The Idiocy Of Limiting Population Growth Through Violently Funded State Programs

Check out some of the propaganda that is being taught to your children in our public schools:

The quiz asks the question:

7. Which of the following is likely to be affected by a population of seven billion?

d) All of the above

Our planet only has a finite amount of resources for humans to use, and as the population continues to grow, pressure is placed on all of these resources. Increases in population to seven billion will cause more job scarcity and unemployment, decreases in availability of water, and conversion of agricultural land into residential and urban areas.

At first glance, this answer makes sense.  Of course, it is patently wrong for several reasons which I will cover here.  The Population Connection website has various links to all sorts of indoctrination resources that promote eugenics, misanthropy, climate alarmism, and other various violently funded socialist causes.  The Population Connection group is funded through contributions by anonymous donors.  I think we all know who those rich donors most likely represent.

To address this specific test question’s common fallacies, let’s first look at how productive resources come into being.

Consider a scenario where only one man exists on the entire planet.  This man has unlimited access to any resource the planet has to offer.  Yet what do you suppose his quality of life would be like?  He would have to produce all of his own food, his own clothing, his own shelter, his own medical care, etc.. etc.. by himself.  How long could you survive in the wild with no other people around to help you?  Clearly his life would be a toiling misery.  The amount of effort he would have to put into his survival would be tremendous.  Even though he can use any resource the planet has to offer, it would be next to impossible for him to create a standard of living for himself that was even close to what the poorest societies in our modern world have to offer.

Why do we inherently know this to be true?  Obviously it is because when more people are present, the division of labor makes trade specialization possible.  The tasks of survival become much more bearable when distributed across a large population.  Some people can specialize in growing corn, others can specialize in building houses, etc.. etc..  which allows for efficiency of production that far outstrips anything one man could possibly accomplish on his own.

Clearly this simple logical exercise makes it plain for all to see that the more people a society has at its disposal, the more people that can be allocated to the various tasks of improving the quality of life for everyone.  We can logically establish that the quality of life for everyone should improve in proportion to the number of people that are available to engage in productive activities.

Now let us move on  to the claim that, as the population grows, pressure is placed on resources, which leads to job scarcity and unemployment.  Looking at the previous paragraphs, we can see that there is a tremendous difference between natural resources that are in their wild state of nature and those resources which have been cultivated for use by man.  Our lone man in the wilderness has access to everything nature has to offer, yet almost nothing that nature has to offer is usable for survival until man applies his labor to those resources in order to cultivate or manufacture them into something that has survival/quality of life value.

Natural resources represent potential usable resources for man’s survival, but they do not represent finished goods that actually improve man’s survival/quality of life.  If we know that as more people come into existence, there will be more labor available to transform those natural resource into usable finished goods, then clearly there will never be “job scarcity” since man has an infinite desire for more usable material goods.

While job scarcity is simply impossible, it is possible that all the natural resources of a given geographical region could be in productive use, which may put pressure on the population to search out more available natural resources that they can transform into more material goods of value.  So the question really comes down to whether or not there is some limit to the resource availability of the planet that might be reached where the population of the planet simply can’t produce enough food and shelter for everyone because all available natural resources are being utilized at maximum efficiency already.

The only real limiting factors would be food production and shelter.  As long as food/water can be produced in sufficient quantities and as long as clothing/shelter from the elements can be constructed, there is no limit to how many people can live a healthy existence.  So is this claim by the test that we will run out of water and agricultural land a valid argument?

I would say the answer is clearly no.  While it is theoretically possible that all the arable land of the planet could be put to use in the production of food, leaving no new land available for the production of more food to feed an increasing population, there is no reason why technological advancements couldn’t overcome this obstacle.

Consider the technology that is already available today:

The Omega Garden carousel is capable of producing the same amount of crops as 1500 sq. ft. of greenhouse yet only using 150 sq. ft of space.  And because it is an indoor operation, it can produce harvests year round and is not subject to droughts or bad weather.  Clearly such technology could be stacked nearly infinitely if the world were to run out of arable crop land.  There is absolutely no reason to conclude that the population of the planet is somehow limited by the amount of arable land that exists.

So how about water resources?  Obviously water is a key resource, and fortunately for us, happens to cover 2/3rds of the planet.  While it is true that roughly only 2.75% of that water is fresh water, there is no reason why technology can not once again come to our rescue.  According to International Desalination Association 2009, there are 14,451 desalination plants in operation worldwide, producing 59.9 million cubic meters of potable water per day (15.8 billion gallons a day), a year on year increase of 12.3%.

As long as desalination plants can be constructed, and as long as stackable indoor greenhouses can be constructed, and as long as living space can be constructed, the only limiting factor to population growth becomes the energy needed to power those systems.  Does anyone honestly think that man will not discover a more efficient and clean way of producing energy in the near future as an alternative to fossil fuels?

A few technologies on the horizon that demonstrate limitless energy is not a pipe dream:

Blacklight Power’s hydrino reactors

Eric Lerner’s focus fusion device

ECAT Cold Fusion Generator

along with several other types of systems that are in development or are being moved into commercial production as we speak.

Notice I didn’t bother to mention solar, wind, geothermal, etc.. because the current state of that technology is faaar less efficient than fossil fuels.  If they were actually more efficient, those industries wouldn’t require government subsidies and crony capitalist deals to make them profitable.  Private enterprise would be investing and researching in those areas if they actually held any solid energy production potential.

At any rate, I think it is clear that at some near date in the future, energy production will not be a limiting growth factor.  Human ingenuity has the ability to overcome any obstacle that humanity faces.

So, if we know that there are no natural limiting factors to the population size the planet can sustain, why do we see so many examples of poverty increasing with population growth around the world today?  Clearly this should not be so.  So what is causing it?

Since we have just demonstrated that it is not due to natural causes, it must be due to man made causes.  As you all know, the primary reason on my list is the violence of the socialist State.  In the Soviet Union, 7 million Ukrainians were starved to death by the collectivization of agriculture.  In Maoist China, some tens of millions were starved to death by the collectivization of agriculture.  In Germany post WWII, 3 million Germans were starved to death by Allied post-war agricultural policies.  And the list goes on – Sudan, Uganda, Zimbabwe, etc.. basically the entire third world.  In those States, individual property rights are ignored, leading to conditions like the North Korean people suffer.  There is no natural reason for all of those people to be suffering, they are all suffering strictly because of State policies.

When the State prevents people from engaging in productive activities by printing money and redistributing income into unproductive areas, such as the military or police State, it causes too few people to engage in the necessary activities of human survival.  North Korea presents this to us in a very stark fashion.  North Korea is poor because it does not allow its people to serve one another through the free market.  When property rights are strong and people are allowed to make a profit by producing things that society values, everyone in the society benefits from the abundance of goods that result.

In summary, don’t believe the Malthusian lies and misanthropy that is being peddled by socialist looters.  More people means a more vibrant and healthy economy for everyone.  Only when the welfare/warfare state of violent looting exists does population growth precipitate a worse economic condition for society.  One need only look at US history to demonstrate that this is so.

During the industrial revolution, America was desperate for new labor.  America opened its borders and immigrants from across the world flooded into the country.  Remember Ellis Island?  Did the flood of immigrants result in a worse condition for society during that period?  Of course not.  When people were free to produce and trade goods among themselves, society flourished.  The State was minimal and there were no welfare programs to speak of, yet the living conditions of society improved so drastically that it is hard to even comprehend.

The free market produces jobs and prosperity for everyone.  The State is the only limiting factor to the growth of humanity.

 

  • http://profiles.google.com/justindkeith Justin Keith

    Overpopulation is one of
    those words thrown around without enough clarification and context. Is there a
    maximum number of people who can live a certain lifestyle simultaneously on
    this planet without importing things from off-Earth or from the past (such as
    oil)? Yes. That’s just math. There are a lot of bad anti-overpopulation
    arguments such as the “everyone could fit into Texas” argument and
    the “technology will always find a way” argument. There are a lot of
    bad pro-overpopulation arguments as well. The primarily fall into reactionary-panic-inducing
    alarmist stuff or value-impositions such as “this or that should be
    subsidized” or “this is a goal of society.”

     

    Does that mean everyone
    is screwed? No. If people aren’t subsidized into having more children and are
    given choices to opt out of having children via contraceptives, abortion, and
    more freedom, the population will stabilize. If fossil fuels are priced at
    actual replacement costs, population will probably decrease. All these
    proposals work at introducing choice and truth into the system.

     

    Do conflicts tend to
    increase with increasing population? Definitely. Trade to resolve conflicts where
    one would’ve had an opportunity otherwise are the optimal solution once one is
    already in that situation. That doesn’t mean that people wouldn’t have more
    access to natural opportunities without so many others around. Are people
    generally net wealth creators / net opportunity creators? Definitely. Is there
    a point, different for each person, where extra people cease to generally be
    “worth it?” Definitely. Can internalizing market costs and
    eliminating subsidies while increasing choice and truth allow people to reach a
    balance? I believe so.

     

    • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

      ” Is there a maximum number of people who can live a certain lifestyle simultaneously on this planet without importing things from off-Earth ”

      I disagree.

      The Earth is capable of supporting a nearly unlimited number of people in a very comfortable lifestyle.  In a free market environment, there would be some really rich people, but they are only rich on paper because of the productive resources that are under their control.  For example, Bill Gates is filthy rich, but his actual “lifestyle” assets, such as houses, cars, boats, etc.. are very few in number.  Most of his wealth is tied up on corporate holdings, which are being used to better humanity’s condition.

      There is a huge amount of room for population growth.

      I also disagree that population growth creates more conflict.  We have more people today than we did during the 1940s, but the advent of nuclear weapons technology has prevented another global war from occurring.  Violent conflict of nation states exists strictly because nation states exist.  It has nothing to do with the number of people present. Consider that the world experienced global conflict during the Roman Empire, but the global population was faaaaaaar less than it is today.

      • LessGov76

        Sorry Michael, but I have to side with Justin on this one. First off finite space equals a finite number of people, not “nearly unlimited”. Could the earth support 14 trillion people especially considering the technologies you mention? Probably, but it is not a planet I want to live on. I mean really 9 times out of 10 if I am in a room with more than 20 people I just want to get away. Over-development is a problem. If, for example, I wanted to get to a place that had a mere 2 mile radius of undeveloped land I have to travel 102 miles. For a 13 mile radius we jump to 837 miles. Every wooded area I used to enjoy as a kid has been cut down and paved. There is a 2,000 acre lake near where I grew up that I used to love. There is now ZERO public access. 

        “If people aren’t subsidized into having more children and aregiven choices to opt out of having children via contraceptives, abortion, andmore freedom, the population will stabilize.”I have already covered my thoughts on the monetary system being the root of the problem with population growth, so I won’t rehash that in detail other than…

        The value of most global currency is based on the amount of labor one can extract from it’s populace. Because of this we have policies in place that encourage population growth. Change back to a monetary system back to one that is backed by a valuable commodity and the population growth trend will reverse.I know it is a stupid movie, but Idiocracy has a point…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXRjmyJFzrU 

        • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

          I don’t see why not.

          Manila has 1.7 million living in a 15 square mile area today.

          We can always build higher or deeper.

          With the technologies I presented, they are not dependent upon open fields to produce crops or energy.

          Further, we know that birth rates tend to level off in industrialized nations. There is no reason to assume that birth rates would continue rising after the world has been industrialized.

          You are assuming that humans are incapable of digging deeper or building higher, which is ridiculous. Human ingenuity can overcome any obstacle to survival.

          • LessGov76

            Would you want to live in Manila? 

            http://blog.irrashai.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/philippine_national_railways_manila_squatter.jpg
            And as to leveling off population growth in industrialized nations of the U.S. and Ethiopia over the last 10 years is 31 & 36% increase respectively.  The difference is nominal. The countries with the most problematic population issues are not third world nations. India and China both have gigantic populations. They both have an unbacked currency. They are both exploiting cheap labor  attempting to become economic power houses. As to building up and down there is still a finite amount of material on the earth. It is the “nearly unlimited” statement that still does not work for me. Swiss cheesing the earth and then building incredibly high buildings on top of the holes is a solution? I assume we would need to demo the moon, at some point, as we continue to build up. Hmm…not sure how well the earth will do without tides. Sounds like a movie I would like to see in 3D. I can’t wait for the part where the earthquake hits.  You have my deepest admiration, but as an economist saying “nearly unlimited” is silly when it comes to a planetary body. Idiocy? Ridiculous? Read the last paragraph.As justin said there is only so much one can do without, “importing things from off-Earth.”

          • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

            Whether or not I would want to live in manila is irrelevant.

            The PI is not nearly as industrialized as the US.  There is no reason to assume that people need to be living in poor conditions just because the population density of a given area is high.  High rise apartments or condos can be very nice. 
            Of course, population growth would level off far before it ever got to that point.  Industrialized nations experience a decline in birthrates.  If you exclude new immigrants, the US has a DECLINING birthrate – it is losing people faster than it is creating them, so all this speculation on your part would never occur. The global population would never get that high.

          • LessGov76

            I’m sorry but it is very relevant. My initial statement was that the earth can probably easily accomodate double the current population but that isn’t a world I would want to live in. So whether you would want to live in a densely populated area is on topic. I don’t know if you have lived in an densely populated apartment building, but I have. It’s great when you can hear the people at above having sex, the people in the apartment below fighting, the people to the right partying, the people to the lefts dog barking, the people above and to the rights stereo at full blast trying to drowned out everyone else, the people behind you hammering on something while a guy is outside on his balcony punching metal trim and yelling about his ex-girlfriend…etc.   

            I think all the conjecture about new energy and food sources being implemented on a global scale is wonderful. I think the discussion of what humanity might be able to accomplish with super-structures is grand. I also think that in the here and now there is a problem with population. Why ignore it just because there might be a solution down the road?

            All this speculation on my part? First you disagree that there are a, “maximum number of people who can live…simultaneously on this planet” Then speculate that we could dig down into the earth and build up almost indefinitely. At the same time you cite new technology that could potentially provide unlimited sources of food and energy. [All statistics, everywhere, from all species, nations & cultures, throughout history, have shown how increased population growth directly correlates to increased availability of food.] Then you suppose that the population would never get that high because industrialized nations have declining birth rates (as long as you exclude immigrants and ignore the unlimited supply of cheap energy and food). Where the population comes from actually is irrelevant, unless you’re saying that we are going to industrialize the rest of the world…that shouldn’t be too hard…all we have to do is redistribute the wealth of all the 1st world nations and then we can just print more money when we run out. Yes, I know you aren’t advocating that, and neither am I : ). 

            The problem I have with this argument, is the same one I have with the thought that, “first world nations should feed the world with their surplus stores of food.” You have to bring the entire world UP to the SAME standard of living or you get slums. Again I don’t want to live in a world where everyone lives in the same small compartment of a superstructure any more than I want to live in the slums.

          • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

            I don’t want to live in a world where thugs come and loot me in order to force a population reduction program on me funded by my own money.

            I’d rather live in Manila.

            Of course, you simply ignore my point about first world cities not being shit holes, but whatever.  You don’t want to listen or think. There is absolutely no reason that a densely populated city has to be a shit hole. Ritz Carlton Hotels are an ultra dense population center, but I don’t see anyone complaining about it.

            There is no reason to have a State come and loot me at gun point in order to stop people from having babies.

          • LessGov76

            I chose to ignore first world cities not being, “shit holes,” because I felt I was already dealing with enough blanket statements that were patently untrue already. This one was far enough out there, that it didn’t seem to warrant a lengthy response, but if you want one…Anyone living in the slums of Camden, NJ, Detroit, MI, Gary, IN, Brooklyn or Queens in New York City, etc. would never make a statement like that. This isn’t just large cities either, there are sections of small towns west of Evansville, IN that have buildings with extensions on them that are reminiscent of the lean-to’s outside of Mexico City. To say that there is “no reason” that something, well anything really, “has to be” virtually anything is silly. Anything can be what we make it. The difference here is what is the most likely scenario? Disgusting slums exist in or around every major city. Complete deregulation would likely make this worse.

            So I have listened to your argument and thought about it. If you would truly rather live anywhere that there isn’t a government regulating anything, and you truly believe that you have the answers to make it work, I suggest you pack your bags and move to Somalia. Never has there been such a prime opportunity to setup a government free society (other than every other time and place where a government has failed or been overthrown throughout history). 

