Come, let us grow old together.

Daniel Engber has discovered the ZPG and voluntary extinction people:

Instead of burning down our numbers with oil and gas, we might follow the advice of the founder of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, who tells Weisman that everyone in the world should stop having kids all at once. Weisman isn't up for quite so drastic a measure, but he makes his own pitch, moderate in comparison: Let's cut the birth rate to one child per couple, for a few generations at least. The population would dwindle by about 5 billion people over the next century, he says, ensuring the habitability of the Earth for the 1.6 billion who remained. At that point, they could all reap the rewards of a more spacious planet, sharing in "the growing joy of watching the world daily become more wonderful." It seems like a notion from the fringe, but Weisman's book has become a mainstream best seller. Could population control be the next big thing in green culture?

He leaves out the strong probability that a planet that has only one child per couple will see its elderly abandoned quite early in their senescence. The elderly are extremely heavy consumers of labor intensive services. And unlike caring for children, caring for them is rarely rewarding, which is why they so often end up crammed alone, into nursing homes. This might be a good strategy for the planet, but it's a terrible strategy for the planet's future old people. Which I hope includes all of us.

Comments

And unlike caring for children, caring for them is rarely rewarding, which is why they so often end up crammed alone, into nursing homes.

I bet you've never had to be primary care for an aged relative. Nursing care for the elderly is often a 24 hour a day regimen. If you can't abandon a job for the task or need to sleep at night, you can't assume that responsibility. "Warehousing" the aged isn't as common as you think.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 12, 2007 9:38 AM

I can't be bothered to read the whole thing and decide if Engber's for real or not, but this movement seems to be.

This is a logical conclusion once you have decided that there is objective moral good in "protecting the environment" (which you can and have quantified, of course), but none in humanity or human progress. The one step remaining until green apotheosis simply involves changing one word of the movement's name.

Posted by Kwyjibo | September 12, 2007 9:40 AM

There's so, so much more wrong these ideas than their consequences for old people.

jenny

Posted by jenny | September 12, 2007 9:41 AM

There's so, so much more wrong these ideas than their consequences for old people.

jenny

Posted by jenny | September 12, 2007 9:41 AM
----------------------------
jenny - Like what?

I agree there is something that causes one to recoil a bit from this idea..something beyond just the author's dislike for the current 'mass of humanity'.

I believe there is a great deal of good that could come from reducing humanity's numbers and I think that will become a fact as we become more educated and the poor have opportunities for self-actualization beyond having 12 kids. It will take longer than Weisman thinks, but it will happen eventually. Hopefully, we can hold off holocaust in the meanwhile.

I plan to read Weisman's book because the closest thing I've had to a religious experience was sitting on a peak in the Cascades and not hearing or seeing even a sign of another human being. Try that, and I promise you'll at least have a taste of what Weisman is thinking about.

Yes, I have one child and that's all I'll have.

Posted by Michael W | September 12, 2007 9:51 AM

Guess what? Mainstream environmentalism doesn't want you to stop having kids. It wants you to have 2. And guess what? Mainstream environmentalists believe that reduced per-woman fertility, falling roughly to the replacement rate, is a natural consequence of economic growth that has shown up quite rapidly in every society in the world that's experienced adequate growth and increased longevity.

There are some fringe environmentalists, completely lacking in power as well as in political acumen, who would like fertility to drop further. (Note that per-woman fertility rates falling towards 1 have in fact been the natural result of economic progress in a number of countries, including Japan and Italy.) The US press will seize upon such people because it likes to play to the fears of what it thinks of as "mainstream Americans". The environmentalists are coming to neuter us! They want to give the land back to the buffalo! This is all a load of crap, much akin to the frenzied attempts to shock us with the revelation that Al Gore flies on airplanes (gasp!).

