People+Paradox

1. Title, director and release year? Energy Crossroads //World in the Balance: The People’s Paradox,// directed by Sarah Holt, released in 2004

2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?

The film argues that the Earth cannot handle the rapidly increasing population, which is expected to nearly double in the next 50 years. However, the world demographic model moves in two different directions- one towards rapid birthrate resulting in large, younger populations and the other towards declining birthrates resulting in large, older populations. Nevertheless, it is these populations of the world that have far-reaching, environmental effects.

3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?

The film is addressing a general sustainability problem that becomes a common theme throughout the video- the concept of a sustainable population. The world today is experiencing a “population explosion” in which the global population can nearly double by the end of the century. This creates issues in unemployment, diplomacy and new conflict areas. However, perhaps even more pressing, is the creation of issues regarding the environment. A rapidly growing global population strains the environment for resources, such as water, and is also strained for land. Land is vital to growing food and feeding the global population, leading the film to question whether a population of the current magnitude can be sustainable.

4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?

I was most compelled by the film’s case study of the population structure of Africa. The population in this country is increasing so rapidly that by 2050, the population will be triple the size of Europe’s population. In this region, where the average family size is 6 children, it is surprising to see how the effects of a large population can cause conflicts, new migration patterns and even creating a strained environment. It seems that it is in this continent that the effects of a large, unsustainable population are seen most clearly.

5. What parts of the film were you least compelled or convinced by?

I was least compelled by the argument that the global population must be stabilized at two children per family. I feel that this is an extremely difficult statistic to estimate and it also makes me question who decided on this number. The ideal two child family seems very similar to the typical American family of one boy and one girl and seems to be different to the average family size in other countries where having more children is the norm. Part of me questions if this statistic is simply satisfying Western ideologies and ways of living.

6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?

It would be very interesting to discover any connections between the population size of a country and the particular resources it consumes. For instance, it would be interesting to discover if the population of the United States tends to consume vast amounts of a resource in comparison to India, who also has a very large population size.

7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?

This film definitely best addresses the younger population of today’s society. It is aimed at making the younger generation more consciously aware of the environment and the effect of our population size on it. The film portrays a gloomy outlook if the population continues to grow exponentially but also offers practical solutions to help curve this growth. I feel that this film does have the potential to change the way viewers understand the issue of population sustainability, but the idea of acting on this change in point of view is unlikely- the issue is presented as one that is out of the control of the average person and one that must be controlled on a massive scale, by governments for example.

8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?

The film makes evident various points of action that would attempt to tackle the issue of a growing global population. Firstly, it is suggested that birth control must be made more accessible in developing countries, through awareness and education. In the special case of Japan, the film argues that it is the working environment in this country that is preventing a high birth rate and thus, must be restructured. Also, for Japan to balance out there dramatically unstable population pyramid, some 6,000 immigrants a year would be needed to stabilize the population. Finally, in the special case of Africa, the film suggests that family planning clinics must be created to cut fertility in the region, which can only be accomplished through more funding. These clinics would help a woman avoid unwanted pregnancies and addresses a common theme of the continent- unprotected sex.

9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?

This film chose to focus more on the problems of population structure affecting particular countries, rather than concentrating on the specific effects of the population size on the environment. Although it is made clear in the film that the increasing population size will eventually become unsustainable, there would be more clarity if specific future effects were explained. There is a weak connection between a population structure and the effect on the environment.