Population Decline Is Bad For Us

Weekly Standard: Innovation Would Suffer With Slackening Demand

(Weekly Standard)  So the proposed "benefits" of population decline are, at the very least, suspect.

On the other hand, there are worrying potential costs of population decline. Of course, this worry is theoretical because we've never seen population decline on the massive scale that's coming our way. Or rather, we've never seen it in the modern world. There are, however, two historical examples.

Between 400 B.C. and the birth of Jesus, world population increased from about 153 million to 252 million. For the next 200 years, growth slowed almost to a halt. Then, between A.D. 200 and 600, population shrank from 257 million to 208 million. It took 400 more years for the population to recover to the level it had attained in Jesus' time.

The other drop in population occurred between 1340 and 1400, when the Black Death ravaged the world. Global population fell from 442 million to 375 million. Neither of these moments were particularly pleasant periods in human history.

Or, as Mark Steyn notes in America Alone, "There is no precedent in human history for economic growth on declining human capital."

It is impossible to predict with certainty the side effects of population decline. But there is good reason to believe it will be bad for us. Innovation will suffer as the demand for nearly everything (save health care) slackens. The welfare state is unsustainable in a contracting, top-heavy population. And instead of producing windfalls of excess supply, economies will probably contract. As Livi-Bacci observes, "Historically, areas depopulated or in the process of losing population have almost always been characterized by backward economies."

And then there is the question of national character. As the Asia Times noted recently with respect to the effect population decline is having on Europe: "A people without progeny will not accept a single military casualty. If this generation is the last, there will be no children for whom to sacrifice. Today's Europeans value their distractions and amusements more than they do prospective children."

The supposed benefits of population decline are a mirage. The real question is whether falling populations will lead Western civilization to something like the fall of Rome.

[sjc_1]

I am more for quality than quantity. The earth only has so many resources and they allow us to get to a position of sustainability and balance. If we are scrambling to solve the problems of over population we can forget that fact. Look at energy, water, climate change drought and associated crop failures. We need an optimum number of people, but too many people cause us to lose sight of why we are here in the first place.

[marcpcbs]

I always like the "two birds with one stone" management scenario any time it can be applied. So here's a dream

We definitely need to stop this population explosion sooner than later. I believe we should keep the surface of the planet as a clean air and clean water garden by moving light industry, tourism, some residential habitat and light manufacturing, and our prisons info orbit around the earth. We can put heavy industry in orbit around the moon. Just in case one of these poisonous or radioactive stations fall out of orbit it will hit the moon instead of the earth.

We could keep the surface of the planet for the appreciation of nature. Schools, The Arts, minimal footprint surface tourism. And greatly reduce the amount of pollution and also stop loosing so many species every year.

We have learned many times in the past that when you shoot for quantity you normally suffer in the area of quality.

[mrthornman]

jebediah76 got it right:

The world economy is built on the human race expanding into infinity. Which of course is not possible, since the earth is finite in size and resources. In other words, a Ponzi scheme.

[mjv2944]

This is a car load of real genuine BS!!!!!!

[rafterman1]

In addition to the overall dead end arguments the author makes, he forgets one important one: quality of life. Even if he were right and we could keep adding people, just because we can doesn't mean we should. Those of us here need to have a decent quality of life, to enjoy our existence he best as we can.

Just as an example, I live in a medium size city, so it's not like I live in NYC or LA. Yet traffic is horrendous and I end up in line waiting for just about everything. You can't go to the bathroom without somebody in your butt. I can't imagine what it's like in NYC. While I certainly can't complain about my little grievences compared to people starving in Africa, still...it is my life and I only have a frame of reference for that. And right now, there are too many d@mn people in this country. We may be able to support more people for basic existence, but people need space in order to live properly. Like the Statue of Liberty etching say, "yearning to breathe free...". But these days, it's hard to breathe free when there's someone constantly in your face.

[jebediah76]

Here is one to chew on:

Money is a measure of power Those with lots of Money like it not just because it gives them stuff and houses but because it gives them Power.