It's ridiculous that Megan, having just spent days carping that all conservatives are tarred with the wacko supply-sider brush, would lend any credence to this transparent and really low attempt to demonize environmentalism, a movement whose success truly is crucial to our efforts to leave a decent and healthy planet to our grandchildren, by associating it with its least important and most unworldly, sci-fi-ish elements.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 12, 2007 9:58 AM

Abandoning the elderly (and even, I think, sort of the opposite, where the elderly (or soon-to-be elderly like my parents) have successfully planned for their retirement, and insist they don't want to be a burden on their children, which kind of amounts to the same thing) seems like a very Western, and maybe even a very American, phenomenon. Don't most other cultures maintain extended families? That seems more like what you'd get.

If we had large massive ongoing population declines, the value of labor would go up, more working-age adults would be in the labor force, and the elderly would tend to the children and older children would tend to the elderly. It seems like. But maybe I'm being too cavalier with "children," since there are going to be a bunch less of them, too.

Posted by greg claxton | September 12, 2007 10:45 AM

Ulyanovsk, Russia Gov. Sergei Morozov has decreed Sept. 12 a Day of Conception and is giving couples time off from work to procreate. Couples who give birth nine months later on Russia's national day — June 12 — will receive money, cars, refrigerators and other prizes.

I question the timing.

Posted by Neo | September 12, 2007 11:00 AM

The elderly are extremely heavy consumers of labor intensive services.

This is why we need a Manhattan Project for ass-wiping robots!

Posted by sloo | September 12, 2007 11:33 AM

Brooksfoe,

No Megan supporter I, but I don't think Megan meant to tar enviornmentalists with the ZPG folks.

Posted by Justin | September 12, 2007 11:40 AM

Micheal - Reduced population tends to result in reduced or even negative economic growth, often even a a per capita basis. It might not be so bad if the reduction is slow and not very large, but if we go to a one child per couple average we will create problems. It would reduce population too quickly (something that happens over generations might not seam quick but in this context it is) and disrupt the economy. Also with fewer people you have less minds coming up with new ideas. There is also the issue that the world still consists of countries that are potentially hostile to each other. If the US reduces its population it becomes relatively less powerful against the rest of the world.

Posted by Tim Fowler | September 12, 2007 11:40 AM

Tim - I agree with your assertions in the short-run, however, I'm talking over many generations..at a minimum 10 (just pulling a number from the air)..but maybe a lot more. I think it's inevitable population will decline.
As for economic issues, one hopes (without being labeled a wing-nut, please) that our collective wealth and avenues for seeking happiness will expand beyond our Charles Schwab balances.
As for "less minds coming up with new ideas", I think that a better educated population half the size of the one we have now without the unremitting pressure of wars and other mania would likely be a lot more productive. Also, the nation-state is already in decline. Borders will open. War will likely continue in a much different format..in fact it has changed remarkably in the last 25 years.

Your assertions logically lead to the suggestion that we should all have as many kids as possible, so that:
1 - There will be more (though not necessarily better) idea-producers.
2 - We'll be more powerful (hmmm China has 4x our population but is considered militarily weak in comparison)
3 - We might see economic contraction (well, ok, if my overall quality of life improves I'll give up the extra $$).

Yours is an emotional argument. I'm not persuaded.

Posted by Michael W | September 12, 2007 12:02 PM

Well, Ehrlich's Population Bomb didn't quite have it right with the disasters that were sure to follow. Thanks to the handy genetic engineering and scientific and agricultural advances made, we stepped aside from that bullet.

There are many in the deep ecology movement that very much want to see a drastic reduction in human population. Something back to the 1 billion amount for some, whereas others would like to just see humanity disappear. Of course, the other group, called 'mainstream environmentalists' call for other actions to create a better world for our grandchildren. Sorry, folks, but the earth has many tricks up 'er sleeve, and we don't have all that much control over what happens.

As for the doom-gloomers, read an open mind with great credentials, and see what you think.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Posted by beneficial | September 12, 2007 12:04 PM

"reap the rewards of a more spacious planet"

Anyone who thinks the planet is not spacious enough should drive from, I don't know, Austin to Seattle. And that's just staying in the (relatively heavily) populated United States. If that doesn't do it, a short jaunt to Outer Mongolia might cure their perceived cosmo-claustrophobia.

