Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by josefresco 4103 days ago
I think one of the keys to "controlling" population growth is to bring people out of poverty. Most studies I read, show dropping birth rates as people/nations climb the economic ladder. Education, and health care also play a big part.
2 comments

Since the original topic is the global fresh water crisis, wouldn't the increased per capita resource consumption from greater standards of living offset any gains in population growth slowing?
Not necessarily; there is sometimes quite a lot of surface water in poor areas of the world, but no reliable way to disinfect it. So you get wells dug next to rivers, because the well water is clean and the river is not.

Rising living standards create the capital, infrastructure, and stability to build water and sewage treatment plants to make better use of surface water.

In the developed world, much of the "population" problem is the location, not amount, of people. Lots of people have moved to Phoenix because of air conditioning and groundwater wells. Its population growth has been driven almost entirely by migration, not birth rate.

One potential solution there is to allow accurate market pricing of water. If it becomes progressively more expensive to live there as water supplies dwindle, people would stop building water-hungry golf courses and stop moving there. Unfortunately, control of the municipal water supply is often in the hands of the local government...who is not going to willingly vote to raise the price of water on their voters, and shrink their own city.

Hopefully the developing world can learn from our mistakes and not build cities and farmland in deserts.
I will offer a brief and unenthusiastic defense of that practice... the desert/arid climate can result in great yields as a result sunlight, lower use of pesticides and fungicides (dry climate unfriendly to mold and insects), and be less disruptive to - subjectively, on my part - less important ecosystems.
Great question!
>> I think one of the keys to "controlling" population growth is to bring people out of poverty.

That implies that poor people have a higher reproductive rate - which I believe is true. A shortcut is to offer birth control to poor people. Many of them don't actually want a bunch of kids, but when you're poor there's not much to do and sex is free.

I agree it'd be nice to bring people out of poverty, but shouldn't we stop creating more people in poverty too? Prevention is cheaper than a cure.

There's a lot more to birth control than just dropping off boxes of condoms or the pill. You need a culture and a religion that allows it. You need women to have the freedom to employ it. You need men to allow women to make those decisions. You need men who are willing to accept the reduced pleasure of sex (from a condom) in order to prevent disease and unplanned pregnancy. You need education so people understand the connection between their individual actions, and the broader trends and problems of the society in which they live. Etc.

Just look at the U.S., where birth control is cheap, plentiful, and legal...yet there is still incredible social pressures working against its availability--even basic stuff like sex education, family planning, and condoms.

Poor people don't have children because they are bored, but because they are poor and they need the labour to work the farm. Or because they know the infant mortality rates are awful and children under five die from easily treatable illness (eg diarrhea, treatment a few cents of oral rehydration salts and some clean water).
there is probably more behind that than boredom. Maybe they want many kids to support them when they get older.
I know a guy that grew up in a rural US town but went to college and is quite successful now. He went back and visited his ex girlfriend from high school. She had a kid to support and was going nowhere. He said he was extremely lucky not to fall into that trap. An exact quote: "There were two things to do in Beaverton, and I didn't drink".