Source: https://www.thedailystar.net/law-our-rights/environment-and-industrialisation-1507165
As if the problem of planetary destruction is not troublesome enough, matters of geopolitics and economy inevitably find themselves intertwined with the population crisis.
As cited by Rainer Münz and Albert Reiterer in their book Overcrowded World? (2010), 95% of the yearly 78-million increase in global population takes place in low-to-middle income countries, with the poorest countries in Africa, Oceania, and Asia growing the fastest.
Thomas Pogge, in his 2010 keynote address at the University of Georgia, emphasizes the impact of global poverty on eco-crises. While those falling under the poverty line do less ecological harm per person than the affluent, they report more ecological harm per unit of income. This is because they simply cannot afford to consume in an ecologically sustainable manner. We therefore see a significant population-related ecological impact coming from countries and regions of lower socioeconomic statuses.
Certainly, this does not mean that antinatalist actions or sanctions must be taken against countries of lower socioeconomic statuses. Where I come from, we call that Nazism.
Instead, we would do well to attend to lifting these populations out of poverty. I say this because of what is known as the inverse correlation of Income and Fertility. As the name suggests, GDP (and more broadly, affluence) is negatively correlated with fertility. While there are myriad reasons for this trend (e.g., the fact that individuals of lower socioeconomic statuses tend to make more children due to poorer literacy rates, or relying on their children as a form of social security), this is not of interest to us at this time. All we need to know is that more likely than not, lifting these countries out of poverty will reduce their fertility rates, thereby reducing the magnitude of impact that they shall have on planetary abuse.
Whereas this blog is by no means a blog on solving global poverty, and neither is its author qualified to provide commentary on the matter, I would be performing a disservice to my readers if I left this page merely as a statement of the problem.
Very briefly, here are some resources for effective giving to severely disadvantaged communities. I strongly encourage readers who are keen to give to ensure that their giving is effective. Although the feeling of giving is in itself a reward for philanthropic behaviour, we certainly want to ensure that the donated resources are effective in impacting positive change.
Givedirectly is a highly effective charity that manages and coordinates the direct transfer of donated funds to the poorest people around the planet. The organisation constantly carries out rigorous research programmes to ensure that there are significant impacts that come out of their disbursed funds, and also constantly revisit their list of benefactors who will best benefit from the money.
Givewell is an organisation of effective altruism that rely on their evidence of (1) effectiveness, (2) cost-effectiveness, (3) transparency, and (4) room for more funding to identify the top charities of the world to which we should donate. As at the time of writing this post, most top charities are those that contribute to de-worming efforts in impoverished areas and preventing such diseases as malaria. Although these charities do not immediately tackle poverty, they work towards reducing mortality rates in the areas they affect. By promoting healthcare (and in extension, longevity) in impoverished areas, we indirectly contribute to reducing the need for individuals in these areas to produce more children, thereby reducing their ecological footprint in a sustainable and amicable manner.