They just keep reproducing, though far more slowly than anticipated by doomsayer Paul Ehrlich in his famous Population Bomb. Ehrlich is hardly contrite, telling the New York Times that the earth’s optimal population is two billion. “I have severe doubts that we can support even two billion if they all live like citizens of the U.S.,” he said. “The world can support a lot more vegetarian saints than Hummer-driving idiots.”
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/2424/those-pesky-humans/
Those Pesky Humans
Previous post: Newest Site Improvements
Next post: Middle-Age Men for Drafting the Young
{ 5 comments }
What about vegetarian idiots? The tell-tale sign of a social engineer is to claim that any measurable quantity in an economy could be “optimum”.
I have grave reservations when even Austrian economists invoke the term. To say that something could be “optimum” or “optimized” implies a unitary value scale or function. Such a notion, when applied outside a microeconomic context, should make economists cringe.
“Optimal” in what sense? Obviously, professor Ehrlich is one of the “optimal” 2 billion–which 4 billion, specifically, are expendable?
Hey, if you can afford to drive around in a hummer, and don’t have anything better to spend your money on, why not drive one?
Myself, I appreciate other things more, but there’s no accounting for taste!
But obviously all 6 billion people could drive hummers, but not for long! hahahaha
Environmental Stewardship
by Steve Bonta
The evidence is in that free-market principles and private ownership of natural resources provide better stewardship of the environment than government controls ever could. (Link)
Some of you may appreciate the full article at the link above.
Is a human being a net asset or a net liability? Overall, is he or she something that provides for others or something that must be provided for?
Where there are many problems to be solved, do you want MORE human beings –to work on the problems and get them solved more quickly (What else, besides a human being, solves problems?)? –Or do you want there to be fewer human beings, in order that the problems not overtake everything (or at least not so quickly?)
Under conditions of freedom, human beings, by and large are, of course, assets. However, under “social democracies” human beings are viewed to be–and actually are–liabilities, and the fewer of them there are, in social democracies, the better. Even if the “democratic leader,” like Stalin, achieves for human beings to be fewer and fewer in number each year, there never seem to be few ENOUGH human beings for the flourishing of the “democratic” economy, where each person is a liability.
Wherever a smaller population seems to be desirable, LOOK OUT. There, the human being is a liability, and there, becoming fewer in number will not turn these liabilities into assets.
Comments on this entry are closed.