The global population is growing by a given percentage each year and that due to a compounding effect this translats into exponential growth in population size. My firstv question is have any libertarians ever seriously tried to tackle this issue in a scholarly fashion?
The reason why this concerns me so much is that the end-game of all this top down totalitarianism is population control. The IMF, WTO, EU, NAU, NATO anad arguably the CFR are all about radical depopulation. Now if this claim of mine is correct, it would be good to discuss the opposing approach to depopulation.
I must admit, while it seems like the libertarian movement at large is ‘inclinationally’ disposed to anti-depopulation arguments, citing namely the santity of human life, noninterferance in the reproductive habits of others,etc, they do not propose any serious solution to waht I would argue is the most serious long term problem for the human race.
Libertry cannot survive over population. Even if every single one of us becomes a ‘little Rothbard’ and each new child born is a ‘little little Rothbard’, ideology will not prove to be enough. It seems like the emphasis of the movement, or rather it’s primary method for effecting change is through education. My argument here however is that education cannot solve overpopulation. Ideology cannot solve overpopulation. Even finding more resources cannot solve overpopulation.
So how do we as libertarians actually deal with this immensly serious issue? It seems little, if not seldomly discussed in the literature and this is a shame because if we do acheive our goal of a ‘free society’ (be it minarchist or anarchist) this is still going to be the biggest social problem looming over us.
It is clear that the ideal of democracy could not survive overpopulation (although I take the Greek view of democracy so I won’t shed a tear) so my question to you is how can liberty survive overpopulation? (For example if we all have 3m squared of living space each?)
Overpopulation is not a problem in a free market. Humans create more wealth and resources than they use up. Humans are net creators. Even if this were not true, the price system would regulate the population: If the Earth was overpopulated, the cost of living would rise, thus discouraging large families or even reproduction altogether.
Of course, under a hampered market, overpopulation, peak oil, pollution, etc. are all insurmountable problems.
The answer to your question is: the market will decide. This is why Japan is expeirencing a depopulation period - too many people, so the Japanese by and large starting having fewer children. Another possible solution to this ‘problem’ could be in an ancap society there would probably be more renting. Landlords could specify maximum occupancy of their apartments, houses, etc.
Libertarians need to worry about themselves before they can worry about other people. Worrying about overpopulation is a problem for people who have too much power.
And yes, this is the answer I normally give when quizzed but as of late my faith has been shaking (so to speak).
So I read chapter 22 of Mr Simon’s The Ultimate Resource 2 and this passage articulates my concerns well:
I aslo found this quite interesting (worth citing at the dinner table maybe? lol):
Also:
I think that maybe this is a little bit of a straw man against those who worry seriously about overpopulation as the modern claim would not be (I think) that the growth is geometric, rather that the growth is merely exponential.
I think the crux of my misgivings are at least partly revealed in his closing remarks (above). If “Population grows at various rates under various conditions” then population is still growing and this is in my current opinion unsustainable. His next statement: “Sometimes population size shrinks for centuries due to…” is quite revealing for me as it is there ‘due to’s’ that we are constantly aiming to alleviate over time. I know this is slightly sloppy on my part but I still find it rather convincing (and conversely, this chapter rather unconvincing)…
Overall Sage I would say that I found your economic theory argument rather more convincing thatn this chapter from Mr Simon as it seems he has missed the point somewhat. The growth of p[opulation need not be geometric to be exponential and in refuting Malthus he has given himself the impression he has quelled all worries about overpopulation.
[quote="*The Ultimate Resource 2*"]
But recently conditions have improved
dramatically and population has added another growth spurt - joyous news for humanity.
[/quote]
Does this not illustrate something significant? And that it is "joyous news for humanity" is surely the (yet to be illustrated) point under discussion.
Anyway, the following made me shiver:
[quote="Stranger"]
Libertarians need to worry about themselves before they can worry about other people.
Worrying about overpopulation is a problem for people who have too much power.
[/quote]
I'll assume this was not meant to be serious input in to this thread.
You need to look a bit closer. All the industrialized countries are facing depopulation except for the USA.
USA has a sustainable population rate mainly from Immigration . Even PRC is heading to some sort of age crisis.
Only the Indian subcontinent and Africa are experiencing population growth.Demographically these countries hold an advantage as they have a young population and will continue to do so while the rest of the world population will be old.
In the “Indian subcontinent”, only Pakistan is experiencing any major growth. Mostly due to its Islamic culture which encourages women to pop out 6 kids each. India’s fertility rate is declining very fast and is now at 2 something. Bangladesh is extremely overpopulated, but is supposed to be a victory for family planning groups since their fertility rate is also down and their projected populations are supposed to be less than what it would have been if it was just rampant Islamic breeding.
IMO, overpopulation can be real but right now its too overplayed. India and China are constantly blamed for being overpopulated, but they both have population densities that are lower than Japan, Belgium, Netherlands, South Korea, Taiwan..etc
Just as with any other issue..the market will balance it out.
Overpopulation is really more or less a myth. At least a myth of permanent status. Humanity has gone through several growth spurts which had stressed the capacity of agriculture, but each one new techniques and technologies were discovered to keep up and even exceed the demand for food. Thus, overpopulation is really a temporary shortfall in resources and not one that is permanent. Even in India, much of the land remains unoccupied, largely due to the Indian government’s own insistence of setting up nature preserves and other such silly ‘green’ land allocations. Thus, forcing many people into urban sprawl which already beyond their manageable capacities.