Isn't it Europe that is overpopulated, rather than Africa?

A good small opinion piece stating the obvious for the person who has their eyes wide open; Europe & North America (the Global North) wants to reduce population of other nations, just so more resources are available for their own populations.

This cry of "world does not have enough resources to sustain billions more people" & hence, we all need to start working on family planning & reduce world population is a complete lie. Ironically enough, European & North American countries incentivize human breeding in the guise that they need to increase their population, whereas, people in Asia, Africa, & Latin America are subjected to family planning lectures & medicines.

If the Global North is looking at its finances for the future & seeing a huge shortfall, & plugging that shortfall means that more tax-paying citizens & their industries needing labour are required, & since, it is so worried about the developing world not being able to sustain their growing populations, then why not open up the immigration process. Why not make the immigration process easier & hassle-free, so more people from the developing regions can move to developed European & North American countries, to help further develop their host countries & their own individual social, & financial, well-being. It's a win-win solution for all. But, no, that's not what the West wants.

As the author correctly states in the conclusion that all this talk of overpopulation & unsustainable population growth for the developing countries, is "because some other nations want those resources for their own people instead."

As I always say that population growth is not the problem for the increasing unsustainability, & hence, population control won't solve the problem, but, the actual problem lies with the unsustainable & disproportionate use of available resources. As the author points out in the piece, the West uses a lot more resources, proportionate to its population, than the developing countries of the world. Hence, the real solution lies in controlling the use of resources. Can the West do that; reduce the unsustainable use of resources?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2016/jan/11/europe-africa-overpopulated-global-population

When you arrive in Europe for the first time, the first shock you get is seeing how overpopulated the place is, especially the western part.

A small country like France, which is 5 times smaller than the Democratic Republic of Congo, has about the same population – 67 million inhabitants. The UK is smaller than Gabon, but has a population of more than 60 million inhabitants, compared to Gabon’s population of just over 1.5 million. The worst example is a micro country like Belgium (just over 30000 km square, 167 times smaller than the Congo) which has a population of 11 million. That’s 365 people per km square, compared to the DRC’s rate of 30.

The first question you ask yourself is how they manage to feed themselves in a resource-poor continent like Europe? Why do they have so many kids when Europe is already the only continent to send more than half a billion economic and political refugees to other richer places of the world during the last five centuries? Is it because of the high fertility rate of their men or because of the cold weather which forces them to spend lots of time inside with only one activity left … copulation!

For many people concerned about overpopulation, Africa takes the centre of attention because of the recent growth of its population. But the concept of overpopulation is a fraud and a convenient ideology, because it ignores impact per capita (per one person) and focuses on simple numerics.

In reality, the USA consumes 25% of the world’s resources while its population is only 5% of the total. The west as a block - the USA and Europe - represents slightly less than 15% of the world’s population, but its consumption far outstrips most of the rest of the world, with one study finding that the US, Europe and Japan together suck up 80% of the world’s natural resources.

Africa, as a whole, has a population smaller than China, and a total GDP which is half that of a small country like France. Considering that it’s an already overpopulated continent, it’s surprising that many European countries give incentives to families to make more babies. And, for an already underpopulated continent, Africa is crowded with western overpopulation experts giving money to NGOs and governments to stop population growth. In the meantime, China is abandoning its one child policy to boost its population.

It is only in Africa that we talk about having population reduction funded by western NGOs and governments. Is it because Africa does not have resources to feed 2 billion people? No. It’s because some other nations want those resources for their own people instead.

I hope you won’t bite on this new covert war on the poor – another distraction from the real culprits. The world is overpopulated, so let’s have less rich people. That should be the real agenda.

Mawuna Remarque Koutonin is the editor of SiliconAfrica.com and a social activist for Africa Renaissance.

Just growing more food won't help to feed the world

I liked this article because of couple of reasons:

1. As it states in its first paragraph that "we already grow enough food for 10 billion people." Now, I don't know where this author got this number of 10 billion, but the fact it is stating is definitely true. Many people commonly comment after hearing that billions are malnourished in the world & the world needs more resources to cope with increasing population that the world needs less people & hence, the public around the world needs to reduce their birth rate.

Problem is not high or low birth rate. Problem of how the world is going to sustain 9 billion people in the next 35 years is not going to be resolved by reproducing less. Problem lies with inefficiency & unequal distribution of existing resources. Our world is more than capable of producing more than enough resources to sustain billions more, but nothing is sustainable when those resources are tightly controlled by a few rich elites, at the individual level & the national level.

As per latest Oxfam report, the world has 62 billionaires who have as much wealth as half of the world's population (that's 3.5 billion). Do these billionaires need all that wealth to comfortably live in this world? Of course not. A human's wish to comfortably live in this world can be fulfilled with a very few needs. But hoarding cash, or resources, only makes the world more unequal, & hence, unsustainable for billions of poor around the world.

Then, we got inequality at the national level. As the article also suggests, the global north, or economically rich countries, not only overconsume, but also waste a lot of food, & in general, resources. Lots of African & Middle Eastern countries are thirsty for water & wasting water to make swimming pools & lush green lawns are a "necessity" in US & Canada. Obesity is a major health problem in the global north because people cannot stop stuffing their faces, while malnourishment, or even famine, is rampant in the global south.

2. Control of agricultural practices by a few giant industrial companies, e.g. Monsanto. People readily say that GMO seeds & chemicals (i.e. fertilizers, pesticides etc.) are required to grow more food in fewer areas, since, we need to grow more food to feed the increasing population.

As the article once again stresses the point that these giant agricultural companies don't help the environment & the agricultural practices by forcing small-scale farmers to buy special seeds from them only & grow specific crops. I am not against GMO seeds since I don't even know if they do cause cancer or not. But I do know that forcing farmers to grow specific crops, which are more of money makers (cash crops) than letting them diversify which crops are grown (which helps in keeping the soil nourished in the natural way, instead of through chemicals) destroy the soil longevity.

Now, the article also provides a few recommendations to improve agricultural practices to increase efficiency & reduce unnecessary losses in losing vital crops. I, on the other hand, am less optimistic that these recommendations will ever be implemented by international organizations & companies, because giant agricultural companies, like Monsanto, heavily lobby organizations, at national & international levels, to help extend their own agendas (increase profitability & share prices) at the expense of environment & people's lives & health.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/jul/29/growing-more-food-wont-help-feed-world-agriculture-climate-resilient 

The World Bank’s view that we need to grow 50% more food by 2050 to feed 9 billion people, while finding ways to reduce carbon emissions from agriculture at the same time, ignores one very simple fact – we already grow enough food for 10 billion people.

But a combination of storage losses after harvest, overconsumption & waste mean that some 800 million people in developing countries are malnourished.

The storage losses mainly affect the global south ... Overconsumption & waste mainly affect the global north.

The challenge of feeding the world is not simply met through increases in production – this is precisely how the so-called green revolution created our current problems.

The answer lies in increasing the climate resilience of agriculture in ways that reverse the catastrophic environmental degradation of the last 50 years while also making production more efficient.

The green revolution that took place in the 1960s, increasing cereal production in developing countries, is credited with saving a billion lives. But today the environmental toll from this boom is all too evident.

The statistics tell the story – 38% of the planet’s cropland is degraded, 11% of the irrigated area is salt contaminated, 90% of the biodiversity of the 20 main staple crops has been lost, nitrogen fertiliser produces 6% of greenhouse gases & its runoff creates 400 marine “dead zones” (areas where oxygen concentration is so low that animal life suffocates), & more than 350,000 people die every year from pesticide toxicity.

Research on planetary boundaries estimates that nitrogen fertiliser use needs to decline by 75% to avoid large-scale environmental impact of this kind. The focus on productivity over efficiency has meant that the amount of energy needed to grow the same quantity of food has increased by between one-quarter & one-third over the last 25 years. Even without climate change, conventional chemical agriculture is driving humanity towards a food-security cliff.

A Christian Aid briefing paper argues that if we are to reverse this situation in the face of climate change, agriculture needs a transformative change in the way it addresses climate resilience.

Small-scale farmers & pastoralists, who manage 60% of agricultural land & produce 50% of the planet’s food, should be central to this agenda. Research to solve their problems should be guided by their priorities, & take place largely on their farms.

The kind of support farmers want often includes advice on soil management & testing, reliable climate forecasts, & development of their own seed & livestock breeding processes. The advice they get usually revolves around unaffordable chemical fertilisers & pesticides, while their ability to exchange & sell locally adapted crop seeds is threatened by corporate-inspired legislation promoting crop varieties developed in distant biotech labs.
...

For farmers to invest in resilience, they need secure land tenure, especially when they participate in communal land-tenure systems. Land deals with largely foreign buyers have increased to 55 million hectares. This not only dispossesses farmers but also undermines the confidence that others need to invest in measures to control land erosion, in trees & in other adaptations that pay off over several years.

Activities that degrade soils, forests & other vital catchment protection resources inevitably result in greater vulnerability downstream – through flood damage, increased exposure to cyclones & more intense drought, all of which affect food production.

The good news is that by empowering farmers to develop climate resilient agriculture, it is possible to envisage the elimination of extreme hunger in 15 years. The conservation of resources & use of environment-enhancing approaches, such as conservation agriculture, agroforestry & integrated pest management, have been shown to yield more & deliver significantly better resilience to climate extremes than conventional, chemical agriculture. Such practices also reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition, increasing access to markets can turn agriculture into an engine that drives diversified, sustainable rural economies.

The World Bank’s call for climate-smart agriculture includes focusing on sustainable water use, countering gender inequality, & increased research.

It should also acknowledge the need for a truly three-dimensional approach to reversing the environmental degradation & climate change that “20th-century technology” has caused. Such an approach would include plans to strengthen the review of World Bank Environmental & Social Safeguards to ensure lending enables, rather than undermines, climate resilience for small-scale farmers & pastoralists in developing countries.


Richard Ewbank is climate advisor for Christian Aid

Indonesia facing overpopulation crisis

The problem with limited resources for an increasing population, in Indonesia & around the world, are not anything to do reproducing more people or family planning. There are more than enough resources in this world to easily sustain an increasing population, because the nature keeps the population of the world in a balance. If people are being born, then people are also dying at an increasing rate, through natural or human causes (gun violence, car accidents, airplane crashes etc.).

Primary problem is the resources are concentrated in a few hands & those hands keep amassing more resources without letting any go. Some of those resources are being controlled by the governments & politicians around the world are corrupt career politicians. They all either take lobbying payments (legal) or bribes (illegal) to essentially do the same thing; favour one party's benefits over another's.

Green economy is touted around the world but no country, except very few, e.g. some European countries, Asian superpowers (China & India), & some Southeastern countries (e.g. Singapore) are actually doing something in this regard. Most countries are not doing anything either because they don't have financial power or fossil fuel industries are way too strong in their countries.

Green economy would have reduced or mitigated the adverse effects of climate change by now, if these efforts would have started a few decades ago. These efforts would have also provided jobs, increased GDP, & positively supported the economies. But, for this to happen, all countries need to work together towards a common goal, instead of fighting like little kids in the playpen (this usually happens in those trade & climate change conferences every year, & hence, after so many gatherings of the "bright minds" of our world, we still are headed head-long into a worldwide disaster).

Another problem is consumerism of the masses. Instead of reducing unnecessary increase in consumption, thanks to slick marketing efforts of multinational corporations around the world, everyone wants everything at any cost.

