Population Growth Problem Essay, Research Paper

The growth of the world?s population is a problem that many people see as

being addressed at some point in the future. While we live in a country that is

reaping the benefits of a superpower, most of the United States is disconnected

from the problems of population growth. In this paper, I intend to address three

major issues. How long will we be able to support our planets food needs? How

can we deal with population growth in the present day? And How come certain

areas tend to have larger population growth than other areas? But first in this

paper, I will see how the theories of sociologists and demographers fit into the

Earth?s population problem. THEORIES MARX 1818-1883 Karl Marx viewed a

capitalist society as an economic system that was bound to fail. In Marx?s

opinion this eminent failure was based in the design of the system. According to

Marx, In the capitalist economy there are two major groups; the bourgeoisie and

the proletariat. The bourgeoisie are those who own the means of production, have

the power. The proletariat are those that work for the bourgeoisie and are at

their mercy. At the economy develops, the gap between the bourgeoisie and the

proletariat grows wider and eventually all the capital is controlled by a small

percentage of the population and the proletariat is forced into poverty. To

someone with little or no sociological background, the above paragraph has

nothing to do with population as a social problem. But if you fit population

into Marx?s description of the capitalist system, it is more relevant than at

first glance. The best way to make this point clear is to provide two

hypothetical situations. Family X is a middle class family that is doing well

financially and they tend to have more children than if they are not making so

much money. But as the bourgeoisie gains more and more control, families like X

have their income driven down and ultimately have fewer children. Families must

have enough money, food, etc. to survive. If they don?t have these goods and

they can?t control their wages, they must control they must control an aspect

of their lives that would allow them to survive, whether or not to have

children. Family Z is an extremely wealthy family that more or less monopolizes

an aspect of their economy. As the economy progresses, family Z is able to drive

down the wages of their workers thereby increasing their profit. Since a family

like Z is only a small percent of the population, there is no worry whether or

not they have many children. So in our society, according to Marx, we have

nothing to worry about. As long as we continue with our economic trend,

population will fix itself. Now if you look at Marx?s theory on the whole, it

makes a lot of sense. MALTHUS 1766-1834 Malthus was a sociologist that was the

author of Population: the first essay. This essay is about the perfection of

mankind. Malthus describes the different stages that man has gone through and he

provides theory to control population. Malthus was sure that we can control

population if we are able to use moral restraint. If we can fight against our

natural urges to have children, it will keep population growth in check. One of

the reasons that we have to control our natural urges is that there will not be

enough food to support our population. Maltus feels this way because population

grows at a geometric rate, while food can only be grown at an arithmetic rate.

So we are in effect sealing our own fate by having children. Malthus says that

by thinking about all of the hardships that our children will have to face, we

will be motivated not to have them. So while Marz?s theory more or less

happens on it?s own, if we are to listen to Malthus some work is to needed by

us. WELD Weld is a contemporary Canadian sociologist that deals with population

problems from an aspect that can be more easily understood by people of our

time. In one article ?Confronting the Population Crisis the twenty one most

commonly used arguments to confound the issue.? In this article, Weld is able

to respond to those that don?t view population as a social problem. Although I

would like to go into each of Weld?s responses, this is not a paper on her, so

I will only choose a few. Her response to argument 2 is probably the most

interesting. The argument is ?Technology can make it possible to accommodate

an indefinitely expanding population.? and Weld?s response is a valid one.

Weld explains that when Paul Ehrlich wrote ?The Population Bomb? about

thirty years ago, there were about one billion people living at a level above

poverty and that there were about 2.5 billion people living in poverty. But now,

after some great technological advances there are only 1.2 billion people that

are living above poverty and 4.1 billion people living in poverty. Weld opens

her response to the argument with the following sentence that sums up this

issue, ?Those who have the greatest hopes for technology are those who

understand it least.? I never really though about that aspect, but Weld really

gave me a new perspective on the issue of technology. Argument 6 is another

great response by Weld. The argument is, ?Those who express concern about

global population are racist? I think that many people feel this way about

efforts to control the world?s population. Perhaps people are scared of this

issue because that they fear a eugenics campaign. But Weld makes a great point

in her response, she says that about 95% of global population growth occurs

among non-white people. But Weld says that many people shy away from this issue

because they fear being labeled as a racist. She says that those who are

population deniers, blame other factors than population for third world misery.

