Manuela Mesa

Your comments about the governments of “free countries” and NGO’s like the World Bank and IMF, and corporations supporting dictatorship supports Tom Sullivan’s view for free markets and smaller government. As for private equity and corporate interests in developing countries with free markets, look no further than the rebuilding of east Germany and Japan, and the rise of Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore.

More over, the thesis of Milton Friedman was that free markets not only lead to economic prosperity, but also to greater political freedom. Take a look at the greatest modern free market advocate and where his “support” and advisory for the Chile’s dictatorship has taken our country compared to our neighbors.

1. First let’s determine what “resources” we mean by this world and what “limits” we hit. Take energy. Is is sunlight (10,000x of all our energy consumption totally just on this planet, 2x growth of actual solar power facilities every 2 years = enough power to feed all energy needs by 2030 just with solar, and all the “peak oil” nightmares follow the way of 1900′s prediction of giant heaps of horse manure in city streets), is that other energy sources (1% of total solar energy or 100x current energy production can be produced from other sources (nuclear, thermonuclear, space solar) without overheating the planet)? These are the planetary energy limits, and we are far, far away from them. Won’t be anywhere near in a hundrer years.

2. Raw materials. Let’s not forget that technology always changes, so demand does. In 1980 an overpopulation fearmonger Paul Ehrlich made a wager with Julian L. Simon about increasing prices for 5 chosen raw materials — and lost it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon-Ehrlich_wager). The reason is: a) if any particular material increases in price, people soon find an alternative tech using other cheaper materials; b) as tech improves, more and more consumed materials can be reused & recycled. So there CAN be ECONOMIC growth which is “sustainable” and uses less natural resources — and less energy — because what kind of growth we need is one of end results (products in actual use, services, knowledges, experiences) and not of raw material price of them (which always gets cheaper).

3. Land and food. In general, there is no shortage of land on earth, just in some regions which have been ruled for long by not-so-smart politicians, like Haiti. There are no physical limits for current global population or for 2x, 3x or even more. There is only politics. In US agricultural production is for decades artificically reduced in order to hold prices; actually, people in poor countries don’t have enough food because they don’t have enough knowledge, skills and economic opportunities to buy it (and to make rich countries produce it). Once they have, they do. And the land productivity always increases: first there was the Green revolution, now coming the second one (yes, with GMO:) — and with less using of dangerous chemicals and less using of land itself, making us able to return it to forests etc.). Then we are developing vertical farms, in vitro meat and other solutions to reduce land use and ecologic burden per person more and more. So there is certainly light in the end of the tunnel.

But how about the population growth itself?

As the stats, including this site, say, it is not exponential anymore. It is flattening since 1960s. Why? Because urban population does not follow the same way of life that rural does, and that Malthus and Malthusians described. People, once well educated and able to control birth, just do not want to make extra expenses for children — they prefer less and later. So the more developed and educated our population is, the lower its birthrate. Birthrates are falling everywhere, from Japan to Africa — as life expectancy is rising. This is one more factor of decreasing birthrates — there’s no reason to hurry making many children when you know you can live at least for 100, so one at about 40 would be enough, and longer life means more time, more wealth, higher education and more knowledge.

Sure, the population is still growing, but this is an inertial growth. Almost everywhere it doesn’t override the economic growth and human development anymore. Where it still overrides, poverty still remains, but the amount of such zones and people living there is reducing. Africa — the last of such large poverty zones — is becoming to get out of there, as billions of Asians did before. (What Hans Rosling actually shows, I strongly recommend to watch all his videos again.) What really matters, it’s not absolute population growth, it’s relative growth — people vs. economy, people vs. technology, people vs. education, healthcare, environmental science etc., and all these factors of quality are growing far faster than population in most parts of the world and making their way into remaining poverty zones.

