Too Many People? (AEI Report on "Population Stabilisation")

American Enterprise Institute ^ | 12 July 2007 | Nicholas Eberstadt

[The Pack Knight]

A demographic spectre is haunting authoritative and influential circles in both the United States and the international community. This spectre is the supposed imperative to "stabilise human population."

The quest to "stabilise human population" (or to "stabilise world population," or sometimes just "stabilise population") was formally launched on the global stage in 1994 by the United Nations at its Cairo Conference on Population and Development, whose "Programme of Action" intoned that "intensified efforts" to this end were "crucial" given the "contribution that early stabilisation of the world population would make towards the achievement of sustainable development." That objective is today embraced by a panoply of subsidiary institutions within the "UN family," including the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which explicitly declared its mission in 2002 to be the promotion of the "universally accepted aim of stabilising world population."

Closer to home, the goal of "stabilising human population" is championed by a broad network of population and environmental advocacy groups, including most prominently Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club (the latter of which has established "stabilising world population" as goal #4 of its "21st Century agenda." The objective, however, is not merely proclaimed by an activist fringe; to the contrary, it is broadly shared by many elements of what might be called the American establishment." "Stabilising world population," for example, is now a programmatic effort for most of the prestigious multi-billion dollar American philanthropic organisations that commit their resources to "international population activities." This list includes--but is not limited to--the Ford Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, the Packard Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation.

Further, "stabilising world population" is a prospect that has been welcomed and financially supported by many of America’s most prominent and successful captains of industry: among them, self-made multi-billionaires Ted Turner, Warren Buffet, and Bill Gates. The propriety--or necessity--of "stabilising global population" has been expounded by a wide array of respected writers, spokespersons, and commentators in the US media. Politically, the goal of "stabilising world population" is officially approved by USAID (America’s foreign aid apparatus). And the quest to "stabilise world population" is championed in the United States by political figures who are both influential and widely popular: one of America’s most passionate and outspoken exponents of "world population stabilisation," former Vice President Al Gore, very nearly won the presidency in the closely contested 2000 election.

What, exactly, does "stabilising human population" actually mean? Though the objective is widely championed today, the banner itself is somewhat misleading, for advocates of "stabilising population" are in fact not concerned with stabilising human numbers. . . .

Excerpt. Link to site with PDF of full report here.

[The Pack Knight]

Nicholas Eberstadt is the Henry Wendt Scholar in Political Economy at AEI.

This report was originally published by the (London) International Policy Network on 11 July, 2007. The link is to an excerpt and a link to a PDF of the full 24 page report (Acrobat Reader required).

Eberstadt does an excellent job debunking the "sustainable development" crowd's alarmist rhetoric about "overpopulation", showing that high population density has no demonstrable relationship to increased poverty. The Malthusian assumptions Al Gore (whom Eberstadt specifically refutes) and his coreligionists make in order to push for policies like the one-child policy proposed in Britain earlier this year are simply not supported by empirical fact.

As Eberstadt points out in his conclusion, and Al Gore ignores, human beings are themselves a resource. They are not simply absorbing finite resources, but are creating new resources and more efficient ways to use those resources. Population growth is far from harmful to economic growth; it is essential to economic growth.

Of course, to the closeted (and sometimes not-so-closeted) Gaia cultists that make up the environmental movement, mankind and all his works are a blight upon the Earth. Population growth is evil in itself, regardless of its effects, for good or ill, on the human condition. From the first day a human being eats or breathes, he has become tainted by the Original Sin of this religion.

Thanks to Neal Boortz for the link. FR Thread on a related column by Eberstadt here.

[Andy from Beaverton]

Shouldn’t they start population control in muslim nations where they have a very high birth rate?

[AZLiberty]

Here’s a way for you to be “carbon neutral” for the rest of your life. Find someone about your own age — and kill him.

[CDHart]

Interesting.

Carolyn

[GovernmentIsTheProblem]

“Shouldn’t they start population control in muslim nations where they have a very high birth rate?”

That’s racist!

/s

[laweeks]

It has been said, and has been proven on paper, that ALL the people in the WORLD could be stood up in the Grand Canyon without having to touch each other.

But, if you want to put ALL the people in a city with 3 or 4 to a house, with a front and back yard and a driveway, you would need NO MORE THAN THE STATE OF TEXAS to hold EVERYONE in the world.

There is NO SUCH THING AS OVERPOPULATION; we just have criminal regimes who disrespect their population.

I have no patience with the “overpopulation” exponents.

[expatguy]

Nature has been trying to kill off people for a long time and we keep getting in the way.

Next time there is a tsunami, famine or earthquake - think about it

[AbeKrieger]

I am all in favor of liberal-leaning populations taking the lead on this initiative, they may begin by reducing their own populations. I suspect we’ll have an immediate and positive impact on the world’s economies, criminal justice systems, and food supplies.

[PGalt]

Here’s a way for you to be “carbon neutral” for the rest of your life. Find someone about your own age — and kill him.

ROFLMAO!

Thanks for posting the article. (will read after the laugh)

[camas]

can’t agree. they are eating cardboard in china, most fish have been taken out of the oceans, farm land is being lost to houses, golf courses, roads etc. and more people keep come. something is going to have to give. one more thing the "land fills are full"

[RC2]

If the middle east were to be allowed to over breed and not supply them with anything, they would die off. Without the rest of the world supplying them their needs......cars, washing machines, TV’s......nukes, etc, etc........they would cease to exist. They cannot and have not given anything to the world other than terror. Africa is the same way.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

Bingo.
Stabilize the Muslim countries and the poor third world countries that have a problem taking care of and feeding their own people.
On the other hand, many countries in Europe may not continue as we know them due to a decline in birth rates.

[hunter112]

The very best way to achieve "population stabilization"? Industrialize the world. In practically every First World nation, population pressures have eased.

The way to limit population in the Third World? Develop a pill to sell on the black market that virtually guarantees male children will be conceived. The most sexist, backwards societies (especially the muzzies) can burn themselves out in two generations.

[AZLiberty]

Can murderers sell their carbon credits?

[laweeks]

“can’t agree. they are eating cardboard in china, most fish have been taken out of the oceans, farm land is being lost to houses, golf courses, roads etc. and more people keep come. something is going to have to give. one more thing the “land fills are full”

Sorry, can’t agree. We have way more than enough room in this world for 10 even 100 times more people. It’s the corrupt governments that squash these people. They’re eating cardboard in China because China’s government is corrupt. Where did you get the “facts” that the fish are out of the ocean, etc.?

Re-read what I wrote. The overpopulation industry is a SCAM!

[Psycho_Bunny]

lol....you can’t be serious. Was that sarcasm?

[PGalt]

:) Interesting study. Thanks.

[Old Professer]

On the count of three, everybody hold their breath for ten minutes...

[Grumpy_Mel]

Overpopulation is a real problem with any species.... not just humans. It’s a simple fact of biology. A given habitat can only support a certain number of any given species. The closer that species approaches to that given maximum, the more stress is put on that environment and the lower the quality of life for every given member of that species.

Yes, human industry and imagination ARE resources and they can help change the ratio of individuals that can be supported by a given resource (i.e. if we tried to support a world population of 6 billion with 10th century agricultural techniques we’d all be startving right now). However the elasticity of OTHER neccesary resources only stretches SO FAR. Furthermore the rate at which you increase population as compared to the rate at which you discover the capacity to support population higher populations(i.e. through technological advances) is a REAL important factor... and it is simply NOT the case that adding more people gets you technological advances at a rate proportional to the amount of people you add.

Furthermore Eberstadt’s anlysys is badly flawed. When he uses Population Density he considers only the land area on which people RESIDE to calculate it....NOT the land area which people USE TO SUPPORT THEMSELVES... which is the relavent factor.

Simple example, Manhatten has a pretty high population density. By Eberstadts methodology he’d reckon they had a pretty decent standard of living (we’ll leave aside crime, pervasive regulation, limited living space, aesthetic considerations and liberal politicians that ALL go along with high population for the moment). However, cut off all the bridges and tunnels going into Manhatten and all those people would be dead within a week. That’s because the populace of Manhatten doesn’t just depend upon the resources of Manhatten to survive.... it depends upon the resources of the entire world. The Kansas grown green beans that the people of Manhatten eat for dinner are ones that the people of Kansas don’t have availble to eat themselves. That’s why population density isn’t tied to standard of living.... it hasn’t been since mankind learned to travel farther then his own 2 legs could carry him in a day. Because it’s NOT just local resources that are used.... but those resources don’t just appear out of thin air...they HAVE to come from somewhere.