It just so happens that lots of people choose to cram themselves into tight urban spaces. There's lots of room out there, though -- you just have to give up the amenities of urban life to get it. And let's not forget that if the world were more spacious, we'd all we too busy with a plough or anvil to be reaping many rewards.

Posted by Jared | September 12, 2007 12:15 PM

Jared -

At the risk of becoming shrill on this matter....

It's not just about open-space. It's about carrying-capacity. Our "quality of life" requires much of that open space be dedicated to tilling corn and producing coal (not to mention the oxygen we breathe). I've driven across Nevada, and it's nice to see the open desert, but you're not going to grow corn there, and you aren't going to move there unless you're willing to truck water from the Hoover Dam (ohhh, if there's anything left of the Colorado River after the irrigators get done).

Manhattanites (I am one) don't (generally) have a freaking clue where their groceries or anything else comes from. It all comes from "somewhere else" (meaning any place that does not include one especially crowded and filthy island). I'll be leaving Manhattan soon (for many reasons) but the big one is: You can get the same information anywhere and what other "amenities" cannot be had now elsewhere and at less cost (and no, not a big Broadway fan)?

To suggest that the planet could support the average American (even the average Manhattanite) lifestyle for everyone everywhere is refuted by any glance at the statistics. Who'd want to live in a place without some open space (dedicated Manhattanites who have the resources have a "country" or "beach" home...).

Individual restraint and birth control.....with that the plough and anvil would take up no greater percentage of the population than it does now (and likely a lot less as a better skilled and knowledgeable humanity wouldn't be spending much time without western-standard mechanization on the farm).

Posted by Michael W | September 12, 2007 12:29 PM

The big problem with control of population is that it takes only a very small minority of people who for whatever reason refuse to go along with it for the entire idea to fall apart. If 95% of the population agrees to have 1 child per couple, and 5% goes ahead and has 4-6 per couple, then in a few generations the population is made up almost entirely of the descendents of the 5%, and the total population hasn't gone down at all. Even in a wealthy society this can occur for cultural or religious reasons - for example the large # of children that Mormons have.

Posted by Eric Gagen | September 12, 2007 12:49 PM

1960
Human population: 3 billion
Animals killed: 7,5 billion
(not counting fish)

2000
Human population: 6 billion
Animals killed: 50 billion

Increase in land, water: 0%
(if anything there is a decrease)

Population control is not a "what do you think about it topic" - it is a "since we HAVE TO - HOW do we do it" issue? I would LOVE for some Chinese or Indian readers to comment on this?

Unless of course you are a statist who does not believe in the mathematical limitations of Earth... then you do need more young people to pay for the state pensions and health care of the old in order to cover you debt. problem is that due to overspending we enter a vicious cycle where we need to double our population every few decades... that is not sustainable at all!

Math alone tells us that we cannot afford to grow in numbers, that we have to reduce livestock agriculture and that we have to improve our technologies to be more "green" (aka resource efficient).

How much money do you have, how much could you potentially earn, how much debt can you repay, how much do you spend, etc.. and economist or banker would scream: STOP!!

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | September 12, 2007 12:51 PM

Michael W,

We can't simultaneously assert that the deserts of Nevada are below average territory for human life and that Manhattan has nothing that is not available everywhere else.

Furthermore, I'm not suggesting that anyone prefers ceteris paribus "no open space" to "open space". My point is that it's a false dichotomy, and is so on two fronts. First of all, there is lots of open space already. (Maybe not of the form or locations you prefer, but it exists in spades.) Second of all, all other things are not equal. If there really was nothing at all cities have to offer, why has urbanization been such a steady long-term trend? There must be something causing people to make rational decisions to move into high population environments.

(I would argue that this factor is largely job opportunities resulting from economies of scale, but maybe not. You seem to have a job requiring access to information and little else. Few are so liberated. How many yoga instructors per capita will you find in Manhattan vs Wyndmere, ND?)

