Population Explosion

POPULATION GROWTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL
DEGRADATION IN INDIA
Introduction
The rapid population growth and economic development in country are degrading the environment through the uncontrolled growth of urbanization and industrialization, expansion and intensification of agriculture, and the destruction of natural habitats. One of the major causes of environmental degradation in India could be attributed to rapid growth of population, which is adversely affecting the natural resources and environment. The growing population and the environmental deterioration face the challenge of sustained development without environmental damage. The existence or the absence of favorable natural resources can facilitate or retard the process of economic development.
The three fundamental demographic factors of births, deaths and migration produce changes in population size; composition, distribution and these changes raise a number of important questions of cause and effect. Population Reference Bureau estimated the 6.14 billion world's population in mid 2001. Contribution of India alone to this population was estimated to be 1033 millions. It is estimated that the country’s population will increase to 1.26 billion by the year 2016. The projected population indicates that India will be a first most populous country in the world and China will be second in 2050 (Population Reference Bureau, 2001). The increase of population has been tending towards alarming situation. India is having 18 percent of the worl–d's population on 2.4 percent of its land area has great deal of pressure on its all natural resources. Water shortages, soil exhaustion, deforestation, air and water pollution afflicts many areas. If the world population continues to multiply, the impact on environment could be devastating.
As the 21st century begins, growing number of people and rising levels of consumption per capita are depleting natural resources and degrading the environment. The poverty-environmental damage nexus in India must be seen in the context of population growth as well. The pressures on the environment intensify every day as the population grows. The rapid increase of human numbers combines with desperate poverty and rising levels of consumption are depleting natural resources on which the livelihood of present and future generations depends. Poverty, is amongst the consequences of population growth and its life style play major role in depleting the environment 3 either its fuel demands for cooking or for earning livelihood for their survival. The unequal distribution of resources and limited opportunities cause push and pull factor for people living below poverty line that in turn overburdened the population density in urban areas and environment get manipulated by manifolds, consequently, urban slums are developed in urban areas.
The growing trends of population and consequent demand for food, energy, and housing have considerably altered land-use practices and severely degraded India's forest vis-à-vis environment also. The growing population put immense pressure on land extensification at cost of forests and grazing lands because the demand of food could not increase substantially to population. Thus, horizontal extension of land has fewer scopes and relies mostly on vertical improvement that is supported by technical development in the field of agriculture i.e. HYV seeds, Fertilizers, Pesticides, Herbicides, and agricultural implements. All these practices causing degradation and depletion of environment with multiplying ratio.
The relationship between population growth, resource depletion and environmental degradation has been a matter of debate for decades. The argument has been between those who view population numbers per se as the main culprit in increasing pressure on the environment and those who place more blame on economic development, non sustainable agricultural and industrial practices, and excessive and wasteful consumption. In fact, both population growth and nonsustainable development are cause for concern in India. Though the relationship is complex, population size and growth tend to expand and accelerate these human impacts on the environment.
What is more concern, the number of population rise will increase to such an extent in future that it will cause overall scarcity for resources. Decades of economic expansion and population growth have degraded its land, air and water. The present paper examines the relationship of man to the environment and with growing population, poverty and urbanization the environment is degrading.
Population growth in India
India is the second most populous country in the world after China. Recently, the population of
India has crossed the one billion marks. According to the Census of India 2001, the population of

The Effects of Growing Populations | RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

POPULATION GROWTH:

From these models we see that a growing population puts major strains on the available freshwater and forest area. We see that more people indicate more consumption of freshwater and a greater need for developed area and paper products. The excel model shows that both freshwater availability and forest area are reaching zero at a rapid rate. Although we know the depleting of both is a definite threat, we cannot totally rely on these models. We fail to take into account other significant factors.

