Overpopulation is holding back development

gbh

I read somewhere, I can't remember where, that Uganda now has 30 million people, had 10 million in 1970 and will have 130 million by 2050. The average birth rate is 7.1 children per woman.

This would mean that given a 400% increase in population in the next 43 years, Uganda would need GDP growth rates of on average 10% per year to sustain the current standard of living, which I doubt will happen.

At a time when the reasonably influential Catholic Church and US Republicans forbids family planning in Africa, surely the CC and Republicans are contributing to the further impovrishment of the people of Uganda as one example. Not alone this but many NGOs and UN programmes are funded by the US government and Catholic Church with the ideal of preventing proper familiy planning. Isn't it time the CC held up its hands and admit that its policies on family planning in the developing world actually encourage people further and further into poverty?

Akrasia

gbh wrote:

I read somewhere, I can't remember where, that Uganda now has 30 million people, had 10 million in 1970 and will have 130 million by 2050. The average birth rate is 7.1 children per woman.

This would mean that given a 400% increase in population in the next 43 years, Uganda would need GDP growth rates of on average 10% per year to sustain the current standard of living, which I doubt will happen.

At a time when the reasonably influential Catholic Church and US Republicans forbids family planning in Africa, surely the CC and Republicans are contributing to the further impovrishment of the people of Uganda as one example. Not alone this but many NGOs and UN programmes are funded by the US government and Catholic Church with the ideal of preventing proper familiy planning. Isn't it time the CC held up its hands and admit that its policies on family planning in the developing world actually encourage people further and further into poverty?

Yep.

And education for all. (well, quality education, not religious based education that just perpetuates the patriarchal attitude that suppresses women)

If we spent a tiny fraction of the money we spend on tools to blow each other up on education instead, the global poverty situation might actually start to improve instead of continuing to worsen.

gbh

I should have said that overpopulation also can create conditions for war such as pressure on land and resources. It can also lead to devastation of the environment, cutting down of forests for agriculture etc which in turn will exacerbate global warming. So it is as big a problem as cutting back CO2 emissions and I dont think NGOs take the problem seriously enough. So family planning is a must for development.

How many of those children make it to age of 5? 10? 20?

Using some stats from the good folks at the CIA ( https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html ) Uganda appears to have a lower population density than many European countries.

Economic Development or a lack thereof is the problem in Africa, not overpopulation.

cavedave

Overpopulation is quite and odd question there are all sorts of assumptions that people make that are probably wrong. One assumption is that of a Malthusian world of people fighting for finite resources. Another is not understanding the connection between rural living and power usage and the number of children people have. In an urban environment kids are a drain in a rural one they are quite useful. As people move from rural to urban living they do end up having less children. Also there is a direct correlation between an increase in the number of watts people consume and a reduction in the number of children they have.

I am not saying you are wrong about a need for family planning in the third world just that there are other issues involved

There is no population problem

gbh

cavedave wrote:

Overpopulation is quite and odd question there are all sorts of assumptions that people make that are probably wrong. One assumption is that of a Malthusian world of people fighting for finite resources. Another is not understanding the connection between rural living and power usage and the number of children people have. In an urban environment kids are a drain in a rural one they are quite useful. As people move from rural to urban living they do end up having less children. Also there is a direct correlation between an increase in the number of watts people consume and a reduction in the number of children they have.

I am not saying you are wrong about a need for family planning in the third world just that there are other issues involved

There is no population problem

I agree that people have made mistakes in the past about this issue. Chiefly Europe was able to disprove Malthouse because of its rich soil and also the industrial and agricultural revolutions which improved crop yields from the same land. European population growth has stagnated and in some cases is in decline.

Akrasia

Deleted User wrote:

How many of those children make it to age of 5? 10? 20?

Using some stats from the good folks at the CIA ( https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html ) Uganda appears to have a lower population density than many European countries.

Economic Development or a lack thereof is the problem in Africa, not overpopulation.

Overpopulation is a huge problem. It's not all about population density per square mile, it's about the population density that can be supported by the available resources and economic conditions.

