You are deluding yourself with some sort of future where the populations of the lower rungs of the income ladder will reach a green* enlightenment and skip consumerism altogether. Do you not take in account that some day the poor masses of India and Bangladesh will be the ones driving the hummers and replacing their mobile phones every couple of months?

I would've also liked to see an argument for why we should not control uninhibited population growth. Why not curb both consumerism stemming from the western hemisphere, AND population growth in the east and the african continent?

I don't really understand where you are going with your article.

So, there is no problem with 3Bn (11Bn-8Bn) more people by the end of the century? Well, then, is there any limit to the earth's carrying capacity? As it is, marginal food consumers in the Middle East are being driven into the streets because increased aggregate demand (and profligate US monetary policy) mean that they can no longer afford even a basic existence.

"The optimist" also fails to address a counter-theory which says that the world population will plateau as more countries developed advanced economies, and that in fact, there will be labor shortages at some point. Nevertheless, consumption of food and energy will only grow and it's unclear to me how those who live at the margin but still buy their necessities at world market-determined prices will avoid terrible suffering in the years ahead. Despite all the hope for alternative energy, there is currently NO viable substitute for hydrocarbons.

In any event, I am sure that "the optimist" doesn't live anywhere near the teeming mega-cities about which he is so optimistic. Of all the nonsense that FP indiscriminately publishes, I have to say that "the optimist" is unrivaled for his consistently delusionary, self-serving assininity.

The software won't let me directly reply to your post DBST, so I'll do it here.

1. Yes indeed the last half of the article gives some solutions to inhibit pop. growth that are already in place. Foreign aid organizations for decades have tried to edumacate the women and hand out contraceptives. Although I don't understand why half of an article that exclaims we should celebrate pop. growth, is about inhibiting it.

2. The coming wave of third world consumerism isn't the only problem of a hugely increased population. Logging of rain forests, a water crisis, perhaps mass migration in case of global warming becoming more severe in the southern hemisphere.

3. I read the article. But you didn't read my post, as you missed my final point and biggest question mark. Why write an article that calls us to celebrate population growth? Don't tell me you are satisfied with the explanation of "the more the merrier". Such a senseless article on a provenly serious matter (experts have for long linked worsening global problems to pop. growth) shouldn't be written just to fill some quota.

Foreign aid organizations for decades have tried to edumacate the women and hand out contraceptives. Although I don't understand why half of an article that exclaims we should celebrate pop. growth, is about inhibiting it.
Ata?ehir belediyesi Ata?ehir Rehberi Ata?ehir kroki Ata?ehir Haritas? Ata?ehir Sinemalar Ata?ehir Nerede Haber Haberleri
Face

Every country has limited resources and so does the planet. Overpopulation destroys the environment and will cause the extinction of the human race if not controlled. It is madness to promote overpopulation. Where are the natural resources and who is going to accept living in a ruined poor world. Wars will arise over control of even food and water resources.

The USA is overpopulated. Every year millions of legal and illegal immigrants are added to the population of over 311 million (nobody knows how many illegal aliens are here). In Rockland county NY (one of the wealthiest) over 20% of the population is on Medicaid, the vast majority are illegal alien anchor babies. Medicaid was a welfare program supported by Federal, State and local governments to provide health care for the poorest Americans. The government does not have a plan for how this huge and rapidly growing poor population will be supported. They need education, Medicaid and must consume natural resources, including energy, housing, transportation government services etc.

We must enforce immigration laws and stop mass immigration or the local taxes required to maintain the growing population of poor immigrants and poor American legal residents will first drive hard pressed taxpayers into poverty, and second most local governments will eventually join the growing list of American bankrupt States and local governments.

Overpopulated countries including India and China know the destructive effects of overpopulation and limit population growth and have no mass immigration policies. 47% of American households are too poor to pay income taxes. The immigrants will mostly join the ranks of non-taxpayers because there are not enough high paying jobs for even citizens and legal residents. Local property taxes are already crushing the home owners because they increase every year without regard for the incomes of the property owners.

The USA industrial base of 9% of the total economy cannot support the present population at a decent standard of living without massive debt. In 1850 the USA had an economy that was 10% industrial but the country was virtually empty west of the Mississippi river. Now there are not enough taxpayers to support a government that has over 20 million employees, (Federal, State and local) and at least an equal number of workers that depend on government directly or indirectly

The government must reduce its size by 40% to live within its tax income. We cannot continue government borrowing. Many State and local governments are now bankrupt. The Federal government must beg and borrow $1.65 Trillion this fiscal year. There are not enough taxpayers to support the present large government and raising taxes is not the solution because like any drug addict, the government will consume the larger income and go deeper into debt.

America must rebuild its industrial base and stop the global corporations from removing the little industry that is left. The age of mass immigration must end. There are not enough middle class jobs for citizens and legal residents. Intervention in foreign affairs and foreign aid must also stop.

We are running America to the ground. The Federal government must beg and borrow $1.65 trillion dollars a year. A country that is dependent on imports and loans cannot be independent. We cannot be the dumping ground of the world's poor population. The age of mass immigration is over.

Roman Gil
http://roman-gil1.blogspot.com

A fp piece by malcolm potts and martha campbell presents a much more compelling argument in regard to America's biggest foreign policy blunder, family planning. By facebook standards alone pott and campbells argument far outpaces Mr. Kenny overly optimistic dissent. 1300 likes to 120, but noone's counting.

I do agree that we need to reduce our consumption but when population growth surpases economic growth in developing and poverty stricken countries I dont see the connection between reducing consumption in the developed world and economic growth elsewhere. If there is, please explain.

Poor old Malthus. He gets trotted out every time someone wants to protray those concerned about population growth as a bunch of gloomsters. Those who toss the Malthusian label often seem to be summoning up some vague recollection of a college survey course. eBooks Resale Rights A sampling of Malthus quotes:

"The great and unlooked for discoveries that have taken place of late years have all concurred to lead many men into the opinion that we were touching on a period big with the most important changes."

Dear Mr. Kenny,

I just read the Peace Corps article you wrote on February 23rd, but it was closed to comments. I am taking the space here because I feel strongly about your position regarding the Peace Corps.

Peace Corps is one of the last government programs where low-income students are still on equal footing to the well-off, precisely because it is not structured like Fulbright.

In many ways, Fulbright and other prestigious scholarships suffer from "affirmative action for the wealthy", in that the well-off now have cadres of people who prep their applications, their referees, and train them for interviews. All of these things place low-income students at a disadvantage, not because their ideas or skills are inferior, but because they can't afford the same pristine "packaging" of their applications. In this way, your proposal will unduly lock out low-income candidates to Peace Corps.

Losing low-income candidates will strike a critical blow to Peace Corps goal of promoting mutual understanding between Americans and people of other nations. A low-income student has intrinsic sensitivity to hunger, financial distress, and other income-related issues, that make them exceptional ambassadors of peace.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Should the problem of over consumption be more of a problem of overpopulation? Although the world population has doubled in the last few decades, who has really contributed to the problem of over consumption - and worse, pollution?

It is the developed countries, that have a stable population that uses far more of the earth's resources than the poorer countries whose population has increased so significantly.

What is the answer? If the poorer countries increase their economic situation their family life will naturally improve. As their family life improves their birth rate should lower. At the same time, the developed countries know they should use far less of the earth's resources. If the developed countries lower their consumption and the poorer countries lesson their birth rate, a balance could possibly be attained.

Like most of the people who have posted comments so far, I have to disagree with your post. Although there was some cool information in the post, I think that a lot of it is definitely "off" and that your perception is misguided. Yeah, we all have our opinions, but you Charles my friend are obviously in the majority with this issue.

I have to say that one of the laws that I actually like about china (I believe it's china) is the limit to the number of children they are allowed to conceive. This growing population issue is a major problem and concern in my book - and this is one of the laws that has been helping and can really help a lot more if implemented worldwide brands by more countries. There are a lot of mothers who have 4, 5, 6 or more children. Who needs this many children? Especially those that cannot afford 2 barely. I think the limit should be 2 or 3.

It may sound a little against free will - but if
You are thinking about the future of your family tree it will be better. Because over population is quickly becoming a larger and larger problem. If you have just 2 less children donyou know how mich more income that leaves for your family? That means essentially less poor families, or at least less poor than they are, and it means that the rate of crime essentially goes down too.

Poor communities have the highest rates of crime and more children does not help this statistic.

Also it's crazy the fact that the poor people consume 1% of the money that te rich do (or whatever that exact statistic was in the article). Maybe there should be some kind of system setup where the rich can have affiliates, or wealthyaffiliates, where the rich could partner up with the poor and just help them out a little bit. I know it's something that would never happen because most people are so selfish - but it would be nice to see people helping people with something like this.

I mean the rich are spending $100 for every $1 the poor spends, that's ridiculous. That's $10,000 for every $100 - $100,000 for every $1,000 and $1,000,000 for every $10,000 spent! Truly unbelievable when you really think about it.

Anyways, back to the point, overpopulation is definitely not a good thing. It can create some huge problems.

And not even to mention the smaller problems like traffic. If I had to sit in any more traffic than I already do I would go crazy.

And there are enough issues with the amount of people we have, we really don't need any more with an increase in the population.

But everyone is entitled to their opinion - I just think you are in the minority with your opinion Mr Charles Kennedy.

Malthus is an easy target, but you completely ignore the influential work of Derek Parfit (see his "repugnant conclusion" http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/repugnant-conclusion/ ) and David Benatar ( http://amzn.com/0199549265 ).

Nobody is harmed by his non-existance, while lots of people (Benatar says everybody) are harmed by their existance.

In a best-case scenario parents are playing a game of russian roulette with the gun pointed at someone else's head.

We can (in some cases) justify harming someone against their will when we know we this spares them another greater harm (e.g. forcing a kid to go to the dentist), but non-existance doesn't harm he who doesn't exist.

I find it strange that, in an article advocating global population increase, not once are the words 'food' or 'water' mentioned.

Regardless of whether more people will result in economical benefits (cheap labour, etc.) or whether a redistribution of resources away from the first world would increase the average standards of living, there is the essential reality that the planet can only produce so much food.

The amount of arable land will likely decrease in the future, due to drought and desertification brought on by climate change, as well as rising sea levels flooding low-lying bread baskets such as Bangladesh. The land that remains will have to produce more and more food in order to keep up with demand, resulting in overfarming and overgrazing, which itself damages arable land and perpetuates the vicious cycle.

Furthermore, the industrialised world can currently produce massive amounts of food from its arable land due to the use of petrochemical fertilisers. As the world's reserves of oil deplete, petrochemical fertilisers will become too cost-inefficient to use and the amount of food that can sustainably be produced from the same land will conequently be massively reduced.

The author speaks of the disproportionate concentration of the world's resources in the hands of the world's richest countries. However, if it comes to the point where the world's population simply cannot be fed, what use are such trappings of wealth as metals or plastics? If a middle-class Westerner gives away his Ipod, car or espresso machine to the starving inhabitants of a third world village, can the people eat these things? Can they exchange these things for food if not enough exists to feed everyone? Maybe, but that would just mean that someone else will starve instead - getting fed when there isn't food for everyone is a zero sum game.

Just because an inhabitant of a developed country has, say, 100x the income of the inhabitant of an underdeveloped country, and consumes 100x the resources in terms of value, does not mean that he eats 100x the food. People can't eat money.

Also, I reject that author's assertion that anybody who sees global overpopulation as a problem is a 'misanthrope'. I simply value quality of life over quantity and don't want to see millions of people suffering and dying of starvation, thirst and treatable diseases in massive slums all over the world. I dream of a world where the global population is stable, resource and energy usage is sustainable and there is relative equality in the standards of living between different countries, allowing people to rise or fall based on their own individual merits and flaws.

I hope the author and others can see that one can be concerned with overpopulation, but still be philanthropic and optimistic. We humans can make a better future for ourselves, but not if we bury our heads in the sand.

Kenny's article is a classic piece of tilting at windmills, starting with a go at an imaginary version of Malthus. Trotting out the mantra "Malthus was wrong" is an idle habit of ecological deniers who don't know what he wrote. The World Health Organisations calculates that there are currently 1 billion people living on the edge of starvation. That's pretty much exactly what Malthus predicted, which was that as the world population grew, the number of people starving would go up in proportion. It's always been true and it is still is. As futurology goes this has been one of the most accurate predictions ever, and the constant refrain of deniers that it has been proved false a straight lie. . He explained it mathematical way, and this is universally accepted by biologoists, if not politicians. No Malthusian has ever predicted "that the planet may not be able to sustain all the people living on it", for the whole point of Malthusianism is that the planet must be capable of sustaining the people living on it, or they wouldn't be living would they? It is the constant absorption of increased production by increasing numbers of people that maintains the level of poverty. Wherever and whenever family planning has been made available and adopted, Malthusian theory is broken and poverty reduced. This enables them to have higher production per capita and a virtuous circle ensues. If their resulting wealth looks like excess consumption that's like saying two wealthy children is a sin when you could have had 10 starving ones.

Presumably Kenney recognises that there is an upper limit to the number of people the earth can carry? During the twentieth century population has been doubling about every forty years. If that continued, we would have about a square yard of land surface each in year 2550, which would not be entirely practical. Therefore he must realise that growth must come to an end sometime before that.

What will make growth stop? There is disease, famine, warfare and contraception. Assuming that he agrees with me that contraception is the most desirable of these, would he agree that the use of contraception depends on availability, on knowledge and on level of need? So would he not be prepared to support any project which makes contraception available to the needy? There is such a need: wouldnt it be an act of charity (in the best sense) to do something about it?

More than two hundred million women would use family planning but are denied it. That means they are suffering. Forty million women each year undergo abortion, of which 20 million are unsafe, resulting in many thousands of deaths and permanent disabilities (UN Population Fund and WHO). No, abortion is not an acceptible means of family planning, but it is forced on women by the non- availability of contraception. About forty percent of all pregnancies are unintentional.

Kenny might try reading Malthus to see what he actually said, and then he might meditate on the theme that anyone who says that infinite growth is possible in a finite environment is either deluded or an economist

The naivety of this article is overwhelming. No-one who has travelled beyond the normal tourist routes could fail to appreciate that there are simply too many people. already without adequate resources to sustain them, too many people hungry, too many people without space for privacy or fulfilment of their talents. Perhaps Mr Kenny could visit the 100 acre cemetery in Manila in the Philippines where 10,000 people live because there is nowhere else to go. Or how about Calcutta (Kalkata), Mumbai or Dhaka where people often live 25 to a room or sleep out on the sidewalk because there is nowhere else. You don't see happy well fed people in nice clothes pushing babies in strollers (as in the photo). You see people stressed and often dirty and worried about their next meal. You smell the open sewers.

In the end, though, it comes down to how much food the worlkd can produce. Already climate change is affecting food production and soon the inevitable decline in oil will see food production affected, except perhaps in subsistence agriculture societies that are not dependent on oil. So, please Mr Kenny, throw away your ideological baggage, travel to the slums of poorer countries and get a bit of science before you enter the debate on this serious subject.

With human exponential growth in the planet, which is causing a perfect storm of dwindling jobs, food, water and energy, this is finally a welcome news.

See what Dr. Beddington, chief UK's scientist means by this "perfect storm" BBC INTERVIEW. it is in the WEB.

Unless we curb further population growth, become more frugal and conserve all resources, Dr. Fenner (who eradicated small pox) predicts HUMAN EXTINCTION in 100 years!!

The welcome news is that the USA's Center of Diseases Control just reported that birth rate in the USA has dropped in the last 3 years.

With human exponential growth in the planet, which is causing a perfect storm of dwindling jobs, food, water and energy, this is finally a welcome news.

See what Dr. Beddington, chief UK's scientist means by this "perfect storm" BBC INTERVIEW. it is in the WEB.

Unless we curb further population growth, become more frugal and conserve all resources, Dr. Fenner (who eradicated small pox) predicts HUMAN EXTINCTION in 100 years!!

As far as Mr Kenny's glib comment that we "must welcome more people", only shows callousness about what humanity is facing.

The World Health Organisations calculates that there are currently 1 billion people living on the edge of starvation. That's pretty much exactly what Malthus predicted, which was that as the world population grew, the number of people starving sázkové kancelá?e would go up in proportion. It's always been true and it is still is. As futurology goes this has been one of the most accurate predictions ever, and the constant refrain of deniers that it has been proved false a straight lie. . He explained it mathematical way, and this is universally accepted by biologoists, if not politicians. No Malthusian has ever predicted "that the planet may not be able to sustain all the people living on it", for the whole point of Malthusianism is that the planet must be capable of sustaining the people living on it, or they wouldn't be living would they? It is the constant absorption of increased production by increasing numbers of people that maintains the level sázkové kancelá?e of poverty. Wherever and whenever family planning has been made available and adopted, Malthusian theory is broken and poverty reduced. This enables them to have higher production per capita and a virtuous circle ensues.

Yes indeed the last half of the article gives some solutions to inhibit pop. growth that are already in place catillnessesandsymptoms. Foreign aid organizations for decades have tried to edumacate the women and hand out contraceptives. Although I don't understand why half of an article that exclaims we should celebrate pop. growth, is about inhibiting it.