The Shotgun Blog
« For a President on the way out, Bush sure is busy | Main | Lemieux: Of Switzerland and Canada »
Monday, October 06, 2008
Policy double-take: Greens want to reduce or slow global population
"The question of the Earth’s carrying capacity is a critical one," reads the Green Party's policy document under Part 5: The planet needs Canada (and vice versa), entitled Address the crisis of global population growth. "How many of us can live on this planet. Are we like the Easter Islanders, about to cut down all our resources? Are there too many of us on this Island?"
It's an interesting question. It's interesting, in particular, because of a trend in the environmentalist movement: Depict a crisis of unparalleled proportions--the "end of days"--and insist that if we don't do something now, we're all going to die. That's the strategy with at least a segment of the Kyoto protocol supporters (to be fair, plenty of environmentalists don't depict an "end of days" scenario. They argue, instead, that things will get a lot worse, so doing something about it makes sense).
The write-up continues:
That is not a simple question. The answer depends largely on whether human beings live at the levels of consumption of the average Canadian or, instead, at the levels of the average person in sub-Saharan Africa. If the former, there are simply not enough resources, at least five more planets with the attributes and resources of Planet Earth would be needed to meet our needs. We only have one Earth.
And the dire prediction:
If we don't voluntarily and rapidly develop a way to reverse the dangerous trend of increasing human numbers, nature will do it for us, but in a way that is very painful and perhaps too late, at a time when it will no longer be possible for human life to continue on this planet. The problem is compounded by over consumption and a global economy that encourages people to live beyond the means afforded by their natural habitat.
While consumption is a key issue, so is technology. Our ability to split the atom, or exhume the fossil fuels from their burial places to burn them at profligate rates, threatens to tip the planet from its life sustaining cycles into catastrophic die-offs of human and non-human life forms.
It's interesting that the Greens mention technology without mentioning the possibility that technological innovation might assuage many of the predicted problems of increasing population.
Julian Simon argued that while "resources" are finite, human innovation is theoretically infinite. Meanwhile, what counts as a "resource" changes. Once upon a time, oil would decrease property values, and was nothing more than an expensive mess. Nowadays, oil counts as a resource. We don't know what will count as a resource in the future. And as the price of a given resource increases, so too does the incentive for a) finding more of it, b) finding alternatives to it, and c) finding new ways to reuse the resource.
In general, the supply and demand dynamics of the market are a good method of signaling to market actors what people want, what its relative monetary value is compared with other goods in the economy, as well as the trade-offs and opportunity costs that need to be taken into account. This is just as true of oil and gas as it is for water, something the Greens specifically mention.
Issues of migration, trade, equity, militarism and environmental degradation are all important factors in the question of whether there are too many humans.
Yet, ideas for curbing population growth have, in the past, been ineffective and unacceptable. Some have violated basic human rights. Forced sterilizations of women are but one example of the worst aspects of misguided population policies.
Here is the Green vision:
Fortunately, the solution to population growth is within our grasp. It is well established that when poverty is alleviated and particularly when women and girls are educated, access to primary health care, political autonomy and economic power, fertility rates drop. This has been demonstrated time and time again, in nations around the Earth. One particularly instructive example is Saudi Arabia. It is the only nation where literacy and health care and economic well-being have not led to declining fertility. Women there lack economic rights and political autonomy. All elements are essential to respect women’s human rights and to reduce the dangerous spiral in population numbers as much as possible.
Given the vision, I think a strong case can be made for free market environmentalism. Hernando de Soto (who I met recently) has argued persuasively that the alleviation of poverty through, in particular, private property rights has led to increased education rates amongst women in education, and increased economic activity through the creation of credit (having a title to your property serves as good collateral for borrowing--a fundamental requirement of entrepreneurship).
Private property rights are the big lacunae in left-of-centre policies. Not only do private property rights promote individual autonomy by giving each of us a private space safe from the incursions of the government, they are also an absolutely necessary part of a well-functioning economy. At bottom, it is the alleviation of poverty that leads to positive environmental outcomes, increased education amongst not just women but all children, and improves lives. For that, we need free markets and private property. It's a shame the left is allergic to both.
h/t JL
Posted by P.M. Jaworski on October 6, 2008 in Canadian Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e20105354a892f970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Policy double-take: Greens want to reduce or slow global population:
Comments
Typical feminist bunkum. This argument strongly suggests that its framers deeply resent their natural role as child-bearers. They don't have to bear children themselves, but for them to tell other people they shouldn't is the height of arrogance. Just look at David Suzuki, who lectured on the evils of overpopulation back in the 1970s, and then had five children of his own.
If the Greens are truly concerned that this planet has too many people, let them be the first ones to depart. Perhaps others will be inspired by their example.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-10-06 12:38:36 PM
This looks like the same old hogwash. First, women have a right to their bodily functions. Second, they have a right to terminate with prejudice unborn infants. Third, they may believe they contribute to the 'environment' by not having babies. Soon, old people may be terminated because they have too much and contribute little to the environment; they may be looked upon as being in the way of the good life.
Posted by: Agha Ali Arkahn | 2008-10-06 1:14:45 PM
The more people there are, the more resources get consumed and the more the environmental is degraded.
We have already exceeded an optimum population according to my values. Our present population of 6.7 billion cannot be sustained in the long-term under any lifestyle because we are already depleting earth's resources faster than earth can produce them.
On my blog I offer my opinion on what an optimum population for Canada and the world would be and how to get there.
Sincerely,
Brishen Hoff
President of Biodiversity First
Posted by: Brishen Hoff | 2008-12-19 5:03:09 AM
The more people there are, the more resources get consumed and the more the environmental is degraded.
Posted by: Brishen Hoff | 2008-12-19 5:03:09 AM
Well we saw what solutions were offered by Hitler, Stalin and Mao....what's yours?
Posted by: JC | 2008-12-19 7:01:45 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.