Post a response to this discussion thread
The purpose of this essay is to counter the claim that third world poverty is caused by "overpopulation."
I am not attempting to present myself as being "caring" or as having "feelings," or as being "smarter" than or "morally superior" to anyone. I have no desire to make fun of people who disagree with me, or to call anyone nasty names. Instead, my goal here is to present facts and evidence to support my argument.
This is a list of countries ranked in order of population density:
http://www.photius.com/wfb1999/rankings/population_density_0 .html
This is a list of countries ranked in order of per capita gross domestic product:
http://www.photius.com/wfb1999/rankings/gdp_per_capita_0.htm l
Japan and India have approximately the same population density as each other. Japan is very rich, and India is very poor.
Switzerland and North Korea have approximately the same population density as each other. Switzerland is very rich, and North Korea is very poor.
Ireland and Ethiopia have approximately the same population density as each other. Ireland is very rich, and Ethiopais is very poor.
In each of these pairings, one country is very rich, while the other is very poor, even though the two coutries have the same population density as each other. Clearly, it's lot logical to blame poverty on "overpopulation."
So, why is it that that some countries are rich, while others are poor?
Every year, the Wall St. Journal and the Heritage Foundation get together and publish their annual "Index of Economic Freedom." This list ranks all the countries of the world in order, based on how much economic freedom they have. Each country is given a grade between 1 and 5, in 10 different categories. 1 is the best possible grade. 5 is the worst possible grade. Then the 10 grades are averaged for a final score for the country. Then the countries are listed in order based on the final score.
You can see the list here. When you go to the link, click on the gray box that says "View Scores" and it will take you to a list of all the countries ranked in order of how much economic freedom they have. You can click on each indivividual country to read information about it.
http://www.heritage.org/index/
Please note that the countries at the top of the list tend to be rich, first world countries where people have a high standard of living. The countries toward the bottom of the list tend to be poor, third world countires with a very low standard of living.
Economic freedom means that each individual person is free to make his own choices about what he does with his property, his money, and his labor, and it means that economic activity is based on voluntary, consentual activity.
Countries that adopt strong protections of private property rights, freedom of contract, free market pricing, and free trade, and hold on to these policies for a long period of time, will become rich. Every time a poor country adopted these policies, and held on to them, it became rich. There are no exceptions.
Please note that Estonia is ranked very high on the "Index of Economic Freedom," but it's not a rich country. That's because Estonia has only had a strong level of economic freedom for a very short period of time. Estonia was part of the U.S.S.R., and so it was very poor. However, very recently, Estonina adopted a very strong amount of economic freedom. If Estonia holds on to these policies over the next few decades, then Estonia will end up becmong very rich. This is based on past real world observation of other countries. Every time a poor country adopted a strong amount of economic freedom, and held on to those policies, the country ended up becoming rich. There are no exceptions.
Estonia has adopted the very economic policies that are necessary for turning a poor country into a rich country. Estonia has auctioned off most of its government owned businesses. The government got rid of its wage and price controls. The government got rid of most of its trade barriers. The government adopted a court/legal system that protects property rights, and enforces contracts. These are the very policies that are necessary for the creation of large amounts of wealth. These are the policies that will turn a poor country into a rich country. Every time a poor country adopted these policies, and held on to them, it became wealthy. There are no exceptions.
During the 1960s and 1970s, tens of millions of people in China starved to death. Left wing environmentalists blamed this on "overpopulation."
However, around 1980, China swithced from collective farming, to private farming. As a result, their food production skyrocketed.
Today, China's population is much bigger than it was in the 1960s. However, today, China is able to grow enough food to feed it's people. Today, the people of China are much better fed than they were in the 1960s.
Clearly, this real world evidence shows that China's famines of the 1960s and 1970s were caused by bad economic polices, not by "overpopulation."
Three years ago in Zimbabwe, private farmers were growing large amounts of food. Since then, private property rights on farmland in Zimbabwe have been abolished. This has caused a tremendous decline in Zimbabwe's food production. Bad economic policies, not "overpopulation," are the cause of these problems.
Ethiopia has more fertile land, per person, than England. During the 1960s, Ethiopia had a large number of private farms that were very productive, and during that time, Ethiopia was a net exporter of food. But during the 1970s, there was a Marxist revolution in Ethiopia, and the farms were nationalized. Furthermore, the government set price caps on the prices that farmers could charge for food. Because of these policies, there were major drops in farm productivity. Today, Ethiopia has many large tracts of very fertile land that are not being used to grow crops. Bad economic policies, not "overpopulation," are the cause of Ethiopian famine. The people who blame Ethiopian famine on "overpopulation" are in error.
