Source: Population Connection.

Between 7-12 May, NL-Aid is enjoying a spring recess. From 13 May, you can read articles of our authors again. Untill that time, we have selected Youtube videos in which the strength of people is centered;). In this episode: World Population.

AUTHOR: Hans Sluijter
URL: www.NL-Aid.org
E-MAIL: info [at] www.NL-Aid.org

Cross-posted from Global Dashboard

If people in the Middle East could democratically choose what country they lived in, would they choose the one they are in now?

Amidst all the talk of an Arab Spring, the fragility of the Arab state is often forgotten.

Whereas developed countries are almost always the product of an organic, internally driven process, in the Middle East’s case, the countries are mostly the product of a British-French agreement made in 1916 (Sykes-Picot) that paid little attention to local sociopolitical realities. As a result, few possess the historical roots, social cohesion, and legitimacy necessary to nurture the complex institutions that are a prerequisite for development and democracy. On the contrary, most suffer from both sectarian divisions and weak government — the causes of state fragility.

As Michael Hudson, Professor Emeritus at Georgetown University, explained in his classic study of the “legitimacy shortage” in Arab politics:

A legitimate political order . . . has to be [based on] some consensus about national identity, some agreement about the boundaries of the political community, and some collective understanding of national priorities. If the population within given political boundaries is so deeply divided within itself on ethnic or class [or, for that matter, religious or clan] lines, or if the demands of a larger supranational community are compelling to some [significant] portion of it, then it is extremely difficult to develop a legitimate order. [page 389-90]

Without authoritative political structures endowed with ‘rightness’ and efficacity, political life is certain to be violent and unpredictable. [page 4]

As I explained in my book on fragile states, these two structural problems—political identity fragmentation and weak national institutions—reinforce each other in a vicious cycle, severely undermining the legitimacy of the state and leading to political orders that are highly unstable and hard to reform.

Not all Arab countries suffer from these problems. Egypt, for instance, has deep historical roots and is therefore relatively cohesive. Morocco, Tunisia, and many of the small Gulf emirates (with the obvious exception of Bahrain) are also in pretty good shape by this standard.

The situation is most acute in places such as Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Iraq—all of which potentially face years of instability. Iraq has the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds. Syria has five main groups—Sunni Arabs, Alawis, Christians, Kurds, and Druze—many of which have their own divisions. Libya has 140 tribes and clans. And none of these states have a robust government apparatus that can competently implement laws and regulations in an equitable, independent manner—which would reduce the tension between groups. Whatever capacity they had was—or is being—decimated by regime change.

Lebanon and Jordan are not necessarily stable, but in better condition. Residents of the former already know the dangers of sectarianism from the country’s long civil war—and therefore will work harder than others to avoid a repeat.

The real wild card in the region is Saudi Arabia. Although it is not a product of colonialism, the country does have religious and tribal divisions and a government that may be seen by some as illegitimate.

The social divisions, weak institutionalization, and artificiality that plague all these states begs the question that I posed at the top: If people in the Middle East could democratically choose what country they lived in, would they choose the one they are in now?

The ballot box has already produced two changes to the map in recent years. The West Bank and Gaza split up because of an election. Sudan has been divided by a referendum.

If the Kurds were given the right to choose, they would secede from Iraq (as well as from Syria, Iran, and Turkey). The same might hold true for the people of South Yemen (independent until 1990), eastern Saudi Arabia, and so on. Groups that have strong identities, have historically felt disadvantaged by their minority positions, and live in a relatively coherent and homogenous area pose the greatest risks to the unity of the region’s states.

One creative effort a few years back to identify how the Middle East might change if the people could choose their own country produced the above map.

Obviously, most of the changes suggested are not going to happen. The process would yield much bloodshed, destabilize neighboring countries, and disrupt oil supplies. Most powers inside and outside the region oppose changes to borders for precisely these reasons.

In some cases, however, if the transition could be done relatively peacefully (think Czechoslovakia, not Yugoslavia), the peoples of both the seceding and seceded from areas might be better off. Libyans, for instance, might have an easier time building a robust state if they were working with two or even three different entities, each of which would be much more cohesive than the country is in its current form.

