By all calculations, there are too many people in the world, far too many in fact (7.9 billion at the time of writing), probably double what the planet can comfortably support; over the past sixty years the population has increased dramatically (in 1950 it was only 2.5 billion), particularly in China and India, where more than a billion have been added in both country.
There are too many people crammed into polluted and noisy urban centers, many in developing countries often living in poor or degrading housing; too many people live on the margins of society and there are too many people for finite resources, land, water, food, etc. The problem of food insecurity, however, has more to do with poverty, which is the result of injustice and a dysfunctional socio-economic system, than with the number of mouths to feed or the lack of food.
Overpopulation is often (incorrectly) cited as a cause of the environmental emergency, but large numbers are not the source or driver of the crisis. Historically caused by industrialized countries, climate change and ecological catastrophe are fueled by the rampant consumption and irresponsible lifestyles (including animal-based diets) of well-to-do and very wealthy people in Western countries. China, which is the world leader in renewable energy investment, is responsible for the most greenhouse gas emissions (although not per capita), and is routinely shamed for it, but much of the manufacturing , which produces the poisons, is in response to demand from Europe, the United States and elsewhere.
Evolution of populations
The problem is not simply overpopulation, but as the UN put it, “An unprecedented and lasting change in the age structure of the world’s population [is taking place], driven by rising levels of life expectancy and falling levels of fertility. The subject is complex and presents a range of economic and healthcare/social challenges, as well as fundamental questions about values and the holistic approach to life and our understanding and relationship to death. Living longer is something many people yearn for, a desire that stems in part from the fear of death. This is especially prevalent in the West, Africa, South America and the Middle East. In fact, the only countries where one finds a more balanced, and perhaps more enlightened view of death seem to be India, Nepal and especially Tibet, as well as certain tribal groups.
Due to medical advances and lifestyle changes, people are living longer and the percentage of elderly people is increasing rapidly. “Globally, there were 727 million people aged 65 or over. [mostly women, as they live longer] in 2020.” This number is expected to double by 2050 to reach 1.5 billion, or between 16% and 22% of the total, 80% of whom live in poor or middle-income countries (India and China for example); in Japan, 30% of the population is already over 60 years old.
Not only is the population changing, but the transition from rural life (where there is generally a lack of work opportunities) to cities, which has been underway for a few decades, is intensifying (more than 50% of the world’s population now lives in a city), especially among young people (under 30). This movement has a devastating impact on rural communities and families; villages/small towns are dying and multi-generational households are eroding. The absence of younger generations means that most older people in the United States, Europe and Japan live alone or with a partner of similar age, often with little or no family support. Divorce, cohabitation, declining fertility (in some countries), rising levels of education and changes in employment/industry all contribute to demographic change and the impact on families/households and small communities.
The breakdown of traditional family structures, in which aging grandparents/parents care for their children/grandchildren and the extended family cares for them, also occurs in developing countries, although at a slower pace. Here, there is no public welfare or pension system like in most developed countries, and some form of economic security has always been provided to aging parents by their children. This lack of government support is one of the reasons for the prevalence of large families in African and South Asian countries, in addition to the fact that due to poor health care and access limited, infant mortality is high. Sub-Saharan Africa, where the median age is only 19 (it is 44 in Europe, 39 in the United States and China, and 48 in Japan), has the highest infant mortality rates in world: 1 child in 9 dies before the age of five, which is more than 16 times higher than the average for developed regions. This is one of the (many) consequences of poverty, which is mainly the result of colonialism/neo-colonialism and exploitation supported by Western powers.
Not only are populations aging (with the exception of Africa) worldwide, but birth rates are falling, in some cases dramatically, meaning that in many regions communities will become increasingly gray and elderly: in China last year, there were 11 births per 1,000 inhabitants. , against 22/1000 in 1980; Europe 2020, 10 births/1000 people, in 1980 it was 15 The United States is also experiencing a downward trend in births: in 2021, the rate was 12 per 1000 people, compared to 15 in 1980 and 24 in 1950. Birth rates are also falling across Africa, albeit slowly and from a historically high mark of around 45/1000 in 1980 to 32/1000 in 2021. This is a bright spot in an otherwise chaotically crowded, and means that once the world’s population peaks in 2070 (when it is expected to reach the colossal figure of nine billion), it will gradually begin to decline.
The choice is clear
The societal implications of large concentrations of older people are many, the issues for governments varied and urgent. Most important is health and social care, both of which are grossly underfunded (e.g. UK), prohibitively expensive (US), non-existent or inadequate (rural sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia -East rural).
These essential public services and health/social care are and should always be seen as a public service, not a ‘tempting profit’ business, and should be properly funded; the shining example of public investment is Scandinavia. In 2017, Denmark, Norway and Sweden spent an average of $5,400 per person on healthcare, while the UK, which prides itself on its National Health Service (NHS), spent just $3 $760 per person. The difference is striking; the same applies, one suspects, to waiting times for care, as well as access to general practitioners and specialists, if not necessarily to the quality of care, when they are eventually seen.
Scandinavian countries are able to spend at this level because people and governments recognize the importance of the collective — of society, and are willing to pay taxes at a rate that allows public services, including health care health, to be properly funded. In Denmark (2019), for example, the tax-to-GDP ratio was 46.3%, in the United States, where health care is unaffordable for millions of Americans, it was 24% (as in the Caribbean and Latin America), i.e. nearly half; Sub-Saharan African countries, with low GDP, 16% on average.
The creation of a public health/social assistance system and its adequate financing depends on the nature of the society in which people want to live, on the type of world we want to create. Do we want to build truly democratic societies based on social justice and freedom, equality and participation? societies in which health/social care is recognized as more important than military spending; societies where responsibility to others and the natural world is central, or do we continue as we are, living in largely undemocratic, unjust and unhealthy societies in which the few profit and control the majority?
When stated in such crude, almost crude terms, it is obvious, isn’t it? What sane government would prioritize buying weapons over building hospitals or nursing homes, and what society would allow such madness to occur?
As the demand for support among older populations grows and health and social care systems come under increasing pressure, such choices, which cross the inhibiting limits of ideologies, will become increasingly difficult; but when common sense and compassion guide actions and infuse decisions, one will find that there is no choice at all.
Comments are closed.