The Population Predicament…
… a disruptive socio-cultural implication
There are eight billion people in the world now.
On November 15, the global population registered a milestone number, one that also indicated an addition of another billion in under a dozen years.
By the way, that’s the official figure. There are many countries where the figures are anything but accurate. Then, there are others where there has been no official census in years. It is also a fact that many nations are experiencing negative growth rates.
Unfortunately, most of them are either developed or fast-developing nations. However, the countries where the growth rate is on the upswing are some of the poorest. It goes without saying that there will be implications and problems galore that accompany the increasing numbers.
Climatic changes, pressure on global resources, the quality of the options available, high opportunity costs, and the resulting conflict situations are among the problems that are regularly discussed.
What is being put on the back burner rather than being conveniently ignored is the disruptive displacements that are taking place, and will magnify, in the coming decades.
The numbers aren’t the only problem. The uneven growth is a problem in itself as also the sociocultural ramifications, that is being largely ignored. Worse still, there’s little possibility of finding a pragmatic solution.
Of the eight billion…
As things stand, only China (with 1.41 billion) and India (1.38 billion) account for 35 percent of the global population. Take into account the expats — the people from these two countries who live elsewhere — and the numbers will shoot up further.
Add Indonesia (276 million), Pakistan (236 million), Nigeria (218 million) and Bangladesh (165 million) to the list and you will have only six countries accounting for more than half of the world’s population. What needs to be taken note of is the fact that all of them are developing countries, trying hard to make an impact on the global stage, in every which way.
The unregulated growth of the population in these countries, as well as the other developing and underdeveloped countries in Africa and Asia, has palpably ensured a plethora of problems.
For starters, there is a clamor for resources and facilities. Second, there is a lack of adequate opportunities. Third, is the emergence and continuation of conflict situations, particularly in the countries in the Middle East and Africa.
While these countries were clueless about handling that uncontrollable growth in numbers, their respective governments also failed to ensure a stable economic and political environment as well. Consequently, the people headed elsewhere with hopes of a better life, either as economic migrants or as asylum seekers and refugees.
Conditions apply to the projected decline
That being said, it is also a fact that there is negative growth in some of the most populous countries. Japan, not long back from the seventh most populous nation in the world, is now outside of the top 10, albeit at a cost. This developed country now has a large aging population, and consequently a reduced workforce.
Likewise, China is projected to shrink considerably in the coming decades. In fact, 13 of the countries’ provinces are already witnessing negative population growth prompting the government, once a proponent of the one-child policy norm, to encourage its citizens to have more children.
Then, there is India, which by the middle of next year will become the world’s most populous nation. Even if it also shows negative growth, the same is relative, not absolute. While the growth of the Indian population per se is slowing, the fact that a large majority of this population is young means the numbers will keep growing in the next few decades.
The country’s population is projected to increase to 1.6 billion in 2047–48, and even when it gets to a downward curve — expected to be at the turn of the century — the country will still have over a billion people in it. Not to forget millions outside of it. The question then is if India is prepared to handle the challenges that come with an ever-increasing population.
For years, Indians have taken pride in the fact that they have a large pool of young people, and have the “demographic dividend” to harness. That being said, demographic dividend and over-population are very different from each other, and the latter requires resources in abundance for support.
Besides, with the lack of opportunities, many of these educated and skilled youths become economic migrants with an iota of hesitation, and in the long run, this overpopulation becomes more of a liability than a dividend.
The price of apathy
For decades, the West focused on development and power. It resulted in capitalism, profit, at times conflict, but overall a better quality of life. There was an apathetic attitude towards the socio-cultural aspect. One of the adverse impacts of this apathy was a decline in the native birth rate, and as such an overall negative growth (of the population).
The fertility rates in the developed world are falling at an alarming level, with people not keen on having babies and remaining child-free by choice. In fact, there are people in these societies who opt to have pets instead of babies. Earlier this year, Pope Francis labeled such couples as selfish and their decision “a form of selfishness.”
Things look even worse when one takes into account the fact that a large majority of this existing population is rapidly aging. As such, the workforce in western countries is on a perennial decline while those who survive on social security are on an upswing.
