By 2050, the world will contain 10 billion people, the UN now predicts, but we shouldn't see the statistic through the failed lens of population control
Reuters/Joe Tan
Could the best way to stabilize the world's population be to not talk about population?
The UN now predicts that the human population of the planet, long predicted to level out at nine billion people, will now most likely reach 10 billion people by the year 2050. The new projections offer an opportunity to move beyond the flawed framework of population control and towards global activism on behalf of women.
But first we need to understand why the population projections have skyrocketed. Partial credit for the population boom can be given to humanity's response to the HIV/AIDS crisis. Life-expectancy for people with HIV/AIDS has grown markedly since the United Nations' last report, thanks to the increasing availability of antiretroviral treatments. The decreasing mortality rate for HIV/AIDS is being helped along by the doggedly high fertility rates in some of the poorest nations on the planet.
These high fertility-rate nations, largely in Africa, are where
most of the population growth will be experienced, while the rest of the
world will be dealing with an aging population. The UN divides the
world into three parts; high-, intermediate-, and low-fertility countries.
Nations where women have an average of one daughter or less are
considered low-fertility. In intermediate-fertility nations, women have
an average of between one and 1.5 daughters. In high-fertility nations,
women have an average greater than 1.5 daughters each.
At the beginning of the 19th century, Thomas Malthus declared that
humanity needed to practice "moral restraint" in order to reduce the
suffering of an unsustainable population ravaged by disease and famine.
His ideas were refined by evolutionary biologists from Charles Darwin
onward. The challenge with this population-centric framework is that
humans don't see themselves as numbers, collectively striving to
maintain a balance on the planet. Each family makes decisions based on
their economic, social and cultural circumstance. The size of the
global population is the sum total of those billions of small
decisions.
After the growth of the
population movement in the 1970s, China and India both undertook
massive population-control initiatives. India's campaign largely failed.
People in democracies have little interest in the harsh methods
necessary to rapidly change demographics. China's one-child policy, on
the other hand, was remarkably successful in lowering the fertility of
Chinese families. But the story of the suffering it caused has never
fully been told. Reportedly millions of men and women were forcibly
sterilized in China during this period. Can the collective good justify
such harsh actions?
Today, India's population
is younger and faster-growing, while China's population faces the
prospect of each child supporting two elderly parents, which will cause
another set of challenges as the central Chinese state will be forced to
adopt a different social contract with its aging citizens.
If
all of this sounds complicated, it is. Populations of any species are
notoriously difficult to control by force. In 1958, Mao Zedong launched
the great sparrow campaign in China, encouraging people to kill sparrows
in order the protect the seeds they were planting in their fields. The
killing of the sparrows lead to the growth of the locust population,
which helped lead to the Great Chinese Famine, eventually killing over
30 million people.
Wikimedia Commons
The
sparrow wasn't the problem--it was merely a symptom of farming
techniques that didn't use beneficial cover crops, mulching, and other
techniques to protect seeds. But by focusing on the sparrows, Mao
created a host of other problems, while not solving for his primary
goal of increasing Chinese farm yield. Similarly, it's not a bad idea to
be concerned about the size of the world's population, but focusing on
population is not an effective way to solve for the challenges
underneath. Those challenges? Three billion people still living in
unacceptable poverty; a billion more, at least, living without the basic
freedoms needed for long term sustainability; and a planet with limited
and diminishing natural resources.
Population
activists need to move beyond the inevitable assumption that they're
only concerned about women as breeders. The indicators we should be
watching are the levels of education, status, rights, and economic
opportunities for women on the planet, not simply the number of
daughters that women are having. By all means, we should be making
family planning available to empower women to be in control of their
bodies. But we shouldn't do it for the sake of population control, we
should do it because it gives women control of their destinies.
In
the last decade, most of the organizations involved in this sector have
begun to focus increasingly on the status of women; but the language of
"population" remains. From population reports to population bureaus, the
infrastructure is named to solve a symptom of the problem, rather than
the problem itself. It's time to move away from the language of
population control and towards an even more vibrant advocacy on behalf
of women.