I’m not an enviro-nut and I don’t think we need to panic about it.... but overpopulation IS a real issue.... and keeping population growth low IS actualy a good thing. Look at it this way, the fewer people you have trying to buy gas the lower price you are going to have to pay to get gas and the longer you have to figure out new ways of making gas or better energy sources to use before you run out.

Until we find efficient means of space travel... we’re pretty much limited to the resources we have on earth.... and that means that anyone who see’s human beings as anything other then a means of cheap labour or more customers for thier products... is going to want to keep the number of human beings using those resources from rising too high.

[sauropod]

Linky no worky.

[Grumpy_Mel]

That’s very true. Most population increase in 1st world nations is driven by immigration from the 3rd world. That’s because the 3rd world still largely driven by old agrarian dynamics.... i.e. have lots of kids and you have lots of workers to go out and work the fields for you..... as opposed to industrialized nations where kids are financial liabilties ..... i.e. have lots of kids and you have to pay to feed, clothe and educate lots of kids for 20+ years each until they can go out and start to support themselves.

The other real driver of population growth in 1st world nations is low income families that depend on the welfare system. That’s another instance where a kid is a financial windfall rather then a liability.... have lots of kids, you don’t need to worry about paying to support them the government (i.e. some poor shmuck taxpayer) will. In fact the more kids you have...the more money you get from the government...and it doesn’t really check to make sure you aren’t using any of that money to support yourself rather then the kids. That’s a real problem area too.

[laweeks]

“lol....you can’t be serious. Was that sarcasm?”

I was deadly serious. There is no population explosion. There’s more than enough room for everybody.

Google “over population myths”

[Grumpy_Mel]

Let’s see,

For a person to stand upright without touching one another you’d need about 3ft x 3ft area. That’s 9 sq ft per person.

6,000,000,000 x 9 = 54,000,000,000 sq ft to accomodate everyone.

27,878,400 Sq ft per SQ mile

54,000,000,000 / 27,878,400 = 1936.9

1937 Square MILES of surface area of nothing but people standing upright in 3ft by 3ft cubes. Thats ALOT of PEOPLE.

Now, lets look at your 4 people in a house example. Let’s assume a 1 acre lot for each house.

6,000,000,000 / 4 = 1,500,000,000 acre lots

640 Acres in a Square Mile

1,500,000,000 / 640 = 2,343,750 Square Miles of nothing but houses.

That’s an area of more then 1,000 miles by 2,000 miles of nothing but houses!

Furthermore you’d have exactly 1 acre of land to grow enough food each year to feed 4 people without depleting it. That same acre of land would have to produce enough plants to produce enough oxygen for all those people to breath. It would have to produce enough water for them to drink. Filter and purify ALL the waste they produce. Hold all the GARBAGE they produce. Produce ALL the fuel to heat and provide electricty they would use. Produce the clothes for them to wear. Produce the wood or other materials to build and maintain the house. That’s not even considering things like computers, cd players, washing machines, cars, microwave ovens, etc that they would use OR the waste produced by building them or the space needed to actualy manufacture them.

You start to get the picture. It takes ALOT of space to support a human being with everything they need to survive let alone enjoy a halfway decent standard of living.

While the earth has a heck of alot of space, it also has a heck of alot of humans. Overpopulation is a REAL problem.
It’s not one that pretending it doesn’t exist will make go away. Yes, corrupt regiemes are responsible for alot of the suffering that thier populace endures.

However, if we ignore population growth we’ve got a real problem in the making. We are already at the point where we are starting to feel some of the pressure from it.... you don’t want to get anywhere NEAR the point where it gets really bad.... because it’s a very quick spiral down from there...... and the only way to solve it AT THAT POINT is regulating the number of kids people have or a MASSIVE die off of people. I don’t want to get anywhere near that point, do you? The smart money is on starting to address it now.

[Psycho_Bunny]

Do you mean room for everybody today?  Or that overpopulation isn't possible?

Because I'd tend to agree that we aren't overpopulated now, but the idea that overpopulation isn't possible is just silly.

You're first post left me with the impression that you thought overpopulation isn't possible.