Exploding the Myth of the Population Bomb

The Illinois Leader ^ | 6/3/05 | Matt C. Abbot

[wagglebee]

During the last three decades, the issue of overpopulation - or perceived overpopulation - has been discussed in various capacities.

The primary instigators of these discussions have been the radical environmentalists, the radical animal rights activists, and certain wealthy elites in our Western society.

All of these groups more or less assert that human beings are destroying the planet. There are too many of us, they say. Hence, we must utilize “family planning” (read: abortion, contraception, sterilization), even in a coercive manner, to limit the number of people born into the world.

As a result of this elitist, anti-life mentality, also known as the “contraceptive mentality,” several countries, including the U.S., are steeped in what the late Pope John Paul II called a culture of death.

In third world countries, abortion, contraception and sterilization seemingly abound; yet the most basic needs of food, clean water and medicine are often lacking.

Why is this so?

It would seem that international organizations such as the United Nations and Planned Parenthood are more interested in reducing the population of those less fortunate than in working to promote authentic economic development in developing countries.

The main questions involving this matter, I submit, are these: Is the world indeed overpopulated? What can be done to promote economic development and responsible parenthood in a way that is morally acceptable to virtually everyone?

The assertion that the world is overpopulated is essentially a myth. In a January 29, 2005 address given by Cesare Bonivento, Roman Catholic bishop of Papua New Guinea, at the Family Life International Symposium held in Papua New Guinea, Bishop Bonivento cited a 2003 report issued by the United Nations Population Division warning that “future fertility levels in most developing countries will likely fall below 2.1 children per woman, the level needed to ensure the long-term replacement of the population. By 2050, the UN document says, three out of every four countries in the less developed regions will be experiencing below-replacement fertility, with all developed countries far below replacement level as well.”

Bishop Bonivento continued: “The deeper reductions in fertility will have as a consequence a faster aging of the population of developing countries, and this aging will stress social security systems. Globally, the number of older persons (60 years or over) will nearly triple, increasing from 606 million in 2000 to nearly 1.9 billion by 2050.”

Interestingly, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) released a report in 2004 predicting “that the world's population will increase by almost 40% by 2050, to 8.9 billion inhabitants” and that “such a demographic increase is an obstacle for development and for the environment.”

Bishop Bonivento gave the following observation for the aforementioned contradictory report: “Why such an evidently contradictory evaluation? Because the warnings of the other UN agencies and of the demographers are jeopardizing UNFPA's effort to curb the population with any means, including legal abortion. UNFPA is the agency supporting the Chinese one-child policy, which includes forced abortion for women having a second child.”

Now, what can be done to foster economic development in third world countries? According to Dr. Brian Clowes, author and researcher for Human Life International, such a program would: “provide basic health care and prenatal care to women and children, thereby dramatically reducing infant mortality rates; build road systems and bridges to remote areas, thus promoting regional economic self-sufficiency; help break down artificial economic barriers, such as family-run utility monopolies and overly complicated procedures for securing permits in order to start small businesses, thereby stimulating healthy competition; improve agricultural production with rural electrification, mechanization and adequate grain storage, thereby improving nutrition; provide clean running water to villages, reducing endemic diseases; and provide basic education to those who are not receiving it.”

Finally, the widespread promotion of natural family planning, also known as natural fertility regulation, is vital, as it is “morally acceptable to all religions and cultures.” Information on natural family planning can be found on the following websites: www.ccli.org, www.popepaulvi.com.

[wagglebee]

As a result of this elitist, anti-life mentality, also known as the “contraceptive mentality,” several countries, including the U.S., are steeped in what the late Pope John Paul II called a culture of death.

Which is why it is to important to promote the Culture of Life.

[wagglebee]

Catholicism, Pro-Life, Natural Family Planning Ping!

[Texas Eagle]

In third world countries, abortion, contraception and sterilization seemingly abound; yet the most basic needs of food, clean water and medicine are often lacking.

With the exception of the massive palaces the "leaders" of those third world countries live in.

[Lorianne]

Morever, the overpopulation agenda is an anti-woman agenda. It targets women to take the brunt of reducing population, rather than sharing such responsibility with men.

[wagglebee]

With the exception of the massive palaces the "leaders" of those third world countries live in.

Courtesy of theit corrupt "benefactors" at the United Nations.

[Texas Eagle]

Amen. I'm sure our government chips in a fair amount as well. Ask Yasser Arafat.