By looking at the figure 3 we see the growth of India and the United States population over a 25-year time span. We start off in 2000 where the initial population of India was 1,090,000,000 people and the United States ’ population was 298,444,215 people. In order to get the increasing numbers we took the population growth rate and multiplied it by the initial population and added that number to each preceding year. India’s population growth rate was 1.51%, while the US ’s population growth rate was .92% (Census Bureau 2004). As a result, the populations grew. With this equation we see that by 2025 India is already at 1.6 billion people, while the US is at almost 400 million people. This model differed from Stella in that we only account for the population growth rate. This rate already accounts for birth, death, and immigration rates. With this graph we also assumed the following: population growth was a constant, no other factors will prevent the population from growing constantly. The reason for India ’s greater growth rate per year may be attributed to the women being less educated, the country’s GDP, and the rate of migration. The United States Gross Domestic Product exceeds $11,750,000,000,000, while India ’s GDP is $3,319,000,000,000 (Census 2004). With less money, India ’s population will not be suppressed because working class has a greater need for more children for more income. The United States' population mainly grows because of increased immigration. 820,000 people are immigrated to the United States yearly, whereas India ’s problem more resides in their lack of migration (Nowak no date). Because of the United State ’s power and wealth, many people are attracted to it. For both countries, medical advancements have increased the lifespan of people, thus the number of births exceed the deaths. India also experiences rapid urbanization. This urbanization arises from India ’s highly impoverished population. People move to the cities in hope of job opportunities. In 2001, the urban population was about 28%, yet by 2025 it is expected to reach 36% (Economist Intelligence Unit 2006). This urbanization causes more growth especially since the urban poor contribute the most to a growing population because they contribute the most to the labor force. In addition, they continue to reproduce because of their desire for male children, who are considered more efficient in the workforce and are less of a financial liability. A lack of education also contributes to India ’s growing population. 40% of the world’s illiterates live in India. Its literacy rate is only 65.2%, where 75.6% of males are literate and only 54% of females are literate (Economist Intelligence Unit 2006). An increase in education would potentially lead to postponed marriage, thus less children would be conceived. An education could also provide people with better jobs, thus the need for children workers would be less. More well-paid jobs in the private sector are provided to the educated. Women would also learn to use contraceptives, thus preventing unwanted pregnancies. In the year 2000, the rate of contraceptive use for women between 15 and 49 years of age was 52% (CIA 2003). Meanwhile, for the United States, 99% of the population is literate. 99% of males and females are literate as well. About 85% of the US population uses contraception. This number was taken from a 1995 survey, and we can only assume it has increased (Kaufmann 1998). These differences in numbers greatly affect the population growth rate.

FRESHWATER AVAILABILITY VS. POPULATION GROWTH

By looking at figure 4 we see a graph displaying the comparison between the consumption of freshwater in India and in the United States. We started off with the initial value of fresh water availability for theUnited States to be 4,477,000,000 m3, and for India to be 500,000,000,000 m3. After these initial numbers, the per capita fresh water use was multiplied by the population and the resulting amount was then subtracted from the overall fresh water available. India’s per capita fresh water use was 1211 m3, and the US ’s per capita fresh water use was 6932 m3 (Census 2004). In order to analyze the increase in water use, we assumed that the per capita water use was the same for all habitants of each country. Per capita water use takes into consideration all the discrepancies and achieves an overall rate. In addition, this graph does not include any excess in-flow of freshwater, which could ultimately affect the rate at which water is used. However, this does not impact the hypothesis being proven due to the growing population, which will ultimately still decrease the amount of available water.

