Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on May 17, 2014
The Myth Of Over-Population
The world is overpopulated. The street are clogged, traffic is in a snarl, and people are living – both figuratively and literally – right on top of each other. There’s hardly enough room to swing a cat these days, right? Wrong.
The world is not overcrowded at all. There are vast swaths of unpopulated land all over the place. Siberia, Canada, Africa, Australia, even the rural USA all contain more than enough wide open spaces. So why do people labor so resolutely under this delusion? The reason is simple: most people, especially those with the time and inclination to carp about overpopulation, live in areas of high population density, a non-representative sample of the world as a whole. We call these places cities, and the reason why people live in cities, despite their complaining, is that there are benefits for large populations congregating close together.
It is convenient to live in a place with lots of other people, because each of those people can potentially do something for you, from repairing your shoes, to cooking your meals, to running entertainment venues, to, perhaps most importantly, providing you with gainful employment. Try living out in the middle of nowhere and see how easy it is to feed yourself, much less make a living and survive medical problems. The division of labor means that the more people there are nearby, the more able we are to fulfill our wants and needs. Hence, crowded cities.
This misconception of the world’s population problems has led some to celebrate the declining birth rates we now see in most of the developed world. But the anticipation of a little expanded breathing room causes them take the wrong view on the economic impacts of a declining population. This has to do with an incomplete understanding of human action.
Those who worry about overpopulation tend to view people as nothing more than consumers. Resources are finite; humans consume resources. Therefore, fewer humans will mean more resources to go around. This is the core idea behind the opposition to expanded immigration. Namely, the fear that more people will mean less work and less wealth for the rest of us. But while the two premises of this syllogism are true, they are also woefully incomplete, making the conclusion incorrect as well.
The reason is that humans are not merely consumers. Every consumer is also a producer as well, and production is how we have improved our standards of living from the dawn of man till today. Every luxury, every great invention, every work of art, every modern convenience that we enjoy was the product of a mind – in some cases, of more than one. It then stands to reason that the more minds there are, the more innovations we will have as well. A reductio ad absudum reveals the obvious truth that a cure for cancer is more likely to emerge from a society of a billion people than from one of only a handful of individuals.
More importantly, these innovations result in a multiplication of resources, so our syllogism changes to the following: Resources are finite; humans consume resources; humans produce resources; therefore, if humans produce more resources than they consume, a greater population will be beneficial to the species.
That we do, in fact, produce more than we consume is self-evident by looking at the standard of living we enjoy today versus that which we had 50, or 100, or 1000 years ago. As the population has expanded, so has our prosperity, and the reduction in human suffering has been remarkable.
With this in mind, the precipitous drop in global birth rates is alarming. In countries where there is a generous social safety net for the elderly, a shrinking population means that a greater and greater share of resources will go towards caring for the old, while younger generations have insufficient numbers to make up the difference.
As the labor force declines below the level of available capital, machines will start to fall into disrepair and disuse, factories will be abandoned, housing developments will lie unoccupied. All of this results in less economic growth, less wealth, and less prosperity for everyone. Even the aggregate demand-obsessed Keynesians should be able to understand this concept. Fewer people people means less economic activity.
The celebration of low populations largely comes from the environmentalist movement, where anti-human sentiment is frequently overt. Even in less caustic circles, however, the bias against mankind has seeped into the popular consciousness. It’s pervasive; an instinct among lefties that – for some reason they can’t quite put their finger on – people are just no darn good.
This position is only defensible if you pine for the days of smallpox, starvation, contaminated water, and a constant danger of being devoured by hungry predators. If, on the other hand, you do not view those things as part of an idyllic, all-natural existence, you might consider cutting us humans a little slack.
25 Comments on "The Myth Of Over-Population"
Makati1 on Sat, 17th May 2014 6:57 pm
Has his points. If EVERYONE actually produced something of value, we could have what we NEED and be happy. All 7,233,898,141 plus of us. But we want more than we need so the rest must go.
