-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
/
demography.htm
214 lines (156 loc) · 14 KB
/
demography.htm
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
<!-- saved from url=(0031)http://vhemt.org/demography.htm -->
<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body><div id="lingualy-logged-in" style="display:none;"></div><div id="lingualy-installed" style="display:none;"></div><div id="lingualypopup" class="lingualy_popup" style="display:none;"></div>=
<title>DEMOGRAPHY</title>
<h2>
<center>
DEMOGRAPHY</center>
</h2>
<div align="left">
<p lingdex="0"><a name="dud"></a><b>Q: Birth rates are dropping all over the world.
Isn’t the “population bomb” really a dud?</b> <br>
<br>
Birth rates have dropped to nearly half of what they were in 1950: from an
average of 5 offspring to 2.6. Our growth rate has also fallen significantly,
as this chart from the <a href="http://www.census.gov/">US Census Bureau</a>
shows. <br>
</p>
</div>
<div align="center">
<p lingdex="1"><img src="./demography_files/worldgr.gif" alt="World Population Growth Rate: 1950-2050" height="481" width="625" border="0"></p>
</div>
<div align="left">
<p lingdex="2">Annual population increase likewise has improved from a high of 87 million
in 1989 to around 76 million in 2011.<br>
</p>
</div>
<div align="center">
<p lingdex="3"><img src="./demography_files/worldpch.gif" alt="Annual World Population Change: 1950-2050" height="481" width="625" border="0"> <br>
<br>
</p>
</div>
<div align="left">
<p lingdex="4">However, before we pop a cork to celebrate the fizzle of our population
explosion, there’s one more chart—one <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/21533364">most often ignored</a>.<br>
</p>
</div>
<div align="center">
<p lingdex="5"><img src="./demography_files/worldpop.gif" alt="World Population: 1950-2050" height="481" width="625" border="0"><br>
</p>
</div>
<div align="left">
<p lingdex="6"><b>Q: With birth rates, fertility rates, and growth rates all falling, how
can our population keep on steadily rising?</b> </p>
<p lingdex="7"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_momentum">Momentum</a>.
Although couples are creating fewer of us, there are more couples creating
those new people, which makes more of us. For example, China’s 1.5 Total Fertility Rate is way below “replacement level fertility,” and yet their natural increase
is <a href="https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html">6 million</a> per year (2014 estimate—down from 8.8 in 2010). Growth is projected to continue until <a href="http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2013-03/07/content_16286480.htm">2030</a>, 50 years after implementing their one-child policy.</p>
<p lingdex="8">This serves as an ominous warning. If cutting fertility rates in half
hasn’t stopped our increase, what will it take? How much better can we
expect birth rates to get? Many countries have <a href="http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/2/10-077925/en/index.html">stalled at a plateau</a> and aren’t likely to go any lower unless conditions change.</p>
<p lingdex="9">A 2014 <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/10/23/1410465111">computer projection</a> of a global one-child average fertility rate projects approximately five billion of us in 2100 due to this momentum.</p>
<div align="center">
<img src="./demography_files/tfr1.0proj.jpg" alt="tfr1.0proj" width="657" height="440">
</div>
<p lingdex="10">A note on the first two charts above: dip in growth rate from 1959-1960 was
due to the Great Leap Forward in China. Natural disasters and decreased
agricultural output following massive social reorganization caused
China’s death rate to increase greatly and fertility rate to fall by almost half. This tragic loss of human life—an estimated 30 million died—wasn’t enough to cause a ripple in chart three above. Increasing deaths has proved ineffective for improving global population density.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14744915">“Falling
Fertility” The Economist October 29, 2009</a> <br>
Analysis of <a href="http://vhemt.org/popnoprobhr.htm">“Population growth is not the problem”</a> perspective.<br>
<a href="http://www.leeds.ac.uk/demographic_entrapment/">Demographic entrapment</a> caused by stalled TFR improvement.</p>
<p lingdex="11"><a name="two"></a> </p>
<hr>
<p lingdex="12"><b>Q: If we only produce two children, doesn’t that just replace
ourselves?</b></p>
<p lingdex="13">“Stop at two” may have seemed like a radical proclamation when <a href="http://www.populationconnection.org/">Zero Population Growth</a> was founded in 1968, but it was barely adequate even then. So-called replacement level fertility of 2.1 offspring per couple wouldn’t bring about true zero population growth until the end of this century, if then.</p>