To understand the changes taking place in the Republican Party now, it helps to go back to the last time the party went through a major transformation.
Adam Werbach is the co-founder of sharing startup Yerdle, formerly the chief sustainability officer for Saatchi & Saatchi and the president of the Sierra Club. He is the author of Strategy for Sustainability: A Business Manifesto. He lives in San Francisco and Bolinas, California.
“I hope that my story will help you understand the methods of Russian operatives in Washington and how they use U.S. enablers to achieve major foreign policy goals without disclosing those interests,” Browder writes.
The financier Bill Browder has emerged as an unlikely central player in the ongoing investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 elections. Sergei Magnitsky, an attorney Browder hired to investigate official corruption, died in Russian custody in 2009. Congress subsequently imposed sanctions on the officials it held responsible for his death, passing the Magnitsky Act in 2012. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s government retaliated, among other ways, by suspending American adoptions of Russian children.
Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer who secured a meeting with Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Paul Manafort, was engaged in a campaign for the repeal of the Magnitsky Act, and raised the subject of adoptions in that meeting. That’s put the spotlight back on Browder’s long campaign for Kremlin accountability, and against corruption—a campaign whose success has irritated Putin and those around him.
The vote he cast, more than the speech he gave, will help define his legacy.
The effort to repeal Barack Obama’s health-care bill is not over, and neither presumably is the public career of John McCain. But each crossed an important threshold yesterday, and Senator McCain gave us a clearer idea of who he is and what he stands for.
The repeal effort isn’t over, because debate and further voting is now under way to determine whether the bill will pass and, more basically, to define what it would actually do. McCain will have more votes to cast, on this measure and others, and it’s possible that in the end he will turn against this bill because of its provisions (whatever they turn out to be) or because of the rushed and secretive process that led to it. Just this afternoon, McCain voted No on a “straight repeal” bill that would eliminate Obamacare without any replacement.
The Arizona Republican is betting his Senate seat on the political appeal of decency—but can that pay off in Trump’s America?
The constituents filing into the Mesa Convention Center one evening in mid-April for the Republican senator Jeff Flake’s town hall had a decidedly un-Republican look. Tattoos and political T-shirts abounded. Activists stood near the entrance distributing stickers, flyers, and other paraphernalia of the resistance and urging attendees to get loud. While chants of “No stupid wall!” and “Health care for all!” echoed through the auditorium, a young woman in a chicken costume wandered the perimeter, clucking and posing for selfies in an act of protest whose meaning remained mysterious to me even after I asked her about it (“Jeff Flake is George Dubya’s chicken,” she said).
Flake couldn’t see any of this from backstage, but he knew that a hostile crowd likely awaited him. The early months of the Trump presidency had inflamed the grassroots left, and Republican lawmakers across the country had lately found themselves standing awkwardly in rooms like this one while liberal voters berated them. Flake is up for reelection next year, and some of his campaign advisers—wanting to avoid the kind of contentious scene that might end up in an attack ad—had suggested that he skip public forums for a while, as many of his colleagues were doing. But he insisted on going ahead.
Many point to unromantic 20-somethings and women’s entry into the workforce, but an overlooked factor is the trouble young men have in finding steady, well-paid jobs.
TOKYO—Japan’s population is shrinking. For the first time since the government started keeping track more than a century ago, there were fewer than 1 million births last year, as the country’s population fell by more than 300,000 people. The blame has long been put on Japan’s young people, who are accused of not having enough sex, and on women, who, the narrative goes, put their careers before thoughts of getting married and having a family.
But there’s another, simpler explanation for the country’s low birth rate, one that has implications for the U.S.: Japan’s birth rate may be falling because there are fewer good opportunities for young people, and especially men, in the country’s economy. In a country where men are still widely expected to be breadwinners and support families, a lack of good jobs may be creating a class of men who don’t marry and have children because they—and their potential partners—know they can’t afford to.
