The whole issue of point of view is one we need to be conscious of and concerned about because it affects the way we interpret events occurring throughout the world.
It isn’t enough to recognize the links of interdependence that bind the nations of this planet together, we also need to recognize that we are viewing those links from a particular perspective, and not an objective one. Our perspective is inevitably coloured by our national and personal values and ambitions. Just as the residents of other nations view those links from their perspectives.
Recognizing that the links, that the connections, exist is the necessary first step in bringing about change. But our efforts to bring about that change will be fruitless unless we also keep in mind the way our particular perspectives will inevitably distort our understanding of those connections.
Population issues are an example of an area where the point of view of people in the developing world differs significantly from that of people in more developed nations.
As I pointed out in an earlier, many people in countries like Canada consider over-population to be a major problem in developing countries. The assumption is made that over-population is one of the primary causes of poverty in those nations. That opinion, however, represents a specific point of view, a specific way of looking at the issue of population. And it leaves out of consideration factors such as population density, resource consumption, and family structure.
When population density figures (the number of persons per square kilometre in a nation) are examined, there does not appear to be a direct relationship between poverty and population. The density of countries such as the Dominican Republic (183 persons per sq. km), China (136), Guatemala (134), and Uganda (115) are significantly high than Canada’s (3) or even the United States’ (30). But the densities of those countries are dwarfed by nations like Great Britain (243), Japan (337), Belgium (339), or the Netherlands (395), not to mention Monaco with a density of 16,620 persons per sq, km.
If over-population caused poverty, countries like Canada would be sending foreign aid to Tokyo and the Hague rather than to Africa.
There is nothing inherently wrong with having a large population. The issue is whether the nation has the resources needed to support its population. Likewise, the issue is not so much whether the Earth is over-populated as it is whether the Earth has the necessary resources to support its human population.
And it happens that, globally, humankind already produces enough food (primarily in the form of cereal grains) to feed more people than are currently alive. In spite of that, we not only have large numbers of people in the developing world suffering from severe malnutrition, there are hungry people in Canada and the United States.
The issue then, is not whether we have adequate food production. The issue is one of accessibility to food.
Further, if one considers the examples I provided in that earlier posting (that the average North American annually consumes 30 times what the average citizen of India consumes), it could be argued the real over-population problem is in the North rather than in the South.
Today many Canadians look at children as economic liabilities. But in other countries, children may be seen not as liabilities but as economic assets. They add to the family’s economic security rather than take away from it.
A similar situation existed in Canada in the mid-nineteenth century. At that time, the average Canadian family had to have six children in order to be confident there would be one son who would survive to adulthood and assume financial responsibility for the family. Canadian children even in the early 20th century were needed as labour to work on farms or to otherwise help contribute to their family’s income. As a result, large families were common because they were necessary in order to ensure survival.
Today, Canadian families are much smaller. But it isn’t because Canadians can’t afford to have more children; families are small because Canadians don’t need to have more children.
And it has been the case throughout the globe that, wherever basic income and health requirements have been met, the birth-rate has stabilized and slowed down.
0 comments:
Post a Comment