21st Century Demographics: Highs and Lows
Based on the analysis of expected population changes and transfers discussed in the article, make one, just one, prediction of how our lives will be different 50 years from now.
Politics of the Developing Nations POSC 311
This blog is a pedagogical tool for Dr. Khan's Politics of Developing Nations [POSC 311-010] class.
About Me
-
- Name:Muqtedar Khan
Dr. Muqtedar Khan is Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Delaware. He is a Non-resident Fellow at the Brookings Institution. He is the author of American Muslims: Bridging Faith and Freedom (Amana, 2002), Jihad for Jerusalem: Identity and Strategy in International Relations (Praeger, 2004).
- Asian Values
- Eastern Philosophy
- Defining Globalization
- The United States of Globalization
- Global Development Network
- enotes on Developing Nations
- These are links to Globalization and the Developing World
- Defining the Third World/Developing World
- Brief History of India
Links
Monday, September 05, 2005
Based on the analysis of expected population changes and transfers discussed in the article, make one, just one, prediction of how our lives will be different 50 years from now.
13 Comments:
Listing off shocking statistics about projected population growth is really a reality check. How much of the growth expected is sustainable? Where does all the waste go for 9 billion people? Who can afford to support a health care system with 30% of the population over 65? I dont doubt that many of the statistics are correct, I just wonder why more governments aren't willing to look at the long term quality of life and see that at some point sacrifices are going to need to be made, but no one is willing to do it, just leave the challenge for the next generation.
In 50 years from now, there are many aspects of our lives that are going to be very different (besides the fact that we have gray hair). For quite some time now, the United States has slowly been on its way to abandoning the standard image of an American family, which is typically that there is a husband and a wife, and the husband works a 9 to 5 job while the wife stays at home and cooks and cleans, etc. Over the years, there have become a lot more women that are working jobs as well as their husbands, and not just staying home all day. There are many families where the wife is even the main source of income. There are also many different family situations now, such as two men or women marrying and adopting kids. In 50 years from now, the United States will be a lot more diverse and liberal than it once was. There will be more men married to men, and more women married to women, and more families that have two moms, or two dads. Also, more and more women will continue to work in many fields that they were once only available ot men. There will be fewer stay at home wives, and women will get more of the privelages that men have had all along,and perhaps receive equal pay for same jobs. In 2050, the world is going to be a very different place than what we know of it today.
Half of the projected 76 million will be born in six less-developed countries and the majority of the growth will be concentrated in urban areas compared to historic rural dwellers. It is prevalent that the developed nations need to help now. Super-nations can begin projects in these cities to build housing/job opportunities to support the future generations. In the mist of outside involvement, the less developed countries will adopt new technologies and progress to compete in the global level. And developed-nations need to take interest in these six countries for their own well-being. Developed countries will experience declining populations marked by lower fertility replacement levels at the same time the population is doubling in under-developed urban cities. They will face social, economic, and cultural consequences due to low fertility in their own neighborhoods, as well as social, economic, and cultural consequences in less-developed nations as the population amplifies. First-World nations must begin contracting agreements and educational services in Third-World nations to secure global economic stability in 2050.
I have a question though. Ironically, today in one of my anthropology classes we were discussing the very same graph that is appearing on this post. My anthro professor was saying how an economist named Malthus was the first to postulate that the human population could grow exponentially and feasibly double every 25 years or so. However, isn't it also true that this will work in theory but in practice, population size can only grow in relation to the amount of food and other resources? In this case, shouldn't we reach a carrying capacity on human population because of our limiting resources? We have a huge population even right now (and a lot of poverty and starvation already present in the world). How much farthur will we be able to grow?
50 years from now, with an estimated 2-3 billion more people, the world will be quite a different place. I must agree with the questions of the other postings regarding waste, health care and just plain available space for such a growth, however I don't believe this estimate is illegitimate. The points in the article I believe are well made, basically comparing the less developed world to the developed world. Because of a greater emphasis on the equality of women in the developed world, families have gotten smaller. Recieving greater educations and playing a more significant role in the work force, women are delaying their desire to start families until later on in life. This alone is preventing them from having as many children as preveious generations have had simply because of the increase in medical technology allowing us to know both the risks of having children later on in life, and also the inability in many cases. The difference in family structures today versus 50 years ago shows how the demand for women outside of the home is causing a decrease in the number of children per family. This is contributing to a polulation decline in the developed world. However, in the developing world, the struggle for equal rights, the lack of education, and the increasing number of HIV/AIDS infected adults and children (especially in Africa) to name a few, are prolonging the changes already being made in the developed world. Despite the lack of proper health care in many of the third world countries and a higher mortality rate in these places, the population is continuing to grow. As the article states, it is presumed that of the 3 million new lives possibly being born in the next 50 years, the majority will be to these people in the developing world. I firmly believe that the lack of education is playing, and will continue to play one of the major roles in preventing a change, and without a change the questions posed in a previous posting regarding mass waste, health care and space will become real threats to our world.
50 years from now, we will be living in a different world. We can say that by looking at the historical contingencies. There might be fall and rise to some super powers (China might become the next super power). But I believe that 50 years from now the world will be much more globalized than it currently is. We will be living in a much more diverse world. While the western world will move towards globalization, the South Asian and Middle Eastern countries will be stuck with their ideology of Nationalism. I believe that Globalization is the End of nationalism. And some SOuth Asian and Middle Eastern countries have yet not been nationalized, thus, it would be harder for them to globalize. But does globalization mean that all the efforts and sacrifices that countries put into nationalizing their nations was invain?
