewed as symptomatic of deeper problems, including lack of access to health care and family planning, gender discrimination, and persistent poverty. In the chapter, the authors argue that as more people are entering their reproductive years than at any other time in human history, recasting population policy as a venture in social development will be essential to developing successful population policies.

Dick Bell, Worldwatch Institute: Hello Brian and Danielle, thanks so much for joining us today. We're looking forward to talking with you about your work on rethinking population and improving lives.

Brian Halweil and Danielle Nierenberg : Thanks for getting us started, Dick.

Danielle and I will be trading off answering your questions.

San Francisco California: Population growth often results in economic growth, hence business leaders and others often argue a growing population is economically attractive. How do we break this nexus to encourage population stabilization?

Brian Halweil and Danielle Nierenberg : BH: Good question, and this is definitely a sort of myth that needs to be dispelled in the population debate. Although the necessity of more people for economic growth has been a typical assumption, it is not always the case. In fact, in poorer nations, rapid population growth can actually work against economic growth, as it strains government resources to provide more teachers, schools, hospitals, etc. In East Asia, the choice of couples to have smaller families, meant that more could be invested in those children that were born; more educational investment lead to economic growth.

Richmond, VA: A colleague claims that the numbers of people of European descent are declining and could be extinct in a hundred years or so. Is this true and and if so, is it worth troubling over? My friend believes that diversity is important; thus we should be encouraging caucasians to reproduce while assisting third world countries with population control. I think race should not even enter the picture... that population control across the board is more important. Theoretically, we all could be so mixed eventually that it could actually relieve the worldwide racial tensions we experience today. What is your opinion?

Brian Halweil and Danielle Nierenberg : We agree that race should not enter the population debate, although it often does. Yes, because population is growing more rapidly in noncaucasian nations, caucasians are becoming a smaller share of the total human family. But in general, we're becoming more mixed everywhere, and some of the biggest forces acting against diversity have nothing to do with population growth, but more to do with media consolidation, homogenization/McDonaldisation of culture, and other forces.

Baltimore, Md.: Here at Johns Hopkins University last week we had a symposium on Population Food and Water in the 21st Century. Dr. Maurice King spoke of demographic entrapment and the likely possibility that populations of some countries of Africa will face starvation and violence unless drastic measures are instituted to slow population growth, because populations have already exceeded their carrying capacity. One such drastic measure would be the one-child family policy. What is your assessment of this scenario?

Brian Halweil and Danielle Nierenberg : Yes, we see demographic entrapment as a real risk as well, as nations get into a downward spiral of poverty, lack of funds for reproductive health care and continuing rapid population growth. We don't see coercive policies as the answer, since we think there is good evidence that when young couples have access to education and reproductive health services, and when women are free from gender-based violence, couples tend to choose to have small families on their own.

San Francisco, California: How would you rank the importance of the three factors - population size, per capita consumption and technology - in reducing our overall ecological footprint?

Brian Halweil and Danielle Nierenberg : Tough question. We know that a child born today in an industrialized nation will consume 30-50 times more of various resources (food, energy, water, etc.) than a child born in a poorer nation. All these factors are related, and work needs to be done on all three fronts.

Ithaca, NY: Despite being "socially developed" (with "empowered women"), the U.S. is the most overpopulated country in the world, in terms of running a per capita ecological deficit estimated at about 80% (using 1995 population figures).(William Rees,1996; Rees & Wackernagel,1996; Paul & Anne Ehrlich, 1997). Unsustainability is a function of consumption and population size. Should the U.S. adopt (incentive/coercive)policies BOTH to reduce consumption AND to reduce population?

Brian Halweil and Danielle Nierenberg : This relates to the two previous questions on coercive policies and the trade-offs between population, consumption, and technology. Coercive policies certainly have not worked in other parts of the world. In China, the results have been families hiding their children, favoring male children, and even commiting female infanticide. More effective in slowing China's population growth was the barefoot doctor campaign to get trained birth attendants and reproductive health specialists in all villages. Once people felt like their children had a higher chance to survive through childhood, couples feel more confident about having fewer children.

Allentown, PA: Two part question. 1) How are different factors incorporated in making population growth estimates? Some of the factors include the advancements of women's education and rights in poorer countries, the unpredictable U.S. policy on foregn aid for family planning, the position of the church on contraception, the changing policies in China and India on family size, etc. Various estimates I've read say global population might reach 9 to 11 billion by 2050 and stabilize between 9 and 12 billion by the end of the century. 2) To what extent is the work of population activist groups factored into population growth projections? If their work is not factored in, does it mean that their effortiveness is expected to be marginal at best?

