Planet of The Slums: UN Warns Urban Populations Set To Double
The combined forces of population growth and urbanization are creating a planet of slums, where the urban population will have doubled by 2030, according to a report released by the United Nations today.
The shanty towns that choke the cities of Africa and Asia are experiencing unstoppable growth, expanding by more than a million people every week, according to the “state of the world’s population” report.
The UN’s findings echo recent predictions that 2008 will see a watershed in human history as the balance of the world’s population tips from rural to urban. Many of the new urbanites will be poor and the shelters into which they move, or are born, will be slums.
“The growth of cities will be the single largest influence on development in the 21st century,” the report states. It maintains that over the next 30 years, the population of African and Asian cities will double, adding 1.7 billion people - more than the current populations of the US and China combined.
In this new world the majority of the urban poor will be under 25, unemployed and vulnerable to fundamentalism, Christian and Islamic.
Mike Davis, a population expert, described this emerging underclass in his recent work Planet of Slums as: “A billion-strong global proletariat ejected from the formal economy, with Islam and Pentecostalism as songs for the dispossessed.”
While some critics have accused Mr Davis of scaremongering, the UN’s findings appear to back many of his basic assertions.
George Martine, a demographer and the author of today’s report, said: “The urbanization is jolting mentalities and subjecting them to new influences. This is a historical situation. And now one of the ways for people to reorganize themselves in this urban world is to associate themselves with new or strong, fundamentalist religion.”
The rise of radical Islam in Africa, from the outskirts of Jakarta to the slums of Egypt, is well documented but the continent is also experiencing a Christian shift, with Pentecostalism winning converts from Uganda to the Democratic Republic of Congo.
In Latin America, identified by the UN as the other engine of urban growth, the once all-encompassing Catholic Church is battling for hearts and minds with radical evangelical churches. This battle was one of the key points of Pope Benedict XVI’s recent trip to the world’s most populous Catholic country, Brazil.
Urbanization is inevitable, the report warns, and calls on planners to accept that the poor have the right to a place in the city. It argues that this influx can be positive if properly managed. No country in the industrial age has enjoyed economic growth without urbanization.
“It’s pointless trying to control urban growth by stopping migration,” Mr Martine said. “It doesn’t work. We have to change mindsets and take a different stance. We’re at a crossroads and can still make decisions which will make cities sustainable. If we don’t make the right decisions the result will be chaos.”
UN-Habitat uses the term “slum household” to describe a group of individuals living under the same roof in an urban area who lack one or more of the following: durable housing, sufficient living area, secure tenure and access to clean water and sanitation.
Until now the response of national and municipal governments to ballooning growth has been to discourage newcomers but this is a failed policy, the report argues. “It has resulted in less housing for the poor and increased slum growth,” the reports says. “It also limits opportunities for the urban poor to improve their lives and to contribute fully to their communities and neighborhoods.”
Mr Martine argues for a more positive approach to urbanization, saying that by providing land for housing with at least some services and planning in advance to promote sustainability, progress can be achieved.
Slums have been part of human communities since Mesopotamia but our modern concept of segregated slums for the poor comes from the Industrial Revolution. The difference between then and now is a question of scale, with today’s slum dwellers being one-in-three of all city dwellers.
More than 90 per cent of this underclass are in the developing world, with South Asia having the largest share, followed by eastern Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America. In sub-Saharan Africa, growth has become synonymous with slums and 72 per cent of the population live in slum conditions.
Growth of urbanization
* By 2008, more than half of the world’s current 6.7 billion population will live in cities.
* By 2030, the urban population will have risen to 5 billion, 60 per cent of the world’s population.
* Half of the world’s urban population is currently under 25. By 2030, young people will make up the vast majority of the 5 billion urban dwellers.
* Between 2000 and 2030, Asia’s urban population will increase from 1.3 billion to 2.64 billion. Africa’s population will rise from 294 million to 742 million, Latin America and the Caribbean from 394 million to 609 million.