For the past few decades, the unstoppable increase in college tuition has been a fact of life, like death and taxes. The sticker price of American college increased nearly 400 percent in the last 30 years, while median household income growth was relatively flat. Student debt soared to more than $1 trillion, the result of loans to cover the difference.
Several people—with varyingdegreesof expertisein higher-ed economics—have predicted that it’s all a bubble, destined to burst. Now after decades of expansion, just about every meaningful statistic—including the number of college students, the growth of tuition costs, and even the total number of colleges—is going down, or at least growing more slowly.
Exclusion leaves the military weaker and the country more divided.
President Donald Trump issued a ruling on Wednesday outlawing military service by people who do not conform to a binary gender system.
“Please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military,” he wrote in a string of tweets. “Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail.”
Trump previously promised to be an advocate for transgender people, writing during the campaign, “Thank you to the LGBT community! I will fight for you while Hillary brings in more people that will threaten your freedoms and beliefs.”
The methods Senate Republicans are using to try to pass a new health law are confusing, but still bound by some clear rules.
What would Schoolhouse Rock! have to say about the reconciliation process? The old animated educational short was a useful introduction to “regular order” in Congress. Add a little additional knowledge on committees, filibusters, hearings, and lobbying, and you’d have a working basic understanding on how laws are passed in the United States.
That’s regular order. What’s happening on the Senate floor now is nothing close to that.
As Senate Republicans try to push through a law replacing or repealing Obamacare, they are relying on a byzantine set of procedures and tactics that are often indecipherable for the senators themselves. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s strategy to avoid a sure Democratic filibuster involves the reconciliation process, which itself necessitates tricky things like Congressional Budget Office scores, parliamentarian rulings, and the Byrd rule. Despite Arizona Senator John McCain’s rousing speech Tuesday urging a “return to regular order,” two procedural votes later, it’s clear that regular order isn’t coming back soon.
The president addressed the quadrennial gathering like a campaign rally—talking to a group devoted to service as if it valued self-interest.
Donald Trump continued his ongoing tour of cherished American institutions on Monday night, delivering yet another jarringly partisan speech to an apolitical audience—this one, comprising tens of thousands still too young to vote.
During the campaign, his performance at the Al Smith dinner—where presidential candidates roast their rivals and themselves every four years—devolved into overt attacks on his opponent. Shortly after his election, he stunned CIA employees by delivering a campaign-style stump speech before the agency’s Memorial Wall. On Saturday, he surprised the crowd of uniformed personnel at the commissioning of the USS Gerald R. Ford by imploring them to lobby Congress in support of his agenda.
Surprise eggs and slime are at the center of an online realm that’s changing the way the experts think about human development.
Toddlers crave power. Too bad for them, they have none. Hence the tantrums and absurd demands. (No, I want this banana, not that one, which looks identical in every way but which you just started peeling and is therefore worthless to me now.)
They just want to be in charge! This desire for autonomy clarifies so much about the behavior of a very small human. It also begins to explain the popularity of YouTube among toddlers and preschoolers, several developmental psychologists told me.
If you don’t have a 3-year-old in your life, you may not be aware of YouTube Kids, an app that’s essentially a stripped-down version of the original video blogging site, with videos filtered by the target audience’s age. And because the mobile app is designed for use on a phone or tablet, kids can tap their way across a digital ecosystem populated by countless videos—all conceived with them in mind.
The internet’s favorite fact-checkers are caught in a messy dispute.
On Monday, the editorial staff of Snopes.com wrote a short plea for help. The post said that the site needed money to fund its operations because another company that Snopes had contracted with “continues to essentially hold the Snopes.com web site hostage.”
“Our legal team is fighting hard for us, but, having been cut off from all revenue, we are facing the prospect of having no financial means to continue operating the site and paying our staff (not to mention covering our legal fees) in the meanwhile,” the note continued.
It was a shocking message from a website that’s been around for more than 20 years—and that’s become a vital part of internet infrastructure in the #fakenews era. The site’s readers have responded. Already, more than $92,000 has been donated to a GoFundMe with a goal of $500,000.
