Population

One thing I don't see in the population calculations is the fact that with a population of 6 billion souls we are emitting 83,000 US Tons of carbon dioxide per minute into the atmosphere. I have those calculations for whoever is interested. Now, consider that in order to support this population, the increase in the total mammel population must have skyrocketed also. Although I don't have the figures for the entire mammel population, this increase must also be emitting a like amount of carbon dioxide. We do know that we have a carbon dioxide problem and rather than looking at fossel fuel emissions maybe we should look at human and animal emissions.

Posted by: Bill Hammersley | 4/7/06

On the other hand

But the commodities you mention as growing in supply an sinking in price are all commodities that can easily be made more abundant by technological gains. A barrel of oil on the other hand, or a cubic meter of gas, will still take millions of years to produce, regardless of human ingenuity. And another thing: While many countries may currently be experiencing fertility rates that will in the long term reduce their populations, some of the richest countries in the world are going through the exact opposite development. For example, my own country, Norway, has seen a rather dramatic growth in fertility rates over the last couple of decades. And I don't think this is because Norwegian blondes are so sexy.

Posted by: Rabelais | 4/15/06

world population

The best of this article is the stats, but if we are to talk o world population then why speak of countries. What proportion of the world's total population is sub-replacement now? What will the peak population be? What proportion of the world's species will be extinct by then? The article speaks of resources as if that is all that counts, but the environmental damage is large and increasing. All that said, I am willing to believe that the world's popultion is in the process of self-stabilising, so let's work on reducing our impact on biodiversity.

Posted by: truthseeker | 5/9/06

There will never be a substitute for oil?

That is patently ridiculous. Of course, when that substitute overtakes oil, Norway may not benefit that much.

Posted by: moptop | 5/9/06

Population Baomb

It is refreshing to read a discussion on population that deals in reason rather than hyperbole.

Posted by: Authentic | 5/9/06

Population dud?

All right, let's agree for the sake of discussion that adding another few billion people to the earth won't cause us to run out of resources. Now: Good God, don't you economists ever think about non-quantifiable values, such as quality of life? If you end your days in a Tokyo-size apartment on the 233rd floor of a high-rise in a 1,260-square-mile city, I hope you'll enjoy your ample resources and feeling "rich."

Posted by: Rick Darby | 5/9/06

child mortality

Apparently this author hasn't done enough research. The Bellagio Child Study Group has show that child mortality and morbidity is on the rise especially in sub-sahara Africa and Southeast Asia.

Posted by: Maria | 5/10/06

Poverty Measurement

Thank you for an interesting and thoughtful article. Perhaps my own quantophrenia is more dire than I'd like to admit, but I'm not convinced by a poverty reduction claim based solely on GDP, whether global, regional, or national. Maybe I'm not listening (thanks to my condition and all), but GDP doesn't have much to say about the distribution of wealth among a population, especially the percentage of a population living in poverty. The unresolved difficulties of even drawing a useful poverty line were also absent. To my untrained (and frenzied) mind, that information seems critical to any serious statement concerning such a famously troubling metric as poverty. Maybe I need to buy the book?

Posted by: JFC | 5/10/06

Population

At last we are beginning to see some genuine understanding of the issue, and it is refreshing to read more and more articles like this, countering the 'culture of death' which seems to have been the prevalent mood of recent decades.

Posted by: Alex | 5/10/06

world population

I first studied population biology in the 60's. Population limits were and interesting topic back then. the predicttors failed to take into account the effects of technology on the carrying capacity of the planet. The biggest problem may be management. Some countries are unable to manage there economies resulting in behavioral sinks (Haiti, Ethiopia, Uganda). China is at risk. Political instability historically has been local or regional and not significant to carrying capacity. One wonders what might happen if the consequences of such instability are visited upon otherwise well organized societies (e.g., the Muslim bomb?)

Posted by: j. sher | 5/10/06

Logic of Population Bombed

Nicholas Eberstadt revives a time worn practice of underscoring the limits of Mathus's (1793) predictions by committing the genetic fallacy of labeling anyone who points to the challenges of rapid population growth as "neo-Malthusians" or "doom-sayers." If an opponent wished to follow this pre-framed, ad hominem practice, it would be easy to point to an argument that antedates Malthus by over three decades—Voltaire's Candide. As most undergraduates know, one of the most compelling characters in Voltaire's allegory is Pangloss—committed to the view that this is not the best of all possible worlds, but this is as good as this world can be. The specious logic of Mr. Eberstadt's argument is revealed in at least four logical flaws. His examples of demographic thinking are from the most flamboyant sources, not from a sizable literature of disciplined analysis (See, for example, stirpat.org). To the question he poses—Why are Americans so taken by such arguments—leads, not to reflective analysis, not to credit laypersons with the ability to recognize potential problems, but to name calling: they're "quantophrenics." His claim that American was a country of statistical pioneers hardly accords with historical facts, since Germany and England led the way to the collection of the very data Mr. Eberstadt touts. That Mr. Eberstadt culls selected data to support his point, without the even-handed analysis one expects of a serious scholar, hardly needs comment. Overlooked is the fact that countries with declining rates of population growth are maintaining their ecological impacts by increasing their consumption (e.g. average house size has been increasing all over the world). That world resources are getting cheaper is hardly a signal about scarcity, but instead a reflection of the navel gazing accounting system that does not account for external costs in its reckoning. One can feel warm an fuzzy about Mr. Eberstadt's conclusions, just as one can feel the same in a blanket infused with smallpox.

Posted by: Professor Eugene Rosa | 5/13/06

Great piece of work

Thank you Mr Eberstadt for this mind-tickling piece of work. This will go along way in countering the work of the population-control propagandists. I agree with you, that whereas lots of people are whining about overpopulation, there are many young women my country (Uganda) and elsewhere who are postponing marriage and child birth in the name of 'enjoying themselves'. And if this trend continues,huh...there will be no more children in the streets.

Posted by: Charles | 5/18/06

Population bomb

There is little doubt that the central point of this article, namely that overpopulation poses no threat to humanity, is correct although the current "baby bust" just might be. What I believe to be very significant is the extreme lack of judgement exhibited by environmental doomsayers: over and over againtheir predictions have been falsified until we have reached the situation when no threats (credible or otherwise) carry much credibility. This is not a health situation. SS

Posted by: SS | 5/18/06

GDP is the wrong measure

Stating per capita GDP figures without reference to the distribution of income is misleading. Any student of Econonomics 101 knows it, why not this author? Income and resource distribution is becoming more skewed in much of the world. For a better source of information (than this article) see The UN Millennium Development Goals web site.

Posted by: RAP | 9/7/06