<p lingdex="14">Today the message from population-awareness organizations is only slightly revised: “Consider having none or one, and be sure to stop after two.”</p>
<p lingdex="15">The notion that producing two descendants simply replaces a couple and
creates no increased impact is specious. We aren’t salmon—we don’t
spawn and die. Most of us will be around to see our progeny beget, and those
begotten beget to boot.</p>
<p lingdex="16">When a couple of us “replaces” ourselves, our environmental impact
doubles - assuming our offsprings’ lifestyles are as environmentally
friendly as ours, and that they won’t reproduce themselves.</p>
<p lingdex="17">The “stop at two” message actually encourages reproduction by
“qualified” couples. Although a wanted child is better than unwanted,
intelligent (whatever that is) better than stupid, and well-cared-for better
than neglected, each of us in the over-industrialized world has a huge impact
on Nature, regardless of these factors.</p>
<p lingdex="18">For example, in terms of <a href="http://earthtrends.wri.org/country_profiles/index.php">energy consumption</a>, when a North American couple
stops at two it’s about the same as an average East Indian couple stopping
at 30, or a Bangaledesh couple stopping at 97. </p>
<p lingdex="19">Two is better than four, and one is twice as good as two, but to purposely
set out to create even one more of us today is the moral equivalent of
selling berths on a sinking ship.</p>
<p lingdex="20">Regardless of how many progeny we have or haven’t produced, rather than
stop at two, we must stop at once.</p>
<p lingdex="21"><a href="http://www.livescience.com/environment/090803-children-carbon-footprint.html">Consequences of creating a new human, compounded over time.</a> </p>
</div>
<p lingdex="22"></p>
<hr>
<div align="center">
<h3><a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/9_9SutNmfFk&hl=en_US&fs=1&">World population growth from 0001 to 2030</a></h3>
<object width="480" height="385">
<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9_9SutNmfFk&hl=en_US&fs=1&">
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true">
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always">
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9_9SutNmfFk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="385"></object><br>
</div>
<br>
<a name="imrtfr"></a><br>
<hr>
<div align="left">
<p lingdex="23"><b>Q: Will lower Infant Mortality Rates cause lower Total Fertility Rates?
</b></p>
<p lingdex="24">Maybe, the statistics aren’t conclusive.</p>
<p lingdex="25">Bill Gates of <a href="http://www.gatesfoundation.org/annual-letter/Pages/2009-preventing-childhood-deaths.aspx">The
Gates Foundation</a> expresses conventional wisdom to support their vaccination efforts: “Parents choose to have
enough kids to give them a high chance that several will survive to support
them as they grow old. As the number of kids who survive to adulthood goes
up, parents can achieve this goal without having as many children.”
</p></div>
<div align="center">
<img src="./demography_files/imrtfr.jpg" alt="IMR and TFR"><br>
</div>
Gates Foundation charts show “better health is linked to smaller families.” However, fertility and infant mortality are not mutually independent, but are <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=254880">jointly determined:</a> they influence each other to varying degrees. Smaller families are linked to better health. <p lingdex="26"></p>
<p lingdex="27">Parents are better able to provide for their children when they have fewer of them, which means more will survive, so <a href="http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/pop994.doc.htm">fertility directly influences child mortality</a>. </p>
<p lingdex="28">Sub-Saharan Africa’s fertility rates could <a href="http://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2013/08/demographic-transition-stalled-sub-saharan-africa/#.Ujb4P4UlyvW">remain high</a> because infant mortality remains high, and infant mortality could be high because of high fertility rates. In this region, other factors such as cultural preference for large families, gender inequality and the subsequent lack of reproductive freedom, may influence fertility more than infant survival does. </p>
<p lingdex="29">In some cases, lower infant mortality and lower birth rates may be two <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/21555571">results of other factors</a>, such as improved reproductive health care, rather than one causing the other.</p>
<p lingdex="30">Allowing women to determine how many offspring they produce would reduce child mortality <a href="http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-9781597268226-0">more effectively</a> than vaccines, but vaccinations enjoy wider acceptance than gender equality. </p>