If population is on the increase now, and those who grab the most money have the most power -

The inevitable shift will come when poulation decreases:

The ability to bring in money will no longer be a measure of power. The ability to put it where it needs to go will be the deciding factor.

This is not taught in business schools - they are only taught profit, growth, and that's about it.

[grumpas]

I am glad to see no one is fooled by this extremist right wing nut case who wrote this article! We are populating ourselves in oblivion while these people play their fiddles and watch the world burn from the balony of their palaces! Most of them claim they are pro life! But, I personally do not believe it! They are the same religious right nuts who have been in control for 6 years or more now! Who don't give a *** about human suffering as long as their bible is followed to the letter! I personally do not believe if their is a God up there he want's us to destroy this planet in the manner we currently are! I have been alive for 64 years now! In the last 20 to 30 years I have grown alarmed at the kind of world we are creating for our Grandchildren to live in! I am glad I will be dead and gone and not have to live with the result of our ignorance!

[jebediah76]

So glad this article is being laughed at so rigorously.

The thing that gets me about all of this is that the only reason any of his consequences for population reduction to be so drastic is that the people who's job it is to make money will have to either take losses or show smaller gains.

THIS IS THE ONLY REASON that population reductions will hurt the rest of us - Eventually every Ponze scheme collapses - and the economy is about the biggest one ever.

[larry3736]

Who is "us"? If, by "us", they mean the well-heeled right-wing intellectuals who write for and subscribe to the Weekly Standard, then yes, a contracting population is a dire threat, for their whole way of life depends on a perpetual worldwide labor supply that is cheap, abundant, desperate and docile. Without teeming masses of unemployed, they might have to start paying a decent living wage, even to their nannies. But it's great to hear there is actually plenty of land, and since they own quite a lot of it, maybe they'd like to donate some to resettle the millions left homeless as global warming turns central Africe into a desert.

[jgr3936]

Wow, what a moron. Ask a conservation biologist what increased global population, "innovation", and consumption have done to our world. I cant even begin to address the stupidity of this article.

[itgranny]

Oh my! I don't know where to start. We're dirtying up our world at an alarming rate and this nut job thinks it's our duty to continue doing so.

The polar ice cap is melting due to global temps rising.

Our water supply (lakes and streams and ground water) is getting dirtier and dirtier.

We're displacing billions of gallons of ground water so we can water the desert to grow food.

Our rain forests are the earth's air purifiers yet they are getting bulldozed.

Forest fires, nature's way of cleaning house, are being prevented because people build homes in the forest. Natural housekeeping doesn't get done and in turn, the danger of forest fires becomes more and more dangerous and costly.

Swamps are being drained for development. Rivers and streams are being diverted so we can have our recreational lakes.

We'll get ours though. Eventually human population will get high enough and that Mother Nature will feel it necessary to send in a disease to cull the herd. Bird flu anyone?

[creeper00]

If you'd like an example of how far the religious right is willing to take this, look at the link here:

http://www.quiverfull.com/

[lestb35]

Don't you wish these so called "experts" would SHUT UP!!! Every day it's something else. This just shows that anyone can claim anything and find data and make a somewhat convincing argument no matter how illogical or lacking of common sense.

[feelfree1]

Just think how much better this world might be if the population of contributors to the "Weekly Standard", and other fascist extremist propaganda rags, suddenly contracted!

[mrthornman]

The author is wrong on so many levels....

Excuse me please step aside Kaliveotin and make room for me to make my comment:

I agree

Thanks I'll get out of your way now....

[kaliveotin]

What idiotic e3xpert believes that the world population will not automatically decrease until at least nine billion people, 20 years ago people believed that population would automatically decrease at five billion. because of resources and disease.The earth can allow 22 billion people comfortably. More or less comfortably. Water and food define our limitations, disease or plague are thre only potential controls. It will be next to impossible to control pro-creation habits. While India and China are close to saturation. Most of the Earth is ready to explode with respect to population. We better find another planet.