Although democracy must remain the ultimate goal, strategies to help fragile states emerging from long periods of imposed stability must be highly flexible if they are to succeed. Inclusiveness in politics, economics, and culture need to take priority, especially during difficult transition periods. Finding mechanisms to increase the robustness and impartiality of crucial government institutions are key if the state is to gain any credibility. Although people clamor for fast transitions, their long-term interests may be better served by extending the process over many years.

The Arab Spring will take a long time to play out—and the challenges the return of history has brought to light will not be easy to overcome.

AUTHOR: Seth Kaplan
URL: http://www.fragilestates.org
E-MAIL: seth [at] sethkaplan.org

While it sounded like a quiz to some, I intended to impress my readers about the scary aspect of exponential growth in any finite system. Such growth is certainly runaway and anything designed to grow in that manner is easily unsustainable. I cannot take Kenneth Boulding lightly. Meanwhile I found a more impressive audio visual way to carry the message home.

But then I still come across people who believe earth’s resources are infinite. Some, who may feel that within the limits of economics infinity is a rather silly idea, take it out to a point where it is claimed that human ingenuity is limitless and capable of devising technologies that can extract utility out of finite resources, practically infinitely. Such infinite progression of growth is popularly attached to energy appropriation and some convenient refuge for many infinity optimists are Nikoloai Kardashev Civilization models, where human civilization is still within Type I. We see appeals from scientists as famous as Stephen Hawking for extraterrestrial proliferation, as is seen in Youtube’s spacelab channel’s introductory video. Reaching out to space in pursuit of knowledge is alright but I do not feel we humans are yet ready to evolve into homo spatium, not with such limited idea of growth in terrestrial scale.

Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.
Kenneth Boulding, economist

In 1972, when Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, Jørgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III authored the book ‘The Limits to Growth’ commissioned by the Club of Rome, a global think tank that deals with a variety of international political issues, the infinity optimism of the business-as-usual economic models of Capitalism was made to stand before a critical question. We cannot grow exponentially and how long before we face a collapse of our viral growth. The book used the World3 model to simulate the consequence of interactions between the Earth’s and human systems by considering five variables, namely, world population, industrialization, pollution, food production and resource depletion. The book offered predictions about explosion and collapse of human civilization in terms of economic and technological growth studied under the five variables and echoed many Malthusian concerns in An Essay on the Principle of Population (1798). While there still remained the question of accuracy of the prediction of collapse, the debate took a turn about how long we have before our infinite growth balloon bursts.

Despite being a pioneering work of science employing computer simulations and introducing systems dynamics approach, feedback loop and exponential reserve index for the first time ever, the book met with immediate criticism and open hostility. Soon after publication prominent economists, scientists and political figures criticized the Limits to Growth. They attacked the methodology, the computer, the conclusions, the rhetoric and the people behind the project. Yale economist Henry C. Wallich agreed that growth could not continue indefinitely, but that a natural end to growth was preferable to intervention. Wallich stated that technology could solve all the problems the Meadows were concerned about, but only if growth continued apace. By stopping growth too soon, Wallich warned, the world would be “consigning billions to permanent poverty”. Robert M. Solow from MIT, argued that prediction in The Limit to Growth was based on a weak foundation of the data (Newsweek, March 13, 1972, page 103). Dr. Allen Kneese and Dr. Ronald Riker of Resources for the Future (RFF) stated: “The authors load their case by letting some things grow exponentially and others not. Population, capital and pollution grow exponentially in all models, but technologies for expanding resources and controlling pollution are permitted to grow, if at all, only in discrete increments.”