Brian Halweil and Danielle Nierenberg : Actually, most of what you mention are not factored into the population estimates done by groups like the United Nations and US Census. The estimates depend on birth rates, death rates, life span, fertility levels. Recently, the estimates began to incorporate the spread of HIV/AIDS in hard-hit Africa. However, most people would agree that greater funding for family planning services, changes in international policies towards women, and changes in certain religious stances on reproductive health would have a big, but unquantifiable, impact.

Santa Fe, NM: I live in a very poor state, with significant drug abuse, many teen pregnancies and many undocumented immigrants. I find it surprising that we don't seem to be addressing overpopulation in our own backyards first, before we concern ourselves with those in other parts of the world. Do you have suggestions how we can more effectively do that?

Brian Halweil and Danielle Nierenberg : Certainly, more education about reproductive health are necessary in our own country. Recent decisions to support abstinence-only sex ed are a step backward. And clearly these services need to be available and affordable to everyone in the US--citizens, immigrants, other marginal populations.

We like to see the immigration issue from the perspective of why people leave their countries. People often do this at great risk to their health, at great expense, and at the cost of leaving their family and culture behind. Migration happens out of desperation, when local conditions are so difficult or oppressive that people feel they have no choice. A more holistic approach to immigration issues would involve addressing these root causes of poverty in the countries of origin.

Watertown, NY: How do we convince our present and future administrations that supporting the UN's population fund is one essential way to acheiving worldwide population stabilization?

Brian Halweil and Danielle Nierenberg : One way to look at this is as a security issue, given the recent interest in this angle. The UN population fund helps to improve peoples lives, meaning less poverty, less unemployment, less general despair and grievances. We actually interviewed Thoraya Obaid, the director of the fund, yesterday, and she emphasized the contrast between how much the US spends on military in the name of security and how little (not even a fraction of one percent of our defense budget) we spend on human services in the developing world. Ms. Obaid said that military security is only short term, but improving people's lives yields long term security.

toronto ontario: I read in the Ny times today that over 80s is the fastest growing age group on earth. Is there maybe some disagreement among demographers on what is problem number one: too many or too old?

Brian Halweil and Danielle Nierenberg : Interesting question. Aging is closely related to a growing population. As life-spans increase and as people choose to have smaller families, the elderly share of the population will actually grow. In Italy and some other European nations there is concern that aging populations will sap the economy as the number of retirees overtakes the workforce, leading to a lack of services and a pension crisis. As population growth slows in the world, we will have to re-think our social security policies, what role elderly people will play in the work/volunteer force.

Baltimore, MD: You say "there is good evidence that when young couples have access to education and reproductive health services, and when women are free from gender-based violence, couples tend to choose to have small families on their own." But without incentives or attempts to persuade them to, will they have small ENOUGH families, starting SOON ENOUGH, to avert population catastrophe?

Brian Halweil and Danielle Nierenberg : We don't know how many people the Earth can actually support because it depends so much on levels of consumption, so it's hard to say how much and how soon is enough. What we do know, is that when couples--especially women--can make their decisions freely, the effects on family size will be ever-lasting. What sort of incentives do you have in mind?

Vermont: In the novel ISHMAEL, Daniel Quinn asserts that the way to limit populaton is to stop over production of food - more food, more people; Enough food, enough people. What is your opinion ?

Brian Halweil and Danielle Nierenberg : BH: I like Quinn's books and I think he's got some fresh perspectives on environmental issues, but I think the more food:more people argument is misleading. Couples in the developing world who might have large families do not make those decisions based on how much food they have; they decide often based on factors out of their control--access to contraception, violence against them, the fear that some of their children will die before adulthood, a sense of economic security from large families, or because they don't know of an alternative, or lack of education. By Ishmael's reasoning, population growth should be happening fastest in the US and Europe, the regions with the most food, which isn't the case.

Vermont: In the novel ISHMAEL, Daniel Quinn asserts that the way to limit populaton is to stop over production of food - more food, more people; Enough food, enough people. What is your opinion ?

Brian Halweil and Danielle Nierenberg : One more point. When families have enough food to assure proper nutrition and health, they often choose to have fewer children because they are more confident the children will survive.

Petoskey, Michigan: International migration moves people from less consumptive to more consumptive life styles. Is this good? It would also seem to cost the Less Developed countries some of their brightest and best - the very people who might help fix problems at home. What is your opinion on these two points? Thank you.

Brian Halweil and Danielle Nierenberg : As we indicated a previous response, many of these people do not want to leave their countries of origin. The best and the brightest would prefer to remain at home and contribute to their own country's welfare. However, poor economies, environmental degradation and lack of educational opportunities force them to flee. Over-consumption in all parts of the world is a problem, regardless of migration.

