And welfare recipients that remain home and squeeze out more children (3 to 6 average) receive $200 B in received funds, housing, food stamps, medical, etc.
Of course this includes the administrative costs, so you can filter it down to $20 B, and this is a number that grows every year
$200 million does not seem so great (Although I do not think tax dollars should go to any organization, or that there should be “TAX” Dollars) when compared to the $200B paid to dole out benefits
In any case, US is not the country suffering from overpopulation.
But the governments’ policy on this might different: some may actually encourage producing more babies while others, like China, impose restrictions.
Overpopulation is a popular lie that is predicated on the idea that the planet’s surface is the only place where useful matter exists. Also, it’s predicated on the idea that technology cannot outstrip human breeding (here’s a hint: IT HAS OUTSTRIPPED BREEDING RATES FOR THE LAST TWO CENTURIES). George Reisman also has dealt with the overpopulation issue in a speech he gave, which is he refuted the claims of overpopulation.
So don’t drink the anti-human koolaide! Breeding is still in this season for 97% of the human species!
Dang, and I was about to suggest some overconcerned folks to volunteer themselves out of existence [:O]
That’s what Thomas Malthus believed, that humanity, due to their endless desires, would destroy themselves; luckily he was wrong. Capitalism, through the expansion/progression of capital, allows for increased efficiency, that is, you can produce more “stuff” for the same cost. For example, during the middle and latter part of the 18th century there were massive population booms, famine, and poverty; thankfully the industrial revolution solved all problems. The socialists look at that period and see poor work conditions; they fail to recognize that it saved hundreds of millions of lives.
Does anyone know what talk this is, specifically? The link doesn’t seem to be working. The enviro-nuts are at it again, and I need to get them to pipe down a little.
i suggest everyone watch demographic winter
its shows that the rate of human population growth is heading into a decline
An exact number is impossible to know, but I feel as though Humanity is reaching its equillibrium–though in a natural non-apcoplyptic manner.
Infant mortality, hunger, disease, and other assorted “natural causes” are all in decline. In the early to mid 20th century this led to a population boom; however, the increased longevity and improved standards of living over the last half dramtically lowered the rate of reproduction. Most of the West is actually in population decline. Immigration from the undeveloped world is the only factor that keeps their populations stable. I figure that it will only be about 100 to 200 years more before the combination of quality of life/technology and increased longevity will have spread over enough of the world to where global populations will actually be consistently shrinking.
I think their is a natural order at work. Animal populations are generally ruled by the economics of the environment. I tend to think man as a whole is more rational than the animals, but we are also necessitated by the environment we live in. I think if scarce resources are not sufficient to maintain a level of satisfaction, the reaction would be much like that of any market, and a spontaneous order would regulate volumes of goods. Is it wrong to refer to individuals as goods?
Hazlitt talked about overpopulation and the propaganda that the State spews out in Man v. The Welfare State.
He pretty much summed up that overpopulation is a myth and so outrageously wrong. The argument the State uses is that the correlation between food production and population growth is unsustanable. Over the past 100 years the market has innovated tehnology that has allowed food to last longer, has allowed farmers to invest in new technology to allow the farmers to grow more in mass amounts and more efficiently. The only way famines take place is if the State is involved.
The whole concept of a fixed carrying capacity rests on the premise that humans are mindless automatons. Animals have fixed carrying capacities, humans do not. The key difference is that humans can create resources, and hence can change their environment’s carrying capacity. Even though population is growing exponentially, the carrying capacity of the earth can grow even faster.
Exactly. If human population is growing exponentially, human ingenuity and work-power is also growing exponentially.
HOWEVER, human population is not growing exponentially… it’s leveling off. As soon as societies become wealthy, they begin having fewer children. The only effective way to stabilize population growth is the elimination of poverty.