Fewer People Would Mean Fewer Worries
Thanks to Steve Kurtz for this article.
———————–
There’s something missing in all the discussion about the three most pressing environmental problems of the times: climate change, the lack of further arable land for agriculture, and water shortages. To date, almost all the comment has been about the need for more technology and almost nothing has been said about stabilising human population. And yet stabilising the population at present or even slightly lower levels might be an easier and more durable solution than developing and applying increasing levels of technology.
For full article, visit:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au
ShareThis
April 5th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
All of the emphasis on dealing with environmental problems (indeed, any problems associated with population growth) is technology-focused because economists are trained to react this way. It all goes back to black eye that the field of economics received from an economist named Malthus.
In 1798, in his famous “Essay on Population,” Malthus hypothesized that the human population, which tends to grow exponentially, would always be held in check by a shortage of food, the production of which only grows arithmetically. The result would be a perpetual food shortage, yielding conditions he referred to as “misery and vice.” Malthus’ grim theory led to economics becoming known as “the dismal science.”
Of course, Malthus couldn’t foresee the incredible gains in yield that could be realized by the introduction of modern farming techniques. So he was ultimately (perhaps only temporarily?) proven wrong as technology has enabled food production to keep pace with population growth. But the damage was done. Economists despised Malthus for what he had done to their field and is reviled among economists to this day. Anyone who dares to utter the words “population growth” is summarily dismissed as a “Malthusian.” And economists now have a pat answer for any concerns about population growth - man is ingenious enough to overcome any obstacle, they say, through his technology.
Economists can’t envision a healthy economy without a growing population because, throughout human history (at least until relatively recently), population growth has been in the interest of both the common good and in the best interest of business (corporations). For the common good, a growing population was needed to assemble the critical mass of workers needed to man the factories and the fields, producing all of the products we needed for a higher standard of living. This population growth translated in higher sales volume for corporations. Everyone was happy. Economists looked upon this situation and concluded that population growth will always be a good thing because it always has been a good thing in the past. Any time they saw some localized decline in population, it was associated with an unfortunate event - disease, famine, etc. In the minds of economists, population growth and economic growth have become synonymous.
There was no economic theory that explained how a stable or falling population could be good for the economy - until now. At this point, I should introduce myself. I am the author of a book titled “Five Short Blasts: A New Economic Theory Exposes The Fatal Flaw in Globalization and Its Consequences for America.” To make a long story short, my theory is that, as population density rises beyond some optimum level, per capita consumption begins to decline out of the need to conserve space. People who live in crowded conditions simply don’t have enough space to use and store many products. This declining per capita consumption, in the face of rising productivity (which always rises), inevitably yields rising unemployment and poverty.
Once an optimum population density is breached, the interests of the common good and of business begin to diverge. It is in the interest of the common good to stabilize the population, avoiding an erosion of our quality of life through high unemployment and poverty. However, it is still in the interest of corporations to promote population growth because, even though per capita consumption goes into decline, total consumption still increases. We now find ourselves in the position of having corporations and economists influencing public policy in a direction that is not in the best interest of the common good.
I believe that this theory may be the ultimate weapon that others, concerned about over-population for environmental or other reasons, may be seeking - an economic theory that the economy can actually be enhanced by stabilizing or even reducing the population. Until people can believe that they’ll actually be better off financially in an environment with a smaller population, they won’t support the concept in large numbers.
If you’re interested in learning more about this important new economic theory, I invite you to visit my web site at OpenWindowPublishingCo.com where you can read the preface for free, join in my blog discussion and, of course, purchase the book if you like. (It’s also available at Amazon.com.) However, since this is obviously a web site with a significant following, I would be happy to send you a free copy if you will just let me know you’re interested and provide a shipping address.
Please forgive the somewhat “spammish” nature of the previous paragraph. I just don’t know how else to inject this new perspective into the population debate without drawing attention to the book that explains this new theory.
Keep up the good work on raising concern about population growth through your very impressive web site!
Pete Murphy
Author, Five Short Blasts