Based on this article, I find one aspect of life, in the U.S., that will be different and personally effect me in 50 years will be the questing on how to deal with the growing elderly population. As the longevity of the elderly (65 years old) increases from 7% to 15% by 2050, government programs such as Social Security and Medicare will evolve to deal with this population growth. Concerning Social Security retirement, age for retirees to receive benefits will most likely increase (as they have from 65 to 67) and taxes for such programs will increase while financial benefits decline. When considering Medicare, government benefits will also decline and the responsibility for hospital bills will be more heavily placed on the patient. The article also points out that by 2050 “every major region of the world – except Africa – will be at or below replacement level fertility.” This raises the question on who is to take care of the soon to be 15% of the world’s population. Food, medical facilities, elderly assistance, just to name a few, will need to increase while the population needed to maintain standard of life declines.
I believe Sarabeth stressed the importance of developed nations "guiding" newly developing nations in their process of industrialization. As the populations increase (along with the spread of globalization), it is inevitable industry will increase. Until these developing industries technologically progress, the amount of waste/pollution the factories expel will also accumulate. It is important that the Western industries train and share pollution control techniques with emerging developing industry. Along with sharing technology, it is also important for western countries to take part in pollution control regulations and international treaties, such as the Kyoto Protocol. When powerful nations such as the U.S. reject treaties (Kyoto), it sets a bad precedent, especially towards emerging nations. With growing populations, pollution becomes an immense hazard globally. Personally, I believe it is a necessity to set global emissions standards and establish a credited organization, strictly enforcing these regulations.
- M. Andrew Campanelli 09/07/05
Kristin, the planet earth by some estimates has the capacity to feed, 10 and even upto 30 billion people. We have poverty and starvation today, not becuase of food shortages globally, but because of maldistribution that causes local shortages even as there are surpluses elsewhere. We have food parties, and pie throwing contests in some places while people starve in some places.
-- M. khan, 09.08.05
In 50 years form now, today will be history and as always we will look back, critiquing our actions and passing judgement on the decions we made years ago. For one thing, I agree with the article that there will no longer be rural America, or rural anywhwere for that matter. Cities are busting at the seems as it is, and with the projected increase in population, people must inhabit somewhere.
In addition, this article reminds me of something I once read about lifeboat ethics. The basic idea is that a lifeboat is only useful if it can support the people on it. Metaphorically, the earth is a lifeboat and the same rules apply. This may sound selfish and even absurd but what if we didn't feed the starving kids Africa and what if we didn't help under-developed nations to thrive? That would in a sense ensure our survival, or atleast the survival of the fittest. The earth is not an infinite well of resources and we are on our way to depleting them as it is. With an increase in population the effects on our earth will be maginified and their is only so much the planet can withstand.
Christine Madurski 9/8/05
It is of my opinion that if much of these population statistics are accurate, we will see a major shift in the demographics of all countries of the world. Citizens of overpopulated developing countries will be unable to obtain the resources necessary to sustain the lives of themselves and their faimilies. This will most likely lead to massive immigration away from periphereal countries to those of the highly industrialized nations. Especially since in the developed world, family size is generally decreasing, show vividly in Japan. This massive influx will dilute the heritage and culture of these established nations. Additionally, those who stay in the developing countries will need to destroy the enivironment in order to create farmland, living space and resources to technologically advanced countries for production. Unless we depend less on petrol energy sources and find new ways of fueling the processes vital to the global economy the population explosions of the future will be extremely difficult to absorb.
9/13/05
This was written:
"This may sound selfish and even absurd but what if we didn't feed the starving kids Africa and what if we didn't help under-developed nations to thrive? That would in a sense ensure our survival, or atleast the survival of the fittest. The earth is not an infinite well of resources and we are on our way to depleting them as it is. With an increase in population the effects on our earth will be maginified and their is only so much the planet can withstand"
Starving people doesn't = survivial of the fittest. Intentionally continuing the starvation of people in order to ensure one's personal survival is called murder. It isn't survival of the fittest bc what did we, as Americans, do to deserve being born into a life where we are provided for? Just because we're well nourished doesn't mean we're more "fit" than those living in the developed world. We cannot make value judgements like that. What we need to work toward is SUSTAINABLE agriculture so that there aren't starving people. We also need to work toward the spread of birth control in developing regions of the world. The UN does some of this, but with countries like the US cutting funding its resources are numbered. Many people in developing countries don't know about/have access to birth control. THAT could be one part in helping slow the pace of population. We don't need to starve people to sustain the earth.
In almost every society, in influx in population can lead to horrible problems. Not just human but even the animal world in general. I know that in Washington, D.C. there has been an unbelievable increase in the population of Gray Squirrels (not native) which are competing with the black squirrels for everything. About 10 years after the realization of this alien species (gray squirrels), the native squirrels' population has decreased by 10%. The population of total squirrels was too great for the amount of food. The Although this is a very surface and elementary example, it does have ties to global society. In any country, developed or not, there are scarce resources. With the increase in population, those resources become even more scarce, especially in an underdeveloped country as the statistic shows. I just don't understand why two people would have a child knowing that they probably could not afford the clothing, medicine, and food that comes along with it. The people in these underdeveloped countries have to realize that in many cases, their own life is not what they want it to be. I don't understand how bringing a child into that world would solve the problem. I am sorry to turn this blog into a dicussion about abortion and population caps, but I think that it is clearly relevant. Why would anyone who has not had a very good life and who knows cannot support a child want to have one? Why would they want to bring in another person to suffer just as they do? As with any problem there are some exceptions. But the main question is...why would you want to share your pain with someone so innocent?
Post a Comment
<< Home