Visit the Photo Place

How big is birth problem?

By RICK MERCIER

Date published: 3/9/2003

Estimates off, but concerns persist

Robert Sassone remembers all the apocalyptic predictions of the early 1970s about the looming "population bomb."

The claims that "population controllers" were making were "politically correct, but not scientifically correct," says Sassone, a member of the American Life League's board of directors who has researched population issues for more than three decades.

Sassone recalls how fashionable it once was to describe the cataclysms that awaited the planet--as early as the 1980s--because of the impending population explosion. "These things obviously didn't happen," he says.

But the population problem has not really gone away, according to the United Nations Population Fund. The agency, in its 2002 "State of the World Population" report, says the planet's population will rise by more than 50 percent by the year 2050--from 6.1 billion to 9.3 billion.

Most troubling, says the report, is that the least-developed countries will likely triple their populations by 2050.

The problem with that scenario, the reports contends, is that it will greatly exacerbate poverty, hunger and maternal and child mortality among the world's poorest peoples. It will also render more difficult efforts to achieve gender equality and environmentally sustainable development.

The reports states that "since 1970, developing countries with lower fertility and slower population growth have seen higher productivity, more savings and more productive investment. They have registered faster economic growth."

The reports asserts that "a high proportion of young dependents holds back economic growth" for developing countries.

A study released in January by RAND, a policy-research organization, concludes that developing countries can boost economic growth through a combination of lower fertility rates and policies that increase health, education and job opportunities.

"Nations that slow population growthcan reap a 'demographic dividend' to improve their standard of living, while those that don't may see social and economic conditions worsen," RAND says.

But some social conservatives--including groups such as the American Life League and the Front Royal-based Population Research Institute--argue the virtues of moderate population growth.

"If you reduce fertility, for the first 30 years or so you'll do better economically. But after a while, you don't have as many people under 30, and that's a problem," Sassone says. "Too low a fertility rate will kill a country eventually."

Follow us on

Date published: 3/9/2003