So the GLOBAL POPULATION GROWTH IS NOT AN ISSUE ANYMORE. Of course, THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES: economical, political, environmental, social. No one says we can relax and not face existing and new challenges. But all of them are, one way on another, solvable by human mind.

It is actually a matter of values. I value a human being as an conscious entity who has intelligence to recognize problems lying ahead — and solve them. (The “overpopulation” problem is where too many people have not enough experience, knowledge and other kinds of human capital to begin solving their problems on fundamental, and not only personal, level.) Then I value the nature as the common resource, necessary for humans to survive and develop. This includes not only our physical needs, but going beyond them (diversity, animal rights etc.). These “excesses” are necessary to ensure further progress of humanity as a value: there are calls for total abolition of animal slaughter, their suffering etc. But let’s not make a buggy draw the loco! All these achievements of humanity will not have any value if achieved for a cost of human life and dignity. We can set the goal to increase total area of forests twice, or to eradicate the need for livestock production — by making all the needed extra food available by new smart techs and logistics and social politics etc, but not by making millions of people starving — or die, which is exactly what you proposed by such generalization.

Instead, what really matters is not pure population growth in quantity, but quality. Too high birthrate over time in those societies when it goes against economic and social achievements means increasing poverty. But again, once a human being is born, he/she has rights. Our clear focus should be on giving potential “multi-moms” of poor countries education and decent work so they could focus on themselves — and then on the world. And this goal is also achievable, as Hans’s stats shows — work in progress. Birthrates are falling, opportunities are rising. And the opportunity to save nature, too.

Let’s also not to forget the underpopulation and aging of more developed societies. Migration is not a perfect solution (although in general I’m against any borders and restrictions, but human development and safety first), only a part of it. Other parts include automation of jobs needing extra work force, some kind of birth stimilation policy (which has also a limited access) and, which is only beginning and the most promisable — fighting aging and increasing human health and productivity in new ways. These solutions could lead to a different kind of population growth which is good for humanity and the planet as it increases total human capital (knowledge, experience, motivation, happiness) as opposed to uncontrollable growth in poverty zones.

So, let’s not to generalize and stigmatize “population growth” in quantity as something definitely bad. It all depends on QUALITY. And human development is a key. Which is exactly what Hans is showing us.

I strongly encourage you to learn about the laws that sustainability is related to :
The first law of sustainability is :

First Law: Population growth and / or growth in the rates of consumption of resources cannot be sustained.

I suggest that you read about this. Because your logic is not logic. If we all make more babies, we already have 6.8 billion people, we will compete for food, and that’s not a good thing.

There is only so much food we can produce on the planet. The world stock pile of food have been in decline for the last 30 years. we destroys forest, we are warming the planet which create droughts and less food.

people cannot survive without food. We can choose to control our population size, otherwise, nature will choose it with famine, war, diseases, etc.

A) A population growth rate less than or equal to zero and declining rates of consumption of resources are a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for a sustainable society.

B) Unsustainability will be the certain result of any program of “development,” that does not plan the achievement of zero (or a period of negative) growth of populations and of rates of consumption of resources. This is true even if the program is said to be “sustainable.”

C) The research and regulation programs of governmental agencies that are charged with protecting the environment and promoting “sustainability” are, in the long run, irrelevant, unless these programs address vigorously and quantitatively the concept of carrying capacities and unless the programs study in depth the demographic causes and consequences of environmental problems.

D) Societies, or sectors of a society, that depend on population growth or growth in their rates of consumption of resources, are unsustainable.

E) Persons who advocate population growth and / or growth in the rates of consumption of resources are advocating unsustainability.

F) Persons who suggest that sustainability can be achieved without stopping population growth are misleading themselves and others.

G) Persons whose actions directly or indirectly cause increases in population or in the rates of consumption of resources are moving society away from sustainability.

(Advertising your city or state as an ideal site in which to locate new factories, indicates a desire to increase the population of your city or state.)

H) The term “Sustainable Growth” is an oxymoron.