I guess the crux of the matter is this: Does an increased population allow for increased specialization? Does increased specialization lead to increased productivity? Does increased productivity lead to increased utility? Finally and most importantly, is this increase super-linear with respect to population? I would answer yes to all those; it seems you might answer no to at least one. I think if we disagree on that line of results we're bound to disagree on the benefits of population contraction.

Posted by Jared | September 12, 2007 1:07 PM

It's ridiculous that Megan...would lend any credence to this transparent and really low attempt to demonize environmentalism

Sorry, but it's not transparent to me exactly who is engaging in a "really low" attempt to demonize [mainstream] environmentalism here. Are you saying Alan Weissman doesn't really believe what he suggests in The World Without Us?? Or was there a movement to buy his book and turn it into a bestseller, simply to smear the environmental movement "by associating it with its least important and most unworldly, sci-fi-ish elements"? Or was Daniel Engbar, who wrote the Slate article, the really low demonizer to which you refer? Or was it Megan when she commented on his piece?

Neither Engbar nor Megan claimed that either voluntary extinction or zero population growth were ideas embraced by mainstream environmentalists. In fact, Engbar drew an explicit distinction between proponents of population control and the Sierra Club or IPCC.

Is there supposed to be a journalistic code of silence about unorthodox ideas?

Posted by Rob Leder | September 12, 2007 1:45 PM

I plan to read Weisman's book because the closest thing I've had to a religious experience was sitting on a peak in the Cascades and not hearing or seeing even a sign of another human being.

More is the pity for you.

However your inability to enjoy a fulfilling inner life among the company of your fellow humans is not a rational basis for public policy.

Posted by Jim | September 12, 2007 2:00 PM

Micheal -

I disagree strongly that its inevitable that we will have fewer people in 10 or in 100 generations. It certainly is possible (birth rates are declining) but its far from certain, and it really isn't something that's necessary. (The above point applies both to considering "we" as the US, or as the whole world)

re - "Your assertions logically lead to the suggestion that we should all have as many kids as possible, so that:
1 - There will be more (though not necessarily better) idea-producers.
2 - We'll be more powerful (hmmm China has 4x our population but is considered militarily weak in comparison)
3 - We might see economic contraction (well, ok, if my overall quality of life improves I'll give up the extra $$)."

Your exaggerating my argument so that you can attack the exaggeration. Well maybe your not deliberately setting up and knocking down a strawman maybe you just don't understand my points completely.

The idea that we shouldn't try to decrease the population for the reasons I give doesn't mean we should increase it by whatever means necessary.

If we did all have 12 kids it would be difficult to educate or even feed them so we wouldn't gain the benefit of more healthy educated idea producers. But gradual population increases don't cause the same sort of problem, and certainly stable population doesn't.

As for "we will be more powerful", I didn't say the US would be more powerful if we all had huge numbers of children, I said it would be less powerful if its population declined. China would also be less powerful if its population declined to any great extent, so your China example is hardly a counter argument. Population is only one factor in military power. We have advantages over China in just about all the others. And we have a pretty large population as well. Cut our population by a third of a half or whatever number you want it to go down to and our ability to deploy force (esp. the "boots on the ground" type of force that we need for the type of wars we seem to get involved in) is reduced.

As for a better standard of living making up for less money. Well less wealth (at least if it actually represents less per capita wealth) will tend to produce a worse standard of living.

As for "emotional argument", mine is anything but. You obviously disagree with it, but that disagreement doesn't mean my argument is based on emotion. Even if its wrong (something you haven't shown to be the case) it isn't based on emotion.

As for your later argument about carrying capacity. Our carrying capacity is determined by our technology and infrastructure. It isn't one simple limit that never changes. Europe in the time of the Neanderthals had a much lower carrying capacity than it did during the height of the Roman Empire. Now it can carry many more people than it could in Roman times, and I expect that trend to continue.

Of course Europe really isn't the issue (its population isn't growing), but the same idea applies in other places.

re: "To suggest that the planet could support the average American (even the average Manhattanite) lifestyle for everyone everywhere is refuted by any glance at the statistics."

Given enough time, and technological and economic advancement, the planet should be able to support a population higher than todays at a standard of living many times greater than that of the average resident of Manhattan. And to an extent an increase in population can even contribute to this as it allows for greater specialization, as Jared does a good job of pointing out.

Rapid growth in countries with poor infrastructure and bad government could easily do more harm, even a lot more harm than the benefit from the increase in specialization. But if your talking about the US, I don't see any reason to make a major effort to restrain growth, let alone reverse it.

Posted by Tim Fowler | September 12, 2007 2:27 PM

Michael W,

Coming from a family of 13 children and hoping to have about 4 total of my own, I couldn't disagree with you more. Of course, in the long run I'll have the last laugh as our descendents will probably live to see the future, whereas you have slim hope of your line lasting much longer. Good luck on the road to extinction!

Posted by Christina | September 12, 2007 2:28 PM

Jim - on the contrary, I have great friends and family (some of whom also treasure the enjoyment of true wildnerness both alone and with company). I doubt I could live in Manhattan without some toleration for the species, but I am suggesting that to assign open space (of the quality kind, unlike Jared who equates desert and rain forest in terms of habitability) such a low priority does not recognize its utility as *open space*.

Jared - You're right I disagree, but it's about your fundamental premise not with your specific points on productivity which I won't (now) dispute. You argue that our overall good is improved by increased productivity. Why? My bank account is quite healthy, and it provides me some of the means for enjoying my life, but far from all. And it's those other areas in which I find our current condition somewhat lacking (regardless of the availability of Yoga instructors).

Urban living is desirable and efficient for most (though certainly not the pitiable suburbs cut-off from the benefits the cit offers), but I never forget what makes it possible.

"What is such a resource worth? Anything it costs. If we never hike it or step into its shade, if we only drive by occasionally and see the textures of green mountainside change under wind and sun, or the fog move soft feathers down the gulches, or the last sunset on the continent redden the sky beyond the ridge, we have our money's worth. We have been too efficient at destruction; we have left our souls too little space to breathe in. Every green natural place we save saves a fragment of our sanity and gives us a little more hope that we have a future."

- Wallace Stegner 1991

Posted by Michael W | September 12, 2007 2:29 PM

Christina - you're free to have as many as you wish but please don't ask me to subsidize any of their needs, and hopefully you'll teach them to live lighter on the earth and with a respect for their fellow human beings who will be feeling more of their elbows. Didn't realize quantity counted over quality - what a typically American point of view! (sorry, you asked for it)

Tim - you and Jared both both seem to have a US-centric worldview. First, I would point out that I look at this issue globally, which is the ONLY way to observe the effects.

You said: "Rapid growth in countries with poor infrastructure and bad government could easily do more harm, even a lot more harm than the benefit from the increase in specialization. But if your talking about the US, I don't see any reason to make a major effort to restrain growth, let alone reverse it."

Well, yes, and that's where most of the growth is, indeed, occuring (in other countries). Even if we hold the line on our own (U.S.) population, it's absolutely silly to assume we would be free of the effects of population increases in most other places. Yes, I suppose at some point we could all live in hermetically sealed environments that are completely artificial constructs indistiguishable from anywhere else on earth. THAT would be a pitiable life and not one that a Libertarian would find particularly enjoyable. As Megan and others reasonably point out - a more complex and populated society will necessitate acceeding some liberty if we're to get along. All Christina's children will hopefully not be allowing their dogs to crap on my sidewalk - regardless of whether there's a policeman present, but I wouldn't count on it.

Posted by Michael W | September 12, 2007 2:44 PM

Of course, in the long run I'll have the last laugh as our descendents will probably live to see the future, whereas you have slim hope of your line lasting much longer.

No, in the long run, you'll be dead, same as him. And if everyone were to pursue your strategy--doubling the population every generation--we would definitely lay waste the earth, and us with it.

