世界人口
Now we are seven billion
現(xiàn)今有70億
Persuading women to have fewer babies would help in some places. But it is no answer to scarce resources
說服女人少生孩子在某些地區(qū)行得通，但這并不是解決稀缺資源問題的答案。
Oct 22nd 2011 | from the print edition
2011年10月22日|來自印刷版
IN 1980 Julian Simon, an economist, and Paul Ehrlich, a biologist, made a bet. Mr Ehrlich, author of a bestselling book, called “The Population Bomb”, picked five metals—copper, chromium, nickel, tin and tungsten—and said their prices would rise in real terms over the following ten years. Mr Simon bet that prices would fall. The wager symbolised the dispute between Malthusians who thought a rising population would create an age of scarcity (and high prices) and those “Cornucopians”, such as Mr Simon, who thought markets would ensure plenty.
Mr Simon won easily. Prices of all five metals fell in real terms. As the world economy boomed and population growth began to ebb in the 1990s, Malthusian pessimism retreated.
西蒙先生輕而易舉地贏了。五種金屬的實(shí)際價(jià)格全都無一例外地下跌了。上世紀(jì)九十年代，正當(dāng)世界經(jīng)濟(jì)蓬勃發(fā)展時(shí)，人口增長(zhǎng)的速度開始減緩，馬爾薩斯主義者的悲觀主義回退。
It is returning. On October 31st the UN will dub a newborn the world’s 7 billionth living person. The 6 billionth, Adnan Nevic, born in October 1999, will be only two weeks past his 12th birthday. If Messrs Simon and Ehrlich had ended their bet today, instead of in 1990, Mr Ehrlich would have won. What with high food prices, environmental degradation and faltering green policies, people are again worrying that the world is overcrowded. Some want restrictions to cut population growth and forestall ecological catastrophe. Are they right?
它卷土重來了。10月31日，聯(lián)合國(guó)將會(huì)為世界上在世的第70億人口授予稱號(hào)。第60億人，誕生于1999年10月埃德南·涅維克兩周后即將迎來他的第12個(gè)生日。如果西蒙先生和厄里奇先生的賭現(xiàn)在截止，而不是在1990年，厄里奇先生就會(huì)贏。擔(dān)心食品高價(jià)、環(huán)境衰退和艱難推行的環(huán)保政策的同時(shí)，人們又開始擔(dān)心這個(gè)地球會(huì)過度擁擠。有些人希望動(dòng)用法律削減人口增長(zhǎng)并預(yù)先阻止這場(chǎng)生物學(xué)災(zāi)難。他們對(duì)么？
Lower fertility can be good for economic growth and society (see article). When the number of children a woman can expect to bear in her lifetime falls from high levels of three or more to a stable rate of two, a demographic change surges through the country for at least a generation. Children are scarcer, the elderly are not yet numerous, and the country has a bulge of working-age adults: the “demographic dividend”. If a country grabs this one-off chance for productivity gains and investment, economic growth can jump by as much as a third.
低密度（人口）對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)和社會(huì)都有好處（詳見全文）。當(dāng)一個(gè)女人可以承擔(dān)的孩子數(shù)量從較多的3或3個(gè)以上降為穩(wěn)定的2個(gè)，貫穿整個(gè)國(guó)家的人口統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)上的劇變至少持續(xù)了一代。兒童越來越少，老齡人口數(shù)并不龐大，成年勞力富余：（也就是所謂的）“人口紅利”。如果一個(gè)國(guó)家搶占了這樣的一次性的盈利和投資的機(jī)遇，經(jīng)濟(jì)將翻3番。
譯者注：“人口紅利”，指一個(gè)國(guó)家的勞動(dòng)年齡人口占總?cè)丝诒戎剌^大，撫養(yǎng)率比較低，為經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展創(chuàng)造了有利的人口條件。Less is more
過猶不及
However, the fall in fertility is already advanced in most of the world. Over 80% of humanity lives in countries where the fertility rate is either below three and falling, or already two or less. This is thanks not to government limits but to modernisation and individuals’ desire for small families. Whenever the state has pushed fertility down, the result has been a blight. China’s one-child policy is a violation of rights and a demographic disaster, upsetting the balance between the sexes and between generations. China has a bulge of working adults now, but will bear a heavy burden of retired people after 2050. It is a lurid example of the dangers of coercion.
