Will helping Third World countries increase overpopulation?

[Milbrandt]

Note: I hope this is the right forum and sub-forum to put this. It's a big issue with maybe no simple answers, but I'd like to hear what skeptics think about this.

This is an argument I hear a lot when people are discussing development aids. They argue that it is of no or little use to help Third World countries, because it will only increase overpopulation (which is the cause of many of their problems in the first place). My first reaction would be that this sounds logical. If more people have access to proper health care, food and fresh drinking water, less people will die and thus the population will grow (more).

But is overpopulation really the cause of their problems, or is it (also) an effect of it? Death is not the only factor of overpopulation of course. Birth is the other factor. It's a simple matter of “input and output” to put it somewhat disrespectfully. I believe that in most Third World countries people have more children on average than in First World (developed) countries. I haven't studied this, but I'm pretty sure this is true.

Now why is that? It could be cultural factors, but also economical factors. Maybe people in the Third World have more children so that their offspring can take care of them when they are old and can't take care of themselves well enough. Also, maybe they don't want to have so many children, but they don't know enough about birth control, or there might be a taboo on birth control (in some countries this is definitely the case, due to religious and cultural issues).

If people have more access to food, water, education and health care, wouldn't there be less reason to have so many children? Or do you think cultural/religious factors play bigger roles? I think that education is a big factor in this too. If people can get good jobs and learn about (among other things) birth control thanks to good education, they will be more independent and might have less children. Right?

All in all I wonder how much general quality of life influences the birth and death numbers and thereby population growth. Do you know of any studies that were done on this subject? And what are your thoughts on this?

For the record: Right now, I think that the argument (helping will increase overpopulation) doesn't hold up well, but I'd like to know what other people think of this.

 

[drkitten]

This is an argument I hear a lot when people are discussing development aids. They argue that it is of no or little use to help Third World countries, because it will only increase overpopulation (which is the cause of many of their problems in the first place). My first reaction would be that this sounds logical. If more people have access to proper health care, food and fresh drinking water, less people will die and thus the population will grow (more).

It's "logical" but empirically untrue. As public health increases, so does public wealth, and as public wealth increases, birthrate typically drops.

There's some lag-time, of course. But that's one of the reasons that the UN is predicting world population to achieve a peak sometime in 2050 or thereabouts and then begin to decrease.

 

[Architect]

Dr. Kitten is bang on the money. I remember covering this in Higher Geography back at school, circa 1985-6.

 

[C_Felix]

Note: I hope this is the right forum and sub-forum to put this. It's a big issue with maybe no simple answers, but I'd like to hear what skeptics think about this.

This is an argument I hear a lot when people are discussing development aids. They argue that it is of no or little use to help Third World countries, because it will only increase overpopulation (which is the cause of many of their problems in the first place). My first reaction would be that this sounds logical. If more people have access to proper health care, food and fresh drinking water, less people will die and thus the population will grow (more).

But is overpopulation really the cause of their problems, or is it (also) an effect of it? Death is not the only factor of overpopulation of course. Birth is the other factor. It's a simple matter of “input and output” to put it somewhat disrespectfully. I believe that in most Third World countries people have more children on average than in First World (developed) countries. I haven't studied this, but I'm pretty sure this is true.

Now why is that? It could be cultural factors, but also economical factors. Maybe people in the Third World have more children so that their offspring can take care of them when they are old and can't take care of themselves well enough. Also, maybe they don't want to have so many children, but they don't know enough about birth control, or there might be a taboo on birth control (in some countries this is definitely the case, due to religious and cultural issues).

If people have more access to food, water, education and health care, wouldn't there be less reason to have so many children? Or do you think cultural/religious factors play bigger roles? I think that education is a big factor in this too. If people can get good jobs and learn about (among other things) birth control thanks to good education, they will be more independent and might have less children. Right?

All in all I wonder how much general quality of life influences the birth and death numbers and thereby population growth. Do you know of any studies that were done on this subject? And what are your thoughts on this?

For the record: Right now, I think that the argument (helping will increase overpopulation) doesn't hold up well, but I'd like to know what other people think of this.

^^^^
I see what you did there.


I think part of "them" having 6-7 kids is in the hope that at least 2-3 will survive.

Part of the problem is education about birth control. The Vatican is mostly to blame for that.

 

[Delvo]

As public health increases, so does public wealth

Only if other circumstances allow it.

 

[Milbrandt]

There's some lag-time, of course. But that's one of the reasons that the UN is predicting world population to achieve a peak sometime in 2050 or thereabouts and then begin to decrease.

Interesting what you said about lag-time there. Because it points out the difference between short-term and long-term effects. I can imagine the population growing at first, but in the long run decreasing. Like I said, this is not an exact science. This does of course raise the question on how to cope with the initial growth. Is it an obstacle we can take, or will it be too much? I guess it is about persistence and consistency in helping countries and hoping the "helping countries" won't give up, even when it might get worse at first.