Posted by greg claxton | September 12, 2007 2:58 PM

Michael,

As far as habitabilty for the species as a whole, no I obviously don't think deserts and rain forests are equally well suited, and I'm not sure where you got that idea. As far as their respective strengths as "open space" qua "open space" then I think they're absolutely equal. Why do all natural places have to be green? I think the deserts of the Southwest are the most beautiful part of this country. I know most would disagree. No, deserts and rain forests don't support the same amounts of human activity, but they're all equally valid choices for preference of unused land. And there are plenty of green open spaces left around as well. The route I suggested from San Antonio to Seattle goes through a whole lot of area that is decidedly not desert.

I'll just clarify the string of assertions I made eariler, because I don't think we do disagree on premises. I included "Does increased productivity lead to increased utility?" to avoid that problem. By "utility" I meant "overall good," as you put it. That seems to be the root of our disagreement: maybe you're right and falling productivity will not be a net detriment to our lives as a whole.

To clarify further, I happen to think this positive correlation between productivity and well-being does hold, although I'll be the first to admit that productivity and economic success are by no means whatsoever the only way to increase well-being. *I think there are many factors to our overall good, many of them non-monetary, but some undoubtably are.* Too what degree these factors are in effect is anyone's guess.

I agree we need open spaces, because there is inherrent value in nature. I just don't think we're running out of open space, and so I don't think cutting population back now is necessary.

Posted by Jared | September 12, 2007 3:06 PM

Jared - You're right, of course, that the deserts have as much value for me (and you) as any other, I was only referring to habitability for an expanding population. I spent a wonderful year near Tuscon, AZ and have been wanting to return ever since.

Perhaps it is because I was raised with an outdoor ethic that had me backpacking at age 9 that has made me viscerally aware of the disappearance of *true open space* and the lack of value assigned to such space in our society. The examples are legion. Presumably, the value assigned to open space will increase as it gets more rare. Unfortunately, in modern times, once it's developed, the land will stay that way and never be returned to nature (exceptions yes, but they are small)

I think we can increase productivity without increasing population. Has productivity in the U.S. (in GDP terms) not increased faster than the population? Putting that aside, you are correct that I don't place much long-term value in having a bigger population in order to increase overall economic wealth. I'm among those in favor of expanding our definition of what comprises humanity's 'balance sheet'.

Posted by Michael Williams | September 12, 2007 3:43 PM

Tim - My lengthy reply went to neverneverland, so I'll just say that my comments applied to a Global issue of population. Population issues can never be considered discretely to one country since nature recognizes no political boundary.

As for the assertion the earth can support without limit given the technology. Well, maybe...I don't know for sure, but I do know for sure it's not a world I'd like to live in very much. Everyplace hermetically sealed and looking identical to everywhere else......blah...

As I said elsewhere, "wealth" should not/cannot (in the future) be strictly determined by economic wealth. It isn't for me now (full disclosure: yes, I have a good job and am paid well above average which perhaps distorts my viewpoint).

Posted by Michael W | September 12, 2007 5:21 PM

Even without radical birth control policies, people have raised concerns about caring for the elderly. Productivity growth has easily outstripped the retiree/worker ratio, though.

As populations declined, less efficient properties could be abandoned, raising productivity even more than technology alone. This should allow for a significant inversion of the retiree/worker ratio.

There is another problem. The premise that we would make use of our resources as well as we do today might be unfounded. We use fairly efficient capitalist markets for a lot of distribution, but they don't work in shrinking economies. A rapidly declining population would likely result in a prolonged, shrinking economy, making capitalism unworkable.

We would need to find a way to shrink the population and the resources consumed while still maintaining a growing economy. A neat trick that. Maybe if we, quite literally, shrunk. It's Hobbit-time!

Posted by Njorl | September 12, 2007 6:03 PM

Christina, you sound like my kind of woman. Four is a good number, and to really stoke the birthrate furnace, make it one boy and three girls, or even steven to keep the pairings rates going well.

Whatever the cause, the human population growth is not a simple logarithmic or geometric rate. There are little things that get in the way and cause a few hiccups here and there. Probably the best solution would be to send out starships with a few hundred thousand humans on each, to 'seed the universe' with our progeny.

