Rich or Poor? Depends on where you live.
It has been said that taken as a whole, the problem with world population, usually manifested in the shortage of resources is not due to population growth as such but to the inequitable distribution of wealth and resources. What are your views?Does poverty sound like an issue faced by parts of the planet with high population growth? I believe one would not loosely answer that question. As much as the world is said to be globalised, we all know by Man's territorial instinct, there are things that are not (and will never be) shared. We may share cultures, trends, products, a similar currency of trade, knowledge... but for self-interest's sake, we guard our stores of resources well. What we have, we will aim to get more only. Thanks to capitalistic ideologies, trying to equate our share of wealth or resources will therefore be considered communistic. I would agree that it is this inequitable distribution along with a matrix of other factors that has caused the problem with the world population.
There is contradiction in saying that a growing population would cause these problems because developed countries of the world such as US, Japan and even Singapore are facing a depleting birth rate. The governments have gone to great extents to try to reverse the trend for fear that they will lose their pools of younger tax-paying population who drives the economy. Conversely, in developing countries like China where it houses some 1/6 of the world's population, the general public faces poverty and starvation. There are also signs of poor quality of life in the rural areas. If this is exactly what a high population entails, would developed countries try so hard to increase their population, so that they can strain resources and cause problems? Unlikely. Singapore with her almost nil resource not only survives but thrives whilst resource-rich countries like debt-ridden African nations starve.
Population growth may be akin to the spreading of tumors to parts of the body. Its manifestation if uncontrolled can really be problematic. Yet, we do not see a direct effect. The intellect of human beings has led to a very inter-woven trade system that sets to balance the demand-supply scales. We see how rich sources of resource can be distributed to solve the issues caused by population problem and we see too how the lack of distribution can cause a serious problem, to be more specific, the unequal and at times unfair distribution of resources. On the other hand, dense population in an area never really implied any expectable problem.
It brings me to the point that, the distribution of wealth is what really causes shortage in supplies. A growth in population simply entails more effort in solving the problems it brings about. The effort required is in fact no larger than how small populations have to manage their luxurious amount of resources. As such, it seems very unreasonable to blame a growing population for problems with supplies. How well a population thrives has very much got to do with the circumstances surrounding it. That can include the resources it possess, the geographical location, environment, diplomatic relationships, leadership and of course the people's attitude.
However, attempts to equate the distribution of wealth by International Monetary Fund have seen no improvements in countries they try to help. This can be seen in Indonesia's case where its debts had been rolling on since Asian Financial Crisis. Yet, this attempt to re-distribute wealth is very flawed with conditions that would only do more damage to the receiver. If wealth was really fairly divided according to the population growth, only then can we simplify matters and generalise that Earth's problem of resources would be that of a demand exceeding supply one.
In conclusion, population growth does not relate to the shortage of resources. There is much more complexities involved than the strain from people on resources. It all boils down to how the distribution of resources works and whether it can actually reach the population.
posted by synthesis @ 10:47 PM
1 Comments:
Ooh, thanks for highlighting certain errors I made! Would still be living in my own surreal world if not for the mistakes identified!!!
Point though on your income tax example as a form of redistribution of wealth for the population. By and large that this is a linear form of taxing, we see where money has been attempted to be saved for poorer individuals but the analogy on the governments having a "Robin Hood" characteristic that the wealth collected will be for the poor. Tax gathered is for the general development of the country, not, as ideally as it seems, to help the poor.
Also, for your greying population argument, I agree that losing the younger tax-paying population (undoubtedly more effective) is not the main reason now you put it that way but SERIOUSLY, is saying that they "soon have to rely on an elderly work force which would be much more ineffective, and not creative" any different? Other reasons to try to increase birth rate is just plain increased in demand for healthcare too great to supply and of course a population that no longer is able to sustain itself because the replacement rate for deaths is simply too slow. Those might arguably prove more important as reasons to boost birth rate.
Uhh, yup agrees China one was erred. I did added rural areas in the next sentence but you didn't quote it =P
Your last paragraph seriously just put my point across! I was establishing the fact that growing population is not a factor causing problems such as poverty however, because the question bounded the opposing statement to be inequitable wealth/resource distribution, your stance (brain/intelligence distribution) cannot tackle it.
Post a Comment
<< Home