Oh, wait. He's burning in Hell. No calls allowed.

[clearsight]

Thank You for posting this. People need to be informed about the misinformation they have been receiving all these years. The world planners want the masses to quietly go along with their agenda's, but it is all going to come to a halt. One fast way to stop it is for the American workers across the land to simply??? organize and go on strike and cut off their funding.

[Texas Eagle]

Now that I think of it, Arafat didn't exactly live in a palace. Although his wife was able to walk away with a cool billion upon his death.

[wagglebee]

Arafat may have been a lot of things, but politically unsavvy wasn't one of them. Arafat understood that his jihad to destroy Israel depended upon his appearence as a "victim", and the leftists bought it without a second thought.

[Joe 6-pack]

"One fast way to stop it is for the American workers across the land to simply??? organize and go on strike and cut off their funding."

Won't happen in the blue states where the agendas are aligned. Don't think so? Prior to the 2000 election myself and my small band of insurgents had a volume of "Voter Information Guides," printed which endorsed no candidate. It simply named the candidates in all races from statehouse to President and had the key points of that candidates stance on abortion. Shortly after Mass started at my Church we would come out of the woods and place a flyer under the windshield of the vehicles in the parking lot. We later found any number of them torn up. Some *Catholics* had even taken the time to ink "Gore/Lieberman 2000" on them before discarding.

[jsbankston]

Hopefully the 2008 GOP Presidential Candidate will advocate a ban on abortion and contraception as the centerpiece of their platform.

[wagglebee]

Hopefully the 2008 GOP Presidential Candidate will advocate a ban on abortion and contraception as the centerpiece of their platform.

I would prefer that Bush have the opportunity to replace Stevens and O'Conner with pro-life justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade.

I am pro-life to the core; however, I do not think abortion and contraception should EVER be a presidential matter. These should be the prerogatives of the individual states. The only reason the federal government ever got involved is because the out-of-control judiciary has made an abomination of the Constitution.

[trisham]

bttt

[jackbenimble]

This article did nothing to burst the overpopulation bubble for me. The UN forecast is consistent with most other population growth forecasts I've seen and the author causally dismisses it without offering a shared of evidence that it is not accurate. The statements that: 1) the population will be older in 2050; 2) that the population will have grown from the current 6 billion to 8.9 billion by 2050 and 3) that most developed and some undeveloped countries will have birth rates below replacement level are not mutually exclusive or inconsistent yet the author seems to think so.

Most of the third world is an economic basket case and cannot create enough goods, services, food, health-care, education and jobs to take care of its people. As a result, there is a massive out migration from these countries into the first world where they are overwhelming our ability to provide education and health-care. The inability to sustain the current population seems to be the very definition of overpopulation. That's why 10% of Mexico's population has fled Mexico and come to the United States. Their country is overpopulated and is unable to sustain them. If it were governed better could it support more? Probably, but the point is moot because it is very unlikely to happen.

The article suggests that this economic refugee crisis is a symptom of poor governance and a failure to grow the economy rather than a symptom and outward manifestation of overpopulation. I'd suggest that it is a distinction without a difference. Those countries are impossible to govern well because they are overpopulate.

We have been trying for decades to help these countries grow economically and govern themselves better with little success. There is little reason to believe that as their population expands by 30% in the next 50 years they will hit on the magic formula for good governance and economic growth. It is more likely that the misery will increase and that it will have an increasingly negative effect on the first world. (Have you read anything good about the schools or hospitals in Los Angelos lately).

Expansion of world population by 30% most certainly is a crisis and unfortunately it is all but a forgone conclusion that it is going to occur. Lets start building that wall at our southern border. Thank goodness that after 50 years population growth, according to most models is going to level off and then slowly shrink. It is going to be a miserable 50 years especially in the third world and then taking care of the old people is going to create another tough 50 years. That is when the population Ponzi scheme is going to come home to roost particularly in the socialist first world that has structured things like Social Security on the notion that population can increase exponentially forever.

[Torie]

Humans are not an endangered species. A billion fewer folks on the planet would be just grand.

[Torie]

Mexico has been a basket case since rocks cooled. Although Spain is over it, there is something about Spanish culture that is inimical to economic growth.

[FreeKeys]

Jewish World Review / February 12, 1998

Thomas Sowell

Julian Simon, combatant in a 200-year war

THE RECENT DEATH OF JULIAN SIMON was a special loss because he was one of those people who took on the thankless task of talking sense on a subject where nonsense is all the rage. A professor of economics at the University of Maryland, Julian Simon wrote fact-filled books about population -- all of them exposing the fallacies of those who were promoting "overpopulation" hysteria.

Ironically, Professor Simon's death comes during the 200th anniversary of Malthus' Essay on the Principle of Population which started the hysteria that is still with us today, despite two centuries of mounting evidence against it. Like so many other theories that can survive tons of contrary evidence, overpopulation theory relies on slippery definitions and a constituency that needs a mission more than it wants facts.

What Malthus said two centuries ago was that human beings have the potential to increase faster than the food needed to feed them. No one doubted this -- then or now. From this he made the fatal leap across a chasm of logic to say that there was a real danger that people would in fact grow so fast as to create a problem of feeding them.

The truism that the capacity to produce food limits the size of the sustainable population does not mean that population is anywhere near those limits. No automobile can drive faster than the power of its engine will permit, but you cannot explain the actual speeds of cars on roads and highways by those limits, because only an idiot drives at those limits.

Julian Simon set out to explain what happened to real population in the real world, not what happens in abstract models or popular hysteria. In the real world, as he demonstrated with masses of facts and in-depth analysis, we are nowhere near to running low on food or natural resources.

Professor Simon made a famous bet with the leading hysteria-monger of our time, Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University. Simon had offered to bet anybody that any set of natural resources that they claimed were running low would in fact be cheaper in the future than today. Professor Ehrlich took him up on it. Simon allowed Ehrlich to pick which resources and which period of time.

Ehrlich and his fellow hysterics chose a bundle of ten natural resources and a period of ten years. At the end of the decade, not only was the real cost of that bundle lower than at the beginning, every single natural resource that the Ehrlich camp had picked had a lower real cost than when the decade began.

If we were really running low on these resources, they would be getting progressively more expensive, instead of progressively cheaper. This is elementary supply-and-demand economics. But those addicted to overpopulation hysteria are no more interested in economics than they are in evidence.

What overpopulation theory provides is far more emotionally satisfying than facts, logic or economics. It is one of a whole family of theories which depict other people as so dangerously thoughtless that imposing the superior wisdom and virtue of some anointed social missionaries is all that can save us from disaster.

This vision inspired the eugenics movement in the early decades of this century, the recycling movement today and innumerable other heady crusades in between. Contrary facts mean absolutely nothing to the true believers. Those who insist on talking about those contrary facts encounter only hostility and demonization.

Julian Simon understood that. In a letter to me a couple of years ago, he mentioned a certain Nobel Prize-winning economist who had said to him that "even with all his prestige he would not say that population growth might well be a good thing because he was afraid he might lose credibility." Such is the power of intimidation in our time.

"Yes, one can always argue that such prudence is wise. But we all know the consequences of such 'wise' choices," Simon wrote. It is a society where strident hysteria drowns out truth and where our policies are based on headstrong nonsense, loudly shouted.

With a full understanding of the opposition and smears he would encounter, Julian Simon nevertheless wrote The Economics of Population Growth, Population Matters, and -- his best-known book -- The Ultimate Resource. To him, the ultimate resource was human intelligence.

We should also add, in honor of Julian Simon, the courage to use that intelligence.

-- from http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell021298.html

[FreeKeys]

People need to be informed about the misinformation they have been receiving all these years.

See: "The Ultimate Resource 2 -- an update, not a sequel, despite the title--skewers the sacred cows of environmentalism, population control, and Paul Ehrlich. In the contest between resource scarcity and human ingenuity, Simon bets the farm on the ability of intelligent people to overcome their problems. Thankfully, he is not a theorist. This book lays out convincing empirical evidence for Simon's prediction of a prosperous future. The key to progress is not state-run conservation programs, he says, but economic and political freedom." -- HERE.

[jackbenimble]

Mexico just happens to be impacting us the most because we share a 2500 mile border. Compared to the majority of the third world it is a utopia. There is no reason for Mexico to be poor because they have enormous wealth. But they are poor and they are likely to remain that way because they have not and likely will not discover the secret to good governance. Consequently, they will not be able to support their population.

