The Eternal Return of Overpopulation - Getting the cause of high fertility backwards.

Reason ^ | October 19, 2010 | Ronald Bailey

[muawiyah]

Regarding "bread", the Japanese have a decided taste for a bit of sugar in it. So that's probably what your kids had gotten used to if they ate the local stuff.

Still, people like what they are used to. Sticky rice is, of course, as tasty as any rice, but the loose rice works better with gravy. I have a bag of Japanese sweet rice and can instantly whip up a batch of mochi

[truthguy]

Maybe not such a bad policy 4000 B.C. But go to Hong Kong or go to Shanghai, China or Mexico City and then make the same statement. I've been to these places and in each case I couldn't wait to leave. Big populations and population density mean crowded conditions, strife, misery, filth, and an eventual loss of personal freedom. I find it amazing that so many cannot grasp this concept.

Look at the States (US) where you have the most personal Freedom and you will see places like Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, etc. Look at the states with the least personal freedom and you will see places like New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, etc. There is a direct relation to personal freedom, quality of life and population density.

Game, Set, and Match.

[combat_boots]

Ah yes. Eugenics here we come....... ‘Culture of Poverty’ Makes a Comeback http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/18/us/18poverty.html?_r=1

[BenKenobi]

Which is why Africa is so free. Oh, wait.

Central African republic, population density = 21 per square mile.

United States of America, population density 72 per square mile.

Quite the opposite. Look at all the densely populated areas, the UK, in the Netherlands. They developed democracy.

As for the US, the least populated area is in the central part of Alaska where most people live on reserve. I wouldn’t exactly call that free.

[truthguy]

There is so much wrong with your post I don't know where to start. Big populations and especially big population density ususally mean low quality of life and loss of personal freedom. When people are sardined into tiny areas they get into each others personal space. This is particularily true when you have people of a different culture. If you have enough space to give people room to move about it won't be nearly as much of a problem. It's the old out of sight, out of mind thing. I've visited a number of very crowded places and the quality of life is VERY LOW unless you are part of the very highest income class. Otherwise things suck. Now there are a few primitive countries where the population density is low and the quality of life low as well. Saudi Arabia is one such place. But most of their land is waste land except that with oil under it. So this is not to say that low population density always leads to a high quality of life but I believe that high population nearly always leads to a low quality of life.

[BenKenobi]

It’s really simple. Adam Smith. Population concentrations diversify and increase productivity. The wealthiest areas and nations generally have a high population concentration.

Remember Smith and his pin makers? You aren’t going to locate pin makers in Alaska. Also, Alaska is a net consumer of taxpayer dollars from the lower 48, and is a bad example. They could not sustain their current standard of living without assistance from elsewhere.

Another example is the Dutch. They have very high population density, but have embraced economic classic liberalism and liberal democracy. If population density created poverty and despotism, we would expect the opposite.

You are right that population density creates more poverty, in the sense that there is more inequality. The rich get far richer than the poor. The question then becomes relative poverty. The numbers show clearly the opposite effect. They show that while the ‘poor’ as a percentage of the population grows, the amount of money necessary to be considered poor goes up. A rising tide lifts all boats.

Look, I know this is counterintuitive, but this is the honest truth. Economics requires population density in order to prosper. Economics induces severe market forces on rural areas to encourage people to move to the cities.

We have been surrounded by the greatest urbanisation that the world has seen, and you are arguing that this is contrary to market forces?

I understand your argument, but it is simply, flat out wrong. If the quality of life were truly higher in rural areas, than more people would move out there. Why don’t they? I am a country boy myself, but unfortunately I need to work in order to eat and to live and to raise a family, and I cannot do so where I am from. I have suffered un and underemployment for the last two years in order to attempt to make it work.

[truthguy]

I been to these super dense hellholes abroad like Shanghai, Tokyo, and Hong Kong. These are miserable places to be. Why do you think so many people from these places want to come to the US, Canada, or Australia? Did you ever consider that? The only reasons they work as well as they do is because they have a much more homogeneous population. If we had the same density here in the US, it would look like Beirut.

We don't have to have the desolation of central Alaska or the stench (yes the place actually spells bad) of Tokyo for prosperity. We were a prosperous country with 100, 120, 140 million. There is no reason to race to a billion. You know a country like Sweden has a very high standard of living despite doing many things stupidly. A lot of this has to do with the fact they don't have so many people jammed together. There is a happy medium.

[BenKenobi]

Who said anything about racing to a billion? If you’d rather have 150 million Americans than 300 million Americans, then go out, kill someone and get back to me. If we each get one American apiece, that goal will be accomplished.

[truthguy]

Who said anything about racing to a billion? If you’d rather have 150 million Americans than 300 million Americans, then go out, kill someone and get back to me.

The point is NOT to get to the point were people are killing each other. When you have high density/population you have collisions of culture or really civilizations. You ought to read Sam Huntington's book The Clash of Civilizations. He outlines it so much better than I ever could. Then go and read some of the splendid essays of Lawrence Auster. He also writes very elegantly on this topic. And if you don't think we are racing to a billion you don't understand demographics and numerical progression.

If we had never changed our immigration policy back in 1965 (Democrats again) we would not be having these problems. I'll submit to you that if we don't make radical changes in our immigration policy and very soon the United States WILL NOT EXIST in another 25 years of so.

[BenKenobi]

I have read clash of civilizations. Most important point to take out of it is that we reside in the remnant of the Greeks/Romans, and how this worldview is directly contradictory to Islam and most of the world.

Much of what we take for granted today comes from them.

My point is that the West is already killing people, one in three to maintain the status quo. This is exactly what abortion does, point and kill one out of the next three people that you see.

As for numerical progression, what’s the average growth rate of the United States? Precisely how many years would it take to reach 1 Billion Americans?

122 years at 1 percent average growth rate per year. That’s slightly on the generous side. At 0.95 percent growth, which is slightly low, it would take 130 years. So in 2150 you’d see an America with one billion people.

Of course, that assumes that the rate does not change over time which is rather unlikely.

[cradle of freedom]

Liberals like to talk about limiting population but somehow, they never get around to discussing the environmental impact of 2 million new immigrants every year.

[cradle of freedom]

Control freaks like Robert Walker not only have a lot of free time on their hands but a lot of free money as well. Guess where a lot of that money comes from?