The Environment: Population Growth is the Solution, not the Problem!

This woman seems to believe that she’s helping to save the planet by not having any kids. Her math is pretty simple: a few more human beings means less resources, more burden on the environment, and so on. She likes the environment the way it is it seems, and fair enough.

But I think she’s got it totally backwards. Economist Julian Simon had it right, I think: the lesson of human progress is that more people means more minds to solve problems, and we can ultimately solve problems faster than we make them. What matters is not the number of people, but whether they have the education and the political and economic liberty to act and adapt. That doesn’t mean we can’t improve and preserve the natural environment if that’s what we value. It’s just that the only plausible way we’ll be able to do so is via political and technological solutions.

Less kids doesn’t do anything to bring those solutions about, and it just as well might mean less scientists, thinkers, and workers willing to innovate those solutions and then bring them into being. Worse, if she presumably would have raised her kids to care about the environment, it will also just mean a lower percentage of people on the planet that share that value!

Less total people does not necessarily mean more resources consumed in any case. If the supply of human beings is lower, then this means the price of the world’s resources overall will be less (since the supply is the same, but demand has reduced): everyone left could and probably would just ultimately consume more. Less people just means bigger shares of the earth for everyone else, not less consumption period.

So this woman’s decision to sterilize herself is probably pointless, at least insofar as reaching her goal of a cleaner earth. Luckily, someone has already thought of a solution to such poor judgment: tubal ligations can now be surgically reversed!

Advertisements

11 Responses to The Environment: Population Growth is the Solution, not the Problem!

  1. david says:

    you’re logic doesn’t make any sense. you should research more before you open your mouth.

  2. Bad says:

    If you’re going to accuse someone of getting their logic wrong, then you’re sort of obligated to actually explain what the logical errors are. Otherwise, you might as well not have mentioned “logic” at all, and just said “nyah nyah!”

    I, at least, put my reasoning out there for people to see and critique. you, oin the other hand, seem to think it’s okay to open your mouth without anything substantive coming out of it other than sneering.

    • bob says:

      It couldn’t explain the logical errors because the entire article is logical errors. Example:
      “Less total people does not necessarily mean more resources consumed in any case.”
      less people does necessarily mean less resources consumed, which is true, and goes against what the article is saying.
      Example:
      “Less kids doesn’t do anything to bring those solutions about, and it just as well might mean less scientists, thinkers, and workers willing to innovate those solutions and then bring them into being.”
      Less kids does mean less contributors to society, but it also means less criminals, polluters, and burdens to society, so having less kids does just as much good as bad.
      Example:
      “everyone left could and probably would just ultimately consume more.”
      If there were less people in the world, would I use more gas? or eat more food? No, regardless of the number of people, I would use the same amount of resources.

  3. Roshna says:

    i strongly agree with this writing… Population is not a problem.. It is a solution….!!!!!!!!!!!

  4. Kathy says:

    I think you make some very valid points and excellent reasoning. The ecology doom mongers and population doomsayers seem to have an underlying dislike for homo sapiens. Their solution to protect resources is to limit the number of humans on the planet. But they fail to recognise that the human imagination is also a valuable resource too – and this we can never have too much. We need our imaginations and inventiveness, and having less people in the world is therefore counter productive in reducing our impact upon the planets resources since our vast imaginations are required to create new alternatives.

    I think your thoughts are rational and logical. I applaud you.

  5. […] Environment: Population Growth is the Solution, not the Problem! The Environment: Population Growth is the Solution, not the Problem!politics, global warming, environment, philosophy, […]

  6. Musab Ashraf says:

    It was really an EXCELLENT article. I strongly agree with all the points.
    Chicken and cattle are breed with no fear because we feel that they are productive. Why can’t we think that human beings are the most productive ?

  7. bob says:

    “What matters is not the number of people, but whether they have the education and the political and economic liberty to act and adapt.”
    At first you say more people is better because it’s more minds to solve problems, then you say the number of people doesn’t matter. Less people means they will have a better education, better economic situation, etc. More people would mean everyone had less resources, so a worse education and a lower standard of living.

  8. Firoz Patel says:

    Firoz Patel

    The Environment: Population Growth is the Solution, not the Problem! | The Bad Idea Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: