Population - General Considerations

Most people are aware of the so-called Global population problem. It is a two-fold problem: the vast human population (currently over 6 billion), and significant population growth. There is no doubt that 6 billion is a large number. Moreover, having 6 billion creatures on Earth consuming energy and resources at the rate we do creates obvious environmental problems. The issue of population growth is not so clear. It is clear that human population has increased dramatically over the last few centuries. But it is not clear that this rate of increase will continue as many either did predict or are currently predicting. Some population theorists argue that previous predictions ignore important social and economic influences on population growth -- i.e., economic development typically leads to (or at least correlates with) significant reductions in growth.. Moreover, as a matter of fact, global population has not risen in accordance with some earlier predictions.

Our problem is determining if there really is a population problem, and if there is, what is the nature of the problem. Some argue, essentially, that the more people the better. That is, there is no population problem because the development of technology and methods of energy and resource production keeps pace, and will continue to keep pace with, the demands of increased population. While there is some evidence that this is true, others are not confident in the so-called 'technological fix'. Some predict catastrophic consequences for humans on Earth if we do not curb population growth, arguing either that active measures ought to be taken to curb population growth, or that with appropriate social and economic development, along with decreases in inequality, human population growth will level off at a sustainable number.

A Special Moment in History: The Challenge of Overpopulation and Overconsumption
Bill McKibben

McKibben points out that even though the World has seen relatively rapid population growth of humans, there are clear trends that indicate that human population will top out before the end of this century (at likely a little less that double the current population).

McKibben thinks that it is fairly clear that developments in public health during the Twentieth Century are likely the dominant causes of population growth. However, it is not so clear why population growth has slowed. Some claim, that either economic development, or education, or availability of contraception, are central. However, as he notes, there are clear counterexamples to these claims. What looks to be most important is simply that people are choosing to have fewer children. But this is not universal.

McKibben assumes that current demographic claims are correct. It might, then, seem encouraging that human population will double only once more. But 10 - 12 billion is still a huge number. Combine this number with an assessment of how much we consume, and we see that the problem does not go away. As McKibben puts it, we have got much 'bigger' -- not literally, but with respect to our energy requirements.

Before the problem can be addressed, though, we need to determine how 'big' the Earth is -- that is, how many people of what 'size' can the Earth sustain? The first problem, here, is that we have no clear idea. Earlier predictions about immanent World hunger have not turned out to be true. [The same holds for predictions about resource depletion.] Even though population has increased dramatically, production of food has increased at a faster rate. Moreover, typically, famines have political or economic causes, and are not the result of food production failures within larger local areas. Further, some claim that it is precisely because population has increased that production levels have increased and so standards of living increase. This is because the more people there are, the greater is the necessity to solve problems, and the more people there are who have the capabilities to come up with creative solutions. In short, the more people the more problems. But with more people comes more problem solvers. So far, this has been right. But will it continue?

The second problem is that the Earth is changing (into "Earth2") because of human actions. Of special importance is the increase in global temperature brought about by increases in so-called greenhouse gases. It is clearly difficult to predict the carrying capacity of the Earth. But the problem is greatly exacerbated by the changes. In short, we have no clear idea about how the changes will affect the Earth's carrying capacity. A good bet, though, is that they will reduce it.

McKibben presents a series of interesting facts. We have to admit that it is not entirely obvious what conclusions the facts support. However, even this doubt should be seen to support one conclusion: We don't know what effects will result from our current life-styles, so we should curtail, for instance, current fossil-fuel use now. If we don't do it soon, we may be faced with an unavoidable and catastrophic change in the Earth, such that it can no longer support even the current population.

Hardin argues that the idea of the Tragedy of the Commons can be applied to what he calls "no technical solution problems." Some problems do not admit of technical solutions -- for instance, the global nuclear arms race. [We see a current failure to understand this with the Bush Administration's proposal to move ahead with a strategic missile defence system. Most see this as exacerbating the problem, not solving it.] Hardin sees the problem of global population as one of these 'no technical solution problems'.

People try to solve the problem without giving up certain freedoms, in particular, the freedom to breed. Further, they fail to see that without the moral or political solution -- i.e., establishing policies aimed at limiting peoples' freedom to breed -- the population problem cannot be solved. A simple argument shows the problem:

Any increase in population requires increase in resources.
Resources are finite (i.e., limited).
Therefore, there is a limit population size.

Hardin notes that it is not possible to maximize for two related variables at the same time -- i.e., increase in population and increase in human happiness. Any increase in human population requires an adjustment in society so each person lives as 'cheaply' as possible. This inevitably leads to reduced happiness. [Some might argue that even with 'cheaper' living we could nonetheless lead very happy lives -- with some suitable adjustment in life-style choices and expectations, perhaps. But if we make the increases in population large enough, significant reductions in energy and resource use must follow, resulting in dramatically 'poorer' lives.]

The Tragedy of Freedom in a Commons

The idea of the Tragedy of the Commons is to be contrasted with the idea of the 'invisible hand' of Adam Smith (the idea that an individual seeking her own gain is led by an 'invisible hand' to promote the public good). It is characterized in the following way:

1. There is an original position -- each individual using a common resource, either significantly conserved or sustainable.
2. An individual realizes that he can increase his advantages or interests by using more of the commons without apparently affecting its stability. Moreover, this is likely true if only one does this.
3. However, every individual comes to the same (above) realization. So begins an accelerated race for use of the resources provided by the commons.
4. Inevitably, this leads to destruction of the commons; "Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all."

Even though this is a theoretical model, there seem to be many kinds of examples of such 'tragedies'. The freedom of the high seas has resulted in many different collapses of fisheries. People and corporations seem to pollute in accordance with the Tragedy of the Commons. Etc.

Hardin thinks that population is another example. The commons is the Earth. The freedom is to breed. Moreover, there are no significant environmental limitations on family size in most countries. This has resulted in a human population that is, albeit slowly, resulting in a Tragedy of the Commons situation. Without significant reductions in population, the Earth will collapse (or, is collapsing) as an environment for sustaining large numbers of humans.

Hardin thinks that the only solution is to set up a system of mutual coercion to curb the freedom to breed. This is parallel to other kinds of solutions to the problem of collapse of a commons. In general, the only way to prevent such collapses is to agree upon sets of regulations that limit peoples' freedoms to selfishly exploit resources.

Kasun counters the claim that there is a population problem. In particular, she claims that those that say that there is a problem spread a propaganda of unwarranted claims, based largely on biased opinions, false claims, and misinterpretations of data and economic theories. She argues that contrary to the "doomsdayers", there is no real population crisis -- i.e., there are solutions to the many problems we face. Contrary to Hardin, even if there is a population problem, it has a technical solution.

First, some claim that the market system is not equipped to handle the problems caused by increased population.

Kasun rejects this claim. She argues that the market is specifically designed to handle conditions of scarcity of resources. When a particular resource becomes scarce, market actions increase the price thereby forcing consumers to conserve. Further, such conditions lead producers to seek alternatives to fill the economic gap. Further, if general scarcity results, families will restrict the number of children people have voluntarily to fit their ability to support the children. The claim that some parents 'externalize' the cost of raising children misses the point that children add to the economy outside the family, so the externalities are covered by this further contribution to society.

Second, as we have seen, some claim that the carrying capacity of the Earth either has been reached, or soon will be reached.

Kasun responds, first, that no one knows just what is the carrying capacity of the Earth. We do not know if or when specific resources will be depleted, or whether alternatives will be found. The current trend, though, is for an ever increasing ability to support more and more people, largely as a consequence of gains in knowledge and technology. Contrary to Hardin, we do not know the limits of the capacity of 'lifeboat Earth'. Moreover, historically, people lived under conditions of much greater scarcity than we do now. So, if anything, the trend indicates that things are getting better, not worse.

Kasun argues that the economic underpinnings of something like the lifeboat idea (the idea that each country, or the Earth, is like a lifeboat with limited capacity; put too many in, and all drown) are inconsistent with standard economic models, which do not build in absolute limits to production. What, in essence, these views fail to see, according to Kasun, is that human beings are not merely burdens. Production is not static with increases in population. That is, with increases in population comes increases in production, and so increases in carrying capacity (or in the size of the lifeboat).

Obviously, the key issue now, though, is whether this can continue -- that is, that increases in population will always provide sufficient increases in production. Kasun identifies some relevant facts. First, less than half of the Earth's arable land is currently used for food production. Second, much of it is not used in the most efficient ways. These points alone, Kasun suggests, indicate that the Earth could feed twenty-two times as many people as now exist -- assuming a non-North American diet. Other numbers are given, but the general claim is that we are nowhere near the carrying capacity of the Earth with respect to food production, at least. Also, some studies suggest that the total arable land is in fact increasing, not decreasing as some suggest. In short, Kasun claims that the Earth is relatively empty of people.

The further problem raised by opponents is that of the ecological sustainability of current life styles. First, Kasun claims that there is no clear sign that we are even approaching running out of any key resource. Even if in the future fossil fuels stores are exhausted, there are many other forms of energy not yet exploited. Technological advances will likely solve any other resource related problems. Second, the Earth's ecosystems were not destabilized by the agricultural revolution, so there is no reason to think that it will be destabilized by the industrial revolution. [You may note that Kasun quickly skips to another topic, here, maybe to avoid the obvious failure to adequately address this issue.]

The conclusion is that there is no reason to think that increases in population will have the disastrous affects predicted by the 'doomsdayers'.