Rethinking The Population Crisis

The first misconception relates to the idea of "population determinism," which was propagated widely over 30 years ago in order to control the population growth rate. The easiest example of this oversimplified theory involves thinking of economic output as a "cake" that is largely unrelated to the total population. The fundamental theory behind the idea is that "the fewer people there are to eat the cake, the bigger the individual slices will be."

This seemingly reasonable argument has had a hard time standing up to scientific examination. When this so-called population denominator theory started losing ground in academic and leadership circles, the idea was transplanted into the arenas of natural resources and the environment. The logic was that because natural resources are finite, as the total population increased, per capita possession of each resource would subsequently decrease.

But this is simply not the case. Statistics show that from 1990 to 2007, oil consumption in China increased 189 percent, natural gas consumption increased 375 percent, and electricity consumption has increased 424 percent. Yet during the same period China's total population increased by a mere 15.6 percent. Clearly, China's rapid increase in energy consumption is largely the result of the country's economic growth and not simply due to an increase in population.

On a similar note, population growth alone cannot be used to explain increases in environmental pollution. From 1994 to 2004, China's total carbon dioxide emissions rose from 4.06 billion tons to 6.11 billion tons, an increase of 50.49 percent over ten years, which is an average increase of 4.87 percent per year. For the same period the average annual rate of population growth was only 0.812 percent, not even one-fifth of the average annual rate of carbon dioxide emissions increases.

Despite a continuous growth in population, technological advancements can still help reduce environmental pollution and resource consumption. From 2000 to 2004, exhaust emissions from Chinese industry rose 72 percent while sulfur dioxide emissions rose 13 percent. Yet during the same period, the proportion of sulfur dioxide emissions caused by individuals actually decreased from 19 percent in 2000 to 16 percent in 2004.

The second common misconception relates to those who equate normal birth control measures with the One Child Policy. In the early 1970s, high birth rates combined with slowing mortality rates to produce a rapid population increase. In response, the central authorities began implementing family planning policies, including the promotion of contraceptive measures and the popularization of new birth control technology. The response was not only timely, it was also deeply welcomed by a vast number of Chinese women of child-bearing age.

In fact, even before the government actively promoted the policies of "getting married later, practicing birth intervals, and having fewer children" in the early 1970s, many couples had already taken the initiative to seek out and use contraceptives. The biggest decrease in China's birth rate did not occur after the implementation of the One Child Policy in the 1980s, but a decade earlier. This period became known as China's "golden era for family planning."

The fact that China's most successful measures to control population growth occurred well before the One Child Policy points to the limited and short-term effectiveness of such artificial control measures. A more useful course would be for the government to continue developing the economy, promoting education and popularizing birth control technology and awareness. The majority of appeals for reforming China's family planning policies currently call for the immediate abolishment of the One Child Policy, and not for getting rid of the overall programs for population control and family planning.

The third misconception relates to those who believe there is no harm in waiting until China reaches zero population growth before instituting policy reforms. This notion reflects a lack of basic knowledge in demographics. One of the most basic laws of demographic change states that existing birth rates and mortality rates not only influence a country's current population growth, but they also determine future population growth as well as age distribution. China's current population growth is largely due to the fact that current age distribution – almost 50 percent of the population is of childbearing age -- has lead to a birth rate slightly higher than the mortality rate. It is not because couples are having too many children.

When China's central authorities first began implementing the One Child Policy, many were already aware that it was a rather rash course of action that had few alternatives. The government appealed to the masses to make sacrifices, at the same time stating unequivocally that the policy would be permanent. At the time the government's overall rationale for implementing the One Child Policy included controlling the rapid rise in China's population, reducing consumption and improving the accumulation of capital. Since that time these issues have been largely resolved, so why do we still have to force 100 million families to make senseless sacrifices? Thirty years ago, the right to make financial decisions was returned to households and individuals. When will the fundamental right to choose how many children to have finally be returned to families?

Full Article in Chinese: http://magazine.caing.com/chargeFullNews.jsp?id=100108424&time=2010-01-15&cl=115