In retrospect, it now appears that much of the criticism of the pioneering work of Meadows et al was out of the inertia of a contemporary paradigm of progress or development instead of observation and critical analysis. In 2008 researcher Peter A. Victor wrote, that even though D.H. Meadows et al. probably underestimated price-mechanism’s role in adjusting, their critics have overestimated it. He states that Limits to Growth has had a significant impact on the conception of environmental issues and notes that the models in the book were meant to be taken as predictions “only in the most limited sense of the word” as they wrote. In 2008 Graham Turner at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) in Australia published a paper called “A Comparison of `The Limits to Growth` with Thirty Years of Reality“. It examined the past thirty years of reality with the predictions made in 1972 and found that changes in industrial production, food production and pollution are all in line with the book’s predictions of economic and societal collapse in the 21st century. In 2010, Peet, Nørgård, and Ragnarsdóttir called the book a “pioneering report”, but said that, “unfortunately the report has been largely dismissed by critics as a doomsday prophecy that has not held up to scrutiny.” In 2011 Ugo Bardi analyzed the ‘The Limits to Growth’, its methods and historical reception and concluded that “The warnings that we received in 1972 … are becoming increasingly more worrisome as reality seems to be following closely the curves that the … scenario had generated.”

For all who are interested, The Limits to Growth, contrary to popular belief, did not predict world collapse by the end of 20^th Century. It gave three scenarios, namely, (a) standard run – the business as usual growth that simply ignores the negative effects on the five variables, (b) comprehensive technology – response by world systems in terms new and low-waste technology evenly penetrating into the whole world and (c) steady state – response by world systems in terms of new economic price-mechanisms that takes into account the environmental costs and thereby limits the growth rate within an equilibrium. Common experience shows that world is moving along scenario (a) that is standard run – and I shall contend that the world has so far shown neither the political wisdom nor the economic ingenuity to do any better – the analysis of last 30 years of historical data compares favorably with the Standard Run Scenario prediction, which results in the collapse of global systems midway through 21^st Century or 2050 AD. See picture below:

If this is the future in anticipation, and for a minute we agree to wake up from denailist dream of infinity optimism, what is the adaptive/mitigative response of the world? I shall attempt to present that in my next post.

Reference:
* A Comparison of the Limits To Growth With Thirty Years of Reality by Graham Turner
* Feature Image Credit: Dribble

READ MORE:
* Limits To Growth And Beyond – Part II

AUTHOR: Pabitra Mukhopadhyay
URL: http://pabitraspeaks.com
E-MAIL: mukhopadhyay.pabitra [at] gmail.com

On October 31, the world’s population is expected to reach 7 billion people.

In recognition of this milestone, UN Foundation President Timothy E. Wirth released the following statement  calling for investment in international reproductive health and voluntary family planning as a means to achieving progress on all of the Millennium Development Goals.

“In a world of 7 billion, it is more important than ever that we address fundamental issues of poverty and inequality. We know that investing in women’s reproductive health and voluntary family planning is one of the most cost-effective means to tackling our most pressing global development challenges.

Today there are 215 million women who want the ability to prevent pregnancy, but lack access to quality reproductive health care and voluntary family planning. Meeting this demand would have numerous benefits — not least of which is saving lives. Pregnancy-related complications are the leading cause of death among young women in developing countries. If the demand for family planning were met, maternal mortality would decrease by 32 percent, and infant mortality by 10 percent.

Empowering women with the tools they need not only improves their health and ability to raise stronger, healthier families, but it also promotes more prosperous and stable societies, resource and food security, and environmental sustainability.

Let’s be clear — investing in women and girls is one of the smartest investments that we can make. As we mark this milestone, we must ensure that women and girls are at the top of the global agenda, because the investments we make today will have a multiplier effect across all of the Millennium Development Goals, dramatically improving the lives of the next generation.”

Investing in women and girls is undoubtedly a “smart investment” and health education and empowerment should not be taken lightly as a key to sustainable development.

AUTHOR: Cassandra Clifford
URL: www.bridgetofreedomfoundation.org and http://children.foreignpolicyblogs.com
E-MAIL: Cassandra [at] btff.org

The minister, decorated war veteran said the population growth would lead to invasion of agricultural land and forests for construction of new townships if the explosion in human population is not checked immediately.