* Mega-cities do not have a monopoly on population growth. More than half of the urban world lives in cities with a population of less than 500,000.
© 2007 The Independent
This is only one possible future, which is based on the notion that the developing Third World must follow the traditional path of the fossil-fuel intensive ‘industrial revolution’.
There is however a real opportunity for developing countries to entirely bypass this development model and go directly to a renewable-powered economy. Much of this region is in the equatorial sun belt, so solar heating and electricity are very viable.
Rather than attempting to build the traditional megaprojects that funding agencies are so fond of, Third World development should move directly to decentralized renewable energy generation using wind and solar, and directly to sustainable fossil fuel-free agricultural strategies. There is no need for the rest of the Third World to follow the dirty industrial paths that have been taken by China and India.
Unfortunately, development agencies and foreign governments are reluctant to support aid for renewables. Some would say that this is because most foreign aid is not aimed at helping countries out so much as it is aimed at gaining access to natural resources in those countries. It often seems that the real effect of foreign loan programs is to create huge, unpayable debts which will then put the country at the mercy of its creditors.
Yup, it’s time to redistribute the land- so much good land, all over the world… the poor could be (organically) farming- their own plots (not working as wage slaves for the “agri-monsters”), instead of huddled in these depressing conditions, by some city, hoping for a break (that won’t ever come).
To the world poor: Head for the hills! Beg for (heirloom) seeds on your way.
To the world rich: Get up off that land you aren’t using- redistribute it to the poor.
To the world leaders: Can’t you see where this is leading? More programs NOW to help the poor earn a living from pieces of their own land.
One issue not mentioned in this article is disease. Just as too many livestock and poultry are packed together in horrendous living conditions, so will these mega-slums. Disease is sure to follow as the basic needs of sanitation, medical care, and safe drinking water will inevitably increase the possibility of some new disease spreading rapidly across the globe. Especially in this day and age of ever growing migration and ease of transportation.
We have been very fortunate that Avian Flu has not spread across the world already, or that SARS has not reappeared. As far as we know, because with the secrecy now being adopted by more countries as issues of “National Security” are used to hide the facts, thanks to the good leadership and example set by the USA, this could already be happening in some areas of the world.
Nature always seems to find a way to put things back in order. Unfortunately, and as always, it will be the poor who will suffer the most. But even the wealthiest will not be immune. What would a repeat of the flu of 1918 do to the world today?
It’s a very real posssibility. It just makes sense that too many beings living in such high concentrations inevitably leads to contagious illnesses.
Are we ready for such a situation?
A billion-strong underclass ejected from the formal economy.
Of course, because what has the formal economy done for them, or for any of us trying just live and raise families.
It is not just the poor that need to look at sustaining themselves without outside help. The global middle class had better start planning for this too.
For myself, I have moved my family from a 3 level 3 bedroom, 2.5 bath detatched home on a 40ft lot I could never keep up into a 2 level 3 bedroom, 1 bath townhouse with a small enclosed back patio area.
I require less consumables without a useless lawn to maintain, I am growing my own vegetables and fruit in tiered planters on the patio. I use less chemicals with less redundant fixtures to clean.
The cost reduction has meant my family is now easily and comfortably sustained on my income alone, so with out a second worker in the house, we have eliminated the need for and ownership of a second car and all of the consumables that go into maintaing and operating it.
My kids can now walk or ride their bikes to school as opposed to having to be driven across town and I can now bike to the train station. I can now also walk or bike to get groceries as well.
I now also have more time with my kids and we make frequent use of community parks, which the city government where I live has already expressed a desire to close and sell to developers due to low public usage.