These graphs differ in that India’s per capita water use is less than the United States, thus the United States depletes their freshwater supply more quickly, even though India starts off with a greater amount of freshwater supply. However, because of the United States ’ financial stability, the availability of freshwater is not as great of a problem although its supply is still depleting. The US should have more access to clean water and more money, so it can clean its water with better purification systems. The United States has a greater land and water area than India, which allows them more access to water. The United States has 9,161,923 square kilometers of land, while India has 2,973,190 square kilometers of land. Meanwhile, the US has 469,497 square kilometers of water, and India has 314,400 square kilometers of water (CIA 2006). India mainly relies on its ground water for drinking water and that is not only limited, but also becoming more and more polluted, as the growing populations lead to an increase in garbage being produced, and waste being deposited in the soil (Economist Intelligence Unit 2006). Furthermore, with 60% of the labor force employed in agriculture, 40% of their cultivated land is irrigated, which leaves farmers dependant on the annual monsoon. The monsoon season (June and September/October) provides India with the majority of its precipitation. Because the monsoon season brings about much flooding and polluted water this leads us to the problem of a lack of fresh water supply. With a growing population, a greater demand for fresh water exists. 19% of India has no access to clean water. According to Rich Planet, Poor Planet, population growth and consumption will cause people living in water- deficit areas to jump to a population of 2.4 billion from 505 million within the next 25 years (Flavin 2001). The US also has more consistent precipitation rather than one monsoon season.

FOREST AREA VS. POPULATION

In figures 5 and 6 we see the growth of India and the United States ’ population in relation to the amount of forest area available over a 25-year time span. We start off in 2000 where the initial forest area of India was 67 {million hectares} and the United States ’ forest area was 299.6 {million hectares} (Butler 2006). In order to get the decreasing numbers we took the forest area available and multiplied it by the deforestation rate – India ’s was 0.0294 million hectares per year and US’s 0.2152 hectares per year – and then subtracted it from the forest area available from the preceding year. As a result, both forest areas decreased. Here we made the assumption that the deforestation rate of both India and United States was constant throughout the 25-year span. Although not specifically accounted for, tree regeneration, forest fires, and new trees planted are embedded into the deforestation rate given above.

Figure 7 compares the forest area of theUnited States with India ’s forest area. Because the US starts with a greater amount of forest area the total hectares exceedsIndia’s forest area until about 2008 whenIndia’s forest area exceeds the US ’s. These forest areas differ because of the differing rates. You can also see how the US ’s forest area nearly crashes by 2019. This does seem entirely realistic considering 2019 is only 13 years away. Furthermore, these graphs do not take into account forest regeneration rates and the planting of new trees. The deforestation is supposed to include these two factors, but perhaps they were not stressed enough in the mathematical calculation.

The forest area’s rates of depletion differ between these two countries because of the different growing populations, and the greater urbanization in India. For India, deforestation issues arise partly because of the growing masses of poor people who depend on biomass for energy (Flavin 1991). Furthermore, the migration from rural areas to urban areas has sparked a growing demand for timber, lumber, and paper. Evidently, this rapidly depletes the forests (Greep 1998). This loss of forest leads to greater problems since forests have much control over the ecological balance, biodiversity, and quality of the environment. Forests can check for soil erosion, water retention, and conserve and regulate the water cycle. It also retains carbon in order to balance the CO2 and O2 in the atmosphere, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions (Laurence 1999). Meanwhile, in the last 200 years, the United States has lost 50% of its wetlands, 90% of its northwestern old-growth forests, and 99% of its tall grass prairie (US Census Bureau 2006). Every day, an estimated nine square miles of U.S. rural land is lost to development (US Census Bureay 2006). India is at greater risk because they already have less land (see above). If we destroy our forests it means that global warming will be even a greater of a problem because of the increase in greenhouse gases. Also, we will lose many animals because they lose their habitat. The food chain will thus be disrupted. So, both countries experience forest loss, but at different rates. The US nears crashes sooner than India because people in the US consume much more wooded products and construction of paved areas is more frequent.

OTHER FACTORS:

Although we did not graph issues besides depleting forest area and freshwater resources, many other environmental impacts exist because of a growing population. For example, a growing population puts strains on other natural resources. AlthoughIndia accounts for 2.4% of the earth’s surface, it not well endowed with natural resources. Coal, iron, ore, and bauxite areIndia ’s primary mineral reserves. Furthermore, a growing population also leads to an increase in pollution. In a 1990 report sponsored by the US Department of Energy, it said CO2emissions had grown 5.6% per year from 1950 (Economist Intelligence Unit 2006). This inevitably leads to increase in greenhouse gas emissions, thus more global warming. These emissions mainly come from coal combustion. The World Resources Institute said that India is the fifth largest contributor to current annual increases in greenhouse effect because of its methane emissions from agricultural practices. The World Resources Institute also found that developing countries rank higher among greenhouse gas emitters because of deforestation and other human activities resulting in carbon releases. Coal is the primary fuel for power generation, yet its high ash content makes it a strong pollutant and inefficient source of energy (Economist Intelligence Unit 2006). The problems persist because there is little economic incentive to recycle and conserve energy. However, progress has been made with Indian taxation and corporate law. They have reduced excise taxes and custom duties for certified pollution control equipment, and have depreciation allowance for units designed to minimize pollution or conserve natural resources. Also there is an exemption from capital gains tax for industries relocating away from urban areas (Jasanoff 1993).

Americans constitute 5% of the world's population but consume 25% of the world's energy. On average, one American consumes as much energy as 2 Japanese, 6 Mexicans, 13 Chinese, 31 Indians, 128 Bangladeshis, 307 Tanzanians, or 370 Ethiopians (US Census Bureau 2006). The United States is responsible for 22 percent of the world's industrial CO2 emissions (US Census Bureau 2006). Because of the growing populations, both nations must deal with this increase in pollution and excess use of energy.

Because we did not include some factors it is hard to graphically predict what would happen if we were to adjust certain factors. However we can make some predictions. For example, if we were to increase the literacy rate (meaning more people educated), we would see a decrease in the birth rate. This would then lead to a smaller population, less forest area loss, and more available water resources. If we were to increase the use contraceptives, a similar pattern would occur. By decreasing the per capita water use we can also see a decline in the water usage because less water per person will be consumed. However, realistically this does not seem reasonable, for water is necessary to everyone’s life and it seems impossible to monitor one’s water intake and use. Perhaps the crashing would occur at a later time. If major advancements were made, we can avoid crashing all together.We also realize that by changing the amount of water available we can increase lifespan, or if we eradicate poverty, or if new medical discoveries arise, we will still see a population growth. However, at the rate things are going the graphs still show a hint of future trends. |

