Posted under Immigration & population
Too many people – the world’s worst enemy
Robert Henderson, Quarterly Review, Winter 2010
A hulking elephant sits ignored in the green crusaders’ room. Amidst all the angst about man-made greenhouse gases, the greatest and most obvious cause of increases is ignored by mainstream politicians – the already great and rapidly rising population of the world and the rapid spread of industrialisation to major parts of what until recently was
the Third World . The world population is projected to reach 7 billion in 2011. Extrapolations to 2050 go as high as 9.5 billion (1). At a generous estimate, a billion live in the developed world in 2010. If the 9.5 billion projection for 2050 comes true, the disproportion between what are now the developed countries and the developing countries now will have become even more skewed in favour of the developing world, because the populations of underdeveloped countries have startlingly younger populations than those of the developed world, viz:
“One of every six people on earth is an adolescent. In the developing world, more than 40 percent of the population is under age 20. The decisions these young people make will shape our world and the prospects of future generations.” (2)
The US Bureau of Census projections for the populations of individual countries for 2050 show only one country (the United States) from the currently developed world in the largest twenty countries by population in 2050, with the first European country (Germany) coming in at number 22 (3).
If the swelling world population was overwhelmingly due to increases in the still very white First World , you may be sure that we would be daily berated for our selfish breeding. We would be told that any increase in our population was at the expense of the Third World, that the production of every extra Western mouth to feed, house, clothe and supply with energy was absolutely unconscionable. Western governments would be signing up to programmes of ever more punitive reductions in their countries’ greenhouse emissions and some of the bolder would be advocating the rationing of children.
But the overwhelming majority of people living today do not live in the developed world and the projected future expansion of the world’s population is due almost entirely to increases in the developing world….
Bruce on 22 Mar 2011 at 8:25 pm #
Liberals like to refer to white children (but never third world & minority children) as “carbon footprints.”
Catholic Trotskyist on 23 Mar 2011 at 12:32 am #
That’s because white children do for the most part use more resources, and thus create more carbon footprints.
The reason why the green crusaders don’t focus on overpopulation, is that there is little that can be done governmentally about it without going to extremes like China. Also whenever overpopulation is mentioned, paleo-conservatives will usually rant about a UN/NWO conspiracy to wipe out 1/3 or 2/3 of the world’s population with a plague, war or other disaster. Another problem is that the pro-abortion activists keep using overpopulation as an excuse to keep getting babies killed.
RonL on 23 Mar 2011 at 2:08 am #
If environmentalists cares about carbon footprints, they would want to end immigration to the US. The carbon footprint for a third world immigrant to the US may be lower than for native-born American, but it is much higher than back home. The greenies are simply a bunch of watermelon socialists who dare not speak the truth to the rest of the leftist coalition, or are hypocrites who care more about power than the environment.
Kirt Higdon on 23 Mar 2011 at 4:47 am #
Another regurgitation of the Paul Erlich/Garrett Hardin overpopulation drivel. Yes, problems are caused by people and plague other people. Get rid of all people and you get rid of all problems – simple, isn’t it? Hardin followed the logic of his own views and voluntarily removed himself from the ranks of the problem causers, although not before causing many himself including contributing to “overpopulation” by having 4 kids.
Chris Hewlett on 23 Mar 2011 at 10:29 am #
There is nothing “driveley” about indentifying overpopulation for what it is. The only thing “driveley” is the suggestion that there is something that can be done about it.
Bruce on 23 Mar 2011 at 11:22 am #
No Trotskyist, black children (in America) use more resources (they’re fatter and blacks almost always drive big cars – some whites drive big vehicles and some whites drive itty-bitty cars – blacks wouldn’t be caught dead in a little 4-cylinder) but the lefties don’t refer to them as “carbon footprints.” Same for Mexican children.
We have a large family and are frequently on the receiving end of snide remarks about having too many children when we’re in public places. The same lefties never walk up to Shaneequa and her 5-kids-by-5-different-men and make the same remarks to her.
