The population question

By The Standard and Newsday | Jan. 3, 2022 | 4 Min read

By Tapiwa Gomo

The year 2021 ended on a mixed note with regards to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Omicron virus is certainly pushing the number of COVID-19 cases upwards, while latest reports suggest that the new variant is creating some immunity to previous variants. More research is underway to determine this.

However, several countries have adjusted COVID-19 prevention measures differently based on their situations. South Africa, for example, has removed curfews and relaxed some of the COVID-19 prevention measures, while in Zimbabwe, government announced the indefinite closure of schools. All these measures are designed to protect and/or facilitate human life, which is the most important aspect in any country. This bring us to the subject of discussion in this instalment — population.

Population typically refers to the number of people in a single area, whether it be a city or town, region, country, or the world. The current world population is 7,9 billion, according to the most recent estimates, but the subject of the number of people on earth has occupied headlines and high level discussions in recent years.

There has been a number of statements attributed to global icons calling on the number of people on earth to reduce by three billion as part of controlling carbon emission and preserving the environment. Such statements attracted several conspiracy theories, mainly after the rise of the COVID-19 pandemic and the ensuant vaccination campaigns with some fearing that both were designed by humans to control the world population.

Just in November last year, Prince William the Duke of Cambridge was quoted saying mounting pressure on Africa’s “wild spaces as a result of human population” is a “huge challenge for conservationists”. This statement drew criticism from various experts but it was the second time the Prince had made similar comments on Africa’s population and its impact on wildlife.

The question is why the obsession with population growth now than before. Historically, rapid population growth was believed to strain institutions, resources and to increase pressure on services and was therefore seen as a threat to economic growth and political stability. This is the line that has been sold for many decades until China and India turned the narrative upside down by demonstrating that there is power and economic growth opportunities in numbers.

China, for example has not only used its numbers to grow its economy but also destroyed other economies because of the same factor. Their approach was simple. They approached Western companies and offered cheap labour which significantly reduced production costs and increased profits massively. There was stampede as companies moved from the United States and other Western countries to tap on the newly-found production market. As time went by, labour costs in China gradually adjusted to global levels but the same western companies remained trapped by a rapidly growing consumer base from huge population sizes in China, India and their neighbouring countries.

Keep Reading

It would later appear in US election campaigns how China population growth was actually a threat to the US global economic and political dominance and hence the need to have a say over the subject. Given that Africa has lower population density compared to Europe and Asia plus the fragmentation of the continent into 54 sovereign countries, it would appear that the continent’s population size of 1,37 billion people may not amount to similar threat as China and India.

Currently, the widely held view is that the real value of the African continent to the global economic and political dynamics in the world lies in its minerals and other natural resources than its people.

Without its abundant natural resources which the world needs to feed its global industries, there would not be any interest in the continent. So the desire to control population in Africa is purely to preserve the environment from which these resources are found.

But is that a comforting thought mainly when we look at Japan , an island country with nothing in terms to natural resources other than its people? The growth of the Japanese economy was a result of several lines of effort among which include investing in people skills in innovation, technology and engineering which drove its story on the economic miracle resulting in the growth between the post-World War II era to the end of the Cold War.

The Japanese understood that it is people and ideas that convert nothing into something and that is the foundation that has made Japan the third-largest national economy in the world, after the US and China, in terms of nominal GDP. Japan is also the fourth-largest national economy in the world, after the US, China and India, in terms of purchasing power parity as of 2019. As of the same year, Japan’s labour force consisted of 67 million workers. Japan has a low unemployment rate of around 2,4%.

Simply put, Japan without its people would a barren country while Africa without its people would remain the richest continent in the world in terms of minerals and natural resources.

So what is poor in Africa is not the continent itself but the people which may mean that if they are moved to Japan, a barren island, they would not make it while the Japanese may prosper in Africa taking advantage of the abundant natural resources.

It would appear that the common approach in Africa has been to control the mindset, population growth and make sure the population is not exposed to the progressive ways such as those adopted by the Japanese.