Sure, Uganda could probably physically accommodate the same population density as the netherlands, but it might require using 99% of their land surface for economic activity and that would be environmentally devastating, for them, and for us.

In Ireland we had the same overpopulation problem, and it took a a famine followed by more than a century of mass emigration and a widescale rejection of the doctrines of the Catholic religion for us to escape the economic devastation such overpopulation brought.

liberty 2007

The size of a population is directly related to availability of food. There's also a close connection with medical care. But the that food supply is also directly connected to our consumption of energy (oil) When the oil peek kicks in, we may see a very different population shift.

mike65

In Ireland we had the same overpopulation problem, and it took a a famine followed by more than a century of mass emigration and a widescale rejection of the doctrines of the Catholic religion for us to escape the economic devastation such overpopulation brought.

Controversial! I don't know if one can make the claim either, Irelands poverty was in part down to the impact of being under British rule and chronic short-sighted policies in the post independence era. The island of Ireland is easily able to sustain 8 million if the place were run fairly and competently and that would have been true in 1850 and 1950 as well.

Mike.

InFront

US Republicans forbids family planning in Africa

gbh wrote:

family planning is a must for development.

I realize that these two statements are not exactly directly related, but it should be pointed out that it's abortion funding that the US block, not actually an international ban on abortion.

I don't respect many things that Republicans say or do or think, but surely someone who wants abortions to be more available must believe that the state doesn't have a place in interfering in family planning, and that's got to include paying for women's abortions, which also sends rather a bad message and could have all sorts of disturbing meanings.

(And I appreciate you didn't specifically mention abortion, I'm just presuming it's what you're partially referring to)

The Saint

I'd presume he's referring to the US funding family planning programmes that engourage abstainance rather than contraception. I really don't think he was referring to abortion.

As for the Malthusian view; it is also due to technological developments that allow more to be produced with the same physical resourses. These would include ploughs, fertiliser, herbicides, etc that allow greater productivity per labour input and availabe resources. The Malthusian view has been around for three hundred years and has again and again been discreditied. The main reasons for famine are political, be they war or colonialism. Before Indian independence there were many famines that wiped out million of people. This would have been an exmple for proponents of the Malthusian view. After independence there have been famines but no mass starvations. Why? Because India is now a democracy and therefore if a government allows people to starve they will no longer be in power come the next election.

Also people in the third world have children for reasons other than availibility of contraception and education. Children have an economic function in families in the third world. They work on farms to produce subsistace food for their families or work in paid labour to subsidise the family income. They can take care of old or infirm relatives. Also, having many children acts as an insurance policy against one or more of them dying as is the case in countries with high infant mortality rates. Birth rates tend to decline when a society becomes more develloped not to aid development.

Victor

gbh wrote:

I read somewhere, I can't remember where, that Uganda now has 30 million people, had 10 million in 1970 and will have 130 million by 2050. The average birth rate is 7.1 children per woman.

This would mean that given a 400% increase in population in the next 43 years, Uganda would need GDP growth rates of on average 10% per year to sustain the current standard of living, which I doubt will happen.

Ah! Wonderful hocus pocus maths.

3.4% GDP growth compunded over 43 years would result in the economy being 407% its current size, thereby maintaining the current standard of living. Actual GDP growth is well in excess of that.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ug.html
Population growth rate: 3.572% (2007 est.)
GDP - real growth rate: 5.3% (2006 est.)

Hopefully, the recent reduction in violence and efforts to put the economy on the right track will increase that further. The increase in population should feed growth. If the dependency rate drops, it can become an African Tiger.

williambonney

gbh wrote:

I read somewhere, I can't remember where, that Uganda now has 30 million people, had 10 million in 1970 and will have 130 million by 2050. The average birth rate is 7.1 children per woman.

This would mean that given a 400% increase in population in the next 43 years, Uganda would need GDP growth rates of on average 10% per year to sustain the current standard of living, which I doubt will happen.