Think of all the leeches in the world that siphon off real wealth or waste it:
Banksters
Financial advisers
Paid politicians
Government employes by the millions
Militaries
Advertising agencies
Luxury producers/sellers
Travel industry & Tourism
Real estate salesmen/women
Planned obsolescence in goods
Landfills covering up valuable resources
Personal autos
Etc.
ALL the baggage that evolved after we learned how to produce excess that allowed these entities to come into existence. Now they have to die out. The pain will be terrible for some and mostly unnoticed for most of those 7+ billion eaters. .
Plantagenet on Sat, 17th May 2014 7:59 pm
Overpopulation isn’t about how crowded it is.—Overpopulation is about resource limitations.
When natural populations exceed the carrying capacity of their environment, a population crash soon follows. For modern petroleum man, that limiting factor is oil. Without sufficient oil, our oil-based civilization is in a world of hurt.
Yeti on Sat, 17th May 2014 8:03 pm
Yeah, it’s all so much more civilized in the non-developed world.
At least they aren’t going to kill her until after she gives birth:
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2014/0515/Christian-woman-sentenced-to-death-for-apostasy-in-Sudan
Death for leaving Islam, but first a hundred lashes for adultery (the court ruled her marriage invalid, so that=adultery).
Steve on Sat, 17th May 2014 8:30 pm
Infinte growth on a finite planet. What could go wrong?
eugene on Sat, 17th May 2014 8:49 pm
Long ago, I developed the idea that bullsh– is the grease upon which the world turns. I am always thankful for those who prove my idea.
HARM on Sat, 17th May 2014 9:06 pm
Ah, the old “we’re not all standing shoulder to shoulder ergo overpopulation is a myth” argument.
Never mind that the mass of human beings and their domesticated food animals already collectively outweigh all other invertebrates on the planet.
Never mind that each human being requires at least an acre(or more) or arable good farmland to provide enough food to survive –and that’s with modern fossil fuel intensive factory farming.
Never mind that most of the world’s land surface is uninhabitable (and unfarmable) desert, mountains, arctic tundra, glaciers or swamp.
Never mind that we’re driving other species extinct at a rate a thousand times the normal ‘background’ rate of extinction.
Never mind that we’re mining fossil fuels and other non-renewable resources (phosphorous, potash, tin, etc.) at a completely unsustainable rate with the 7.2 billion people we *already* have.
Never mind that if all those 7+ billion people tried to have a North American average standard of living, it would require 5 earths of natural resources.
Yes, overpopulation is a myth. Just like peak oil, global warming or the geological age of the earth.
Davy, Hermann, MO on Sat, 17th May 2014 10:31 pm
I think the answer is distressingly simple. Without growth the only way to cure poverty is by sharing. But redistribution is anathema. Without growth to push the hoped for demographic transition, the only way to cure overpopulation is by population control. A second anathema. Without growth the only way to increase funds to invest in environmental repair is by reducing current consumption. Anathema number three. Three anathemas and you are damned—go to hell
Outcast_Searcher on Sat, 17th May 2014 11:31 pm
“Every consumer is a producer as well?” EPIC FAIL. Where did you get such tripe? From the liberal redistributionist hand-book?
How does the clown who lies on his/her couch all day, using food stamps, federal housing, etc. programs and producing NOTHING qualify as a “producer”?
If you’re going to thoughtlessly write such politically slanted things, it removes any integrity your overall article might have?
SilentRunning on Sat, 17th May 2014 11:32 pm
Another shit-head cornicopian spouts the party line.
eastbay on Sun, 18th May 2014 12:16 am
I’m surprised anyone still falls for the medieval, religion-inspired continuous population growth nonsense.
Kenz300 on Sun, 18th May 2014 12:50 am
Endless population growth is not sustainable.