CONCLUSION AND PERSONAL OPINION: Considering the above factors, it is obvious that in India, the success of family planning programs depends on too many factors, making it a more complex operation than usual. However, this does not change the fact that birth control is extremely important in order to improve the life of the future generations in India in terms of better availability of resources and a better and clean world. Unless, we want our future generations to live the life of barbarians, it is imperative that we control the population explosion and thus control the usage of the available resources. We can start by educating the women of India in the basics of family planning. This can simply be done if just one educated person takes it into her/his stride to teach one other person – “Each one, teach one.” If population increase leads us back in time to the Stone Age, then what is the advantage of years of technological advancements and our hard work? Can we really enjoy a newborn in our lives when we know that we would not be able to give our child the basic necessities of life? Being a parent, is that not our responsibility to wish for the best for our future generations? Then is population explosion a boon or a curse for India? I would have to agree with the latter answer, because I wish for all the possible facilities to be readily available for my children. I want my future generations to live in India and cherish the beauty of the land, its monuments and rich culture that we Indians are so proud of, while living a happy sustainable life with all the basic amenities readily available without fighting for it or bargaining for it. I want my future generations to have a happy successful career and life, and at the same time, enjoy the beauty of nature in its fullest. I want my future generations to see and have the world as it was meant to be, and not what we have made it into.
REASONS FOR INCREASE IN POPULATION: I. BIRTH RATE a. Poverty According to ABC News, India currently faces approximately “… 33 births a minute, 2,000 an hour, 48,000 a day, which calculates to nearly 12 million a year”. Unfortunately, the resources do not increase as the population increases. Instead the resources keep decreasing, leading to making survival for a human being more and more competitive even for the basic necessities of life like food, clothing and shelter. India currently faces a vicious cycle of population explosion and poverty. One of the most important reasons for this population increase in India is poverty. According to Geography.com, “More than 300 million Indians earn less than US $1 everyday and about 130 million people are jobless.” The people, who have to struggle to make two ends meet produce more children because more children mean more earning hands.Also, due to poverty, the infant mortality rate among such families is higher due to the lack of facilities like food and medical resources. Thus, they produce more children assuming that not all of them would be able to survive. The end result is a mounting increase in the population size of India. Due to the increase in population, the problems of scarce resources, jobs, and poverty increases. Thus the cycle continues leading to an ever-increasing population that we see today. This cycle in fact might be considered as a positive feedback, in that the increase in one results in the increase of the other factor. As the poverty and the population both increase, the development of the country and the society seems even more far-fetched. b. Religious beliefs, Traditions and Cultural Norms India’s culture runs very deep and far back in history. Due to the increased population, the educational facilities are very scarce. As a result, most people still strictly follow ancient beliefs. According to ABC News, the famous Indian author, Shobha De said, “God said ‘Go forth and produce’ and we just went ahead and did exactly that.” In addition, a lot of families prefer having a son rather than a daughter. As a result, a lot of families have more children than they actually want or can afford, resulting in increased poverty, lack of resources, and most importantly, an increased population. Another one of India’s cultural norms is for a girl to get married at an early age. In most of the rural areas and in some urban areas as well, families prefer to get their girls married at the age of 14 or 15. Although child marriage is illegal in India, the culture and the society surrounding the girls in India does not allow them to oppose such decisions taken by their family. For many, giving a girl child in marriage is done not by choice, but rather out of compulsion. The poor economic status of tribal villagers is attributed as one of the primary factors responsible for the prevalence of child marriages in India. An example of one such incident was reported in Indiainfo.com. According to an article written by Syed Zarir Hussain on October 16th, 2000, “Forty-two-year-old Rojo Tok, a tribal peasant in Arunachal Pradesh, was all decked up in local finery to wed Mepong Taku, a girl who will turn 14 this winter.” I was brought up in a very different environment and never had to worry about getting married at the age of 14 or 15. However, my parents turned their eyes away, when my maidservant’s daughter was being married off when she was only 13 years old. I was very young, but my parents simply said, “That’s just how things are with poor people” and I did not have a say in it. Due to the young age of these girls, they have more potential of bearing children, that is, since they start bearing children at a very early age, they can have more children throughout their lifetime. This results in the increase of the global fertility rate. Since these girls get married at a very early age, they do not have the opportunity to get educated. Therefore, they remain uneducated and teach the same norms to their own children, and the tradition goes on from one generation to the other. II. DEATH RATE: Although poverty has increased and the development of the country continues to be hampered, the improvements in medical facilities have been tremendous. This improvement might be considered positive, but as far as population increase is considered, it has only been positive in terms of increasing the population further. The crude death rate in India in 1981 was approximately 12.5, and that decreased to approximately 8.7 in 1999. Also, the infant mortality rate in India decreased from 129 in 1981 to approximately 72 in 1999 (Mapsindia.com, Internet). These numbers are clear indications of the improvements in the medical field.This development is good for the economy and society of India, but strictly in terms of population, this advancement has further enhanced the increase in population. The average life expectancy of people in India has increased from 52.9 in 1975-80 to 62.4 in 1995-00. Although