At a time when the reasonably influential Catholic Church and US Republicans forbids family planning in Africa, surely the CC and Republicans are contributing to the further impovrishment of the people of Uganda as one example. Not alone this but many NGOs and UN programmes are funded by the US government and Catholic Church with the ideal of preventing proper familiy planning. Isn't it time the CC held up its hands and admit that its policies on family planning in the developing world actually encourage people further and further into poverty?

30 million in Uganda? Fine, so long as they stay in Uganda and don’t try an come to Ireland.

The Saint

williambonney wrote:

30 million in Uganda? Fine, so long as they stay in Uganda and don’t try an come to Ireland.

In fairness, why did you bother? It has nothing got to do with the thread. If you want to start a thread about all the blacks taking our jobs and women be my guest but please don't do it here in a thread that is debating something a bit more serious.

williambonney

The Saint wrote:

In fairness, why did you bother? It has nothing got to do with the thread. If you want to start a thread about all the blacks taking our jobs and women be my guest but please don't do it here in a thread that is debating something a bit more serious.

The point I was making was the VAST MAJORITY of people in Ireland could not give a **** whether there are 30 million or 300 million people in Uganda.

The Saint

williambonney wrote:

The point I was making was the VAST MAJORITY of people in Ireland could not give a **** whether there are 30 million or 300 million people in Uganda.

That wasn't the point you were making at all. You were just winging about not wanting African immigrants coming here. The thread isn't about Uganda or any other specific country. It's about development and Uganda was taken as an example to build an arguement. If you don't care about development or have nothing to add to the debate then stay out of this thread instead of posting irrelivant tripe.

williambonney

The Saint wrote:

That wasn't the point you were making at all. You were just winging about not wanting African immigrants coming here. The thread isn't about Uganda or any other specific country. It's about development and Uganda was taken as an example to build an arguement. If you don't care about development or have nothing to add to the debate then stay out of this thread instead of posting irrelivant tripe.

Who the hell do you think you are to tell me what point I am or am not making? You sanctimonious gob****e.

The Saint

williambonney wrote:

The point I was making was the VAST MAJORITY of people in Ireland could not give a **** whether there are 30 million or 300 million people in Uganda.

So how is this statement above have any relation to what you said below? It makes no sense. I'm not sure how someone is supposed to decipher the former statement from the latter.

williambonney wrote:

30 million in Uganda? Fine, so long as they stay in Uganda and don’t try an come to Ireland..

Oh yeah, personal abuse isn't permitted in this forum. Have a nice day.

oscarBravo

williambonney wrote:

Who the hell do you think you are to tell me what point I am or am not making? You sanctimonious gob****e.

Banned. This ban is indefinite; I've seen nothing to convince me that you'll ever make a constructive contribution to this forum.

gbh

Made some slight mistakes in my maths....130 million population predicted by 2050. Population currently 30 million. So an increase of 333% in 43 years. Maybe the article was wrong though and the CIA figures are right. But it does mean an accumalative increase of 333% in 43 years which works out at an average 7.4%/year increase in population.

I dont think Uganda could support this increase in population.

As for family planning I am talking about abortion in certain circumstances or the right to choose. In other circumstances I am talking about the right to choose condoms, whose use the Catholic Church seems to equate with eternal damnation.

gbh

Victor wrote:

Ah! Wonderful hocus pocus maths.

3.4% GDP growth compunded over 43 years would result in the economy being 407% its current size, thereby maintaining the current standard of living. Actual GDP growth is well in excess of that.

Hopefully, the recent reduction in violence and efforts to put the economy on the right track will increase that further. The increase in population should feed growth. If the dependency rate drops, it can become an African Tiger.

Fair point, never thought of that...but it still wont lift the country out of poverty.

I guess in the real world what will happen everywhere not just in this one country taken as an example is that a balance will no longer be kept as in earlier times and people will outstrip resources. This has already happened in terms of sea fishing. It may happen with freshwater fishing. Forests will be cut down for more agricultural land. Prices of commodities will go up. There will be more demand for fossil fuels and less fuels to go around. The pressure gets worse the more the population increases. I think countries like France and the US have achieved a balance. Countries like China and India are now stretching to provide for their poulations. I think the point about population densities is well made.

bonkey

gbh wrote:

Made some slight mistakes in my maths....130 million population predicted by 2050. Population currently 30 million. So an increase of 333% in 43 years. Maybe the article was wrong though and the CIA figures are right. But it does mean an accumalative increase of 333% in 43 years which works out at an average 7.4%/year increase in population.