During the 1960s, environmentalists blamed third world famine on "overpopulation." They predicted that as the world's population increased, the problem of famine would become worse and worse.
They were mistaken.
By the year 2000, the world's population had doubled. And here's what really happened regarding famine:
http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=7 18860
Aug 2nd 2001
"According to the United Nations, agricultural production in the developing world has increased by 52% per person since 1961. The daily food intake in poor countries has increased from 1,932 calories, barely enough for survival, in 1961 to 2,650 calories in 1998. Likewise, the proportion of people in developing countries who are starving has dropped from 45% in 1949 to 18% today."
Clearly, those statistics are the complete opposite of what "overpopulation" theory had predicted.
Overpopulation can certainly be a real problem for animals that live in the wild, such as butterflies and rabbits. If the population of these wild animals exceeds the available food supply, then the result will indeed be death from starvation.
But, human beings are not butterflies or rabbits. What makes human beings different is that human beings have the ability to invent and build and use technology to increase food production many factors over.
People have the ability to do wonderful things to increase their standard of living. People have the ability to invent and build and use many different kinds of wonderful technologies to greatly improve their standard of living. But in order to best encourage and enable these kinds of things, people must be free. Free people living in a free society will be able to do far more to improve their standard of living than will oppressed people who live under excessive amounts of government control.
Every country in the world that has strong protections of private property rights, free market pricing of food, and free trade, has an abundant supply of food. There are no exceptions.
Africa's famine is not caused by "overpopulation." Instead, the famine is caused by lack of private property rights regarding farmland, by government price controls on food that discourage farmers from growing the food, and by trade barriers that made it more expensive to import food.
Countries that have strong protections of private property rights, free market pricing, and free trade, have enough food. Even countries like Hong Kong and Singapore, which don't grow much food, don't have a shortage of food. Because these countries have a large amount of economic freedom, they are able to create huge amounts of wealth, so they have plenty of money to buy food from other countries.
Every country in the world that has strong protections of private property rights, free market pricing, and free trade, has an abundant supply of food. There are no exceptions.
Going back to the list of countries ranked by population density. Take a look at the 10 most densely populated countries. Then, take a look at their per capita incomes on the other list. Please note that most of the 10 most densely populated countries are rich, first world countries. This is the exact opposite of what "overpopulation" theory claims.
Hong Kong's population density is much higher than India's. But Hong Kong's per capita income is much higher than India's. Clearly, it's not logical to blame India's poverty on "overpopulation."
Try to start a business in Hong Kong. You only have to fill out one government form, and it only takes only one day to get approval.
But try to start a business in India. You need to fill out dozens of governemnt forms, and it can takes years to get approval.
People in Hong Kong are free to make their own economic choices, so they create lots of wealth.
But in India, people are bogged down by huge amounts of excessive government regulation, red tape, and bureacracy, and this prevents them from creating huge amounts of wealth.
Going back to the list of countries ranked by population density. Please note that many of the poor, third world countries in Africa have very, very low population densities. Thus, blaming Africa's poverty on "overpopulation" is not logical.
Some people blame Africa's poverty on a "lack of natrual resources." However, this is not logical. Any geology textbook will show you that Africa is very, very rich in many valuable natural resources.
The real reason why most African countries are so poor is because they don't have economic freedom.
Hong Kong and Singapore don't have many natural resources. However, their policies of economic freedom allow them to create large amounts of wealth, so that they can buy any resources that they want from other countries.
Economic freedom allows people to create wealth. For example, in countries that have economic freedom, people take worthless sand, and they turn it into computer chips that are worth trillions of dollars.
People need clean water to drink.
Environmentalists blame water shortages on "overpopulation." I would like to explain why that claim is not true.
In countries that have economic freedom, people can afford to pay for the technology that allows them to turn dirty water into clean water. Using desalinization, sewage treatment, and other technologies, rich countries can make as much clean drinking water as they want.
It's true that some areas in the U.S. do occasionally have a shortage of water. However, these problems are caused by bad governemnt pricing policies that encourage people to waste water, such as subsidies to farmers who grow crops in the desert, and price controls that prevent water prices from rising during times of drought. These problems can be solved by adopting a more rational pricing policy, so that people who use water have to pay the full cost of it. Getting rid of water subsidies for farmers, and raising household water rates by 50% during times of drought, would be two good ways to deal with this situation.
