When you talk about issues such as hunger, planetary survival, and human rights certain debates inevitably come up, involving the causes of famine and hungers first of all. Secondly what should be done about it.
To a large extent debates over world hunger come down to two different schools of thought. Of course both have their share of variations, but there are two basic categories.
1) Political:
According to this view there is and at least since the 19th century, has always been more than enough food to feed humanity. Starvation is fundamentally based on inequality, failed policies, devious political motives, distribution problems, and sometimes even intentional genocide rather than a lack of food. According to this view most damage to environment is the result of greed rather than need. Some proponents of the humanistic view such as the Roman Catholic Church go so far to argue that even concerns about population are simply a cover for racism and eugenics. However, not everyone who is opposed to population control endorses shares the Catholic Church's views about contraception and family planning. Many feminist especially in the developing world see birth control, family planning, and even access to safe abortions as essential a health and human rights issue. To such feminists both policies seeking to limit births and those seeking to limit birth control and safe abortions are equal violators of women's rights, and putting their ideological purism over medical needs and personal freedom. And while they differ with the Vatican on the ethics of human reproduction, they fully agree that population control is fundamentally racist and anti-human.
2) Malthusian:
According to this view most famines are the result of overpopulation. In this view things such as natural disasters, droughts, blights, dictators, war, and bad policy were simply the strawhat broke the camel's back. Many proponents of this view consider famine aid unethical because they believe it will simply prolong the inevitable, and ultimately mean that larger numbers of people will die of starvation. Some even argue that war evolved as means of getting rid of excess population, and that peaceniks were actually setting humanity up for mass starvation. However, other Malthusians point out that wars actually tend to bring on "baby booms" and ultimately mean a larger population.
Furthermore studies that lowering infant mortality and raising literacy in the poor communities tends to bring down birth rates has led to something of a kinder and gentler Malthusianism. Whereas previous Malthusians might have considered providing medical care to children of the destitute misguided and otherwise "part of the problem".
Needless to say that these two drastically different views, have provoked some very bitter controvery for at least two centuries. And proponents of both views have spent 150 years arguing over Ireland's notorious "Great Famine" (aka An Gorta Mor, "The Potato Famine"), and just about every well known case of mass starvation that's happened since. (The debate often differed when the famine happened in a Communist country, but that's a another story.)
After so many decades of bitter disagreement is any common ground possible?
I would submit that the reality does not conform entirely to either view. It is obviously true that theoretically it is possible for the number of people to outstrip the amount of food that can be grown, and the amount of water required to provide a minimal standard of living. The earth has only so much arable land, and there is no denying that unless we can have enough space colonies (which are extremely expensive) that can grow their own food ala Biosphere II, to considerably lower earth's population, that we can run into such limits.
And it is possible debate exactly how many people the earth can support. At the moment, I don't think we know the answer with any certainty, because there is some genuine disagreement about the number among scientists. Not to mention the fact that we can't predict every variable involved from new technologies, to how much global warming will affect food production.
But that uncertainty shouldn't detract from the fact that limits do exist.
Furthermore, I think we can agree that war is not an effective "solution". First of all, war consumes massive resources in and of itself, and destroys ecosystems, watersheds, farmland, and human settlements. So even if war could "control the population" it would also largely defeat the purpose. Secondly, war isn't really a means of population control, because after they end birth rates tend to rise.
Perhaps the most controversial point, that I think can be demonstrated is that the idea of limits on human population is not exclusive with the idea that most famines are the result of political issues, distribution, and inequality rather than a lack of food. One major source of evidence for this is the fact that so far no famine has ever occurred in a solidly Democratic nation with a free press. This fact, was first highly by Nobel Prize winning economist Amatrya Sen, who has extensively researched various famines and found that issues of distribution, and failed policies were the major causes. His interest grew out of his own experiences growing up in British controlled India, where he witnessed the Bengal Famine of 1943 as a nine year old.
In short, it is reasonable to conclude that although it is possible for human population to cause a food shortage, that most food shortages are not caused by overpopulation. And letting people starve is not a solution to overpopulation.
Finally, I think it can be agreed that a woman's right to family planning and birth control need not be predicated on population control. There are many health issues, as well as the matter of personal liberty to support the idea that women should not be forced into a position where having sex voluntary or not, should not mean they are obligated to spend most of their adult lives pregnant. This may be controversial in some circles, but the case can stand up on the basis of women's rights, rather than depending on the population issue.
I know that this is perhaps the most controversial topic I've raised. And I would like to hear some feedback. I've been asked questions by some readers over e-mail, which not all of you know. But you can leave a comment on this blog if you are registered with blogspot.
Say Goodnight Readers!
Good points.
ReplyDelete