[Torie]

Well, what is in the past, may not be the future. Many nations that have been poor since the beginning of time are now on the move. Globalization has certain benefits. We see them emerging before our eyes. It is lifting folks up by the hundreds of millions now. Mexico is a not a long term problem, not even a medium term one, but just a short term one. At least that is my prediction.

[Torie]

Just because Erlich over stated his case, and had a time line that was wrong, does not make Simon right. There is a canibalization of soil resources going on before our very eyes. We I suspect have seen the bulk of the easy gain in creating more food resources. World oil production will start to fall within the next ten years. The squeeze will be on.

[Max Flatow]

Look at any global birth rate map in any atlas and you will find that the places on this planet that have the highest birth rates are the places that are the worst when it comes to feeding their own, caring for the sick, or creating any economic stimulus for it's populace. Yes I am talking about the continent of Africa.

[Torie]

Actually, the highest birth rates are in Palestine, the Gaza strip, and Saudi Arabia. Parts of Africa are of course in the same boat. Somalia has ceased functioning as a country, and at this point is just one international AFDC case.

[verity]

But there is an immigration bomb.

[wagglebee]

Whatever troll.

[gorush]

Amen! Back when I was a lib, I went to a speech given by Paul Ehlich...I believed it then, I know better now.

[Cvengr]

One of forecasting's more glaring failures was the Club of Rome's "The Limits of Growth". For those who studied and based models on the original text, the US and the world was doomed to starvation in 2000 if we failed to achieve ZPG by 1980.

Recent copies of the 'original' text have altered the 'forecasts' to claim, had we not reduced our growth by 2000, 2050 would be the threshold of doom.

File this under, 'Conspiracy Theories, which might have some basis to their conspiracy".

[Max Flatow]

You sound French.

[FreeKeys]

The squeeze will be on.

You don't get the point. Remember what Simon said the ULTIMATE RESOURCE is.

[Torie]

Help me. What is the ultimate resource?

[KateatRFM]

The Four Horsemen generally take care of the problem of overpopulation. When women are educated to the point where they have some option besides turning out 15-20 children to die of starvation, the birth rate drops to what they family can afford.

I know that people have said you could put the whole population in the Continent of Australia and the population density would be about the same as in Japan. Have you noticed that Japan is way below replacement level in population and dwindling? A lot of that is because they are bloody overcrowded.

If you can afford 20 children and your wife agrees, have at it and God bless you. But demanding that everybody else start downloading babies by the carload lot, regardless of their ability to feed, clothe, shelter or educate them, is plain irresponsible.

Leave the choice to each family as to whether or not they want to have children and how many. Tell them they'll have to pay every dime for their support and see where you get. I bet the population will go down like a rock.

[KateatRFM]

Mexico will remain poor just like Canada will, because they live next to a big Sugar Daddy who will bail them out of their distress. No child will ever grow up if Mom and Dad cover all their stupid decisions or their refusal to make any decisions at all.

[Torie]

Canada is not poor. It's standard of living is comparable to the US.

[moog]

Morever, the overpopulation agenda is an anti-woman agenda. It targets women to take the brunt of reducing population, rather than sharing such responsibility with men.

Oh man, my mom,who had eight kids, wasn't listening. I'll take a person who raises 5 kids responsibly, without going on welfare, over one who treats their one child like a soccer ball any day.

[Torie]

the overpopulation agenda is an anti-woman agenda.

It seems to me to be a pro woman agenda. Keeping woman barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen as baby making machines, seems to me to rather limit their options in life. Most educated women with disposable income in the family, where kids are not viewed as an asset in economic terms, just so no, and then no some more.

[moog]

the overpopulation agenda is an anti-woman agenda. It seems to me to be a pro woman agenda. Keeping woman barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen as baby making machines, seems to me to rather limit their options in life. Most educated women with disposable income in the family, where kids are not viewed as an asset in economic terms, just so no, and then no some more.

I didn't say that quote by the way, BUT MY MOTHER WAS NOT BAREFOOT AND PREGNANT!! Sorry, but I won't support this statement. My mother was not "limited" being active as a neighborhood preschool teacher, piano teacher (for pay), serving in her church, teaching us kids (not homeschooling), teaching us how to work, helping out at school, being a Boy Scout and Cub Scout leader, canning, and so on and so on. If anything, she was more resourceful than any working mom I have ever seen. All eight of us kids were top students and all of us have been very successful in our chosen fields.

