How would a stateless, free society manage the consequences of overpopulation? If the argument of overpopulation is mistaken, however, state your case.
How much population is too much?
Dustin Jussila:How would a stateless, free society manage the consequences of overpopulation? If the argument of overpopulation is mistaken, however, state your case.
The only way in theory this could be possible is if overpopulation was a global issue, not just isolated to a concentrated region. If the problem persists over a region for example, well then that brings an economic incentive for people to leave that region.
I know your question doesn't suggest this at all, but I have another question for other people. How would a stateful society manage the consequences of alleged overpopulation? And do the economic incentives to bring about equilibrium in population over geographical regions get distorted by mechanisms such as welfare, when the state is involved?
Filc:The only way in theory this could be possible is if overpopulation was a global issue, not just isolated to a concentrated region. If the problem persists over a region for example, well then that brings an economic incentive for people to leave that region.
In followup on LS's point. Whos to say what level of population we would be able to support in a free society, given that technology and capital accumulation are allowed to freely accumulate progressively.
filc: In followup on LS's point. Whos to say what level of population we would be able to support in a free society, given that technology and capital accumulation are allowed to freely accumulate progressively.
Perhaps all these problems associated with alleged "overpopulation" merely reflects a lack of accumulation of capital, and technologies that yield less then what is demanded?
Dustin, I am not trying to be difficult, but which problems?
liberty student: Dustin, I am not trying to be difficult, but which problems?
Allegedly, countries with overpopulation have shortages of basic human needs like food and water, as well as shortages in land and fossil fuels. Excessive pollution in these countries lead to other problems as well, it is claimed.
Do you think it is reasonable that those problems might be caused by a lack of markets?
liberty student: Do you think it is reasonable that those problems might be caused by a lack of markets?
I believe it's more than reasonable, it's the only explanation. But the critics of that analysis would argue that only in a society that allows humans to breed unhampered would allow those results. The more people exists, the more mouths to feed, the less we all have, et cetera.
People who are concerned about overpopulation can volunteer to reduce the population by 1. Problem solved.
liberty student: How much population is too much?
this, haha :D
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
"The more people exists, the more mouths to feed, the less we all have, et cetera."
Food availability gives an upper bound on population. If it's not sustainable it will naturally reduce to the sustainable population. The upper bound itself can change as technology changes. And there's no reason why food can't grow exponentially too, Malthus. It is, after all, just another population of organisms itself.
Nonfederal Nonreserve: Food availability gives an upper bound on population. If the population is sustainable above that, then it's not a problem in the first place. If it's not sustainable it will naturally reduce to the sustainable population.
Food availability gives an upper bound on population. If the population is sustainable above that, then it's not a problem in the first place. If it's not sustainable it will naturally reduce to the sustainable population.
Allow me to play devils advocate for a moment, (ahem), "So you would condemn millions to starvation because of some ideological theory of equilibrium? You monster!"
Anybody who feels sorry about them can choose not to reproduce and to take himself/herself out of the population. Anybody who doesn't want the population to reach that point can do it right now.
Dustin Jussila:I believe it's more than reasonable, it's the only explanation. But the critics of that analysis would argue that only in a society that allows humans to breed unhampered would allow those results. The more people exists, the more mouths to feed, the less we all have, et cetera.
Then you need to demonstrate to those critics that trade is a positive sum game. I would start by showing how there are more people in the US than ever before, and they are wealthier than ever before. And demonstrate the same for France, Germany etc. so you have the socialist democracies covered.
To undermine ignorance doesn't require advancing your own argument, just undermining the ignorant ones until only your argument remains.
Wouldn't it be god or nature who is condemning the millions?
Dustin Jussila:Allow me to play devils advocate for a moment, (ahem), "So you would condemn millions to starvation because of some ideological theory of equilibrium? You monster!"
Thats the equivalent of saying "You would condemn millions of people to the ground because of some ideological theory of gravity?".
It's an ironic argument as well, since the complaint is that there is already too much population. If they were interested in saving lives, they may be more concerned with the capital accumulation process, and less concerned with regulating birth-rates.
The truth is we can't pretend the laws of scarcity don't apply to the real world. It's non-sequitur to assume that the problems you state below are overpopulation issues.
Dustin Jussila:Allegedly, countries with overpopulation have shortages of basic human needs like food and water, as well as shortages in land and fossil fuels. Excessive pollution in these countries lead to other problems as well, it is claimed.
This is where the non-sequitur lies. These problems are caused by other factors, not necessarily by overpopulation. There are dense nations where individuals live wealthier then non-dense nations. Take Japan vs Costa Rica. If wealth was corollary with population, then Japan should be in the pits, and Costa Rica should be wealthy.
Hope that makes sense.
3rd world countries will generally have overpopulation due to the fact their children may not live, so they repopulate to make up for the potential lack of deaths, which in turn doesn't always happen. With the overpopulation you have the lack of food, and also they cannot take care of all their children, so poverty is also an issue.
If you look at countries that have markets, or even compared 3rd world countries now to the USA or some European countries 100 years ago, the standard of living rised with production. People live longer, and are not afraid of dying out, so their thought to reproduce as soon and as much as possible is lessened. Markets show future investments for their own gene pool.
A very good rebuttal of overpopulation is OverpopulationIsAMyth.com from the Population Research Institute. Here is their latest movie:
Simple: private companies pay people to be voluntarily sterilized.