The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The trend of destiny: The impossibility of population growth > Comments

The trend of destiny: The impossibility of population growth : Comments

By Michael Kile, published 31/10/2011

Population growth is not the best outcome for society or the planet.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
The fact that Malthus was wrong never seems to deter the enthusiasm of his adherents.

His idea is attractive because it seems self-evident: you can't have infinite growth on a finite base. But that doesn't mean that the resource base is static; that all production possibilities are known to the doom-sayers; that we know how close the time-limits are; nor that central planning is presumptively superior, either morally or pragmatically. The reasons why Malthus and Ehrlich were wrong to date continue to apply.

Of course big-government types love to think of the existence of human beings as the problem - to be rationalised by the judicious application of force. They assume that the only thing lacking is enough force. But the great furphy in arguments for policy is the assumption that government is in any better position to rationalise scarce resources to their most valued ends, than everyone else put together and acting with a much greater set of information and incentives than government can ever have.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Monday, 31 October 2011 8:35:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Problem is, predictions using history alone are almost guaranteed to be faulty. Mostly because our lives today are different to our lives yesterday, last year, last century etc. So by definition, any attempt to extract a mathematical progression on population will be missing a key ingredient: people.

This was the mistake made by Malthus. And "The Limits to Growth". Both ignored the fact that the world and its peoples do not stand still, but keep changing.

The arrival of the globe's seven billionth person is of course an entirely appropriate moment to reflect upon where we have come from, and where we might be going. But the future is not entirely doom-filled.

This topic was covered quite well in an Economist article from last week.

http://www.economist.com/node/21533364

It gets away from the simplistic mathematical approach, and talks about such issues as ageing populations, China's approaching issues with gender imbalance etc.

Well worth a read.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 31 October 2011 9:09:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The 'limits to growth' idea is based upon the myth that humans are using everything up in a finite world. It does not take into account that humans are also contributing to maintaining and increasing resources and that many resources are recycled naturally through waste etc. Nor does it take into account that humans are only one of millions of species which use resources every day. If the world was as finite as is said, insects would have destroyed it long ago; there are 200 billion of them for every one human.

As Jardine says, Malthus was wrong, Ehrlich was embarrasingly incorrect (he gave the human race a 2% chance of reaching 2000!) and the 'Limits to Growth' book was commissioned by the Club of Rome, a grouping of the European mega wealthy and aristocracy in an effort to regain control over of the population by exaggerating environmental concerns which are used as leverage to control resources.

Limiting population growth is seen as a tool by the new Green elite who both see humans (other than themselves!) as an annoying and destructive infestation. Some would like to return us to a feudal system where all but the ruling elite are poor and all resources are 'owned' by a central system. Just like medieval europe. Pay to catch a fish on the Royal Estate!

There is less hunger and a genrally higher standard of living in the world than there was 50-100 yrs ago. Explain that Malthus.
Posted by Atman, Monday, 31 October 2011 9:57:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A very interesting article Michael. Thank you! It is sobering to think that Knibbs was making his statements before the oil-driven green revolution pushed food productivity to new levels per hectare. Now, as oil production stagnates (and will be falling before the end of this decade) we will be faced with the (impossible?) task of feeding a growing population with less mechanisation, less fertilizer and more difficult transport issues.

One only needs to remember the Economist's previous ridiculous predictions about future oil production and prices to imagine how faulty their prognoses and opinions on population are.
Posted by michael_in_adelaide, Monday, 31 October 2011 10:04:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Economist article of last week was a re-run of the one published in New Scientist of some months back. At least New Scientist has the fortitude to put the name of the author alongside that of the article, which was by the rusted-on mathematically-illiterate cornucopian Fred Pearce.
Posted by colinsett, Monday, 31 October 2011 10:07:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So now we all know that the author is not happy with the current population trend. So what?

The real question is: "What can we do about this, excluding population crash due to resource wars and climate degradation?"

This question was not answered.

In the short term, the answer is "nothing".

I suggest that, since only those countries with reasonable wealth, adequate food and energy supplies, reasonable standard of living and assured personal security have ever voluntarily dipped below zero population growth, eg Japan, UK, USA (excluding immigrants) and various European countries, the single best strategy that concerned people can adopt is to promote those objectives and then to wait for at least 50 years, as the improved health and other outcomes work through societies.

The important thing is that these prerequisites, or something close to them, must be met globally if resource wars and mass starvation events are to be avoided further down the track.

For another short discussion, titled "Why Population Policy Will Not Solve The Climate Crisis" see:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/09/19/population-no-cc-fix-p1/
Posted by JohnBennetts, Monday, 31 October 2011 10:54:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy