TED Conversations

Salim Solaiman

TEDCRED 100+

This conversation is closed.

Population growth is a challenge or opportunity? What's your viewpoint from your country perspective as well as global ? Why you think so ?

Lot of debates, opinions around about it . Being from a densely populated country with high population growth, numbers more skewed to the younger population , always heard from politicians , media, intellectuals & intruder global agencies (widely known as "donors") that our main problem is high population and it's growth........

Always pondering why the conclusion is so simplistic?

Today lot of countries (all developed & industrialised ones) are suffering from negative or zero population growth. Demographics skewed to older & geriatric population. Not enough people there to drive economy & take care of the senior citizens.

So they are attracting migrants in a planned way, exodus also happening in legal or illegal way to those from the poor countries which are usually having high population and growth of same.

Result the recipeint developed country get's enough workforce to drive economy in one hand on the other faces challenges from cultural , racial or religious differences. So many people over there are unhappy with immigrants and some are even just intolerant....... If you are from those developed economies what's your view point ? & Why

I disagree with the widely believed political , intellectual & "Intruders" view about my country. Currently biggest source of foreign currency reserve of my country are those poor people who either migrated to other developed economy as migrant worker or went as an permannet immigrant. Being unskilled they are doing all so called small job, being underpaid , living sub standard life, treated in humanely (in many country not all) & try to save every cent they can to send to motherland. So country was not impacted that much even with the global economic crisis.
If Govt had trained them & send them as skilled labour they could earn more & send more.
If you are from country like me, whats your view point & why ?

Similar topic is there from Dr. Hans....
http://www.ted.com/conversations/39/why_do_so_many_think_that_popu.html

Share:
  • Sep 12 2011: "Humans can invent their way out of any dilemma, population or otherwise. Malthusianism applies to animal populations, not human populations."
    Very well said.

    There is a fear - very commonly repeated by some sophisticated people who should know better - that a bigger population will mean less resources to go around. There is a certain logic to this: more people do consume more resources. However, even a first-year economics student knows better than to just look at demand; you have to look at both supply and demand.

    A larger population will consume more, yes, but they will also produce more. So the question is: which grows faster - consumption or production?

    There are two reasons to think that production will tend to grow more quickly than consumption -

    First, as time goes on, we accumulate know-how and therefore work more effectively. Technology improves, more tasks are automated, and therefore productivity per unit of labour increases. Workers have never been so productive as they are now

    Second, as population and connectedness grow, we are able to form larger collaborative groups. Something like Wikipedia couldn't have been accomplished if world population was 1 billion.

    If these trends scale up (and I see no reason they shouldn't) then as world population continues to grow, and know-how continues to accumulate, we all become wealthier and enjoy greater material abundance.
    • thumb
      Sep 12 2011: Hi Conor as you said "production will tend grow more quickly than consumption" in favour of your this hypothesis I am giving an example from my country as I did in the explanation of premise

      In 70s the population in my country was around 75 million and hunger was wide spread , country was not sef sufficient in production. Now in 2011 we have 145 million of population , the HUNGER in country went down to great extent. Though with population growth every year we lost cultivatable land for housing purpose. Reason is application of scientific farming , better pest control and also a better flow of money to the village level due to micr-credit etc etc...

      The other point is in any economy 20% people controls 80% of wealth (ref: pareto principle) , so problem arises not due to the size of population but due to skewed wealth distribution......who has more money whether can yet more or not waste a lot.....

      1974 we had a famine , Noble Winner economist Amartay Sen in his work showed how famine is not linked with lack of food but despite plenty of food how distribution challenge can bring famine. How politics can end up creating famine.....

      So lack of resource or pressure on resource can't be logic against population growth. To control population growth may be we need to go back to healthcare system of 100 years back......... so that epidemic kills people , child death, mother death get high (Malthusian theory of natural disaster etc)..

      Thanks for your thoughts
      • thumb
        Sep 15 2011: Of course nowadays, the resources are growing more quickly than the population.

        But I can read in some "scientific journals" ( 74 469 hectogram/hectare in 2009 for the wheat in France for 23 949 in 1961. [http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=567#ancor]

        These statistics don't show the consequences of this over-exploitation but I think that they show a little the disproportion when they look at the demographics of the population from 46 billions to 65...

