Friday
Jun132008
Population control misguided
Friday, June 13, 2008 at 3:53PM
Steven Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute, discussed his latest book, “Population Control: Real Costs, Illusory Benefits”, at the Heritage Foundation. Mosher argued that state population control has adverse effects on many facets of society.
According to Mosher, the U.S. fertility rate is 2.1 births per woman, which is the ideal replacement level. High tax rates have deterred couples from acting on their fertility desires, Mosher said. In Europe, 50 percent of the income from couples with children is taxed. This also deters couples from getting married.
The problem with global initiatives like the United Nations Population Fund is that they often ignore the specific situation of the country they are aiding, Mosher said. For instance, the UN offered Pakistan $200 million to allow the UN to assume control of the school curriculum. The UN wanted to teach sex education classes to control population, but the Pakistani government was completely against it.
Additionally, the AIDs epidemic in Africa was partially caused by state population control, Mosher said. Many resources were used for population control instead of other areas like healthcare, which could have prevented the rapid spread of AIDs.
Since the world population doubled between 1960 and 2000 from 3 billion to 6 billion, overpopulation has been a constant fear. This monumental growth will never happen again, Mosher said. What caused the growth was that after World War II, many more countries industrialized and life expectancy rates soared, so more people were living longer. Now that many countries enjoy high life expectancy, there will not be another dramatic jump in population.
At the initial stages of industrialization in developing countries, the environmental effects are quite severe, Mosher said. Sometimes the reaction is to start controlling the population because leaders search for the “wrong solution to the wrong problem.” But the reality is that when the countries are developed, the income per capita is $3000, so more people means more money for the economy.
According to Mosher, the U.S. fertility rate is 2.1 births per woman, which is the ideal replacement level. High tax rates have deterred couples from acting on their fertility desires, Mosher said. In Europe, 50 percent of the income from couples with children is taxed. This also deters couples from getting married.
The problem with global initiatives like the United Nations Population Fund is that they often ignore the specific situation of the country they are aiding, Mosher said. For instance, the UN offered Pakistan $200 million to allow the UN to assume control of the school curriculum. The UN wanted to teach sex education classes to control population, but the Pakistani government was completely against it.
Additionally, the AIDs epidemic in Africa was partially caused by state population control, Mosher said. Many resources were used for population control instead of other areas like healthcare, which could have prevented the rapid spread of AIDs.
Since the world population doubled between 1960 and 2000 from 3 billion to 6 billion, overpopulation has been a constant fear. This monumental growth will never happen again, Mosher said. What caused the growth was that after World War II, many more countries industrialized and life expectancy rates soared, so more people were living longer. Now that many countries enjoy high life expectancy, there will not be another dramatic jump in population.
At the initial stages of industrialization in developing countries, the environmental effects are quite severe, Mosher said. Sometimes the reaction is to start controlling the population because leaders search for the “wrong solution to the wrong problem.” But the reality is that when the countries are developed, the income per capita is $3000, so more people means more money for the economy.
Reader Comments