I came across this post as the result of a Google Alert. It's refreshing to see so many people concerned about population growth.
I'd like to add an entirely new dimension to the discussion. I am the author of a new book titled "Five Short Blasts: A New Economic Theory Exposes The Fatal Flaw in Globalization and Its Consequences for America." This new theory proposes that, as population density grows beyond some optimum level, per capita consumption begins to decline. This happens because, as people are forced to crowd together and conserve space, it becomes ever more impractical to own many products. Declining per capita consumption, in the face of rising productivity (which always rises), inevitably yields rising unemployment and poverty. And poverty is the leading cause of death around the world.
This theory has major ramifications for U.S. policy regarding population and trade. The population implication is obvious, but why trade? It's because these effects of a high population density - unemployment and poverty - are actually imported when we attempt to engage in free trade with nations that are much more densely populated. We essentially become a combined nation with a combined labor force. The work of manufacturing is spread evenly across the combined labor force. The more densely populated nation gets free access to our healthy market while we, in return, receive access to a market that is emaciated by crowding and low per capita consumption. The result is an automatic, irreversible trade deficit and a loss of jobs.
Typically, anyone who expresses concern about population growth is immediately dismissed by economists as a Malthusian. In 1798 Thomas Robert Malthus wrote his "Essay on Population." In this essay he theorized that the human population, which tends to grow exponentially, would always be held in check by a shortage of food, the production of which only grows arithmetically, he thought. The effects of this shortage became known as "misery and vice" and Malthus' theory caused the field of economics to be dubbed "The Dismal Science." Of course, Malthus had no way of foreseeing the incredible advances that would be made in food production through fertilization, irrigation, mechanized plowing and harvesting, genetic seed development, and so on. But he was ultimately proven wrong and is now reviled by economists. To this day, economists are taught to ignore the effects of population growth. They dismiss it by assuming that man is ingenious enough to overcome any resource shortage or harm to the environment through conservation, recycling, yield improvement, substitution, and so on.
Unlike Malthus, my theory deals not with resources but with space. The very act of attempting to use space more efficiently does harm to the economy by driving down per capita consumption and increasing unemployment and poverty. It is utterly unavoidable. Additional space cannot be created. Erecting taller buildings is the very epitome of conserving space. A single foundation is shared by more tenants. Walls are shared. Floors and ceilings are shared, and so on, reducing the per capita consumption of all the materials used in their construction. Space cannot be created by pushing back the sea, as the Dutch have done, because it simply raises the sea level infinitesimally, reducing space slightly in all other regions of the world.
If you're interested in learning more about this new theory, please visit my web site at OpenWindowPublishingCo.com, where you can read the preface for free, join in my blog discussion and even purchase the book if you like. (It's also available at Amazon.com.) The book is written in plain language -not economic gibberish - and is aimed at average Americans.
Forgive the spammish nature of this reply, but I don't know how else to inject this new thinking into the discussion of population growth without at least letting people know the origin of this new idea.
Pete Murphy
Author, Five Short Blasts
Slashdot Mirror
I came across this post as the result of a Google Alert. It's refreshing to see so many people concerned about population growth. I'd like to add an entirely new dimension to the discussion. I am the author of a new book titled "Five Short Blasts: A New Economic Theory Exposes The Fatal Flaw in Globalization and Its Consequences for America." This new theory proposes that, as population density grows beyond some optimum level, per capita consumption begins to decline. This happens because, as people are forced to crowd together and conserve space, it becomes ever more impractical to own many products. Declining per capita consumption, in the face of rising productivity (which always rises), inevitably yields rising unemployment and poverty. And poverty is the leading cause of death around the world. This theory has major ramifications for U.S. policy regarding population and trade. The population implication is obvious, but why trade? It's because these effects of a high population density - unemployment and poverty - are actually imported when we attempt to engage in free trade with nations that are much more densely populated. We essentially become a combined nation with a combined labor force. The work of manufacturing is spread evenly across the combined labor force. The more densely populated nation gets free access to our healthy market while we, in return, receive access to a market that is emaciated by crowding and low per capita consumption. The result is an automatic, irreversible trade deficit and a loss of jobs. Typically, anyone who expresses concern about population growth is immediately dismissed by economists as a Malthusian. In 1798 Thomas Robert Malthus wrote his "Essay on Population." In this essay he theorized that the human population, which tends to grow exponentially, would always be held in check by a shortage of food, the production of which only grows arithmetically, he thought. The effects of this shortage became known as "misery and vice" and Malthus' theory caused the field of economics to be dubbed "The Dismal Science." Of course, Malthus had no way of foreseeing the incredible advances that would be made in food production through fertilization, irrigation, mechanized plowing and harvesting, genetic seed development, and so on. But he was ultimately proven wrong and is now reviled by economists. To this day, economists are taught to ignore the effects of population growth. They dismiss it by assuming that man is ingenious enough to overcome any resource shortage or harm to the environment through conservation, recycling, yield improvement, substitution, and so on. Unlike Malthus, my theory deals not with resources but with space. The very act of attempting to use space more efficiently does harm to the economy by driving down per capita consumption and increasing unemployment and poverty. It is utterly unavoidable. Additional space cannot be created. Erecting taller buildings is the very epitome of conserving space. A single foundation is shared by more tenants. Walls are shared. Floors and ceilings are shared, and so on, reducing the per capita consumption of all the materials used in their construction. Space cannot be created by pushing back the sea, as the Dutch have done, because it simply raises the sea level infinitesimally, reducing space slightly in all other regions of the world. If you're interested in learning more about this new theory, please visit my web site at OpenWindowPublishingCo.com, where you can read the preface for free, join in my blog discussion and even purchase the book if you like. (It's also available at Amazon.com.) The book is written in plain language -not economic gibberish - and is aimed at average Americans. Forgive the spammish nature of this reply, but I don't know how else to inject this new thinking into the discussion of population growth without at least letting people know the origin of this new idea. Pete Murphy Author, Five Short Blasts