Do you think population growth is a good thing?

If the world economy is to a first approximation, a zero sum game involving the allocation of resources, then each extra person added cannot increase equality or prosperity in economic terms.

The counter to this is the historical evidence that has proved the doubters wrong (Malthus, Ehrlich) on key issues such as resource depletion. Instead of running out of resources in a debilitating way we've generally been able to substitute the scarce ones for more abundant ones, and invented technology that economises on inputs. The important question is the extent to which this phenomenon of improving technology is a function of population growth, and whether at some point the problems that accompany overpopulation will overwhelm our ability to deal with them.

Does it follow that just because we've been able to invent our way out of jail in the past (the agricultural revolution, green revolution etc) that this will be the case in the future? Two trends in agriculture are of relevance - the use of fertiliser created using fossil fuels to increase yields, and the use of GM/monoculture. We already know climate change will make weather conditions and crop yields more volatile. Moreover, the high-yielding monocultured strains of staple crops that make up an increasing share of global diets are uniquely vulnerable to microbial epidemics that may appear with no warning. Finally it is unlikely that renewables will be able to supply the energy needed for nitrogen fixing, and fusion looks like a distant dream. These innovations haven't solved the long run sustainability problem - merely bought us time at the expense of a certain amount of uncertainty.

In light of this uncertainty, and the increasing lifespan of most individuals (meaning the death rate does not act as a check on the birth rate), is it not time for governments to adopt strategies to control population growth now, rather than witness the consequences of having exceeded the earth's carrying capacity? I think people possibly dying of starvation/war from resource shortages is a much greater evil than disincentivising people from having kids, illiberal though it may be.

I havent read all your OP yet but I will.

I think population growth is a bad thing.
I would like to see the population of GB falling not rising, there would be more space for all of us and land and property prices might come down.

There is no need to increase from 66million or whatever we are, there are plenty of reasons why 50million might be a perfectly adequate figure.

Its a small island.

population growth is a good thing because then there'll be people to pay for my pension

Wolveryeti said:

In light of this uncertainty, and the increasing lifespan of most individuals (meaning the death rate does not act as a check on the birth rate), is it not time for governments to adopt strategies to control population growth now, rather than witness the consequences of having exceeded the earth's carrying capacity? I think people possibly dying of starvation/war from resource shortages is a much greater evil than disincentivising people from having kids, illiberal though it may be.

Click to expand...

I agree with this. Environmental problems would be eased by a reduction in population growth too.

Pickman's model said:

population growth is a good thing because then there'll be people to pay for my pension

Click to expand...

But why pay pensions by growing the population when you could just do it by making cuts in government budgets elsewhere...?

Population growth is better than no population growth. But we need to learn to live in tune with the planet, and not just raping it barron. Cos then population growth will lead to shortages in supplies. Because we depend on said supplies. If every man and woman learnt to become self suficiant, and work together, instead of being forced to compete for jobs and work for goverment. Then we could be a happy civilisation. Large or small.

Population growth is not really the problem. The areas where the population is growing fastest are not those that consume the most. The areas experiencing low, zero, or even negative, population growth are those that guzzle far more than their share of resources.

And Pickman's model's point has a serious side to it too, you know. The population in the rich world isn't growing any more, in fact the birth rate in many places such as Italy is worryingly low.

Peak population is very likely to reach around 9 billion by 2050. Whatever the spurious moral arguments, that is what needs to be planned for. And WE, the RICH, are the biggest problem that needs planning for.

But we've had these discussions before, and Wolfie is a nasty fascist when it comes to this question, thinking that people should be forcibly sterilized.

Do you still think that, Wolfie?

weltweit said:

I havent read all your OP yet but I will.

I think population growth is a bad thing.
I would like to see the population of GB falling not rising, there would be more space for all of us and land and property prices might come down.

There is no need to increase from 66million or whatever we are, there are plenty of reasons why 50million might be a perfectly adequate figure.

Its a small island.

Click to expand...

population and overcrowding aren't as tied together as they are meant to be

there is so much sea and mountain and desert and tundra that noone lives in. the problem isn't space it's that despite our massive brains humans don't plan beyond the short term

weltweit said:

I havent read all your OP yet but I will.

I think population growth is a bad thing.
I would like to see the population of GB falling not rising, there would be more space for all of us and land and property prices might come down.

There is no need to increase from 66million or whatever we are, there are plenty of reasons why 50million might be a perfectly adequate figure.

Its a small island.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but fuck off.

Really.

weltweit said:

I havent read all your OP yet but I will.

I think population growth is a bad thing.
I would like to see the population of GB falling not rising, there would be more space for all of us and land and property prices might come down.

There is no need to increase from 66million or whatever we are, there are plenty of reasons why 50million might be a perfectly adequate figure.

Its a small island.

Click to expand...

i wonder if you'll be numbered among the ten million 'surplus'

littlebabyjesus said:

Sorry, but fuck off.

Really.

Click to expand...

How could anyone find that offensive?

Really I am amazed!

Pickman's model said:

i wonder if you'll be numbered among the ten million 'surplus'

Click to expand...

We just have to reduce the birth rate a bit.

Most families I know have between 1-3 kids.

A big exception is Roman Catholics, I know families with 6 - 7 - 8 kids ...

weltweit said:

We just have to reduce the birth rate a bit.

Most families I know have between 1-3 kids.

A big exception is Roman Catholics, I know families with 6 - 7 - 8 kids ...

Click to expand...

If you want the population to decline from 66 million to 50 million any time in the next few decades, you will need a collapse in the birth rate. Such a thing would be catastrophic for society in the long run. China is already starting to see what its one-child policy is doing to the demographics.

As I said before, it isn't the number of people that's the problem but the resources those people consume. The US, for example, has 5% of the population but consumes 25% of the world's resources. There's your problem.

isitme said:

population and overcrowding aren't as tied together as they are meant to be

there is so much sea and mountain and desert and tundra that noone lives in. the problem isn't space it's that despite our massive brains humans don't plan beyond the short term

Click to expand...

I just think in terms of the island UK.

When will we stop? when what proportion is towns and cities, when what proportion has been concreted over?

There is no need to keep growing the population, stability or decline could ease up a lot of pressures on the economy and on lifestyles.

weltweit said:

There is no need to keep growing the population, stability or decline could ease up a lot of pressures on the economy and on lifestyles.

Click to expand...

Decline in the population does not 'ease up pressure' on the economy. Quite the reverse.

littlebabyjesus said:

Population growth is not really the problem. The areas where the population is growing fastest are not those that consume the most. The areas experiencing low, zero, or even negative, population growth are those that guzzle far more than their share of resources.

And Pickman's model's point has a serious side to it too, you know. The population in the rich world isn't growing any more, in fact the birth rate in many places such as Italy is worryingly low.

Click to expand...

This isn't quite true. The rate of growth is lower, and slowing, but given the vastly larger ecological footprint of OECD consumers you could argue that the population growth rate should is still a massive problem. Nor are the LDCs going to keep at their present consumption levels. They absolutely aspire to consume like Westerners and the only thing that is stopping them now is their income.

littlebabyjesus said:

Peak population is very likely to reach around 9 billion by 2050. Whatever the spurious moral arguments, that is what needs to be planned for. And WE, the RICH, are the biggest problem that needs planning for.

Click to expand...

Doesn't thinking about ways to mitigate the population problem count as planning?

littlebabyjesus said:

But we've had these discussions before, and Wolfie is a nasty fascist when it comes to this question, thinking that people should be forcibly sterilized.

Do you still think that, Wolfie?

Click to expand...

It's not the only way of addressing the problem, but on balance yes, I am in favour. Not sterilisation in the conventional sense of surgical invasion, though. More like a fait accompli, like a genetically engineered virus that lowers peoples' fertility without harming them in any other way.

littlebabyjesus said:

If you want the population to decline from 66 million to 50 million any time in the next few decades, you will need a collapse in the birth rate. Such a thing would be catastrophic for society in the long run. China is already starting to see what its one-child policy is doing to the demographics.

Click to expand...

Oh it does not have to happen soon, just a trend would be an interesting thing in itself.

littlebabyjesus said:

As I said before, it isn't the number of people that's the problem but the resources those people consume. The US, for example, has 5% of the population but consumes 25% of the world's resources. There's your problem.

Click to expand...

Sure that is a problem.

But within the UK we have house price inflation in rural areas such that rural people cannot afford to live there anymore and its caused by loads of city dwellers moving out to the country. Fewer people as a whole would reduce such pressures.

littlebabyjesus said:

Decline in the population does not 'ease up pressure' on the economy. Quite the reverse.

Click to expand...

We have been wedded to the idea that GDP growth year in and year out is the only measure of economic success but that is simply not true.

You can have stable GDP and still have continued increases in standards of living and increased levels of innovation in the economy.

