Interesting paper on overpopulation: http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/6k97b7x3
Declining agricultural production and increasing population growth don’t seem sustainable.
If something can’t go on forever, it will stop.
We put brakes on automobiles so they stop at times/places that are favorable to us, rather than relying on the fact that it wont go on forever and if we arent too badly injured we can walk.
It doesn’t exist. If you modernized agricultural production in third-world countries, you could feed a world population of 21 billion.
So what if you had 42 billion people to feed?
We create a machine that can create food out of thin air.
A food printing press?
Historically, at least, the richer the country is, the less it reproduces. I’m not sure whether this is a “law”, but for now the trened favors stability.
Why would he (or any other one person) need to feed 42 billion people? They can feed themselves. If not, there won’t be 42 billion of them. Either way, the problem solves itself before it becomes one.
^ This. It’s not like we’re suddenly going to have 34 billion people pop out of nowhere.
Look, I’m not a doomsayer. I just dont think you can hand-wave the issue of catastrophic famine away. In biological organisms population growth is a function of food supply. When you subsidize a populations food supply, you create “population bubbles” that result in chaotic food distribution, i.e. grocery stores throwing massive amounts away every day and starvation in africa. And intervention (sending food to africa) creates even more islands of chaos, subsidizing the procreation of people who cant feed themselves, so starving babies result. Humans are the only species that has control of their own food supply and theres a case to be made that if it isnt handled properly (which to all of us would mean with strict property rights) disaster would result. This argument is also part of the subtext that drives the nwo agenda so its not as if we austrians can forego having some skin in the game. Lastly its disgusting for anyone from a naturalistic atheistic scientistic perspective to fail to recognize population growth of homo sapiens as some sort of anomaly, and its merely prudent to examine whether that anomaly might be beneficient or malignant.
So what skin in the game (other than the bolded above) would you propose that austrians rather have? In the same paragraph you explain how regulation/planning is (increasingly) the problem then suggest that perhaps one ought to be thinking of regulation/planning solutions to avert it.
I didnt intend to imply that regulation would be the answer. The answer is for austrian libertarians to develop coherent positions on overpopulation and anthropogenic global warming in order to get more of a market presence in the marketplace of ideas.
More people = more brains = more innovation/problem solving = higher production.
The only important variable is if the free market will be allowed to allocate resources or not. If not, expect starving people. If so, don’t worry about stuff like this.
Their position has been “property rights” all along. Not much could be more coherent than that, I’m afraid.
As long as the sun is there to provide energy for photosynthesis and such, it will always be possible to produce enough food for everyone.
Part of having a coherent position is exposition on how strict property rights would affect these problems, or how the lack thereof has created them. “lol starvation” doesnt suffice, I am afraid.
I didn’t take the time to read the paper, but I think it’s pretty simple to realise that private property and voluntary exchanges will lead to society self organizing to feed growing populations. If there is a food shortage the price of food rises giving me and every other property owner the incentive to get rid of our grass yards and plant crops, or raise livestock. I can think of nothing other than government or natural disasters that could keep this from happening.
Coupled with the riches capitalism creates and the correlation between wealth and decreased population growth Wheylous mentions above I see it as a non-problem in a free society.
yes. Eventually you turn all terrain into agriculture and housing. Whether this happens smootly or gracefully depends on how it happens. I cant understand why this topic is seen as unworthy of serious consideration in this community.
Alarmism produced by “scientific” linear extrapolation of current trends into infinity is the ultimate knowledge conceit and the most (ab)used interventionist tool, by far.
You are thinking like an interventionist, central planner trying to outsmart and outpredict 7 billion self-interested human agents participating in division of labor and trade. The Fatal Conceit, par excellence.
my argument is a priori, not empirical. The size of a population is a function of its food supply. Humans, like other organisms, have a drive to reproduce. Humans, unlike other organisms, have control of their own food supply. If this control is not administered correctly (which we can agree means strict property rights) disaster will result.
I really dont think I am doing any of that. I want austrians to understand the problem (this discussion suggests they dont) and articulate the solution (which they are aware of, but havent articulated because they dont understand the problem). Do you understand the difference between totalitarian agriculture and other forms of food production? Tot-ag seeks to turn every nutrient in a given part of earth into live human beings. Thus far, it has been wildly successful, to an exponential degree. What technological solution do you see that makes the historical note you referenced into a worthy analogy?