It's true that water tables in some areas have gone down a lot. But a rich country can afford desalinization and pipes, so local communities can get their water from very far away. The technoloogy for this already exists. It's just a question of adopting the necessary economic inentives to use the technology, such as allowing a modest increase in the price of water, so the technoogy can be properly funded.
Given that the 75% of the world is covered in water to an average depth of 2 miles, and given that we have the technology for desalinzation, sewage treatment, and pipes, it's not logical to blame water shortages on "overpopulation."
Poor countries have water shortages because they are poor, not because of overpopulation.
In a poor African country, a poor woman may have to spend half a day walking with a bucket to get enough drinking water for her family for one day's supply of water. But in a rich country, a woman who works in an office only has to work for a few minutes at her computer keyboard to earn enough money to pay for her family's water for a day. Poverty, not "overpopulation," is the cause of water shortages in third world countries.
What about food?
Well, since the 1960s, world population has doubled. However, since that time, world food production has more than doubled. In fact, all throughout the 20th century, food production grew faster than population. Today, the number of calories available, per person, is higher than ever before. And today, the percentage of people in the world who are malnourished is lower than ever before. Thus, to blame hunger on "overpopulation" is not logical.
The growing and selling of food is a business. In a society that has economic freedom, the businesses that grow and sell food will take the necesary steps to provide the customers with the products that the customers want. Even if it meant that they had to build skyscrapers, and use hydroponic farming on every floor, they would do it. The food indsutry is just like any other industry. Business make money by supplying customers with the products that the customers want.
The business of making and selling food, is no different than the business of making and selling VCRs. In a society that has economic freedom, wherever there are customers with money, who are willing to buy the product, there will be buisnesses willing to make and sell the product.
Blaming famine on "overpopulation" is not logical. Instead, famine is caused by bad economic policies that make it hard for buisnesses to exist and operate. Price controls, barriers to trade, and lack of property rights are the real causes of famine. There is not a single country in the world where famine can be truthfully blamed on "overpopulation."
Every country in the world that has strong protections of property rights, free market pricing, and free trade, has an abudnant supply of food. There are no exceptions.
What about the environment? What about air and water pollution?
Well, there's a real world trend that is happening all over the world. In the early stages of inudstrialization, there's a lot of pollution, and a lot of damage to the environment. However, once a country's per capita income reaches about $4,000, then, the people can afford to begin worrying about protecting the environment. And the more money they have, the more they can do to protect the environment. A rich country will have a much better environment than a poor country.
I live in a city that has a very, very high population density. But, since my city is in a rich, first world country, the air and water here are very clean.
What about the destruciton of forest?
Well, in a poor country, they use primitive farming methods. So, the crop yield, per acre, is very low. So, they have to chop down lots of trees to make room for farmland. This results in the destruction of forest.
But, in a rich country, they use high tech methods of farming. They use mechanzied farm equpment, chemical fertilizers, pesticides, biotech, and genetic engineering. These things allow a huge amount of food to be grown on a small amount of land. Using modern technology, farmers grow more food on less land. So past farmland is taken out of production, and gets converted back into forest.
Overfishing is certainly a big problem. Some commerical fishing boats use nets that are 50 miles long. Because of overfishing, a number of species of fish have become endangered. However, overfisihing only happens in public bodies of water, where the fish are free to any person who wants to take them. On private fish farms, overfishing never happens. On private fish farms, fish populations have been getting bigger.
Likewise, overlogging is a problem only on public land, where the trees are either free, or governemnt subsidized, to anyone who wants to take them. On private tree farms, the owner cares about the future value of his tree farm, so he always plants new trees after he cuts the old ones down. On private tree farms, land owners plant more trees than they cut down.
Overhunting and poaching of animals is a big problems that can lead to endangerment and extinction. Overhunting and poaching is a serious problem that needds to be dealt with. However, on modern, private farms, where the animals are privately owned, and secure property rights exist, there has never been a single case of an animal being hunted or poached to the point of becoming endangered or going extinct.
Overfishing, overlogging, overhunting, and poaching, are caused by lack of private property rights, not by "overpopulation."
What about garbage?
Well, only poor countries have a serious problem getting rid of their garbage. In poor countries, people live with garbage all around them.
A rich country can afford to build high tech landfills, and can afford to transport the garbage to the landfills.
It's estimated that if we took all the garbage that the U.S. would produce over the next 100 years, it would all fit into a square landfill that is less than 20 miles on each side. As a percentage of land area in the U.S., this is insignificant.
Poor countries have garbage problems because they can't afford to build high tech landfills, and because they can't afford to transport the garbage to the landfills. But a rich country can afford to do these things.
Garbage problems are caused by poverty, not by "overpopulation."
Are we running out of natural resources, such as oil, copper, aluminum, etc? Well, the best way way to tell is to look at the price. Adjsuted for inflation, the prices of all of these things has been falling for decades. This means that known reserves of these things are bigger than ever before. Better and better technology makes it easier and easier to find and extract these resources. For example, known reserves of oil are bigger now than they have ever been.
If a resource really did start to run out, then its price would rise. People would respond to this rise in price by cutting back on their use of the resource, and switch to a cheaper substitute. As a result, the resource would never run out.
A great example of this is gold. Gold is a very useful resource. Gold has excellent conductivity properties that make it ideal for use in electrical wiring. However, gold is very scarce. This scarcity is relfected in the high price of gold. So, most people who use wires don't use gold. Instead, they use copper. That's because copper is way cheaper than gold. This is a great example of how the pricing mechanism of the free market prevents us from running out of a valuable resource.
Here's another great example of how the free market encourages efficient use of natural resources. 50 years ago, telephone calls were carried by copper wire. Today, we use fiber optics. Compared to the copper wires, the fiber optic cable carries more information, but uses fewer resources.
The only reason that we use oil and gasoline today is because these are among the cheapest of all availble possible fuels. But there are alternatives to oil. If the world's supply of oil started to run out, then the price of oil would start to go up, and it would get higher and higher over a period of many years. As this happened over many years, more and more people would swicth to a cheaper substitute. Automobile manufacturers would gradually adjust their factories to meet the demands of their paying customers. Long before the world ever ran out of oil, people would have stopped using it, and switched to a cheaper substitute.
It's not my place to say what this substitute should be. There are many possibilities. However, the choice as to what substitute should be used should be left to free consumers, acting on their own free will, and making their own decisions. And the job of businesses is to respond to the demands of their customers. I have no desire to tell people what kinds of fuels to use, or to tell car makers what kinds of fuel their cars should run on. The free market policies that I favor are based on individual, voluntary choice, so I will not try to dictate what kinds of energy sources people should use.
Petroleum itself was worthless, until a human being with a brain found a way to use it. For thousands of years, petroleum had no value whatsoever. It was only after a human being with a brain found a way to use the petroleum that the petroleum acquired any value.
Today, human beings take worthless sand, and turn it into computer chips worth trillions of dollars. The most important resource here here is the human mind, not the sand.
Has the U.S. really been overpaved, and overrun by urban sprawl? No. In order to verify this, all you have to do is to get in an airplane, and fly accross the country, and spend the entire time looking out the window.
If the goal is to protect the environment, to have cleaner air and water, to have more forest, to be able to feed all the people, to have enough clean drinking water for all the people, to save animals from extinction, and to save people from being overrun by garbage, the best way to accomplish all of these goals is by having a rich society. And the best way to create a rich society is by having strong protections of private property rights, freedom of contract, free market pricing, and free trade.
I have no desire to force my ideas on anyone else. I have no desire to tell anyone else how to live. I favor a society of individual freedom, and individual choice. I favor a system where each person is free to live his life as he pleases, and where interaction between people occurs on a consentual, voluntary basis. I have no desire to tell people how to live their lives, or how many children they should have, or how much energy they should use, or how to spend their money, or what kinds of products to buy, or how much natural resources they should use.
I do understand the function of prices in a free market economy. Prices go up and down based on supply and demand. Based on these prices, producers can decide what kinds of products to make, and what materials to use in making them. And consumers can use these prices as a guide to see if a resource is scarce or abundant, and to see if conservstion really is necessary. No one ever throws gold in the garbage, because gold is expensive. All throughout human history, people have voluntarily recycled, whenever they believed that such recycling passed a cost/benefit analysis. Recent government policies of government mandated recycling of paper, glass, and plastic, usually fail a cost/benefit analysis, which means that this governemnt mandated recycling wastes more resources than it saves. The environment would be better off if these kinds of governemnt controls on people's lives were eliminated.
Post a response to this discussion thread