You've still got some slight mistakes in your math.

333% in 43 years is a shade less than 2.9% sustained population growth. You forgot to allow that population growth is exponential.

Current population growth is 3.57 (estimated) according to a quick google, which - if sustained - would result in a population growth of over 450% in 43 years.

I dont think Uganda could support this increase in population.

http://ideas.repec.org/p/got/vwldps/125.html

gbh

Thanks for that link bonkey...

I do unfortunately think it will lead to economic refugees going to Europe. Now I am not against this but I don't think it is an ideal situation for anyone. The education system in Uganda will be stretched for one as will the health system. The government will struggle imo to find jobs for all these new workers. Ireland would struggle to find jobs for all its people and did so not long ago. But it has managed to attract a lot of US FDI. Uganda would need many times that amount of FDI.

Victor

As regards population density, Uganda currently has half the density of the UK, the difference being, you can probably get 2 to 4 crop harvests per year in Uganda. Is the UK starving (yes I realise they are a net importer of food)?

Your projection 43 years into the future is just that - a projection, no guarantee it will happen.

gbh wrote:

Made some slight mistakes in my maths....130 million population predicted by 2050. Population currently 30 million. So an increase of 333% in 43 years. Maybe the article was wrong though and the CIA figures are right. But it does mean an accumalative increase of 333% in 43 years which works out at an average 7.4%/year increase in population.

I dont think Uganda could support this increase in population.

In all honesty, where are you getting your numbers from? Can you attach your calculations?

DadaKopf

I do unfortunately think it will lead to economic refugees going to Europe.

Migration patterns are driven by underdevelopment (including conflict) and global inequality. If the right decisions were made, and actions taken, which really did lead to development in the majority world, reducing inequality, less migration would actually happen.

Another interesting thing: the migrant and refugee burden is mostly borne by developing countries. Also, migration patterns is overwhelming shlfting towards migration to cities (read: urban slums) within developing countries.

The population burden, realistically, is a problem of underdevelopment and not population growth per se.

gbh

Here's one article I found on it.

http://www.unfpa.org/profile/uganda.cfm?Section=1

Will post the original article when I find it.

gbh

As an aside it seems to me that lesser developed countries seem to have faster population increases.

I think some population increase is probably nessecary for economic development, larger markets for producers, farmers, traders, entrepreneurs, business and sales peoples. But maybe if growth is too rapid it could be a problem.

Pazaz 21

I think that the development in countries such as Uganda is being held back by a lack of basic infastructure rather then overpopulation. People need to have as many children as possible to take care of them and provide for the family because they have no other choice when it comes to gaining employment or providing for their family.

According to the article quoted at the start of this thread the population of Uganda has increased by 20 million in 30 years, but has the basic infastructure of the country developed at all in that time? The problem now in Uganda is the same as it was 30 years ago, but instead of 10 million people starving to death, it's now 30 million, same problem, bigger scale.

The Saint

Good governence and more equitable prade relations would help in development in the third world. The structural adjustment programmes and loan conditionalities imposed by the IMF and World Bank in the 1980's also have a lot to answer for. If rich countries believe in free trade then they should implement it not forcing poor countries to open up their economies while protecting their own.

DadaKopf

What do you mean by "good governance"?

gbh

I agree with you that better trade conditions would help. But honestly that is outside the power (mostly) of the government of Uganda.

Largely the point I am making is that governments like Uganda's need aid from countries like Ireland to cover the costs of healthcare and education of their people. Now if this year you had 1 million people needing clean water and in ten years you have maybe 1.5million needing clean water then Uganda is going to spend all its money on improving infrastruture just to maintain subsistence and little on education which really lifts people out of poverty. So increasing population in countries like Uganda may become a burden on the Irish taxpayer as much as anyone else.