January 6, 2003
NOT WITH A BANG, BUT A WHIMPER:
The Myth of Too Many (Michael Fumento, January 2003, Focus on the Family)You can't estimate population growth with a calculator because simple mathematical formulas don't take into account underlying circumstances such as fertility rates. But we do know that in almost every nation women are having fewer children, with those in about 60 nations already giving birth at a rate far less than the replacement rate.Want some numbers? While world population has more than doubled since 1950 to the current 6.3 billion, according to the United Nations, the population will top out between 2050 and 2075. Demographer and American Enterprise Institute scholar Nicholas Eberstadt says it's likely to come on the earlier end of that estimate, when the world hits 8 billion by 2050. "I think it's perfectly plausible that world population could peak by 2050 or even sooner and perhaps at a level below 8 billion," says Eberstadt, noting the past 35 years of declining fertility rates.
Thus the world in the next half century will have fewer additional people to take care of than it did in the last half century. In percentage terms, while it handled 100 percent more people in the last 50 years, it will only have to deal with 27 percent more in the next 50. Granted, that's still a lot of people. But it's a long way from apocalyptic.
[T]here is one vital resource in which we may develop a shortage in the next few decades: us.
That's because the world's population won't just conveniently level off after it peaks; more likely it will drop like a stone.
According to U.N. Population Division Director Joseph Chamie, current population projections assume the earth is moving toward an average fertility level of 1.85 children per woman. Considering that a 2.1 level is needed to sustain a population, the planet's population would peak at 7.5 billion by 2050 and fall to 5.3 billion by 2150.
And that has interesting political implications, since the decline will not be evenly distributed among nations. The populations of several Soviet-bloc nations already are falling because of declining birth rates and emigration. Japan is expecting its population to peak in 2006 and then drop by 14 percent (almost 20 million people) by 2050. Germany expects a similar decline, while Italy and Hungary may lose 25 percent of their populations and Russia a third. These nations already are becoming giant "leisure worlds," with Depends outselling Pampers.
Any of you old enough to remember those ads that Dannon used to run, with all the 130 year old Russian villagers? The Europeans and Japanese better all start woofing yogurt because they're going to have to work into their hundreds if they're going to pay for any kind of retirement system. Posted by Orrin Judd at January 6, 2003 11:52 AM
The alternative would be to increase
productivity at a faster rate.
This is not easy to do in, eg, Japan but would
be pretty easy in Russia and very easy in
most of the areas where population isn't
declining. Because most agriculture is still
pursued by obsolete methods.
If wheat yields in the Koran Belt (1 ton/hectare)
were the same as in the US (6 tons/hectare),
then the poverty that people keep reminding
us is the lot of the Moslem would be
considerably reduced.
Or, if they really wanted to work hard, they
could strike for European levels -- 15 tons/
hectare.
But achieving similar advances in industrial
productivity is hard. Commoditization of nearly
everything helps in the long run but it is not
clear whether industrial economies can
sustain themselves, much less grow rapidly,
if all profit margins are reduced.
Ricardo may have been wrong about the Iron
Law of Wages. I predict an Iron Law of Profits
is going to start displaying itself. It already
has, but economists don't see it.
What's the likelihood of an Iron Law of Profits manifesting itself?
Posted by: DLirag at January 6, 2003 11:44 PM100%. It's already manifested itself in my
county.
Globalization and declining population seem almost certain to result in both Iron Laws, of Wages and of Profits.
Posted by: oj at January 7, 2003 12:18 PM