While some of this seems off-message, it is related. For urbanization to be sustained, governments must create sustainable urban environments, but residents and citizens must also change their minds to live in sustainable ways. Modern economics tells us not to do this. Sustainability tells us that we must. Changing the world means getting your hands dirty. JM2C
maybe urbanization isn’t an unmitigated evil. here in the densely-populated northeast u.s., it’s increasingly being viewed as a more energy-efficient scenario under which to deliver goods and services, while preserving open space for agriculture, wildlife habitat, groundwater recharge and passive recreation.
as always, people have to ask the fundamental political questions as enumerated by william greider: who benefits and who pays? who must be listened to, and who can be safely ignored?
Black Caucus Accused of Selling Out Black Citizens On Immigration
LOS ANGELES- Despite the results from a recent poll indicating that only 22 percent of Americans favor the Senate’s immigration reform bill, in a procedural vote on Tuesday, the Senate voted 64-35 to resurrect the bill and bring it to the floor for debate. Senator Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., an architect of the bill, and members of the Congressional Black Caucus have compared amnesty for illegals to the civil rights struggles of blacks. Conservative radio talk show host and staunch amnesty opponent, Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson issued the following statement today, blasting the Congressional Black Caucus and Sen. Kennedy for selling blacks out on this issue:
“The Senate’s immigration reform bill is an amnesty bill. Giving amnesty to some 15- 20 million illegal aliens would devastate low-income black and white Americans. These American citizens would be forced to compete with people from a third world country in the area of jobs, education, and healthcare. What does this say about our President, the CBC, and Sen. Kennedy when they try to force Americans to accept a bill that’s so obviously anti-American?
“By supporting amnesty, the Congressional Black Caucus and Sen. Kennedy are working against the best interest of black Americans. This should be a wake up call for blacks that their so-called leaders are more concerned with the rights of illegals from Mexico than that of Americans.”
Hi Richard:
I would like to comment about your letter, it maybe exactly how you feel as a disenfranchised citizen, it maybe the truth, and might make you feel better having written down but I think it is going to get the result you want.
You mention dissatisfaction with the current adminstration and newly elected administration, but you don’t say what exactly you are dissatisfied about or how it affects your daily life. I do acknowledge that there is a lot to be dissatisfied about, but you have to have solid reasons for your argument, or you can ask your representative assistance.
Something like, this is how your position affects not only me but scores of people in my position.
Also, I would ask for accountability to answer your letter and have in mind exactly what questions you want answered. Asking for impeachment may be an imperative but unfortunately it is a bit late for that and you should recognize that it didn’t happen overnight and it would be solved overnight.
Accountability starts when you ask for it one step at a time.
Thanks for your consideration, more effective communication is my goal here.
Hi Richard:
I would like to comment about your letter, it maybe exactly how you feel as a disenfranchised citizen, it maybe the truth, and might make you feel better having written down but I do not think it is going to get the result you want.
You mention dissatisfaction with the current adminstration and newly elected administration, but you don’t say what exactly you are dissatisfied about or how it affects your daily life. I do acknowledge that there is a lot to be dissatisfied about, but you have to have solid reasons for your argument, or you can ask your representative assistance.
Something like, this is how your position affects not only me but scores of people in my position.
Also, I would ask for accountability to answer your letter and have in mind exactly what questions you want answered. Asking for impeachment may be an imperative but unfortunately it is a bit late for that and you should recognize that it didn’t happen overnight and it won’t be solved overnight.
Accountability starts when you ask for it one step at a time.
Thanks for your consideration, more effective communication is my goal here.
It seems like the ghettos have long arms in the USA too. You would think a developed nation such as ours would promote education and the well being of its people.
But no, it is becomming more and more doggie dog everyday-less opportunity and too many people.
A lot of people cannot take care of themselves properly and yet feel entitled to reproduce.
Ten more years or less we will look like some of the 3 rd worlds.
Common sense would tell people they can only run up so much debt on $20,000 a year.
