Where Fertility Features
By Louise Hemfrey
Today the world’s population stands at a little over six million, the largest it has ever been and that number is still rising. However this rise is on a decreasing return to scale, meaning that by 2050 the Earth’s population will have stabilised at nine million. So why the peak? Why wouldn’t it increasing? And even more imperative should it be allowed to increase as it is?
The twentieth century has seen more social, military and technological advancement than any before it and now as we push a decade into the ‘noughties’ the weight of this progression is resting on our generation. Prosperity leads to stability; a concept true of politics, of economics and so it seems of fertility. The whole world is obviously not at the same stage of development but with the growth of globalization, advances in education and health awareness, family planning has become a universal practice and not just an instrument of the west.
First of all what do the scientists mean when they discuss fertility rate? Comparatively it is extremely important to distinguish between birth rate and fertility. Birth rate is the number of children women are having; fertility rate is the number of children a woman is likely to have (a hypothetical, conjectural number). Over three hundred years ago Malthus was the first theorist to stress the issue of over-population: essentially the idea that the earth can only sustain a certain number of people and if humanity tipped over this fine balance we would effectively be the authors of our own destruction. Malthus could not possibly have foreseen the industrial advancements that would enable humanity to consolidate on resources and accommodate for the six billion people in the world today, however the resurgence in referencing to his theories would suggest that the same issue is on world leaders minds now.
So why are we focussing on the fertility rate again? Scientists have recently proposed a theory, which taking aside independent variables such as contraception, health care and living standards, women in general, around the world; from Bristol to Bangalore, Kyoto to Kansas City are becoming less fertile – and crucially scientists believe that this is the natural course of human evolution, that our very instincts are combating the crisis of over-population before it is allowed to augment. Medical Theorists from the World Health Organization have been undertaking fertility rate studies across the international spectrum for the past fifty years, and whereas in the developed ‘West’ the number has consistently hovered around 2.1, in developing states a dramatic change appears to be transpiring. The fertility rate, in little more than a few decades, has halved from 6 to 3. In South Korea there has been a chop from 4 to 1.8, a cut that took Britain one hundred and thirty years. Between 1980 and 2000 the rate in Bangladesh has halved by the global average: 6 to 3, and in Iran since its fertility peak of 7 in 1984, the national average has fallen to 1.9, and in its capital, Tehran, 1.5. Yet these are countries which charities and international aid agencies claim to be teaming with children.
The biggest debate between academics on fertility is whether or not this is an entirely natural decrease. As I mentioned before, external factors are set aside in this study but they could be having an effect as well. Critically, when examining birth rate factors such as the stage of development of the society in which one is present in, if one lives in a peace time or warring state, the wealth of the country and the percentage of the population that make up the middle class. The replacement rate of fertility (where one person takes the place of one person) is 2.1. This number symbolizes a society at the pinnacle of its development, but these peaks are transitory and what is being witnessed in Western Europe now is a reduction in fertility below the replacement rate. Over the next half century as more states come to economic and social fruition the worlds this trend is suspected to continue explaining the zenith of nine million in 2050. Despite these factors I am still tempted to agree that there is something in our instinct that is warding humanity off having children. We only need to look at the animal kingdom to grasp an understanding of how resources impact on a species. Polar bears, for example, rarely have more than one cub per litter because of the harshness of the arctic environment in which they have to sustain themselves. I believe that if the human race truly is as advanced as we claim, it is perfectly capable of adaptation on a similar scale.
The twentieth century has seen more social, military and technological advancement than any before it and now as we push a decade into the ‘noughties’ the weight of this progression is resting on our generation. Prosperity leads to stability; a concept true of politics, of economics and so it seems of fertility. The whole world is obviously not at the same stage of development but with the growth of globalization, advances in education and health awareness, family planning has become a universal practice and not just an instrument of the west.
First of all what do the scientists mean when they discuss fertility rate? Comparatively it is extremely important to distinguish between birth rate and fertility. Birth rate is the number of children women are having; fertility rate is the number of children a woman is likely to have (a hypothetical, conjectural number). Over three hundred years ago Malthus was the first theorist to stress the issue of over-population: essentially the idea that the earth can only sustain a certain number of people and if humanity tipped over this fine balance we would effectively be the authors of our own destruction. Malthus could not possibly have foreseen the industrial advancements that would enable humanity to consolidate on resources and accommodate for the six billion people in the world today, however the resurgence in referencing to his theories would suggest that the same issue is on world leaders minds now.
So why are we focussing on the fertility rate again? Scientists have recently proposed a theory, which taking aside independent variables such as contraception, health care and living standards, women in general, around the world; from Bristol to Bangalore, Kyoto to Kansas City are becoming less fertile – and crucially scientists believe that this is the natural course of human evolution, that our very instincts are combating the crisis of over-population before it is allowed to augment. Medical Theorists from the World Health Organization have been undertaking fertility rate studies across the international spectrum for the past fifty years, and whereas in the developed ‘West’ the number has consistently hovered around 2.1, in developing states a dramatic change appears to be transpiring. The fertility rate, in little more than a few decades, has halved from 6 to 3. In South Korea there has been a chop from 4 to 1.8, a cut that took Britain one hundred and thirty years. Between 1980 and 2000 the rate in Bangladesh has halved by the global average: 6 to 3, and in Iran since its fertility peak of 7 in 1984, the national average has fallen to 1.9, and in its capital, Tehran, 1.5. Yet these are countries which charities and international aid agencies claim to be teaming with children.
The biggest debate between academics on fertility is whether or not this is an entirely natural decrease. As I mentioned before, external factors are set aside in this study but they could be having an effect as well. Critically, when examining birth rate factors such as the stage of development of the society in which one is present in, if one lives in a peace time or warring state, the wealth of the country and the percentage of the population that make up the middle class. The replacement rate of fertility (where one person takes the place of one person) is 2.1. This number symbolizes a society at the pinnacle of its development, but these peaks are transitory and what is being witnessed in Western Europe now is a reduction in fertility below the replacement rate. Over the next half century as more states come to economic and social fruition the worlds this trend is suspected to continue explaining the zenith of nine million in 2050. Despite these factors I am still tempted to agree that there is something in our instinct that is warding humanity off having children. We only need to look at the animal kingdom to grasp an understanding of how resources impact on a species. Polar bears, for example, rarely have more than one cub per litter because of the harshness of the arctic environment in which they have to sustain themselves. I believe that if the human race truly is as advanced as we claim, it is perfectly capable of adaptation on a similar scale.