“Energy crisis, unemployment problem, economic problem, health and education problem, housing problem – everything will become more acute. There will be human abodes everywhere with no space to move freely,” he said.

According to the UN, the world’s population grew to 1 billion in 1804, 2 billion in 1927, 3 billion in 1959, 4 billion in 1974, 5 billion in 1987, 6 billion in 1999 and 7 billion in 2011. Experts, however, say the world at 7 billion will be marked by achievements, setbacks and paradoxes as in some of the poorest countries a growing population stands in the way of development, while some of the richest countries are worried about low birth rates and ageing populations.

AUTHOR: Saleem Samad
URL: http://bangladeshwatchdog.blogspot.com
E-MAIL: saleemsamad [at] hotmail.com

The projections for the rise in the population from the current 7 billion to 11 billion by the middle of the 21st century, and the limited energy, water, and food resources will be a major source of global sociopolitical instability, especially since the exploitation of natural resources rests primarily in the control of Western multinational corporations. Considering that the US has just under 5% of the world’s population but accounts for 25% of the world’s consumption, or 5% more than China and India combined whose population is more than seven times higher than the US. It is troubling, if not the ultimate social injustice, that 12% of the world’s population in North America and Western Europe currently accounts for 60% of the world’s private consumption spending, while one-tird of the world people living in Asia and sub-Sahara Africa account for just 3.2 percent of the world’s private consumption.

Some are optimistic that urbanization in Asia and Africa will result in higher living standards. While it is true that no rural-based economy has reached high income levels, and that rich countries are urban, it is not true that all urban countries are rich. If that were the case, Latin America with a large concentration of its population in urban areas should have been as developed as US and Canada. In the first decade of the 21st century, the average annual urbanization growth was 2%, while in the Middle East and Africa it was 3%, and in Asia Pacific 2.7%. Concerned about rapid population growth and the lack of resources to meet the rising demand, the UN has warned about a global labor market recession especially in the underdeveloped nations and possible social unrest.

UN figures show that 324 cities with a population of over 750,000 has a rise of 20.0% in the last decade, with Africa, Middle East, Asia Pacific and Latin America as leaders. Currently at one billion people, Africa will see a doubling of its population in the next half century, thus accounting for 20% of the world’s population. Multinational corporations are counting on a continued surplus labor force that will keep consumption expanding horizontally, while keeping wages low.

Western regimes in the service of finance capital are only concerned about social unrest that would jeopardize the integration of the high-population areas of Africa and Asia into the capitalist West or capitalist Chinese economy currently second in the world and destined to become first mat some point in the 21st century. All of this assumes political stability, which is unlikely if the current integration model based on very low consumption and grossly uneven income distribution continues.

The International Labor Office (ILO) released a study in September 2010 indicating that people in 36 of 72 countries had less confidence in their government than they did before the 2008-2011 global recession. This was months before the Islamic uprisings that have many long-term and short-term causes beyond the current global recession. Moreover, the ILO has argued that the labor market recession is also linked to widespread social unrest throughout Europe from Slovenia to Ireland and Portugal. The International Monetary Fund, guardian of finance capital, has also warned that social inequality, jobless economic growth, and global imbalances – geographic income inequality – will mean political instability and perhaps war if such conditions continue.

The solution to preventing social unrest is not merely a jobs-creation economy throughout the world, but an economy that provides good paying jobs and opportunities for upward social mobility and government that abides by social justice and does not violate basic human rights. Are the regimes forced to accept US-style neo-liberal capitalism capable of delivering a socially just society, and are multinational corporations and banks willing to accept lower profits for the sake of social and political stability?

Just as no one believed that social unrest would spread so suddenly and so wide across North Africa and the Middle East, it is inevitable that social unrest will spread to sub-Sahara Africa that has suffered the lowest living standards on the planet from colonization to the present. Western neo-colonialism under the mask of globalization and neo-liberalism will be the cause for future sociopolitical instability in Africa and other parts of the world.

AUTHOR: Jon Kofas
URL: http://jonkofas.blogspot.com
E-MAIL: jonkofas [at] yahoo.com