        And the soil is not the single of our preoccupation, the first one is the quantity of water. It's not expandable. We only have 36 thousands km³ of fresh water in the world and from these 36 thousands, only 8 can be easily used. These thousands of km³ of water may seem very huge. But these 8 thousands are not arranged with equity all around the world 10 countries dispose 60 % of the world water. And the water polluted in the places like rivers, lacks or groundwater are not more used.

        Nowadays more than eight hundred of a billions of humans can't use water easily. This last statistic is going down but for how long time ?

        I'm studying English for four years and I do a lot of mistakes, sorry for that.


        I ve found this web-site a little after I've wrote this post http://www.worldometers.info/ I ve found some statistics of what I've said.
        • thumb
          Sep 17 2011: Hi Benjamin
          Thanks for your post and time.
          Nothing to be sorry, neither mine mother tongue is English , so must have lot of mistake.

          Your last link seems really interesting not sure about the authenticity though are you about it's authenticity? Please let me know, it seems in interesting site for real time data.

          Understand what you are saying about water resource, but I am confident of human innovation power .....
          Many of our natural resources are now subject to overconsumption, wastage or pollution. If look deep who are doing those ? I mean which part of the human population. If we superimpose graphs of population, wealth distribution & over consumption of resources , we might find that the population growth has very little to do with that. Hyper consumption always might be skewed to a smaller population as it's excluisve with wealth distribution. Well it's my hypothesis only so can be proven or disproven... that's why the debate is.

          The other point is data can give diifferent perception from depending on perspective one looks at, so important is to understand the insight behind the data, what drives those data etc?

          So what is your thoughts about population grwoth from your country perspective as well as it's impact on global scale.
  • thumb
    Sep 11 2011: There is no over population, there is too little infrastructure to encourage the movement of people to unpopulated regions. Large scale water transport projects could open vast tracts of land to productive agriculture and city building. The planet could easily support a thousand times its current population. It's a matter of policy, not carrying power. Humans can invent their way out of any dilemma, population or otherwise. Malthusianism applies to animal populations, not human populations.
    • thumb
      Sep 11 2011: Can't agree more. If I look back to the situation of my poor country and compare it's population of 70s and now. Population doubled also hunger diminshed to a great extent though due to increased population each year we are losing more and more cultivateable land.

      Thanks Walter for your thoughts.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Sep 13 2011: Yes everything has it's own upside and downside. It's difficult to directly correlate crime rate with population growth in terms of percentage. Crime is more linked the social stability, economic structure , wealth distribution, religious /political /racial intolerance and so on............

      Do you think countries with high crime rate has higher population? If so can please give some examples ?
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Sep 14 2011: Hi Kim
          Trying to understand what you said how population number is directly related to crime rate while you said US has high crime rate & huge population ?
          Did you wanted to mean US population is higher than China ?
          You also said China is mostly poor & has lot of crime .... I am struggling to get the link. Would help me out ?
          For the time being check this out

          http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes
          Last not least what's your view from your country perspective as well as global regarding high population and high growth of same. Do you consider it is an upside or downside ? What are your reasons?
  • thumb
    Sep 11 2011: Population density is not to be feared. Worry about over crowding is a bourgeoisie idea based upon poor urban planning and the evolution of cities from pre industrial settings. Population density is actually a MEASURE of a society's advancement.

    3rd World infrastructure development has, by and large, been dictated by globalist monopolist corporate raw materials extraction. For example, the World Bank, the IMF and others loans money to build roads from mining areas to coastal shipping points, with little concern for the internal transportation needs of the country in question. Countries who resist this dictatorship are often destabilized via commodity price manipulation or political coups. The actual operations of the globalist monopolies is not known due to media collusion. We need to use the Internet to reveal how the world really works.
  • Sep 11 2011: All opportunities have challenges to overcome.
    • thumb
      Sep 13 2011: Right you are. Then what are the challenges you see if you consider population growth as an opportunity from your country perspective as well as global and why ? Would you please share?
  • Sep 11 2011: The challenge of population growth is how to keep resource usage, pollution, and CO2 emissions under control and how to adapt living standards in countries to each other in such a way that humanity can keep living the way they do now. Nowadays there is already overpopulation when taking resource usage, pollution, and CO2 emission in account.
    I mean if we all live like Americans we would need at least four earths to have enough resources for everyone. So we need to adapt our living standards and use Technological innovations to decrease resource usage. This is the real challenge of population growth.

    But I think walter radtke is assuming that it is possible to have 1000 times more people then we have now when technological innovation like green energy is very far developed? In the current world this would not be possible, the 2 billion people living a western living style are already more then is good for the earth.
    • thumb
      Sep 12 2011: Hi Gforce
      My feeling is usage of resource is more linked with distribution of resource and which is mostly skewed to a small proportion (as mentioned in my above post). Currently who has access to more resource tend to go for hyper consumption putting pressure on environment.

      In poor country like mine one there are many rich families who owns multiple cars and also drive those on the same day by different members of the same family... but they could use only one car in a planned way ... but they are not bothering about that. Whereas vast majority is suffering because of lack enough public trasnport on the other hand with "Credit" driven intension of hyperconsumption many marginally solvent people buying and using cars causing not only higher CO2 emission but also traffic congession resulting loss of huge amount of productive hours both by themselves as well as people who don't have cars.......

      These are just my observation..... someone need to have a deep research on this subject.....just blaming population growth seems not a valid option to me
  • thumb
    Sep 11 2011: Well Salim, as you know I have gone against the trend and I am the mother of 5. Canada is in exactly the situation you describe and we need immigration to sustain our population and still some people consider me to be either uneducated (not so) or out of touch with reality because I chose to have so many children. I even had people ask me years ago if I new what was causing my pregnancies!
    Canada has policies that make it more than possible for many immigrants to gain excellent employment here in Canada if they have education and proper certification. In fact, in many of the Toronto hospitals that I have as clients, a large percentage of the staff at all levels are either first or second generation Indians.
    Given that they have chosen Canada as their homes, however, I am not convinced that it is quite fair to still have India as their main focus. If they are now Canadian, I think that their loyalty should be to their new country and sending all their money earned here "home" seems injust.
    • thumb
      Sep 12 2011: Hi Debra good to hear from you again.

      Read your post in Prof. Hans conversation. I know what you mean going against trend....it doesn't matter whether you have more or less kids.......when one having more kids and develop them as compassionate and empathetic humane she & he contributing to society instead having 1/2 kids who are not that humane...

      I agree what you said about the commitment of the immigrants to their new home. In my other post I told my feeling about immigrants they are like "trasnsplanted Organ" so always have a feeling of minority complex, tend to cling to their original identity and biased to the country where they actually don't live . But here some cultural issues needed to be considered e.g, sub continental people have commitment to their extended family to support them actually they send that money mostly.... because the whole extended family has not migrated. I guess this issue will diminish over time may be after 2-3 generations.

      Don't know much deep about US example, how many early Italians who came to US still send back money.... I feel it went down..... as the kid who borns in new country to her/him the country of his father or mother is not that pivotal.....

      Your kids should be proud of a mother like you.... sure I am they are.....
      • thumb
        Sep 12 2011: Salim, I am so grateful for and I so much enjoy your courtly friendliness.

        There is a huge election issue in my province right now because one party has promised extra help for people educated in other countries for getting renewed certification which is accepted in Canada in addition to the programs which are currently in place.
        I have never faced the issues of transplantation (but as you know I hope to live in another country soon and I will learn) but we are generally a people who enjoy our immigrants. We do not even assimilate their foods with a new name. We always call the food by the country of origin - for example even generations later we call it Italian food, Chinese food, Thai food, etc out of respect rather than renaming it a curry or something else and we love our ethic foods.

        Yes, the early Italian waves and Polish waves, and many others faced the same pressures of loneliness, divided loyalties and divided familie and sent money home primarily to bring the rest of their families to join them. Immigrants with time do become the vibrant new blood of our country and to the largest extent they become our most loyal defenders of what we are creating here.