Population vs. Affluence

...Affluence In the Human Interest: A Strategy to Stabilize World Population By Lester R Brown Norton 190 pp $6 95 Reviewed by P. N. Shahani A senior fellow of the Overseas Development Council, Lester R Brown ndes the great wave of international concern about the "population explosion" like a deft surfer Arms outstretched for balance, teetering precariously on the hp of a vast boiling wall of un-masterable data, he skims and swooshes m a continuous spray of statistics and dire warnings Brown launches In the Human Interest, his contribution to the present World Population Year, with a brief "conceptual overview " The time of plenty (of land, water, fuel, food, and waste-disposal space) is over, he says "We may be on the verge of one of the great discontinuities m human history"?the end of growth Current economic projections of a gross world product tripling to $9 trillion by the end of the century appear improbable in view of raw-material and environmental constraints Similarly, calculations that the globe's population will nearly double to 6 5 billion by the year 2000 must be reexamined because every additional human being compounds the difficulty of improving living standards We now have to consider these trends in a radically broader framework than in the past, Brown declares, for "increasingly nations will discover that national problems lack national solutions " So far so good It is when he surges forward into argument that we reahze how much fast sliding around is required to remain upright on a wave Encountering rough waters stirred up by those who see the rising affluence of the industrial countries rather than the rising population of the nonindus-tnal nations as the major threat to human progress, Brown shoots masterfully over the controversy "The growth in world output of goods and services has averaged 4 per cent per year since 1950 Since we know that the world's population has been growing at roughly 2 per cent annually, we can conclude that it has absorbed about half of the increase in global growth of goods and services produced during this period The remainder, also about 2 per cent, must have been absorbed by rising individual affluence " No effort is made, however, to demonstrate why "we can conclude" all this The mere happenstance that the population is expanding halt as fast as goods and services certainly is not proof of the author's conclusion With equal aplomb, Brown slaloms past the question of whether population growth or rising affluence is responsible for present food shortages "At the global level, population growth still accounts for most of the increasing demand tor food Of the current 30-million-ton average growth in world grain output, an estimated 22 million tons is absorbed by population growth and 8 million by rising per capita income " Though we are offered no explanation of how these figures were arrived at, the book does include a list showing the annual per capita consumption of food grains (both directly and indirectly through meat, milk, etc ) in 10 countries Canada leads with 1,848 pounds, the United States is second with 1,486, and India ranks last with 348 On the basis of total consumption, India, with three times the population of North America, uses about a third less grain If we calculate the per capita increase in consumption over the past two decades, the contrast is even more glaring What is the operative factor in this difference if not affluence, and how does it compare with Brown's estimated ratio...

...There is more of the same in other contexts Overfishing, we are told, has resulted in a declining annual catch since 1970 We are also told that about 40 per cent of this catch is made into fish meal for poultry and hog feed in industrialized countries What we are not told is how much of the total goes to the rich nations with their slow-growing populations and how much to the poor nations with their burgeoning populations But perhaps this is unnecessary, since none of the developing countries have fishing fleets to match those of Japan or the USSR When Brown takes up environmental stress, his attempts at equating rich and poor become downright absurd The snail-borne disease schistosomiasis is lumped together with mercury and lead poisoning, cancer, emphysema, and coronary disease Why he considers schistosomiasis a product of environmental stress—any more than cholera or typhoid, of which there is no mention—is unclear The clue may he in the fact, raised in passing, that schistosomiasis is "labeled by some 'the poor man's emphysema ' " At several points Brown does succeed in making a convincing argument, but then he proceeds to present evidence that shatters his own premises For example, since "the soaring demand for food has begun to outrun the productive capacity of the world's fanners and fishermen," he urges the United States to "undertake a major and conscientious reassessment of its food aid program to ensure the availability of needed levels ot grant and concessionary food aid to poor countries whether or not commercial surpluses exist at the time " Yet just as we are agreeing with this commendable proposal, he turns around and makes the whole concept of food aid look ridiculous "The world's greatest reservoir of unexploited food potential appears to be in the less developed countries India and the United States have about the same crop area, with somewhat similar characteristics If Indian yield levels equaled those of the United States, India's current annual cereal production would be 230 million metric tons rather than the present total ot nearly 100 million tons If rice farmers in Bangladesh attained Japanese yield levels, nee production would jump more than three-told The reader is naturally left wondering why the U S should plan to put poor nations on the dole when the best answer to the food crunch lies in developing their own potential Especially if, as Barbara Ward observed recently, the agricultural needs of even India could be met by diverting the fertilizer used on U S golf courses and lawns Brown repeatedly skirts hard issues with platitudes And when his insight is indeed acute—like his observation that distribution is rapidly becoming a major source of global concern—he spoils it with an amazing species of Babbittry Thus, after pleading for a more equitable sharing of the earth's resources, he produces a section titled "Declining Options," listing a variety of hardships We might not be able to have a second home tor vacationing, we might not be able to eat as much beef as we want, we might have to drive small cars, the time is approaching when 'governments seem almost certain to impose quotas and other controls on visitors to popular tourist areas such as Mediterranean Europe, East Africa and some ot the National Parks m the United States ' But the worst is saved for last "Even such routines of daily living as the disposal of waste are coming under stringent regulation Americans are being forced to purchase automobiles with costly pollution control devices which decrease the efficiency of the engine Many communities now have ordinances preventing the burning of leaves or trash by individuals " Despite its faults, In the Human Interest does contain much good information and its basic thesis is sound We live on a finite planet, there are some limits now perceptible to certain kinds of expansion, we must plan and work together more assiduously if large disasters are to be avoided To bring population growth under control...

...Brown sets forth a three-part strategy We should "fill the family planning gap," arrange for the "commercial distribution of contraceptives,' and create "social conditions for fertility decline " This approach, he explains, must necessarily be based on a reassessment ot what constitutes development in the poorer regions of the world (He also notes that socioeconomic reform in the developing countries will require 'major changes in the way m which power is exercised ") Most important, Brown shows that the notion of narrowing the economic gap between rich countries and poor must give way to the idea of narrowing the gap in "basic social needs," as indicated by levels of literacy, infant mortality, life expectancy, and the opportunity for productive employment He calculates the price m each area a billion or so here, a few hundred million there, not very much if all the wealthy nations contributed Yet the present trend is toward less aid In the last chapter Brown points out that the need to stabilize population "must not be viewed in isolation, but as part of a broader effort to create a workable world order such an effort must also seek to arrest the pursuit of super-affluence " He proposes a "second generation' of supranational agencies to oversee the exploitation of seabed resources, intervention in climatic systems, multinational corporations, and world food supplies These are laudable suggestions, and the United Nations is already working in this direction Nonetheless, Brown's talk of "equitable sharing" takes on ominous overtones when he advocates a new international effort to assure "access of those in need to essential resources regardless of where they are located" The first question one must ask is, "Essential to what...

...By strenuously attempting to relate all types of problems to population growth, In the Human Interest loses both coherence and sincerity Population growth undeniably poses challenges of vast magnitude, but it is not essentially responsible for the state of the world today For that we have to look elsewhere?to the insanities of chauvinistic nationalism, wasteful military expenditures (now exceeding the income of the poorest halt of mankind), the selfish greed of a few These are the ugly reefs that stand between Brown's surfboard and the curling foam of a better future...