Illegal immigration into the USA contributes to the problem “evelyna” (above) identifies as, “A lot of people cannot take care of themselves properly and yet feel entitled to reproduce. Ten more years or less we will look like some of the 3rd worlds.” Well put! But then how do we progressive enviornmentalists come to terms with the illegal immigrant invasion? The GOP wants cheap labor, and the Democrats want a growing voting block. Both parties are selling the USA out and yes we will start looking like a third world. Gee, maybe we can candy coat it and call it multiculturalism.
Misery awaits our future. Scarcity awaits the many. The many simply grow into more than there were before but in our age, that happens so fast. A billion a decade. 100 million more per year. How valuable will human life be in such a circumstance? It will be much like it was in ancient days, when powerful nobles lived lives apart within high castle walls …and the ramshackle huts of the near starving serfs would surrounded the walls without. Call an ancient castle, the original gated community but a slum has always been a slum even back then. Call it whatever the hell you like…in a couple of decades most of humanity may be living in one. We call it a slum…they’ll call it the planet earth. Home…during global warming. Slum or castle moat…misery awaits our future. Global warming makes the most dire of population predictions so much worse. They discuss the problems like everything will be the same as the population grows, the next thirty years being just like the previous except that population grows. If only. Instead the population grows as rivers begin to dry up, heat destroys crops, weather disasters drain govt. coffers year after year, pray there is less war because in such turmoil, history predicts there will be more war rather than less. There will be the gentle lords and ladies parading in their finery. There be quite a few outside the castle walls struggling as best they can to eat that day. Misery awaits us…oddly we don’t care…do we? We also think the next thirty years will be much like the past but there has never been a world wide rate of change like we will see come so very, very soon. We do not care about the environment, in effect, we do not care about the future…thus >>> misery awaits our future and we don’t care. That’s about it…when you factor in the effects of climate change, the scarcity of water and food, the population numbers look real scary. In thirty years all the planet will simply be covered by people. All Earth will be a slum by then. We do not repeat history…we become science fiction…and a brave new world.
This reminds me of a novel I read back around ‘76, “Floating Worlds” by Cecilia Holland (historical fiction writer who tried her hand at Science Fiction for this one).
Earth, is a ghetto, unliveable except for domed cities. The military has relocated to the Moon. The rich have terraformed Mars and made it their own.
That’s the background and the plot I won’t get into, but right in the beginning the main character and her boyfriend are “touring” the submerged city of Manhattan, now, more or less, a museum to the “old days” (it’s at least 2000 years from the current era).
As I recall, the boyfriend is looking around Wall street or somewhere, going on and on about how “these people” were giants, built on a grander scale, more or less intimating how great he thought they were.
The main character, Paula, merely snorts…
“They were faschists” . The story is incredible. It reads like the “Gone with the Wind” of the future. I reread it once in a while and it still stands up.
Some of us have always known…
Social justice cannot happen without a major reduction of the human population because massive numbers of illegal immigrant workers are welcomed to drive down the wages of those in residence. So, without family planning clinics in all nations the human population will continue to grow until the biosphere collapses and billions die.
Stinger,
Thanks for your contribution.
When I moved to a similar neighborhood in Pittsburgh after a life in generic suburbia, it was positively an epiphany. And, houses are still cheap too - generally in the 5-digits even for ones in move-in condition. It probably has the most densely packed arrangement of single-family dwellings in the US - similar to an Italian neighborhood (it was originally the Italian neighborhood, and Italian can still be heard). But at the same time it is quieter than most suburban areas - except for the sound of children playing.
So, isn’t it time to get away from this equating urban areas with slums and misery? It is the economic system that creates this misery, not the urban spaces themselves.
Accurate comment by “entelechy.” Well put! Successful socialist countries of Western-Judeo culture, Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, etc. have some of the highest living standards in the world. But they have a secret that multiculturalists don’t want you to know: those countries have strict immigration policies! France’s new president Sarkozy rightfully won on the platform, “France will no longer be home to the world’s miseries.” (BBC)
Gee, maybe the solution for us progressives is to welcome multiculturalism and denounce effective socialist policy.