Financial resources are, as I said earlier, concentrated in a few hands. These elites keep amassing fortunes at the expense of the general public of their own race & ethnicity. They have no compassion for their own people.

We can apply the same idea to housing, food, & water shortages. Clean water is already very little in the world & even then, it is getting polluted, through fracking, for instance, in US. California is in a 4-year drought & there is no let up in its condition. Food production & affordable housing availability; all can be attributed to limited resources not being deployed in a proper efficient & effective manner. If these limited resources could have been or still can be deployed in a responsible manner, then these crises can be easily averted.

I believe you got the general idea what I am trying to say. Resources, be they be financial, food, water, housing, transportation, energy etc. are keep getting concentrated in a few hands. The general public is left to fight for a few scraps at the bottom of the barrel. Instead of working collaboratively towards a common goal of creating a thriving worldwide economy & life for everyone, regardless of our differences, we all are headed for worldwide disaster & human suffering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.aljazeera.com/blogs/asia/2015/03/indonesia-facing-overpopulation-crisis-150319200635063.html

You know a country is overpopulated when people cannot afford to queue. In Indonesia this is visible every day at bus & train stations.
 
Transport facilities have long lost their battle with exploding demand.
 
Even the most polite people turn into animal-like creatures when a bus or train arrives. Something that might have looked like a queue disappears instantly & the best & most aggressive pushers are getting on board. Unless every inch inside the vehicle is taken already.
 
I have learned this the hard way. Trying to be polite will cost you many hours of waiting on a weekly basis. The only real queues are the long lines of cars queuing patiently day-in, day-out on nearly every stretch of road in every major city. Yes, it is that bad.
 
Onboard a bus or train, the situation is hardly any better. I cannot help thinking about sardines. Passengers, deep in each other’s private space, have one thing in common: An empty gaze on their faces revealing their attempt to temporarily exit from humanity.
 
These daily scenes remind me of those ahead of the Eid festival when rich people hand out money to the poor who die fighting for a few dollars. Or those of children offered candy. Rarely-seen aggression on their innocent faces when they are trying to get their share. Politely waiting for your turn is only affordable to those who know there is enough for everyone.
 
Demographic experts warn this is just the beginning. If the population boom continues, Indonesia will face problems a lot worse than transport nightmares or people fighting for small cash.
 
Already Indonesia is facing housing, water & food shortages & massive natural destruction. For years now, the country has imported basic food like rice because there are not enough fields to grow food for its 250 million people. These food shortages will only get worse according to experts.
 
Not many Indonesians would blame overpopulation for these problems. Ineffective government, corruption, God or nature - anything but the size of their families is to blame. An important credo says "many children means many benefits". The idea that children are the safest retirement plan is still prevalent. And with democratisation the country has given its people the liberty to produce as many as they like.
 
Meanwhile, the government proudly keeps citing statistics. Indonesia, the fourth largest country in the world, the third largest democracy, the tenth largest economy.
 
The word overpopulation has turned into a much more friendly term: demographic bonus; hundreds of millions of people are an interesting crowd for investors, or when it comes to power on a geopolitical level.
 
But what about quality of life? A term more frequently used now. When are Indonesians finally getting tired of battling for survival or simply struggling to get to work every day?
 
With a fast-growing middle class, the demand for quality of life is increasing around the country. Fresh air, clean drinking water, proper education, efficient public services will all be just a dream for most Indonesians as long as the credo "more children, more benefits" still exists.

Water crisis coming in 15 years unless the world acts now, UN report warns

It's funny how humans themselves are causing more crises in the world than the nature ever could. And it's happening more & more in this modern world, when a great majority is supposed to be educated. Although, a lot of developing countries have a large mass of poor who are not educated, but they are not cause of this crisis but they are the first ones who will suffer from these water & general environmental crises. The developed countries, which are educated & much better technology to help resolve these crises, are the ones which created these environmental problems & are willing to do more harm than good.
 