India Overpopulation Documentary – YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QERpT1Bq8AA
peterjames on Sun, 18th May 2014 1:44 am
Sometimes these articles just dont use common sense. There are vast sections of Australia (and by the same token the rest of the world), for very good reasons. You could build a new city near other big established cities, but that would entail destroying bushland or good farming land (sort of defeating the sustainability message). Or you could build in its vast desert interior. You just need to transport most foods for 2000 kilometres, or pay $7 for a gallon of petrol. Most unhabited areas of the earth are that reason because humans cant live there.
MKohnen on Sun, 18th May 2014 2:17 am
What a crock! Vast areas in Canada? I guess so, if you want to go live north of us, but there are really good reasons why it’s sparsely populated. You can’t grow food there! Everything has to be brought in from the south, using a lot of resources to do so. And it’s cold: really, really cold! As already pointed out, cities are piled up for good reasons; you need farmland to supply the food. In fact, it is suburban sprawl that is doing more harm than the pile up of the cities. Moving people out onto arable land only makes the over-population problem worse! I think the problem with so many cornucopians is that they can’t do basic math. Figure out how much food a person needs, then multiply that by 7 billion. That’s the food we need to produce every day. And if you know anything at all about farming, you know you can’t run as close to maximum output as we do now for long. Sooner or later (and the US southwestern drought proves it) something goes wrong with agriculture, and you need plenty of spare capacity to deal with it.
They should make this article into a Disney movie, with little dancing bears, fairies, unicorns, and all sorts of other fantasy creatures. It’s easier to take it seriously that way!
sunweb on Sun, 18th May 2014 2:53 am
So go live in these vast areas. So make a living (housing, food, clothing, a little beer) in these vast areas. Or send your child or grandchild to live in these vast areas.
Don’t remember where I got this but love it.
Deja Moo – The feeling I’ve heard this bull before.
J-Gav on Sun, 18th May 2014 4:27 am
Gee, why didn’t I think of that: Environmentalist = Someone who wants everybody dead. Simple equation, end of story …
Davy, Hermann, MO on Sun, 18th May 2014 6:32 am
Gav, remember that Brad Pit movie “12 Monkeys”. I sometimes wonder when or if a deranged environmentalist determines to unleash or initiate a global disaster to save Mother Nature. With today’s tools it is possible.
kervennic on Sun, 18th May 2014 7:36 am
Fucking liberals, always paving the ways to holocaust as they did in the 30s.
More people, more slaves. And if too many, start a war, starve a few millions here and there.
Assholes.
dubya on Sun, 18th May 2014 10:47 am
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/land_mammals.png
synapsid on Sun, 18th May 2014 11:32 am
Julian Simon all over again?
J-Gav on Sun, 18th May 2014 11:48 am
Davy – I can’t deny some extremist environmentalists would rather see humans disappear if that could “save the Planet”. Problem: even with that, there’s no guarantee many other species would make it through the bottleneck.
So, just to make things clear, my comment above was an example of irony as I sometimes practice it in my admittedly counter-current sort of way. Of course, any environmentalist worth his/her salt is primarily interested in establishing maximal balance among all forms of life.
charmcitysking on Sun, 18th May 2014 1:42 pm
“The world is not overcrowded at all. There are vast swaths of unpopulated land all over the place. Siberia…”
just wow
hculliton on Sun, 18th May 2014 4:55 pm
Following this logic, the sun is merely a fart some frat boy lit on fire. What a load of horse sh__.
peakyeast on Sun, 18th May 2014 5:14 pm
The author completely overlooked the vast areas of the ocean where there are no cities nor people living… Actually the earth is almost empty.
We have failed miserably to populate the earth as the bible told us to do.
We must f.ck our way out of this sad destructive situation of underpopulation which is the root of all our problems.
Harquebus on Sun, 18th May 2014 6:43 pm
Just more poopaganda. More people sharing a shrinking pie is the problem and not the solution.
Kenz300 on Mon, 19th May 2014 6:40 am
Overpopulation facts – the problem no one will discuss: Alexandra Paul at TEDxTopanga – YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNxctzyNxC0