Rhian,

The potato famine was indirectly caused by overpopulation. Before the introduction of the potato, the Irish, like most Europeans, kept their population in balance with resources by ensuring that the land was inherited intact by only one of the sons (the youngest son in Ireland and the eldest in Britain (primogeniture)). If the family were reasonably prosperous one or more of the daughters might get dowries so that they could marry someone else's heir. The other childen didn't get to marry. If an unmarried daughter became pregnant she was liable to be turned out with nothing.

When the potato was introduced, they found that, under Irish conditions, many more people could be fed from the same area of land. Parents came under pressure to divide the land among the children rather than leaving it all to one of them. The population grew to the point where it could no longer grow enough grain to feed itself and was completely dependent on two varieties of potato. Those varieties happened to be vulnerable to the late blight. After the collapse the population of Ireland was reduced to less than half of what it was in 1848 and stayed that way for much of the 20th century. (See the relevant chapter in Abernethy's book and her references.)

It could also be argued that the Black Death spread so readily because of a poor population living crowded together under insanitary conditions. According to the lecture on the 14th century in the ABC's Thousand Years in a Day series, the wonderful living standards enjoyed by the survivors of the Black Death weren't matched until the late 19th century, despite the technological progress of the intervening centuries. See the references in Jared Diamond's Collapse for other collapses, some directly attributable to overpopulation, such as the Easter Island one.

Why would the Chinese stick with an unpopular one child policy if no benefits exist or they are not outweighed by the aging problem? Why do you think that some selfish moron's right to breed should take precedence over other people's right to a decent life?

Rhian

“– that individual freedom…”

Individual freedoms are foregone for the collective good all the time. Practically ever law is a restriction of our freedoms, implemented for the collective good. The more stressed or threatened the collective good is, the tighter those restrictions on our freedom would need to be. Simple. So it comes down to perceiving the threats to the collective good and implementing restrictions on individual behaviour accordingly. That comprises are very large part of effective governance.

“– that it is acceptable to inflict suffering…”

Any restrictions to our freedom can be deemed to amount to a degree of suffering. Of course, significant suffering needs to be minimised. But the degree of restriction has to be significant enough to improve or protect the collective good. Unfortunately, the implementation of restrictions is going to affect different people in different ways. Some are going to suffer more than others. We would all like to minimise significant suffering for those who get the rawest deal out of any restrictions. But you’ve got to realise that the protection of the collective good is all about minimising significant suffering on a societal or national or global level. And if that means that the majority have to suffer to a limited extent or a small minority to a significant extent, then so be it.

continued

“ – that the state can and should exercise control over the totality of human life…”

The state should exercise the appropriate degree of control for the situation. If population growth is rapid and the outlook is grim in terms of quality of life and environment as a result, then strong measures regarding fertility are surely appropriate.

“– that a central authority is best placed to determine and effect policies…”

Well, a strong central authority in China implemented fairly effective fertility-reduction measures. I would argue that in that instance, they were in the best position to decide what was necessary for the collective good. But in a democracy, central authorities don’t have the same sort of power. Successive governments in India tried to deal with the population growth issue, but failed because the people wouldn’t accept it. I would argue that the people got it wrong and democracy failed in that instance. This is the great quandary of governance – the battle between authoritarian rule and participatory democracy. Each has their advantages and disadvantages.

“– that the use of force is the natural and appropriate means…”

Once laws have been implemented, they need to be upheld. If this requires the use of force, then so be it. This is perfectly normal in our society and in societies around the world. Why should it be different when it comes to enforcing fertility laws?

Rhian I think your distaste for Ehrlich is badly misplaced.

Divergence

I think you’re wrong about potato causing inheritance laws to change. Though the potato was introduced in the mid 17th century it wasn’t widespread in Ireland until the late 18th century. Sub division among all sons was mandated by the Popery Act of 1703. Anyway, the practice dates back far earlier and was common practice in many Celtic cultures (including Wales, where I once lived).

It is probably true that the potato facilitated population growth by increasing the land’s carrying capacity, and that food insecurity was created by reliance on a single crop and exacerbated by the practice of sub division. I don’t deny that is a likely effect in subsistence economies. But it was not uniquely so – the Great Irish Famine a century before perhaps killed more people and was due to poor weather over several growing seasons.

Crowded and insanitary conditions doubtless contributed to the black death, but again this is not due to over-population – economic and security factors tended to make medieval towns and cities quite densely populated. The population of all of Europe at the time of the Black Death was less than 50 million – less that the UK (or France, Germany or Italy) today. And this was hardly the first plague in history – over hundreds of years previously, pandemics has similar devastating results (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumonic_plague)

It is not surprising that living standards after the black death were higher than before – the accumulated wealth of centuries was suddenly available to less than half the pre-existing population, the price of scarce labour was bid up and land was left uncultivated for want of workers. If two thirds of Australia’s population were wiped out tomorrow then the survivors would find houses, cars, farms, TVs, jewellery etc suddenly much more affordable. But these things would be there for the taking only because of the labour of the dead.

Of course China believes its one child policy to be necessary, but that doesn’t make it true. My bet is that they’ll abandon that policy some time in the next decade.

Rhian,

Whether a country is overpopulated depends on the technological level. Australia would probably only support a few hundred thousand people if we were all hunter gatherers. When the ratio of resources to people is very high, then prosperity may be limited by the labour supply, but there is a tipping point where resource shortages become more significant. Eventually population growth is stopped in pre-industrial societies because not even slave labour can increase production enough to feed itself. If labour supply and the accumulated wealth of centuries were most significant, then you would expect 19th century people unlucky enough to be born in North America or Australia to migrate to Europe at the first opportunity. In fact, migration ran the other way, because it was resources per person that mattered.

There is an article by Rowan Callick in the May 14 Sydney Morning Herald reporting on a conference in Shanghai where it was announced that population growth trends in China are being revised downward and that this means "productivity, per capita income and living standards will rise faster". From the same conference: "Dr. Laurent says, India is struggling to keep pace with its continuing population explosion, with a third of children never becoming literate - even on the most basic test, that of signing your own name." It is reasonable to assume that the Chinese government knows what it is doing. Of course, the one-child policy was never intended to last forever, unless the Chinese want to commit national suicide. Fertility rates are already below replacement level.