As a public school teacher (and like most teachers), I appreciate stay-at-home moms. They are great to help out and spend time with their kids. I don't disparage moms that have to work, as sometimes has to be the case and each situation is different. If a woman decides to stay home, more power to her as well. What concerns me is any parent who does not spend any time with their children, whether they work or not.

As for finances, we did just fine. We didn't always have everything that others did, but we didn't need to. We had each other. We didn't have cable TV or video game systems. I still don't. However, we were close as a family and that's truly what counts to me.

I am one who doesn't like large families that go on welfare too. HOWEVER, my father never took a penny from the gov in his life. He did leave us with a great legacy and example to emulate.

[Torie]

Kudos to your very energetic mother, and hard working father, and to another age, when kids didn't cost as much to get into the game.

[moog]

It wasn't so long ago actually. Yes, kids cost a lot nowadays so that's why I believe that every case is different. I have lots of stay-at-home moms of my students and have seen lots of different situations. It's nice to know someone is there if I need to call. I had to spend 2 hours the other day, trying to find a girl's mom who was at work so that she could get taken to where she needed to go.

Most families in my neighborhood have about 2-5 kids.

There are bad moms who work and bad moms who stay at home. There are good moms who work and good moms who stay at home. It just depends.

Thanks for the kudos.

[chickenlips]

The late Dr. Julian Simon punched so many holes in this overpopulation issue that I can no longer take it seriously. Quit listening to the UN and read some of Simon's work. You'll rest much better.

Yeah, your right we keep trying to help these countries with no success. Overpopulation isn't the problem, however. Don't expect our secular approach to accomplish much against the true problem which is moral rot in these nations. Secularism here is in a postmodern tail spin so it can't discern anything worthwhile, why would we expect it to work elsewhere.

[wideminded]

There are many aspects of the quality of life in America itself which have been diminished in the last 40 years because of the increase in population. Some things get better with time. Others, like traffic, get a lot worse and population has a lot to do with this.

[jackbenimble]

Yeah, your right we keep trying to help these countries with no success. Overpopulation isn't the problem, however. Don't expect our secular approach to accomplish much against the true problem which is moral rot in these nations.

I really hold out little hope for these nations. I don't think any approach is going to work whether it be secular or spiritual. There is too much ignorance and misery and little short of a die-off is going to improve things.

I'm aware that it is possible to put a lot of people on a small piece of real estate and still have a successful nation. The Asians seem to be best at it (e.g. Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan). But as long as these failed third world nations are not producing enough of anything (except misery) to care for their populations then they are beyond their carrying capacity and overpopulated. When somebody figures out how to increase their carrying capacity with some combination of good governance, improved technology, spiritual guidance, education and economic growth then there will be a new reality.

Until that time, they will remain overpopulated and it will be easy to recognize them because to the extent that people can flee they will hemorrhage economic refugees.

[cpforlife.org]

Pro-Life PING

Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

[chickenlips]

Oh, I believe the problem is abundantly spiritual. As we increasingly embrace the Eastern religions we'll see our own decline accelerate.

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge;
Fools despise wisdom and instruction." Proverbs 1:7 NASU

"But his delight is in the law of the Lord,
And in His law he meditates day and night.
He will be like a tree firmly planted by streams of water,
Which yields its fruit in its season
And its leaf does not wither;
And in whatever he does, he prospers."
NASU Psalm 1:2&3

As for me, I'm holding on to this promise from Psalm 1.

[Age of Reason]

So we're not overpopulated?

Good.

Then we can stop recyling garbage and throw-out our water-saving toilets.

And there's so much prime real estate that it's dirt cheap, and all Americans can afford a few hundred acres.

[Age of Reason]

Keeping woman barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen as baby making machines, seems to me to rather limit their options in life.

What other option could there be but that which by nature she is designed to do?

[Age of Reason]

There are many aspects of the quality of life in America itself which have been diminished in the last 40 years because of the increase in population.

Absolutely correct.

[Torie]

Defying nature, and telling mother nature to kiss my ass, might be one. :)

[Mr. Silverback]

ProLife Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[hinckley buzzard]

I really hold out little hope for these nations. I don't think any approach is going to work whether it be secular or spiritual. There is too much ignorance and misery and little short of a die-off is going to improve things.

You sound like something out of a time warp. Go back and read your own dire warnings in the wonderful screed "Famine 1975!" and the original "Population Bomb" c. 1968. Paul Ehrlich was wrong then and you are wrong now.