Myths of “Third World:” Overpopulation
The Post-Colonial Forum
| Revision History | ||
|---|---|---|
| • November 13-27, 1991 | Newspaper: Funded by Syracuse University students. | |
| The Alternative Orange: Vol. 1, No. 2 (pp. 14) | ||
| • August 26, 2000 | Webpage:  . | |
| DocBook XML (DocBk XML V3.1.3) from original. | ||
The easily accepted notion within the west of an overpopulated “third world” will appear fabricated if one were to actually compare the population densities of the four supposedly crowded continents. Thus statistically in 1988 the number of people inhabiting every square kilometer of the continents of Asia, Africa, Latin America and Europe were 109, 20, 21 and 100 respectively, figures which certainly do not suggest any overcrowding if the population density of Europe is taken as normal. Even for individual countries with few exceptions, the density figures do not suggest any cause for alarm, for example compare the figures of India:242 and Japan:361 with United Kingdom:234 and Netherlands:361.
The exaggerated concern in the west for the threats posed by a supposedly over-populated “third world” seems to be a result of the considerable misinformation, deliberate or otherwise, construed about the status of development within that part of the world. For instance, it is relatively unknown that the steady increase in “third world” population has only been occurring since the 1940s, a result of both the rapid decrease in its death rates and the retaining, at the same time, of high figures for its birth rates.
The reasons for the rapid decrease in the death rates (figures per thousand for 1988 are 15 for Africa, 9 for Asia, 8 for Latin America and 11 for Europe) are due to the modern advances in medical technology for controlling diseases like malaria, small pox and cholera. While the reasons for still maintaining rather high birth rates in the “third world” (figures per thousand in 1988 were 45 for Africa, 28 for Asia, 29 for Latin America and 13 for Europe) have more to do with the insecurities caused by low levels of poverty, a condition of sharply class polarized societies. The sustaining of such polarities through western aid has never been adequately analysed by the mainstream media. Finally, however, one must see “third world” population growth as a relatively recent phenomenon as between 1750 and 1950, the European population stock rose by 433% compared to a much lower 200% rise in the rest of the world‘s population.
The west however still seems quite anxious by the prospects of a Malthusian specter. This anxiety seems to filter itself into the recommendations made by powerful western institutions on broad questions of “third world” development. The lack of any strong correlation between high population density and poverty or illiteracy is mostly ignored (consider for e.g China, Cuba and state of Kerala in India). Nevertheless the conventional wisdom constructed by such institutions and internalised by “third world” ruling classes has become an instance of squarely blaming the latter for making inadequate efforts to control their population growth.
Such inadequacy is further reinforced by certain western charitable organisations, who through their benevolently advertised efforts to save undernourished “third world” children, obliquely suggests a total indifference of these governments to make efforts at solving their own problems. These charitable pleas only serve to prick the guilty conscience of those “first world” liberals unable to bear the torment of systemic “third world” deprivation. Perhaps through their small donations they seek to conveniently expiate their guilt and so defer any serious analysis of the actual problems.
The material problems of “third world”, hunger, overpopulation and misery cannot therefore be addressed by an ideologically arrived consensus that encourages aggressive but myopic state intervention or the exercising of “first world” liberal philanthropy. The problems have deeper roots which should be analysed in the dual contexts of (1) the existing inequalities both between and within nations and of (2) the immense barriers to development inherited with the colonial legacy.
Therefore one would have to set aside the borrowed and misconceived models of western “growth” and “development” and instead encourage grass-roots self-determination. One should relinquish the widely though wrongly conceived idea that poorer people are basically ignorant, have no conception of what “modern” family planning is and are therefore incapable of understanding the benefits of having smaller families.
In general the lower classes react to the specific nature of their material existence. The reason for higher birth rates in the “third world” is therefore a result of the reluctance of poorer parents to engage in birth control measures as most of their infants have rather low chances of surviving to adulthood. In other words due to a rather high infant mortality rate there is very little incentive for poorer folks to restrict their family size. Besides bigger families in peasant households have a better capacity for contributing towards the overall family income.
The solution therefore for slowing population growth and decreasing the “birth rates” is not to join in the panic of the “first world” but instead to make sure that adequate health and life care is available to the poorer population. However as the last fifty years of failed “development” has shown, such provisions will not come through mere increases in Gross National Product, but through a genuine redistribution of national resources.
A change that provides adequately available and locally grown food, education for women, health care and a genuine participation of the poorer masses in shaping their everyday lives will contribute immensely towards giving them a more secure life. Such efforts will come not by responding in a pavlovian way to western efforts at development but through genuinely understanding the collective needs and struggles of “third world” people wanting a better life.
