Some folks strain to find their agenda in every event. For Georgie Anne Geyer, state-mandated population control provides the only hope for her agenda: saving the environment, whatever that means. So she sees the heat, drought and fires this summer in Russia as proof that Malthus was right, all along. Yet …
While it is true that today’s disasters are affecting the near-term supply of food, the issue is not the current world population. The issue is these disasters were unplanned.
Had world farmers known last year that Russia would harvest less grain this year, more grain worldwide would have been planted. Problem solved.
Unplanned disasters are tough, regardless the population. Reduce the population to Robinson Crusoe and Friday, and a bad harvest would still lead to hardship.
But for Geyer, a logical sleight of hand and she has a non sequitur to blame mankind once again.
{ 34 comments }
The claims that the world is overpopulated are truly absurd. We could fit the entire world population of 6 billion people into the State of Texas and there would be enough land for everybody to have a house and a decent-sized yard. Since environmentalists may be reading this, I need to clarify that I do not advocate this.
The world is not overpopulated and overpopulation is not the cause of starvation in Africa. In fact, Africa is one of the least densely populated regions of the world. The real cause of starvation in Africa is socialism, that great export of western colonialism.
In this case, as usual, the environmentalists are making spurious claims that have absolutely no basis in fact. However, thanks to their propaganda about overpopulation, a very serious real problem will exist in the near future, namely the problem of underpopulation due to decades of low birth rates. The current underpopulation crisis is not unparalleled and mirrors a similar crisis that occurred in the late Roman Empire (although this isn’t the only way in which the modern west is reminiscent of Rome during its period of decline).
Of course the market would have probably been better prepared to handle the shock if not for the regulations and OH DEAR GOD
Where are regulations mentioned in the article. Mysteriously absent…
“Unplanned disasters are tough, regardless the population. Reduce the population to Robinson Crusoe and Friday, and a bad harvest would still lead to hardship.”
Seattle, I think you are straining to find your agenda here.
… I think that’s the joke.
If markets were allowed to operate freely, if subsidies in some states were removed so that production can be moved to where its more profitable, if taxes were low enough, droughts would not necessarily lead to famines. But one thing I can guarantee you state planning is not the answer… we are better off with development of substitutes by the private sector. After all, it was just Wheat that is under pressure…
If subsidies were removed, production would finish moving offshore, where industry would get state subsidies, low wages and an absence of environmental controls.
They call this trend the Race to the Bottom.
Subsidies encourage farms to get bigger (more land farmed, more subsidies). So, subsidies have been contributing to the demise of the family/small farmer. Also, environmental controls in the USA encourage offshore movement (and discourage small farmers, once again, from starting up), so no wonder.
What is quite amazing is how long Malthusians have been wrong – I seem to recall that the original work was round about 1800-1825. Marxism, the New Deal, Keynesian Economics have only been wrong for a fraction of this time.
What I find interesting is how some people suggest the world is overpopulated and then predict general starvation in Africa, yet Africa is currently going through an agricultural revolution (thanks in large part to the increase in capital-goods being imported for ever-lowering prices). The problem is not with overpopulation, but whatever retards this process of ever-increasing productivity.
Overpopulation?
I’m not sure how “overpopulation” can retard productivity, given that productivity is ultimately a function of labor (so, it follows that the greater the population the greater the amount of labor that can be applied to something).
I was trying to be sarcastic. My apologies.
Sarcasm doesn’t work well in text. Needs a longer windup and even then, some serios-o will still take it literally.
Seattle, if you think there is overpopulation would you alleviate some of it and lead by example?
Like stupid strategies to limit population growth. More people equals more problem solvers.
What an wretched evil woman. I use evil in both its Theological and Randian sense: against human life. Dress it up any way you like, but the true problem is the same for all the Malthusians: too many dang human beings mucking things up. That’s why the validity of the doctrine is irrelevant. I can still remember the lingering sense of horror I had after watching about 30 minutes of this movie on History channel.
I hear there’s a rise in vaccine resistant bugs coming out of our colonies in the middle east. How this vile being must revel in the thought of the devastation it will bring to pesky pestilent people.
Well, in a billion years or so, continental drift will come to halt, CO_2 will be purged out of the atmosphere and the single supercontinent will be ravaged by wildfires fuelled by 30+ % O_2 atmosphere. Then we are done for.
Keynes was right – in the end, we are all dead.
30%+ O2 means that the giant mosquitos will come back. Better watch out…
wasting a column on a simpleton like GA Geyer is ridiculous. She hasn’t even noticed that most of the West is facing a disasterous LACK of births.
Anonymous:
I think you’ve given us a Texas-sized exaggeration: there’s no more space than, perhaps, 33′ X 33′ for each person (house and decent-sized yard on just a shade over a thousand square feet?), though your overall point–that we’re not “running out of space”–is quite valid.
By the way, a friend in Texas took a look at the sombrero one of the workers in his yard had taken off and put on a chair. “Made in China.”
Why would the population “always be in trouble”? Why couldn’t the population come down while using food technology designed for more people so everyone is fed? Besides what’s wrong with Malthus? He’s just saying what happens when the food supply fails to keep up with population. Yes, for a long period food growth outstripped babies in the West leading to fatsoes and food export but happens when the population catches up? Or, in the case in Russia, the population hasn’t particularly grown rather the food growth capacity has gone seriously down? Jim Fedako forgets that when European explorers visited island population they found healthy, well-fed people with a stable population not the poverty-level Malthusian population growth of the continents that required technology before they could grow food ahead of population.
Re: Gil,
He commits a ceteris paribus fallacy.