our near and dear ones would live longer, due to the increase in the population, the resources available per person would be much less, leading to a decrease in the curvature of the slope of development instead of a higher gradient. In addition, abortion is not allowed by several religions that are followed in India. In fact, in Islam, one of the leading religions of India, children are considered to be gifts of God, and so the more children a woman has, the more she is respected in her family and society. As a result, although the measures to control birth are either not available or known to the public, the facilities to increase birth through medical facilities are available. III. MIGRATION: In countries like the United States (U.S.), immigration plays an important role in the population increase. However, in countries like India, immigration plays a very small role in the population change. Although people from neighboring countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan and Nepal, migrate to India; at the same time Indians migrate to other countries like the U.S., Australia, and the U.K. During the 1971 war between India and Pakistan over Bangladesh, the immigration rate increased tremendously. However, currently the migration in India is –0.08 migrants per 1000 population (AskJeeves.com, Internet), and is decreasing further. This is definitely good for India. This way, the population might eventually come close to being under control and more people may get better job opportunities and further education. For example, the students in my university from India, like myself, have better chances for job opportunities and better education outside India than we would have had in India. I. Unemployment and Illiteracy: Suppose we forget about the environment, and only worry about ourselves. Nonetheless, with the increasing population, even that is not possible because with the increasing number of people, we have to share our resources with even more people. Resources of all types are limited, even employment, especially in India. India, being a developing country, has a limited number of jobs available. Due to the increasing number of people, the competition for the most menial jobs is also tremendous. According to EconomyWatch.com, in 1972-73, unemployment rates in rural areas were 1.2 for males and 0.5 for females, and in urban areas, it was 4.8 for males and 6.0 for females. This unemployment rate rose to 2.3 for males and 1.5 for females in rural areas and 4.9 for males and 8.2 for females in urban areas in 1998-99. With the increasing population, unemployment rates are bound to rise even further. Several highly educated people with Bachelors and Master’s degrees in India sit at home, because they cannot find jobs. This, I believe, is the major reason for Indians like myself to migrate to developed countries like the U.S. Such unemployment and underemployment leads to corruption and exploitation of people by the richer classes of the society. This lack of resources further leads to lack of educational resources. Due to the unavailability of resources, parents cannot afford to educate their children to higher levels. Some parents simply cannot afford to teach their children further, and in some families, children need to work along with their parents in order to bring food to the table. According to the World Bank Group, “about 32 million primary school-age children, mostly girls or those from the poorest households and disadvantaged groups, are not in school; more than half of rural students drop out before completing the primary cycle, and only one-third of females make it to the secondary level.” In addition, “nearly half the population over 15 years old and about 60 percent of all women over 15 years old is illiterate.” Also, basic education has become a commodity that acts on the basis of supply and demand. Basic education has become too expensive in India for a commoner to afford for his/her children. Lack of education further leads to even more unemployment. Due to these reasons, a major part of the population is either illiterate or has the most minimum education leading them to accept minimal work in which they cannot even support themselves. Unemployment, or underemployment, further leads to poverty. This again starts the vicious cycle of poverty and population explosion discussed above. Poverty leads to an increase in the population, because poverty leads people to produce more children to increase the earning members of the family. This increases the population size of India, which further increases the unemployment rate and lack of educational facilities leading to poverty that started this whole cycle. II. Food Resources Resources are always limited. And in a developing and highly populous country like India, resources are even scarcer. Population explosion results in the shortage of even the most basic resources like food. According to an article by World Bank Group, “…more than half of all children under the age of four are malnourished, 30 percent of newborns are significantly underweight, and 60 percent of women are anemic.” Resources are limited everywhere. Thus, unless we can develop a technology that would enable us to live on just one grain of wheat, the population increase remains a serious problem in India. India spends approximately $10 billion each year on malnutrition (World Bank Group), and even then the government of India cannot provide the everyday nutritional requirements to everybody in India. If you walk on the street of Calcutta or Delhi, you would notice several children fighting with each other for a small piece of bread that they found in a dumpster. While this might be shocking to most people, this is a daily routine and the only way to survive for many people in India. Survival of the fittest finds its true meaning on the streets of the urban cities of India. Just writing this, brings tears in my eyes remembering the scenes I have seen all my life on the streets of India. Something like food that most of us consider as a basic necessity, is a privilege for most of the children of India who are homeless because their parents cannot give them the basic necessities of life. I was raised in a well-to-do family, so I never had to think about food. As long as I was living in India, it was normal for me to see poor people fighting for food. But recently when I went back to India, and noticed the difference between the streets in the U.S. and India, one major difference struck me. That difference was not the pollution on the streets, but the kids who were only begging for food and nothing else, and the ones who were fighting next to the garbage cans for food. If the population continues to increase at the rate it is currently increasing, then the future of India is what we see today on the street of the country. Is this what we want for our children?