This GDP growth or nothing is nonsence imho.

weltweit said:

But within the UK we have house price inflation in rural areas such that rural people cannot afford to live there anymore and its caused by loads of city dwellers moving out to the country. Fewer people as a whole would reduce such pressures.

Click to expand...

You think house prices are ridiculous here because of population growth? They aren't, you know. Belgium is a very crowded country and house prices there are a fraction of what they are here. House prices have almost tripled in many places in the last decade. This is absolutely not because the population has been increasing in size. Nothing at all to do with it. It's due to the pattern of land ownership, the renting laws (and lack of fair rent laws), the increased economic inequality, the destruction of the social housing stock, the pumping of government money into the private housing market in the form of part-rent, part-buy, the concentration of wealth in certain areas of the country. But, above all, you see expensive housing where there is economic inequality, and economic inequality in the UK has risen scarily since the 1980s.

weltweit said:

We have been wedded to the idea that GDP growth year in and year out is the only measure of economic success but that is simply not true.

You can have stable GDP and still have continued increases in standards of living and increased levels of innovation in the economy.

This GDP growth or nothing is nonsence imho.

Click to expand...

You brought up the term 'economy'.

littlebabyjesus said:

Decline in the population does not 'ease up pressure' on the economy. Quite the reverse.

Click to expand...

It depends on the economy and what cohort the decline comes from. In areas experiencing diminishing returns to scale in industry/agriculture, it definitely could.

littlebabyjesus said:

But, above all, you see expensive housing where there is economic inequality, and economic inequality in the UK has risen scarily since the 1980s.

Click to expand...

As a lefty, do you not think the working class would have higher power to negotiate better wages if their rate of population growth went down? Real wages for labourers went up during episodes of the Black Death, for instance.

Wolveryeti said:

As a lefty, do you not think the working class would have higher power to negotiate better wages if their rate of population growth went down? Real wages for labourers went up during episodes of the Black Death, for instance.

Click to expand...

As right-winger do you not think that population growth is a product of material inequality and that eradicating inequality is far better method of slowing population growth than an air/water borne virus that induces sterilisation - as per your previous recommendations.

butchersapron said:

As right-winger do you not think that population growth is a product of material inequality and that eradicating inequality is far better method of slowing population growth than an air/water borne virus that induces sterilisation - as per your previous recommendations.

Click to expand...

alternatively... send em back

Wolveryeti said:

As a lefty, do you not think the working class would have higher power to negotiate better wages if their rate of population growth went down? Real wages for labourers went up during episodes of the Black Death, for instance.

Click to expand...

'As a lefty', I would like to see a fundamental change in the pattern of ownership. It's the rich that we cannot afford, not the poor. Blaming the poor and their behaviour for their poverty is an old trick and it doesn't wash. It simply shows a lack of understanding for the reasons people are poor in the first place – power relations and the ownership of resources.

Wolveryeti said:

If the world economy is to a first approximation, a zero sum game involving the allocation of resources, then each extra person added cannot increase equality or prosperity in economic terms.

Click to expand...

Well for a start it's not a zero sum game. The world isn't a close system as there is this large fusion reactor in the sky.

Next.

Wolveryeti said:

It's not the only way of addressing the problem, but on balance yes, I am in favour. Not sterilisation in the conventional sense of surgical invasion, though. More like a fait accompli, like a genetically engineered virus that lowers peoples' fertility without harming them in any other way.

Click to expand...

Nothing at all could go wrong with that plan. Oh no.

Regardless of the repugnant morality of such a scheme, it is folly of the very highest order to think you can control a virus that you release into the environment. It shows for starters that you know absolutely nothing about viruses and what they do. Viruses MUTATE. That is what they do.

yield said:

Well for a start it's not a zero sum game. The world isn't a close system as there is this large fusion reactor in the sky.

Next.

Click to expand...

This is a man who has a degree in economics.

Scarily ignorant of the way economics works, and a sorry indictment of economics courses that he was given a pass.

I believe we need to work less so as a society and wealth accumulated used for the benefit of all, we would demand less energy and need to be more self sufficient, the problem with this is it would lead to bigger families as the focus would move to family rather than work goals, which is partly the reason for slow growth in developed countries.

The christian work ethic is to blame for increased consumption, in the middle ages about a quarter of the year was spent having festivals

eugenicist strikes again, albeit thinly veiled.

It's this simple. Stability promotes low birthrates.