Weld raises many points that I was able to really look at in a few different

ways. Weld goes into detail on all twenty-one arguments and explains almost

every aspect of population problems in her responses. The article was very

helpful for this paper. MEADOWS Meadows is the author of a book called ?Beyond

the Limits?, which talks about the future of our planet in respect to such

things as pollution, oil production, life expectancy, etc. Meadows provides

several scenarios of what can happen to the Earth if the current trends

continue, and they are not good. Here is an example of one of Meadows scenario

in graph form: In Meadows? eyes, we as a planet have some bleak times in front

of us if we don?t change our ways soon. ISSUE 1 HOW LONG CAN WE SUPPORT THE

PLANET?S FOOD NEEDS? Ecologists at Cornell University have come up with some

very interesting findings on this issue. They say that the Earth?s optimum

population would be anything less than 2 billion people (200 million in the US).

With the projections of the world population breaking 12 billion in 50 years,

that is pretty scary. They say that if people cannot control the world?s

population, it will be done through starvation and disease. One of the trends

that they looked at for this information was the declining productivity of

cropland and the availability of clean drinking water. The ecologists say that

some of the effects can already be seen in China today. (Pimentel 1) I think

that we as a society have gotten to the point where numbers don?t scare us any

more. The above paragraph said that in 50 years, the world population is going

to be over 12 billion people. Are we really aware of how much this is? The

United States Census bureau has a population counter that they call the POPClock,

it calculates the world population and gives monthly estimations on them. On

April 1, 1999 the world population was 5,976,870,741 (U.S. Census Bureau). So in

fifty years, when today?s college students are old and gray, the world?s

population will have doubled. I don?t think that people understand that the

Earth is finite. There is only so much land to live on and to farm and there is

only so far that you can drill for natural resources before coming up empty.

ISSUE 2 HOW CAN WE DEAL WITH POPULATION GROWTH IN THE PRESENT DAY? I think that

when we look at population today, you have to remember that drastic measures

won?t work. We should make subtle changes, which don?t resemble eugenics

campaign that may start to change the momentum of population growth. Here is a

list of possible changes in the United States; 1) Take away tax write-offs for

having children. 2) Raise life and health insurance rates for people with

children. 3) Give tax breaks to people without children. 4) Raise child support

for divorced parents It would be great for the United States to slow its

population growth but we can do little or nothing about other countries where

much of the population growth is going on. So even if a superpower can change

their ways, no one can tell poor countries what to do. ISSUE 3 HOW COME CERTAIN

ARES HAVE GREATER POPULATION GROWTH THAN OTHERS DO? If you look at the

population break down in the world, you will see that there are some areas that

grow much faster than others. An interesting aspect to look at is the time

estimated for a country?s population to double. It will take the United States

116 years to double their population, Japan will take 330 years to double, and

the United Kingdom will take 433 years to double. When I saw these numbers, I

thought that population wasn?t much of a problem. But if you look at

country?s doubling time, you see a different story. For example, it will take

El Salvador only 28 years, Somalia is 22, and Pakistan is 25. These are poor

counties that have population growing faster than the rest of the world. With

the population growing as fast as they are, the farmland and clean drinking

water are going to become scarce. Plus in countries like those mentioned,

children may be seen as a sign of status, and they are definitely cheap labor.

Also, families may have many children with the hope that one of the children

will ?make it? in the world. I don?t really know how to treat the people

of other countries. But there must be a tremendous change in the standard of

living in these countries and their population growth doesn?t slow, migration

into countries like the United States will increase. So we must not sit back and

only worry about ourselves, and there must be some change. CONCLUSION The

world?s population should be viewed as a bigger problem than it is. The grim

fact remains that we may already be too late to save a lot of misery to

Earth?s inhabited. If I had to choose a particular theory that best describes

my view, it would be Karl Marx?s theory. I think that money is a very powerful

thing and I think that in the end, greed will seal our fate.