<a name="gapminder"></a>
<p lingdex="31"><a href="http://www.gapminder.org/videos/population-growth-explained-with-ikea-boxes/">
Hans Rosling</a> demonstrates how lower infant mortality, and <a href="http://vhemt.org/economics.htm#tfrgdp">higher standards of living</a>, bring about lower fertility rates. <a href="http://vhemt.org/popnoprobhr.htm">Analysis of this demonstration</a>. Analysis of <a href="http://vhemt.org/religionbabieshr.htm">another Hans Rosling talk</a>.</p>
<p lingdex="32"><a href="http://www.bit.ly/aC5yqB">Animated graph</a> charting selected countries’ child mortality and total fertility over time. With a few viewings, we might discern whether fewer child deaths seem to cause lower fertility or lower fertility seems to cause fewer child deaths. </p>
<hr>
<p lingdex="33"><strong>Q: When will human population stop increasing?</strong></p>
<p lingdex="34">Projections are not predictions, so they are constantly updated as more and better data become available. If present fertility rates remained constant, we would number nearly <a href="http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/unpp/panel_population.htm">27 billion by 2100</a>. No one expects this impossible number, thanks to many factors influencing fertility and mortality rates. Differences in population projections result from choosing which factors are used and how much weight each is given. Converting reality into numbers requires demographers to limit factors or it gets too complicated and over budget. Politics can play a role as controversial factors such as global climate disruption, peak oil, and economic collapse are ignored.</p>
<p lingdex="35">Although given little consideration in projections now, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/14/1">environmental constraints</a> could become critical factors as we increasingly exceed Earth’s diminishing carrying capacity for our kind. </p>
<p lingdex="36">Global economic dynamics also play an increasing role in local carrying capacity. For example, Africa’s population is projected to <a href="http://www.livescience.com/37442-world-population-approaching-11-billion.html">quadruple</a> from 1.1 billion to 4.2 billion by 2100. However, foreign resource extraction and <a href="http://www.grain.org/article/entries/4479-grain-releases-data-set-with-over-400-global-land-grabs">purchase of farmland</a> for export crops already constrains inadequate efforts to support existing people. Improving birth rates by providing reproductive health services and encouraging responsible choices would be child’s play compared with finding food and water for four times as many people. </p>
<p lingdex="37">Our population density will begin to improve when more of us die than are born. This could come from either an increase in deaths or a decrease in births. </p>
<hr>
<div align="center">
<p lingdex="38"><iframe src="./demography_files/19455075.html" width="400" height="225" frameborder="0"></iframe></p><p lingdex="39"><a href="http://vimeo.com/19455075">“Mother: Caring Our Way Out of the Population Dilemma”</a></p>
<hr>
<a name="demolinks"></a>
<div align="left">
<p lingdex="40"><a href="http://vhemt.org/demolinks.htm">Sites with demographic information</a></p>
<p lingdex="41"><a href="http://vhemt.org/pop101.htm">Debunking the “Overpopulation is a Myth”</a> video series:<br>
<a href="http://vhemt.org/pop101-1.htm">Episode One</a>: “The Making of a Myth”<br>
<a href="http://vhemt.org/pop101-2.htm">Episode Two</a>: “2.1 TFR = Stable Population”<br>
<a href="http://vhemt.org/pop101-3.htm">Episode Three</a>: “Food: There’s Lots of It”<br>
<a href="http://vhemt.org/pop101-4.htm">Episode Four</a>: “Poverty: Where We All Started”<br>
<a href="http://vhemt.org/pop101-5.htm">Episode Five</a>: “7 Billion People: Will Everyone Please Relax?”
</p></div>
<div align="center">
<hr>
Next category: <a href="http://vhemt.org/ecology.htm">ECOLOGY</a>
<p lingdex="42"><a href="http://vhemt.org/index.htm#top"><img src="./demography_files/vhemt.1in.gif" alt="logo" width="72" height="77" border="0" align="bottom"></a></p>
<script type="text/javascript" src="./demography_files/urchin.js">
</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
_uacct = "UA-3147656-1";
urchinTracker();</script>
</div>
</div><style type="text/css">.lingualy-translate-close {background: url("chrome-extension://iilcekgoelpgecpjnnoikhbleipnjdhf/lookup/assets/translate/x_normal.png") no-repeat;}.lingualy-translate-close:hover {background: url("chrome-extension://iilcekgoelpgecpjnnoikhbleipnjdhf/lookup/assets/translate/x_over.png");}.lingualy_popup .lingualy_close {background: url("chrome-extension://iilcekgoelpgecpjnnoikhbleipnjdhf/lookup/assets/andy-sprite.png") no-repeat 0 -50px;}</style></body></html>