This puts a burden on the state, and the only recourse is to bring in workers — both skilled and otherwise — from other countries. This clears the way for the arrival of those from Asian and African countries. However, the main problem arises thereafter.
Getting into a cash counter in any of these western countries and finding someone who’s not a native is high. It can be a bakery, a cafe, a gas station, or a supplies store. The probability of running into a migrant employee more often than not is no more a surprise. The reverse albeit is not true.
Integration is a myth
The migrants are on the lookout for a better life, and there is no doubt that these people have every right to have one. However, every right is also attached to a certain responsibility. It is here that things go topsy-turvy. While most migrants are happy to accept the better opportunities and the social security that’s unthinkable in their countries of birth, they don’t have a similar mindset when it comes to the responsibility part.
They seldom respect the way of life of the country that gives them refuge, let alone accept it. On the contrary, slowly but surely, they try to make their adopted homelands like the ones they had left behind in the first place. It may be understood that a complete detachment from one’s old values is difficult, however, adhering to new values isn’t as much. The people who emigrated in the previous generations did the same so very admirably.
Unfortunately, this seldom happens in the present times. Forget to respect their new homes. It is their choice to move into a particular country in search of a better life. Do these migrants even respect their own choice? Are they happy with their own decision? The answer, in a large majority of the cases, is anything but an affirmative.
As such, while the economic machinery of the host nation continues to run at a decent pace, its cultural fabric faces a steady decline. In the worst-case scenario, the people with migrant backgrounds eventually make their own rules, have things the way they want, and make the natives feel alienated.
The ghetto culture is a manifestation of this blinkered mindset. The areas surrounding most central stations in Europe and even North America give a feeling of a city in the Middle East or North Africa. Ditto for a few suburbs surrounding the big cities. This is by no means an exaggeration. Walking around such areas will make one feel anything but safe.
The West may need people to bolster its workforce, but in the process, the entire social fabric of these countries is being threatened. Austria, a country with just over nine million people, for instance, has more than a quarter of its population with a migration background. This leads to adverse impacts like these in what is otherwise a peaceful nation.
Closer to home
It is a fact that those migrating to a country closer to their native lands have a better chance of adapting, a case in point is the movement of Ukrainians to Poland or other nearby countries.
However, that is not always the case. Those seeking to migrate are palpably on the lookout for better alternatives. As such, the neighboring countries aren’t exactly an option for them. They are more of an afterthought. The Syrians, for instance, who were left behind, moved to Turkey and Lebanon, and are living in the refugee settlements there.
Those who were more calculative moved to greener pastures like Germany, Sweden, Denmark, and other developed countries. The same was the case with those who left Afghanistan.
The problem again is not with the desire to have a better life. It is got to do with imposing your own way of life on your new hosts. It is about making space for your own religious, culinary, and cultural beliefs at the cost of the host nation.
This case dubbed the “meatball war,” explains how the asylum seekers and refugees attempted to make their hosts adapt to their way of life, whereas it should have been the other way around.
Migrants as weapons
What happened in Germany in the year it allowed over a million refugees in, or for that matter, the recent changes to the social fabric in Sweden are other examples explaining the adverse impact of overpopulation.
Then, there are the more severe consequences. The standoff in the Belarus — Poland border is not far from memory. The manner in which Belarussian leader Alexander Lukashenko used asylum seekers and migrants as weapons for his political objectives is one of the many examples of the drastic impact of unregulated population growth.
These asylum seekers and migrants were mostly from central and west Asian countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria — countries whose governments don’t care about their own people. A similar strategy was employed by Morocco vis-à-vis Spain, and involved migrants from Africa.
On the contrary, the countermeasures not only seem impractical but also inhuman. The new Italian government stopping migrants (especially young men), Denmark reaching a resettlement agreement with Kosovo as also Britain’s deal with Rwanda are examples of efforts made to contain the situation, albeit with little success. The long-term implication of these efforts remains to be seen.
The growing population and the continued migration is no longer constructive change. The nation that hosts such migrants risks having its cultural settings damaged beyond repair.
While neither mass-scale migration nor the disruptive sociocultural displacements caused by it can be stopped, a more sensible approach towards handling the root causes as also the entire situation per se may go a long way in protecting many seemingly susceptible cultural identities.
