Check out some of the propaganda that is being taught to your children in our public schools:
- Population Connection
- A Quiz designed to indoctrinate your children with alarmist propaganda.
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
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.
