While poverty is increasing on the one hand, the world population is significantly increasing on the other hand. According to 2008 figures released by the UN, the population of the world will reach 7 billion in 2013. This should be considered the reason why the UN, which functions under the supervision of certain countries, attaches such importance to the population issue.The situation presents a perilous picture. The majority of close to half a billion people who faced the threat of hunger in 1994 lived in countries in the southern hemisphere. Another billion people were living almost below the “poverty line.” Poverty is visible in the hearts of affluent societies as well. The number of poor and especially homeless people is increasing each day in wealthy countries such as the US and France. However, a more striking figure is the inequality in the use of resources compared to the world population. While those who live in an “affluent society” comprise 17 percent of the world population, these wealthy and privileged countries use 80 percent of the world’s resources.
The lion’s share belongs to America followed by countries such as Japan, France, Germany and England. In these countries and in other wealthy countries, the population growth is not “increasing” but instead declining.
Another aspect of the situation is that the population is aging in wealthy countries. Despite incentives that have been adopted, the decline in population growth hasn’t stopped. Some European countries must accept a certain number of immigrants each year to protect current balances in the population; however, increasing xenophobia and racist parties make it very difficult to do so. In countries where the population is regressing, not only are there problems that are affecting the social security system, but there is also the aging problem that has yet to be solved. In the next 30 years, the population of wealthy people is expected to comprise 10 percent of the population. This means in 30 years from now, only one out of every 10 people in the world will be affluent and will be able to live a comfortable life. In a sense, it will be like a tiny wealthy island in the middle of a sea of poverty.
Naturally this situation bothers wealthy countries. The wealthy may not have been so troubled if it were possible to stop poverty at a certain point. But, poverty has a side that leads to mass deaths and emigrations. It has another important dimension that causes major social unrest, regional wars and possibly even mass emigration from the perspective of the West. Not too long from now when ecological factors are added to poverty, a much larger group of people will emigrate. Similar emigration incidents happened in history, and there are adequate reasons for there to be others in the future.
Some may ask if this problem would be solved if the affluent helped the poor. Certainly there is an appropriate way to solve this problem; however, the policies wealthy countries follow make the problem worse instead of facilitating a solution.
If we can let go of our prejudices about the link between population and modernization and look at the situation from a different perspective, we can see that none of these are a solution. For example, the money allocated for 216 Tomahawk missiles is enough to meet Ethiopia’s nutritional requirements for six months; the money spent on bombs released by B-5s are enough to pay for the hospital expenses of 1,000 people in Bangladesh; and the cost of pilot training for a Tornado plane would be enough to save 25,000 Eritrean children from hunger. Recalling what Tony Blair told the English, who reacted to the occupation of Iraq, “The affluence in Western societies is related to these kinds of military interventions and occupations.”
The important thing is changing the basic outlook. However, Westerners are not trying to change their outlook nor do they want their interests to be harmed. Robert McNamara, who was the World Bank president until 1981, explained this the best when he said, “No power can stop us Westerners.”