Bruce on 23 Mar 2011 at 11:24 am #
Highly intelligent, conscientious people like Hardin should have lots of kids.
Kirt Higdon on 23 Mar 2011 at 12:13 pm #
Anyone who says the world is overpopulated needs first to share with all of us excess people exactly what is the just right Goldilocks human population of the world and on what basis they have decided that. Human beings have been causing each other problems and “degrading” (some would say developing) the environment ever since ancient hunters were killing each other in between wiping out the megafauna and instituting primitive agriculture. The anti-population crowd are actually anti-human ego-centrics who mean that there are more people around than they want so anyone causing them problems has to go.
Matt Weber on 23 Mar 2011 at 12:33 pm #
The problem with saying the world is overpopulated is that it’s like saying the world doesn’t have enough trees. The scale is too large. It’s best to look at individual areas. Just as certain areas are completely deforested, certain areas have way too many people. Japan is a good one, though self correcting insofar as the Japanese have just lowered their birthrates. On the other hand, Siberia is almost empty.
The real problem isn’t with the first world, because while Europe is quite full it is also not growing. Bangladesh, on the other hand, is a miserable hellhole getting more miserable with every birth. Egypt is the same way. Much of the third world has grown far beyond sustainability due to dependence. The issue will likely resolve itself in time, but it may not be pretty.
Bruce on 23 Mar 2011 at 1:04 pm #
“The anti-population crowd are actually anti-human ego-centrics who mean that there are more people around than they want so anyone causing them problems has to go.”
That’s not right. A lot of anti-population types are people who believe catastrophe’s coming. They might be wrong but you should show them why they’re wrong not misstate their motives.
Kirt Higdon on 23 Mar 2011 at 1:24 pm #
Well, catastrophe might be coming and it might be caused by people. No one can with absolute certainty counter-predict a future possibility. Those who claim it will be caused by too many people are the ones who have the burden of proof and not just to define exactly how many people are optimum. They also need to explain why all the catastrophes they predict based on “overpopulation” (war, plague, famine, deforestation, species extinctions, etc. etc.) have all occurred throughout history and pre-history even when there were far fewer people. As far as my characterizing the anti-population crowd as anti-human ego-centrics, I’ve read some of the works of Erlich and Hardin and I stand by my statement.
The Western Confucian on 23 Mar 2011 at 5:46 pm #
Henry George debunked Malthusianism more than a century ago: “Both the jayhawk and the man eat chickens; but the more jayhawks, the fewer chickens, while the more men, the more chickens.”
Chris Hewlett on 23 Mar 2011 at 7:05 pm #
The primay concern of overpopulation is not war, plague, famine, deforestation, species extinction, etc. – it is space. In centuries past there was always more unexplored or uninhabited space out beyond the horizon (even if it was hard to get to). Now there is nowhere else for a civilization to expand into. The world is completely inhabited. We’ve been to outer space and there is nothing there within reasonable traveling distance – not even air to breath. But again, so what? It is a problem without a solution – therefore it is not a problem.
RedPhillips on 23 Mar 2011 at 7:43 pm #
RonL, for some reason all your posts are going to spam. That is why there is a delay.
Kirt Higdon on 24 Mar 2011 at 12:57 am #
Chris, there is plenty of space on the planet as there always has been. Indeed increasing urbanization has effectively depopulated large rural areas, leaving more space than ever. But empty space means hard living, attractive to some survivalists but to few others. What the anti-populationists want is all the civilizational and cultural amenities of living around a lot of people, but without the people. With the developments in robotics this is certainly possible and indeed robot-crazed Japan seems to be busy substituting robots for their declining population. One can visualize an end game to this where the human-created and nurtured artificial life form turns on its creators and decides that any humans at all are too many.
Chris Hewlett on 24 Mar 2011 at 10:28 am #
That would be my point. Overpopulation is a problem which will either solve itself or not. Nothing we can do – or advocate – will have any effect.