然而，世界大部分地區(qū)的生育率（繁殖力）已經(jīng)下降。逾80%的農(nóng)村人的生育率不是少于3個(gè)并下跌就是已經(jīng)是2個(gè)或更少。這并并不能歸功于政府的限制，而應(yīng)歸功于現(xiàn)代化及個(gè)人對(duì)小家庭的渴望。每當(dāng)一個(gè)國(guó)家強(qiáng)制下調(diào)繁殖力時(shí)，結(jié)果總是慘淡的。中國(guó)的獨(dú)生子女政策是對(duì)權(quán)利的侵犯，也是一個(gè)人口（統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)上的）災(zāi)難，傾覆了性別及代間的平衡。中國(guó)成年勞力富余，但2050年后將會(huì)承受巨大的退休人員負(fù)擔(dān)。這就是一個(gè)（體現(xiàn)）強(qiáng)制的危險(xiǎn)性的恐怖案例。
Enthusiasts for population control say they do not want coercion. They think milder policies would help to save the environment and feed the world. As the World Bank points out, global food production will have to rise by about 70% between now and 2050 to feed 9 billion. But if the population stays flat, food production would have to rise by only a quarter.
人口控制的支持者們稱他們并不想要強(qiáng)制政策。他們認(rèn)為更加溫和的政策能夠幫助環(huán)境保護(hù)并能解決全球人口的吃飯問題。正如世界銀行所指出的，從現(xiàn)在到2050年，全球糧食產(chǎn)量將會(huì)增長(zhǎng)70%并能喂飽90億人口。但如果人口持續(xù)低迷，食品產(chǎn)量將只能有25%的增長(zhǎng)。
When Mr Simon won his bet he was able to say that rising population was not a problem: increased demand attracts investment, producing more. But this process only applies to things with a price; not if they are free, as are some of the most important global goods—a healthy atmosphere, fresh water, non-acidic oceans, furry wild animals. Perhaps, then, slower population growth would reduce the pressure on fragile environments and conserve unpriced resources?
當(dāng)西蒙先生打贏了這個(gè)賭時(shí)，他就能說人口的增長(zhǎng)不是問題：需求的增長(zhǎng)吸引投資，產(chǎn)出更多。但是這只是對(duì)商品而言的；如果它們是免費(fèi)的，正如某些全球最重要的物品--清新的空氣、淡水、無酸的海洋及毛茸茸的野生動(dòng)物。大概在那時(shí)，減緩的人口增長(zhǎng)能夠減輕施加在脆弱環(huán)境及保存無價(jià)資源的壓力。
That idea is especially attractive when other forms of rationing—a carbon tax, water pricing—are struggling. Yet the populations that are rising fastest contribute very little to climate change. The poorest half of the world produces 7% of carbon emissions. The richest 7% produces half the carbon. So the problem lies in countries like China, America and Europe, which all have stable populations. Moderating fertility in Africa might boost the economy or help stressed local environments. But it would not solve global problems.
當(dāng)其它形式的定量配給，如碳（排放）稅、水價(jià)正在艱難執(zhí)行之時(shí)，這個(gè)觀點(diǎn)尤其地吸引人。但迅速增長(zhǎng)的人口對(duì)氣候變化影響甚微。世界上最窮的半球制造了7%的碳排放，最富有的7%制造了一半的碳（排放）。所以，問題的關(guān)鍵在于中國(guó)、美洲、歐洲之類擁有穩(wěn)定人口的地區(qū)。非洲放緩的生育率也許會(huì)促進(jìn)經(jīng)濟(jì)或是緩解當(dāng)?shù)鼐o張的環(huán)境。但這并不會(huì)解決全球性的問題。
There remains one last reason for supporting family planning: on some estimates, 200m women round the world—including a quarter of African women—want contraceptives and cannot get them. A quarter of pregnancies are unplanned. In our view, parents ought to decide how many children to bring into the world and when—not the state, or a church, or pushy grandparents. Note, though, that this is not an argument about the global environment but individual well-being. Moreover, family planning appears to do little directly to control the size of families: some studies have shown no impact at all; others only a modest extra one. Encouraging smaller families in the highest-fertility places would still be worth doing. It might boost the economy and reduce the pressure of population in some fragile places. But the benefits would probably be modest. And they would be no substitute for other sensible environmental policies, such as a carbon tax.
至少還有一個(gè)支持計(jì)劃生育的理由：根據(jù)一些評(píng)估，全世界有2億女性--包括¼的非洲女性--想要避孕套而不得。有¼的意外妊娠。在我們看來，應(yīng)當(dāng)由父母來決定將多少子女在何時(shí)帶入這個(gè)世界，而不是由國(guó)家、教會(huì)或催促的祖父母?jìng)儊頉Q定。值得注意的是，這并不是在討論全球環(huán)境，而是在說個(gè)人幸福。此外，計(jì)劃生育似乎對(duì)家庭的大小的直接影響甚微：一些研究表明這根本就無所作為；另一些則證明這只是多此一舉。在高生育率的地區(qū)鼓勵(lì)小家庭仍然是值得的。在某些脆弱地區(qū)，它有可能推動(dòng)經(jīng)濟(jì)并減少人口壓力。但可能成效甚微。而且它們也不會(huì)取代例如碳（排放）稅的其它的敏感環(huán)境政策。
聯(lián)系客服