Of course, such talk probably causes the heart rate of the Gaia-types to come close to bursting a vessel. I can hear it now (because I HAVE heard it), why would I want to wish this foul cancer called humans to go anywhere else besides Gaia?

Christina, are you single? ;-)

Posted by beneficial | September 12, 2007 10:13 PM

Jared and Michael W: you may want to disaggregate "productivity" from "growth", and disaggregate both of those from "taking up more room". The French are as productive as Americans are -- more, if I recall correctly -- but have lower growth because they take their increased productivity as leisure.

Second, some of the world's least productive people take up the most room, and have the worst impact on the environment. Subsistence farmers in West Africa are driving their lands to ecological ruin; meanwhile, there isn't a square kilometer of Burkina Faso where you can have the sense of emptiness and nature you get in Arizona. Land that would be too arid to farm in the US is farmland there, precisely because those economies are so unproductive that there's nothing else for people to do. Helping those people get more productive -- i.e. richer -- is the only way to keep them from wrecking what is left of their natural environment. The glories of the American wilderness have been preserved in the US because people in the US have better things to do than eke a living out of marginal land.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 12, 2007 10:57 PM

Brooksfoe - agree. In a lengthier discussion certainly productivity, growth and open space should/would be separate issues. Getting back to the original issue of population, the linkage becomes more evident.
No issues with your argument to help economies like Burkina Faso which, in turn, benefits us all, and, if past patterns repeat, will in-turn drive down the birthrate. It may not be intuitively libertarian, yet me sense of responsibility tells me our overall 'commons' are improved if we bring a higher std of living to the third world (in a more sustainable way, we all hope).

Posted by Michael W | September 12, 2007 11:37 PM

Whether or not you think this is a good idea, this is not a meme that has a lot of evolutionary fitness. In the future the world will be mostly populated by the children of those who believe in having children.

Posted by ed | September 13, 2007 4:15 AM

Just how overpopulated is the planet?

Well, if we all decided to live at the same population density of New York City (approximately 26,500 people per square mile), at a liberal estimate of 7 billion people on the planet, it would take a total of 264,000 square miles of land.

By comparison, Texas is 262,000 square miles, or approximately one-half of one percent of the Earth's total land mass.

Posted by Jeff Licquia | September 13, 2007 5:19 PM

Jared and Michael W: My points also apply when you consider the population of whole world (except the point about the relative decline in US power that we would get if we unilaterally shrunk our own population), just not to the same extent.

A number of countries would do well with slower population growth, but that is already the trend in most countries. Actually declines would tend to be more harmful than beneficial. You would have less opportunity for increasing specialization, and less new minds to come up with new ideas.

Rapid growth itself causes disruption, and also makes it hard to feed and educate all those new minds from the precedes of the local economy. I'm certainly not suggesting we try to make the population expand as rapidly as we can.

But the while world as a whole is still growing, and at a faster rate than the US, its rate of growth is decreasing, and more and a number of countries have stable or even declining populations. So we aren't really facing an out of control malthusian disaster. Even if we where your calling for a decrease in population, not just slower growth or a stable population.

Posted by Tim Fowler | September 13, 2007 7:25 PM

I wonder how many of the ZPGers believe in Darwin. I also wonder if they count themselves in the 6 billion to be eliminated or in the 1 billion to remain. Something tells me it is the latter...

Posted by m | September 13, 2007 10:21 PM

"I also wonder if they count themselves in the 6 billion to be eliminated or in the 1 billion to remain. Something tells me it is the latter..."

I believe the point is that all are eliminated. The billion that remain are not born yet - except for me. I'm living forever.

Posted by N jorl | September 15, 2007 4:22 AM

halophyte eastertide impatible emptily turgor shlu mysticality erasion
http://ukchildrensdirectory.com/ >UK Children's Directory
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/popstars/

Posted by Dolores Maddox | December 16, 2007 11:02 AM