I think part of "them" having 6-7 kids is in the hope that at least 2-3 will survive.

Part of the problem is education about birth control. The Vatican is mostly to blame for that.

Agree on the Vatican there.
But won't having just 2 or 3 children increase their chances in life in the first place? Or maybe that's just my way of thinking that "they" are not used to. Also an educational matter I guess.

 

[Architect]

I take it you have no understanding of how high mortality rates can be in third world countries? It doesn't make impressive reading, IIRC.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Question is how much the birth is controlled. Some people say that in many countries it is not at all. Women do not choose if they want to have children or not. Men want to have sex. And so there is sex. And so there are children. If they die they die, if they live they live.
Easy to obtain contraception which would work on woman side could be the key. But actually I haven't heard about any of such activity.
Food for sure wont help .. it will only increase number of starving. Pharmaceuticals can help, for sure ease suffering, and they are applicable in areas where there is enough food and water. But they can turn area where the population is limited by disease to area where the population is again limited by food and water.
In many cases the actual regime is to blame .. and no help can be even delivered to those who need it .. or the country would be in no problem at all, if it was not in constant war. Military intervention would be in place .. but who would fight for countries which have nothing, and there is still danger it will not be understood well and you may end up as enemy.
In the end it may show then 'let them solve it by them selves' might be harsh, but the least harsh from other alternatives.

 

[Milbrandt]

I take it you have no understanding of how high mortality rates can be in third world countries? It doesn't make impressive reading, IIRC.

Not exactly no, but I have an idea. It's high. Are you saying that the high mortality rate in third world countries compensates for the many births? That would mean that population growth doesn't come from those countries.
Or did I misunderstand your point?

 

[Architect]

Not exactly no, but I have an idea. It's high. Are you saying that the high mortality rate in third world countries compensates for the many births? That would mean that population growth doesn't come from those countries.
Or did I misunderstand your point?

No, I'm saying that 2-3 kids does not guarantee at least one surviving into adulthood for many of the poorest populations.

 

[Almo]

How can the Vatican be mostly to blame when catholics aren't in the majority?

 

[yomero]

^^^^
I see what you did there.


I think part of "them" having 6-7 kids is in the hope that at least 2-3 will survive.

Part of the problem is education about birth control. The Vatican is mostly to blame for that.

Interesting what you.....



Agree on the Vatican there.
But won't having just 2 or 3 children increase their chances in life in the first place? Or maybe that's just my way of thinking that "they" are not used to. Also an educational matter I guess.

How can the Vatican be mostly to blame when catholics aren't in the majority?

For over 30 years I worked for Mexico's IMSS (Mexican Institute for Social Security), which is resposible for the complete health care of 46% of our population. In one of our states, Coahuila, 87% of mothers who gave birth in IMSS hospitals, left with one of several methods of birth control. http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ntrol+natalidad+IMSS&cd=3&hl=es&ct=clnk&gl=mx

First, the mother and her husband receive a talk to discuss the birth control options available. If they agree, the method chosen is implemented. In my experience, the small percentage that refuses control very seldom mention religious motives. In Mexico 88% of the population is nominally Catholic, but I have never noticed a campaign by the church's hierarchy against family planning. For the last 10 years our national president has been a member of the conservative, pro-catholic PAN political party. Our constitution demands a strict separation of church and state, consequently population control policies have been mantained including those by government managed institutions such as IMSS.

The fact that I am an atheist does not prevent me from noticing that in my country the church has made no effort to hinder the government's and the people's wish for birth control.

 

[Nosi]

For the record: Right now, I think that the argument (helping will increase overpopulation) doesn't hold up well, but I'd like to know what other people think of this.

I think that FEMALE education along with birth control will be key in keeping the birth rate in check and bringing quality of life up for those in the Third World. Too many women are with out control of their own lives, forced to marry young thus having no say in the sex act or child bearing.

 

[qayak]

Note: I hope this is the right forum and sub-forum to put this. It's a big issue with maybe no simple answers, but I'd like to hear what skeptics think about this.

[Snipped]

I have heard this argument on a couple of occasions but I think you got it wrong. The problem is not with all aid to under developed countries. The problem is with huge quantities of food aid during famines

It goes something like this: The area in question cannot produce enough food to feed the people there, which is why they are starving during a famine. Maximum population is not the number of people you can feed during a bumper crop period, it is the number of people you can feed with the worst yield.

Traditionally, the population booms during good years and then there is a die off during a famine. When you feed the people through a famine, the population increases just as it would with a good crop. Population keeps increasing so the next time there is a famine, you have even more people to feed.

It gets to the point where there are too many people to feed even when there is a bumper crop.

That's the simple version. Is it true? I have heard a couple of arguments that it is and a coupel that it isn't. I can't say for sure. For most people though, it comes down to a choice of helping people in need, or not. Most people choose to help so even if it is true, it isn't going to change anything.

 

[qayak]

I think that FEMALE education along with birth control will be key . . .

Agreed, along with allowing women to vote and hold office.