Posted on 10/14/2026 8:58:05 AM PDT by BenLurkin
For more than a century, the prevailing fear, dating back to English economist Thomas Malthus who lived between 1766 to 1834, was of a booming population outrunning its food supply. Famine would ensue. But Von Foerster broke from that view. He assumed (correctly, as it turns out) that human ingenuity would keep the world mostly fed. The problem, he argued, was that the population would keep accelerating, toward “infinity.”
In a now infamous quote, [University of Illinois physicist Heinz]von Foerster predicted, “Our great—great—grandchildren will not starve to death,” von Foerster and his co-authors wrote. “They will be squeezed to death.” Homo sapiens’ last gasping breath, they predicted, would peter out in the fall of 2026.
It’s pretty clear that von Foerster’s estimate was dead wrong. Not only is the global population (around 8.3 billion people) not expanding near the rate it was when he was writing, but there are actually concerns it’s moving in the opposite direction. In dozens of countries around the world, from South Korea and Japan to much of Western Europe, the concern among demographers has shifted from worries about overpopulation to declining birth rates.
So how was a prediction so wrong and still so influential?
Human population experts speaking with Popular Science say von Foerster and his contemporaries based their prediction on real trends from the past while utterly failing to see the world changing right before their eyes. Though they may have accurately measured growth rates up to that point, that only tells part of the story.
(Excerpt) Read more at popsci.com ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
Trust the science!
So we need to party like we only have a month left? Trump probably needs to suspend the election and declare martial law.
Well, we have gigs on the books past that date so, no.
It’s been well known for some time that populations tend to decrease as affluence increases. Nothing surprising to anyone except doomers.
Only one month left!
I guess it’s time to cash in my IRAs and have some fun. I plan to spend most of it on women, horses, gambling, and whiskey – and the rest I will probably just spend foolishly.”
AOC gave us a little more time.
“Foerster and his contemporaries based their prediction on real trends”
A common problem. The lesson? Trends often reverse. We’ve seen this from time to time in the stock market and in global/cooling/warming predictions.
I remember the head of Fannie Mae testifying to Congress that a sustained fall in the cost of housing would be “unprecedented.” Fannie Mae (and friends) proceeded to back 90% of new home mortgages, which was unprecedented. This led to the great recession. Lesson? Unprecedented causes can result in unprecedented results.
This will be on the test.
Uhm. I’ll take “Birth Control” for $1000, Alex...
I can understand a worry from overpopulation and the potential for not enough resources to support that.
What I don’t understand is hand-wringing from a decrease in world population. If you have enough resources to support more people, why is fewer people a crisis?
What I don’t understand is hand-wringing from a decrease in world population. If you have enough resources to support more people, why is fewer people a crisis?
Because they are voting Republican...?
So Greta is wrong?
they obviously never read a bible
Early Panic Porn. There are no Timelords like Dr Who, but there are or have been Doomlords like Paul Ehrlich, Anne Ehrlich, and Margaret Sanger.
Trust THA science.
GOPJ wrote: “Because if was believed by gullible white LIBERAL elite NEPO brats..”
Those claims were repeated by numerous right wing posters. Many adopted those claims when they matched their preferred narratives. You can find many posters here on free republic that found reason to accept those claims. Especially when could blame population declines on things like disintegration of the family, the rise in liberal women, sexual promiscuity, etc.
I believe the thinking is that, if fewer people are being born, then society gets to a point where there are fewer young people -- fewer workers -- and a larger population of older, retired people who still consume resources (and may need extra help) but, in general, are not generating fresh value. Government can only be funded by the smaller number of workers who pay taxes, but government needs to spend money on many things -- including that large population of elderly.
The Ponzi schemes all unravel.
The smaller populations would actually be a very good thing in many respects -- but government just sees declining tax revenues and so government announces the coming of a Great Crisis.
why is fewer people a crisis?
- - - - - -
Who is going to pay the pensions?
I know the ‘fewer young to support the old’ is the most common reason.
With the increase in technology and robotics I expect a lot of those needs will be better taken care of with fewer people.
As far as the funding, we know it’s extremely wasteful the way our government operates. But you’re probably right. It’ll be support for people cut before waste, fraud and kickbacks to politicians would ever be trimmed/eliminated, sadly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.