I. I.Population Dynamics - Trends F. F.Population Projections – UN All scenarios include shifts in geographic distribution of population Medium variant Africa – 21.4% of population in 2050 (14.0% today) Asia – 57.5% in 2050 vs. 60.4% today Europe – 7.2% in 2050 vs. 11.3% today N. America – 4.8% in 2050 vs. 5.1% today Latin America – 8.6% in 2050 vs. 8.7% today Shifts in age structure

II. II.Population – Environmental Effects B. B.I = PAT (Ehrlich and Holdren) I = Environmental Impact of nation P = Population A = Affluence (reflects consumption) T = Technology (reflected in pollution) Ex – Changes in CFC emissions related to technology, not population Developments in technology historically not directed toward environmental preservation “Ecological Footprint” Area per capita to provide resources utilized Compare to area available per capita in nation

II. II.Population – Environmental Effects B. B.I = PAT (Ehrlich and Holdren) I for one American equals 20 Costa Ricans 70 Bangladeshis UN Children’s Fund – Child born today in US will have 250x impact of child born in sub- Saharan Africa over their lifetimes Different consumption patterns and life expectancies Annual US Population increase = 2.9 million 58 million Costa Ricans (pop 4.1 million) 203 million Bangladeshis (pop 150 million)

II. II.Population – Environmental Effects B. B.I = PAT (Ehrlich and Holdren) Energy Usage - 1 American = 2 Japanese 6 Mexicans 13 Chinese 32 Indians 372 Ethiopians Annual population increase in US – 2.9 million people Equivalent in energy usage to adding 92.8 million Indians (actual – 18 million) billion Ethiopians!

III. III.Regulation of Population Growth - India A. A.Background 1952 – First country to institute national policy to limit population growth Family planning – 13% of national health budget Result – Annual population growth rate 1.7% today vs. 1.3% in 1940s Why didn’t the methods work? India very diverse, yet government selected blanket population control method for entire country

III. III.Regulation of Population Growth - India B. B.Methods Voluntary sterilization Pre-1977 – Vasectomies (male) Post-1977 – Tubal ligation (female) Followed change in political regime precipitated in part by anger over coercive nature of vasectomy program Cash incentives to Medical personnel Program managers Individuals accepting sterilization Equivalent to ~three weeks of average wages ($150) Problems Sterilization method offers little flexibility Chosen largely by older women who already had children and weren’t planning to have more

III. III.Regulation of Population Growth - India C. C.Alternatives Suggestion that increasing economic prosperity should lead to a decline in population growth rate Correlation between GDP and TFR is weak Most important social factor affecting TFR seems to be female literacy rate Female literacy rate correlated positively with Higher age at marriage Greater contraceptive use Lower IMR All correlated with lower TFR

III. III.Regulation of Population Growth - India D. D.Female Literacy – Kerala (Case Study) Kerala – State in SW India; high population density Per-capita GDP 63% of national average Pre-1970s – higher growth rate than national average Between 1972 and 1991, TFR in Kerala dropped from 4.6 to 1.8, the lowest in India (Why?) Reasons Higher social status for women than is typical for India. Leads to increased education, higher literacy rate (83% vs. 48% nationally) Better family planning services Marxist government that fosters egalitarianism (belief in individual equality) and imposes high taxation that supports education, health care and small family norm