Some will counter with the argument that the world has too many people now & population control is the answer to resolve these problems. Increasing population is not the problem & controlling it won't resolve the climate change problem. Primary problem is the concentration of resources in a very few hands & those hands are misusing those resources.
 
For instance, the developed countries (e.g. G8 countries) could've used the opportunity of recession as the impetus to invest heavily in alternative energy & consumer products using alternative energy, e.g. transportation systems using alternative energy. That would've solved the problem of job creation & perhaps, could've took the world out of recession much more quicker.
 
Now, cars (e.g. Tesla) are being made to work on alternative modes of energy, but those won't be affordable for the general public for, at least, 10-20 years. Plus, in the race to becoming energy independent, America is allowing fracking all over the country to extract oil & gas, & turning a blind eye to the problems of polluting little clean water the country has, which is getting polluted because of fracking.
 
These water crises could have been managed much more astutely in the past 10-20 years where we wouldn't be having these reports of impending doom & gloom. Science was much farther ahead in coming up with products to counter the problems of climate change, but the leaders of developed countries never took any meaningful steps towards resolving these crises.
 
Now, the problems have snowballed to where the poor masses of the developed & developing countries, alike, will suffer the most & eventually, the rich will feel the pressure & pain of neglecting the suffering of the poor. Water, unlike oil, is much more vital resource & people will rise up, much more violently, when they are robbed off this basic vital resource to keep themselves alive.
 
On a side note, Islam told its followers 1,500 years ago to use water very carefully because you will be questioned, on Judgement Day, for each & every drop of water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/water-crisis-coming-in-15-years-unless-the-world-acts-now-un-urges/article23551722/

The world could suffer a 40% shortfall in water in just 15 years unless countries dramatically change their use of the resource, a UN report warned.
 
Many underground water reserves are already running low, while rainfall patterns are predicted to become more erratic with climate change. As the world’s population grows to an expected 9 billion by 2050, more groundwater will be needed for farming, industry & personal consumption.
 
The report predicts global water demand will increase 55% by 2050, while reserves dwindle. If current usage trends don’t change, the world will have only 60% of the water it needs in 2030, it said.
 
Having less available water risks catastrophe on many fronts: crops could fail, ecosystems could break down, industries could collapse, disease & poverty could worsen, & violent conflicts over access to water could become more frequent.

“Unless the balance between demand & finite supplies is restored, the world will face an increasingly severe global water deficit,” the annual World Water Development Report said, noting that more efficient use could guarantee enough supply in the future.
 
The report ... calls on policy makers & communities to rethink water policies, urging more conservation as well as recycling of wastewater as is done in Singapore. Countries may also want to consider raising prices for water, as well as searching for ways to make water-intensive sectors more efficient & less polluting, it said.
 
In many countries, including India, water use is largely unregulated & often wasteful. Pollution of water is often ignored & unpunished. At least 80% of India’s population relies on groundwater for drinking to avoid bacteria-infested surface waters.
 
In agriculture-intense India, where studies show some aquifers are being depleted at the world’s fastest rates, the shortfall has been forecast at 50% or even higher. Climate change is expected to make the situation worse, as higher temperatures & more erratic weather patterns could disrupt rainfall.
 
Currently, about 748 million people worldwide have poor access to clean drinking water, the report said, cautioning that economic growth alone is not the solution – & could make the situation worse unless reforms ensure more efficiency & less pollution.

“Unsustainable development pathways & governance failures have affected the quality & availability of water resources, compromising their capacity to generate social & economic benefits,” it said. “Economic growth itself is not a guarantee for wider social progress.”

Gandhi on Food for everyone

Especially directed towards those who always say, "curb population growth. There's not enough resources in this world."
 
There are more than enough resources in this world to support everyone, but it's up to us (or perhaps our governments) to decide how best to use our resources to satisfy everyone's needs; be it financial, energy, human, water, or food resources.