            As much as I like 90% of your thoughts you are the one that seems to fail to think, or consider another opinion or view point. You are obviously a zealot and an extremist. Yes I know they are synonymous, but you have earned both words. This is reminiscent of my conversations with Deric in that anyone that doesn’t agree with you 100% is an “idiot” or “speculating” when the entire conversation is based on your speculations. People that are interested and attempting to engage and discuss fail to “think or listen.” You can’t even acknowledge that “nearly unlimited” is a grossly blanket statement which is dependent on all types of speculations on your part. You say population “would never get that high” but ignore that you have entered in to the equation unlimited energy and food…are you psychic how do you know it would never get “that high”? You have managed to convince me of one thing…as much as I LOVE your site, it is fringe nuttiness to be enjoyed occasionally, and not to be taken too seriously.

          • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

            This from a man who calls himself “lessGov”.

            You sound like a Chinese Communist with your centrally planned baby regulation schemes.

          • Cody Dylan

            You guys should agree to disagree. No one will completely agree in the world and that’s why their is war. Not one person thinks the same as anyone else. You have to realize this and the only way to be peaceful is to understand we are all different and agree to live differently. Personally I think people want to control each other too much. If we just let people do what they want as long ad it didn’t take away from another and it was based on acceptable reasoning I think we would have utopia, but I also believe as long as their is organized religion that will never happen. Not that I am against religion I just think each individual needs to find their own faith instead of being preached to. I’m very off topic I know, but these are my thoughts rambling.

          • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

            I’m not going to agree to anything that involves violent looting.
            And I don’t see any reason why I shouldn’t trust human ingenuity to overcome any possible obstacles.

          • LessGov76

            Perhaps you didn’t put 1 and 1 together to make two…my email to which was dated Nov 12, 2011 at 9:59 PM…to which you responded begins with:

            “Now don’t get me wrong, I do not advocate anything even remotely like the Chinese policy, but some type of plan to control, and reduce, population is critical. Today, because the value of most global currency is based on the amount of labor one can extract from it’s populace, we have policies in place that encourage population growth. We, as a society, reward horrible parents for having kids they can’t, or won’t, care for. We tend to leave children in deplorable situations knowing that no matter how badly off they are once they reach adulthood, they will still need to earn a living. If they are desperate because of lack of education they are the more easily exploited.”

          • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

            Since we know that industrialized nations have lower birth rates, how about we just let people be free?

            I know it is a radical idea, but it seems to work pretty well.

      • http://profiles.google.com/justindkeith Justin Keith

        Nearly infinite is still finite. It is possible that humans can stay ahead of the curve with technology, and eventually load into computers or something, but energy is still a limiting factor.

        By conflict, I don’t mean war – though that’s one way in which conflict can be settled. I mean person A wants to sleep in and person B wants to mow his lawn in the morning. They can’t both get what they want. So person A trades something to B to get him to hold off on mowing his lawn. They both benefit more than they would’ve given the conflict, but A doesn’t benefit as much as he would’ve if B didn’t exist, in which case he’d both have the quiet AND the thing he traded to B. Now, that can be offset by B being a good person in society and a net generator of wealth, but that doesn’t negate the increasing conflict, it only makes it worth it.

        Where are the most restrictive laws regarding personal conduct? In cities. Why? Because there are a lot of people there with different values. Can’t shoot a gun in the city. Can’t shoot fireworks off. Can’t play music at all hours of the night, or drive four wheelers, or have unleashed dogs, etc., etc. Again, I’m not saying more people aren’t worth it, but that there’s a bad that comes with the good.

  • Cody Dylan

    I don’t think it is healthy to put all your faith into technology… I mean people should have a little reliance on themselves and other than just completely depend on technology. Because people can always find a way to work out things naturally if they know how to, but if we rely on technology and then one day it somehow get distupted… We are totally screwed. Or at least those of us who relied on that technology. I think it is good, but doesn’t need to be completely relied on. Life is about being simple not over complicating it. You shouldnt have to waste something you don’t need. People are wasteful and I think it’s going to bite us in the ass. If something happened and we lost all our technology today. Would you be able to survive? Ask yourself that.

  • Mzalka

    How can such %$#^& be permitted to pollute the ‘web’!? You are poison to every effort at ‘redemption’ for a saner, balanced world.