I was under the impression that, prior to the early 1800s, the world lurched from one Malthusian trap to the next. In other words, Malthus was right about the vast majority of human history. Since the early 1800s, the West has managed to outrun the ever-threatening Malthusian trap — which is cool and great. But we haven’t outrun it by all that much, and our ability to outrun it might falter at any time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_trap
To quote Del Lindsey:
Consider the threat to societal “energy flow” posed by the deforestation of England in the 16th century. Prior to 1550 both England and Europe fueled their economies by the burning of wood. It first became clear to the British that wood had better uses (e.g. for ship-building and as a construction material) than as a heat source for British industry and homes. That the specific production resource of coal would over time replace the more general production resource of wood as the primary heating source can in hindsight be seen as a praxeological necessity. The direct consequences of this transition led to the availability of energy potentials several orders of magnitude greater than before. As John Nef asserts in his Scientific American article of 1977:
“The substitution of coal for wood between 1550 and 1700 led to new methods of manufacturing, to the expansion of existing industries and to the
exploitation of untapped natural resources.”
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Soc/soc.history.medieval/2008-07/msg00083.html
It is more than a little embarrassing for Malthusians to have to admit that civilization had already overcome a major Malthusian obstacle a full century before Malthus was born.
You missed why Malthus said – increasing the food supply is no good if you’re going to increase the population in kind. Even Norman Borlaug forewarned people not merely eat up gains he made in food productivity presuming there’ll always be an answer around the corner.
But there is an answer around the corner, at least for now: hydroponic technology is waiting in the wings for when dirt-growing is no longer sufficient. And since hydroponic farms can be damn near anywhere, we won’t need another answer for a while.
It is quite simply absurd to say that we are going to run out of food. There is abundant evidence (like hydroponics, as mentioned by Biotube) that we can grow enough food, probably forever. Think about growing fish in the ocean, for example…..
We have more people than at any point in time….how does this make us underpopulated? I’m also curious why a lack of births is bad.
Population control is bad because it is authoritarian, but that doesn’t mean our world wouldn’t be better off with less people. The environment provides many free ecological services, and the less of it is covered in concrete and suburbs, the better off everyone is. Our current government policies actually encourage an increasing population by providing tax cuts and social services.
Apparently for many – population is the primal measure of true wealth.
Re: Gil,
Apparently for many – population is the primal measure of true wealth.
Not the measure, Gil. The consequence. Wealth creation makes it possible for higher levels of population and hence more productivity, through division of labor. You don’t make your OWN shirts, do you?
Excuse me, but I appreciate an environmentalist that has enough guts to say what isn’t politically correct. The people who really care about the environment know that it isn’t about recycling a few aluminum cans or buying environmentally safe product X or Y. Malthus just got the projections wrong, and he didn’t anticipate the innovations that would come.
The problem is that innovation has its limits, regardless of what economic system you choose. The religion of progress will put us in a bad spot, if we take for granted innovations that haven’t arrived yet. I’m still waiting for cold fusion! That’s almost as stupid as believing that the population will grow like an exponential mathematical function. The reasons that it won’t are what should concern us. Some good and some bad.
I can’t say exactly when, but be sure that the enormous growth in population will start to lower everyone’s living standards eventually, even though it’s occurring in many places already (by spread of disease, lack of water, etc…). Remember that overpopulation is also a regional concern.
There are limits to growth and this is not just because there are limits on free markets. There is a physical reality people. Say what you want about state vs market solutions, but I’m not so sure there is an obvious set of rights concerning having children, which can make the issue obvious and clear. Rights are not as solid and simple as we like to believe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F1Lq1uFcAE), although there can be a consistent and simple set for responsible adults, if we respect them. Should we allow birth control and abortion? I think that many statists will and do use the overpopulation argument to justify their interventionism, but you can’t dismiss an argument simply because the person who made it doesn’t do a very good job or believes in something else that you don’t agree with. That’s a fallacy in reasoning.
Now, what is the exact time-line and level of resources? I’m not sure, but it’s certainly an issue that shouldn’t be dismissed. “The issue is these disasters were unplanned.” But are these disasters reminders of and limits to stable growth?
I just wish someone would answer the real question: why are people so defensive of those with low IQ, who have loads of children, even in a free society? Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. Defending freedom should not be limited to defending stupidity. You won’t find me doing it. Unlike some people, I actually have standards. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLRQvK2-iqQ&feature=related)
Here are some socialists thinking wishfully too:
“Most of what you’ve heard about Malthus is wrong. He didn’t predict a population explosion, and he didn’t think we should control our population. His real goal was to convince people that society cannot be improved, that most people will always be poor.”
The Malthus Myth: Population, Poverty and Climate Change
Ian Angus, editor of Climate and Capitalism, speaking at Socialism 2010 in Toronto, May 22, 2010
http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=2539
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Poulation-since-1000AD.jpg
I think water and energy will be a problem before arable land will be:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arable_land#Regional_Comparison
I just think all of this “myth busting” is a little too proud to be taken seriously.
“Not the measure, Gil. The consequence. Wealth creation makes it possible for higher levels of population and hence more productivity, through division of labor. You don’t make your OWN shirts, do you?”
The general trend is that wealthier, more educated countries have much lower birth rates….it’s actually really natural for populations to stabilize once conditions get decent. High population growth is inversely correlated with wealth.
Human ingenuity has helped us switch to alternatives when certain resources become too scarce to be economically viable, but that doesn’t change the fact that resources are finite and their over-usage makes things harder on everyone. Land used to be ridiculously cheap, even taking into account inflation, but because of scarcity, nowadays most people can barely afford 1/2 acre plots in subdivisions.
Human beings are the “ultimate” capital, if you will. Boundless in versatility and multipotent in creativity and endeavour.
If a government enacts sufficient (capital destroying) legislation, even an ultimate capital gets destroyed in the process (i.e. Stalin’s USSR or Mao’s China)
Comments on this entry are closed.