OPINION
Population growth and poverty: Overpopulated or under-choiced?
There are 6.4 billion people in the world, and there will probably be 8 billion by 2030. Nearly all the new arrivals will be poor people in poor countries. The conclusion is obvious, isn't it? There are already too many poor people. Fewer people, or slower population growth, means less poverty. That's simple enough.
Not so fast. Perhaps there aren't too many poor people. Perhaps there's just too much poverty. Poor people have too little of some things – land, water, money or social justice, for instance — and too much of other things, such as pollution, exploitation or exposure to 'natural' disasters. The world is organised so that richer people take the lion's share of what's available, whatever it is.
The problem with 'fewer poor people' is that it implies a solution – reduce population. But from a policy point of view there is no way to do that, especially in the short term. Migration boosted North America's population in the 19th century, but it didn't reduce Europe's.
Population reduction by 'natural' means — as animal populations collapse in the wild — is the least humane of all possibilities. The Black Death in the 14th century reduced Europe's population by a third to a half, with a horror we can feel today. Climate change and water shortage destroyed ancient civilisations in South America. All the wars and natural disasters of the 20th century accounted for perhaps two years' worth of world population growth. HIV and AIDS kills 2 million people a year and exacts a terrible cost in human suffering, social disintegration and economic collapse.
But it hasn't reduced populations, even in the worst-affected countries. And its effect on population growth is minimal. Is there a humane way at least to reduce the way human numbers grow? There is only one effective way. That is to rely on humans themselves. Poverty is the absence of choices: not simply a shortage of money but a lack of the opportunities offered by education, health care, gender equality, employment and 'social inclusion' — people's ability to take their place in mainstream society on level terms.
For women, being able to choose how many children to have and when can make the difference between a poor life and a better one for themselves and their children. A woman equipped with health care, education and way to make a living will not only be better off than her poorer sisters but will probably choose to have fewer children — and she can make sure her children have the same benefits that she enjoys.
Look at the words again. "Choosing to have fewer children" is us deciding our own lives; "reducing population growth" is other people telling us what to do. Which works better, in the end?