Novelty, Ohio: An interesting case study is the state of Kerala,India, where people are by western standards quite poor, population is dense, and yet population is fairly stable. At least one widely cited factor is the relatively high status of women in Keralan society. As a result, women are relatively highly educated. This leads me to the observation that it is education levels in general that may be the strongest determinant of the choices of both men and women to have smaller families, and not education in "family planning" or similar topics. A related issue is the religious pluralism of Keralan society, and the relatively non-prescriptive nature of the dominant religions. That is, Keralan religion is not based upon revelations that instruct people to live in certain ways that are male-dominated and lead to social roles for women as "baby producers." This point is tied to education, in that higher levels of education, particularly in the sciences, lead to a secularization of society and a declining dependence upon adherence to the "one true religion," which in many societies is a belief system that relegates women to the child bearing and rearing role. Finally, Keralan society has an income and wealth distribution which is relatively equal, compared to many other high-population growth countries, and a social system which offers relatively high support to the aged and infirm. Hence, there is less desire to have a large family as a social safety net. Your comments on the force of this example would be interesting.

Brian Halweil and Danielle Nierenberg : Your example of Kerala illustrates that although people lack material wealth, they do have the means to control their reproductive destinies because reproductive health services are widely available and accessible to most couples. The status of women, high educational levels, and the other factors you mentioned, all contribute. Unfortunately, this has been a hard example for other states and countries to follow.

Washington, DC: If social progress is needed to ensure people make choices to reach sustainable populations, environments, and economies, do you really think there is enough time to stop the rate of population growth before the resulting population can no longer be supported? If coercion is not an option, as it should not be, what about varying economic incentives for smaller families such as some of those successfully tried in Singapore?

Brian Halweil and Danielle Nierenberg : You're right, Singapore's policies have been successful on one level and tax breaks and other economic incentives can encourage couples to have smaller families. In the U.S., for instance, welfare mothers lose benefits if they have a certain number of children. These "incentives" become controversial when they seem to fall disproportionately on the poor, whereas the wealthy are not governed by the same rules. The best incentives are things like education and improved access to reproductive healthcare services.

Vermont: I asked the Ishmael question and agree that :"When families have enough food to assure proper nutrition and health, they often choose to have fewer children because they are more confident the children will survive." What is your opinion then of allocating funds for alternative sustainable food production at the individual level ? I am thinking specifically of PERMACULTURE and its vision of earth repair,urban food forestry, village level self-sufficiency, and turning wastes into resources.

Brian Halweil and Danielle Nierenberg : Yes, we are big fans of shifting funds to alternative sustainable agriculture. See Chapter 3 in State of the World 2002, and some of the other writing Worldwatch has done on organic farming.

madison, WI: Why is there almost never the key and obvious connection made between our mulitude of environmental problems [such as the 'energy' crisis in CA] and the rapid growth of the population?

Brian Halweil and Danielle Nierenberg : I suppose in this discussion, we sort of took this connection as an obvious assumption, one of the main reasons to be interested in population growth. But as others have pointed out, excessive consumption in the First World is also a big factor. And in the case of energy crisis in California, corporate misbehavior also played a huge role, as we now know.

Baltimore, MD: One problem with incentives for small families is that they may wind up, in effect, punishing the neediest. Although you don't seem to favor incentives, have your studies suggested any that would likely be effective without being punitive?

Brian Halweil and Danielle Nierenberg : You're right. We said that in our reply to a previous question, and the most effective and least punitive "incentives" tend to be education and access to reproductive health services.

San Francisco, California: In developed countries, it has been estimated that we need to reduce overall consumption to about 20-30% of current levels. If population continues to grow, this figure will continue to decrease. Would you agree then that a reduction in population size is one of the most important avenues for developed countries to reduce overall consumption levels?

Brian Halweil and Danielle Nierenberg : Yes, reduced population growth is one avenue, but there is so much more room, in the short-term, to reduce overall consumption.

Calgary, Alberta, Canada: I have read that about 1/3 of world food production is now dependent on synthetic fertilizers. Also, nitogen oxides from fertilizer production are significant GHGs. So my questions are: 1)has anyone calculated what the actual carrying power of the world is, is it 8 billion, more, less? 2)If the capacity is exceeded, will we see a catastrophic collapse of population at some point in the next 50 years?

Brian Halweil and Danielle Nierenberg : Again, carrying capacity is a hard question because it depends on so many factors--what level of environmental health are we satisified with; what levels of consumption; what distribution of resources. If we were all vegetarians, for instance, there would be a lot more room in the people:food equation, but this still may not assure that the food gets to the hungry.

Dick Bell, Worldwatch Institute: Brian and Danielle, thanks so much for your time today. And thank you for all the good questions. Please join us next week at this same time to talk with Hilary French, about how to make our global governing institutions more effective in promoting sustainable development. Thanks!

Brian Halweil and Danielle Nierenberg : From Danielle and Brian, thanks Dick and thanks to everyone for your questions and interest. Take care and practice safe sex.