According to conventional wisdom, there are too many people
on earth, and the problem is only going to get worse. We won’t ask “too many people for what?”, as the answers often get
contradictory and evasive, e.g., “For
the earth to support,” a popular answer, is demonstrably false, and requires
innumerable qualifications to make it plausible.
 |
| Is any comment necessary? |
Further, it’s noticed that the people raising the issue are
rarely the ones offering to leave, so we can probably assume that conventional
wisdom boils down to “There are too many other
people on earth for my level of
comfort.” That the other people might
have a problem with those who claim their existence is a problem doesn’t seem
to be an issue.
Let’s get real, though.
Given the current socio-economic systems throughout the world, it is one
way of looking at the situation to say that there are too many people not for
the earth, but for the system to support. A better way of looking at it, however, is
that we’re trapped in an inadequate and, in many ways, inherently flawed system
that makes it appear as if there are
too many people.
That’s one thing.
Another is, yes, if you increase population exponentially, then at some
point there will not be enough resources to support everyone. Of course, determining when that point will
be reached depends on your assumptions as well as your knowledge of the
principles of human development. Make
one mistake, and your entire guesstimate is compromised.
For example, in 1968 Stanford University professor Paul R.
Ehrlich and his (uncredited) wife, Anne, published the bestselling The Population Bomb. They predicted that The End Is Near, and
massive starvation would wipe out most of the world’s population in the 1970s
and 1980s. In the ensuing years, they
simply moved the date further into the future.
It hasn’t affected either their popularity, credibility, or (more
important) book sales.
Let’s cut to the chase, though. When we talk about “the population problem”
we are really looking at two separate issues.
One, we’re talking about the system of production, consumption, and
distribution, i.e., personal and
political economy, the study of how people meet their material wants and
needs. That’s one thing.
Two, we’re talking about the causes of the rate of
population growth. It’s not what many
people presume.
 |
| Just in case you don't recognize him. |
The first issue is easily addressed. As Jean-Baptiste Say pointed out more than
200 years ago, if some people have goods that aren’t selling, and other people
need those goods to consume, the have-nots have to produce something to trade
to the haves. Thus, the solution to
supporting the earth’s population in any number is to make people who are
currently not producing anything into producers.
Since technology is now the predominant factor of
production, we need to make every child, woman, and man on earth into an owner
of technology (“capital”). In this way,
people either produce for their own consumption, or make something to trade to
others for what others produce, and thereby are able to consume what others
produce — just as those others consume what they traded their own productions
for.
Capital Homesteading is designed to do that. We’ve described that often enough on this
blog that we won’t do it again.
Today. Instead, here’s the link
to a more detailed description of the proposal: http://www.cesj.org/learn/capital-homesteading/.
The second issue is a bit more complex, as it goes contrary
to the Malthusian Myth. Unlike the
Malthusian Myth, however, this has sound historical data, not mathematical game
playing to back it up.
 |
| I think this is the right John Weyland. . . . |
Here’s the secret of the rate of population growth, noted by
John Weyland, Jane Jacobs, R. Buckminster Fuller, and scads of others: the rate
of population growth depends on the standard of living. The standard of living does not depend on the
rate of population growth.
Think about that for a moment, then consider the following
simple facts. Throughout history, poor
people have reproduced all out of proportion to their ability to provide for
themselves. Those in the middle have
either experienced gradual growth, or are stable. The rich have trouble reproducing and keeping
up their numbers. The fact is, fertility
rates tend to decline the better people live.
It’s as if the human organism knows that it doesn’t have to reproduce so
rapidly just to ensure survival. It can
slow down and take it easy.
Now consider: regions that have experienced drastic
reductions in population did not experience increases in the standard of
living. For decades after the Great
Hunger of 1846-1852 in Ireland, during which the country lost between half to
two-thirds of its population, it remained the poorest country in Europe.
If people are truly interested in reducing the rate of
population growth, then, the answer is obvious.
Make people productive, thereby raising their standard of living, and
the problem solves itself. Don’t do
this, and all you do is increase the rate of population growth at the same time
it becomes increasingly difficult to provide for people.
What makes more sense?
#30#
