THE CHINA MIRACLE OR CATASTROPHE?
Rather than depending on the laws of averages and the laws of nature to construct the ratio of males to females, China has tampered with its population mix by restricting family size and sex. This experiment now seems to be a colossal failure from one angle as China faces a current and future serious shortage of workers in certain age groups! Looking from another angle though, it may be viewed as a stunning success at slowing poverty growth and increasing GNP per capita. Jamaica should look and learn but should it copy the China population strategy?

POPULATION COMPARISON INDICATORS

When we look at overpopulation it cannot be looked at in a vacuum; it must have some base. Here are a few criteria:

1. land mass (this is the most common)
2. available resources
3. quality of life,
4. environmental degradation,
5. long-term shortages of essential goods and services
6. and GNP potential (this one is my personal invention)

Jamaican stats.

Now clearly in terms of land mass Jamaica is not overpopulated per acre as the population ratio of persons per acre is almost one. One could make the case however, that it could be overpopulated for the other criteria if it could be shown that if the population was smaller, it would result in a measurable improvement in them. But what I focus on is GNP potential.

CAN THE GROWTH IN JAMAICA'S GNP EVER LEAD TO POVERTY ALLEVIATION?
"Gross National Product is the total value added from domestic and foreign sources claimed by residents of a country. In other words it is GDP (Gross Domestic Product, the value of goods and services produced within a country) plus net income received by residents from non-resident sources. GNP/capita is the total divided by the number of people in the country. In other words, GNP/capita is a measure of national income per person." Wikipedia

Jamaican stats

------------------------------------

The GNP to me seems to be a more accurate indicator than GDP because production does not always lead to income a situation with which we are painfully familiar.

Now then here is the question. Can the current population of Jamaica, 2.7 million, raise the GNP to a level equal to any of the other islands with which we are most similar? (Jamaica is last on this list.)

Or can the population of Jamaica raise the GNP to that of Barbados? Can this realistically ever happen? For this to happen it means we would have to at least double our income from where.. Bauxite, Tourism or Agriculture? Bauxite production has peaked, tourism investment is peaking and agriculture peaked decades ago!! Globalization now means that competition is far fiercer than in the seventies and so it is near impossible to displace other suppliers to markets. The problem seems more serious when one considers that our population is increasing too by about 130,000 per year!

(From CIA fact book)

Birth rate: 20.44 births/1,000 pop. (07est.)
Death rate: 6.59 deaths/1,000 pop. (07 est.)
Net migration rate:-6.07 migrant(s)/1,000 pop.(07est)
-----------------------------------------------------

NET INCREASE 7.81 (this is my calculation-simple subtraction..not sure if this is the way it is done.)

So then if we accept the premise that "nuff man a struggle" and 3,396 GNP per capita is too low we are clearly overpopulated based on the current number! If we believe that the facts say we cannot double the GNP then we must be overpopulated based on our GNP potential! If the country cannot increase its GNP per capita significantly then it means that permanent poverty alleviation is a shocking and real impossibility!

BASED ON THE INFORMATION HERE WHY ARE MPs CALLING FOR SALARY INCREASES?
I would not be surprised if most of our political leaders are unaware of the real state of the nation and the future that awaits us. Partisanship does not major in solutions and problem identification, but in winning elections and staying in power!

What is the solution? Before solutions can be implemented the consciousness of the country must be prepared. Do we really want solutions? I believe I know what some of them are but we do not want solutions that displace our comfort zone and so sadly in fifty years we perhaps will be in a much worse state!