Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Population boon. More People Means More Prosperity (An argument against the Malthusians out there)
Boston Globe ^ | 07/20/2011 | Jeff Jacoby

Posted on 07/20/2011 7:24:27 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

DAVID AND VICTORIA Beckham were overjoyed by the birth last week of their fourth child, a baby girl they named Harper. “We all feel so blessed and the boys love their baby sister so much!!!’’ the former Spice Girl exulted to her vast following on Twitter. A few days later she posted a picture of her husband cradling his new daughter, with the tender comment: “Daddy’s little girl!’’

Whose heart wouldn’t be warmed by the Beckhams’ delight in their newborn?

The Observer’s wouldn’t.

In a remarkably churlish article on Sunday, Britain’s influential left-leaning newspaper (the Observer is the Guardian’s sister Sunday paper) pronounced Harper’s parents “environmentally irresponsible’’ for choosing to bring her into the world. Headlined “Beckhams a ‘bad example’ for families,’’ the piece was a blast at parents who raise good-sized families. “One or two children are fine but three or four are just being selfish,’’ Simon Ross, executive director of the Optimum Population Trust, told reporter Tracy McVeigh. “The Beckhams . . . are very bad role models.’’

McVeigh also quoted natural-history broadcaster David Attenborough, who recently “made a passionate speech about how the world’s baby-making was damaging the planet.’’ Fifty years ago there were 3 billion human beings, Attenborough had lamented. “Now there are almost 7 billion . . . and every one of them needing space. There cannot be more people on this Earth than can be fed.’’

Has there ever been a more persistent and popular superstition than the idea that having more kids is a bad thing, or that “overpopulation’’ causes hunger, misery, and hopelessness? In the 18th century, Thomas Malthus warned that human population growth must inevitably outstrip the food supply; to prevent mass starvation, he suggested, “we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction,’’ such as encouraging the spread of disease

(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: malthusians; population

1 posted on 07/20/2011 7:24:30 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The latest Malthusian is none other than New York times Columnist : Thomas Friedman who recently wrote the article: “The Earth Is Full,’’ ( a play on his best seller — The World is Flat).

His quote: “we are currently growing at a rate that is using up the Earth’s resources far faster than they can be sustainably replenished.”

Read the column here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/opinion/08friedman.html?_r=4&ref=columnists


2 posted on 07/20/2011 7:26:23 AM PDT by SeekAndFind (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

As always, we must observe: If you think there are too many people - Mr. Ross, Mr. Attenborough - kindly eliminate yourselves. I guarantee you’re lifestyle is higher on the carbon-hog scale than my family of 12 is.


3 posted on 07/20/2011 7:27:19 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Public schools = TSA: incompetent, abusive, anti-American. Why are we putting up with either one?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The latest Malthusian is none other than New York times Columnist : Thomas Friedman who recently wrote the article: “The Earth Is Full,’’ ( a play on his best seller — The World is Flat). His quote: “we are currently growing at a rate that is using up the Earth’s resources far faster than they can be sustainably replenished.”

If Friedman took one for the team and offed himself, then I might be impressed.

4 posted on 07/20/2011 7:28:04 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Great article bump


5 posted on 07/20/2011 7:29:09 AM PDT by Tribune7 (We're flat broke, but he thinks these solar shingles and really fast trains will magically save us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The larger the population, the more people at the high end of the standard distribution for intelligence and other desirable attributes.

Those are the people who figure out how to do things that make life better for us all.

6 posted on 07/20/2011 7:32:16 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." - Bertrand de Jouvenel des Ursins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Convince the Muslims of that first, d-bag.


7 posted on 07/20/2011 7:33:22 AM PDT by jdsteel (I like the way the words "Palin for President" make progressives apoplectic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Depends on the kinds of people...


8 posted on 07/20/2011 7:34:57 AM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Yes, just think of how well our economy would be now if the 50,000,000+ babies that were slaughtered in abortuaries since 1973 were alive now and buying cars, clothes, cereal, homes, needing schools, factories, computers, and on and on and on. It’s just terrible what we’ve done to our previously very successful country. We should be grossly ashamed of ourselves.


9 posted on 07/20/2011 7:36:19 AM PDT by laweeks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"Thomas Friedman avowed in his New York Times column that “The Earth Is Full,’’"

That guy's brain is fried.

The Island of Manhattan is Full.... of liberal retards - I'd agree with that.

10 posted on 07/20/2011 7:37:43 AM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: laweeks

RE: just think of how well our economy would be now if the 50,000,000+ babies that were slaughtered in abortuaries since 1973 were alive now and buying cars, clothes, cereal, homes, needing schools, factories, computers, and on and on and on..
___________________________________________________________________________

I’ve heard liberals argue that had these babies grown up, they would pose a BIGGER PROBLEM to society because most of them were unwanted and their parents would be neglecting them. Hence, they would be on welfare, gangs, drugs and cause all sorts of societal problems which will accelerate the downward spiral of this country (Note: this is not my argument, I’ve just heard it given several times)


11 posted on 07/20/2011 7:39:28 AM PDT by SeekAndFind (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Depends on who is breeding. If Welfare mothers are breeding like rabbits and those with high intelligence only have one child, civilization will soon end.


12 posted on 07/20/2011 7:39:31 AM PDT by Blackandproud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I believe that Malthusian theories would hold validity in a socialist society. There reaches a point where it becomes impossible to balance the distribution of resources in a planned society at certain levels of growth. For the sake of efficiency and “crop prices” one year you create incentives for farmers not to grow, and several years down the line you have shortages that prevent you from feeding everyone.

This is a primary reason as to why the battle for capitalism is so important. Where socialist planning fails, capitalist ingenuity allows growing societies to thrive. Sure, people don’t get equal slices of the pie but the overall pie is bigger. There’s plenty for everyone.

Socialism, on the other hand, sees natural human freedoms as inherently “irresponsible.” This is why a socialist society cannot help but be dystopic when fully realized.


13 posted on 07/20/2011 7:39:51 AM PDT by MWS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: laweeks
"...and buying cars, clothes, cereal, homes, needing schools, factories, computers, and on and on and on."

How many on welfare programs?

14 posted on 07/20/2011 7:40:44 AM PDT by verity (The Obama Administration is a Criminal Enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Blackandproud

If we didn’t have welfare programs, we wouldn’t have “welfare moms,” and it was those of “high intelligence,” your liberals with their 0.8 children and Harvard PhD.s, who put in the welfare programs.

Maybe “intelligence” is a little different from what we think, especially if it’s divorced from character.


15 posted on 07/20/2011 7:44:17 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Public schools = TSA: incompetent, abusive, anti-American. Why are we putting up with either one?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

Whenever I hear someone complain of overpopulation, I ask them to show some leadership and “go” first.


16 posted on 07/20/2011 7:45:10 AM PDT by Retired Greyhound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Retired Greyhound

So does anyone with any common sense.


17 posted on 07/20/2011 7:46:05 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Public schools = TSA: incompetent, abusive, anti-American. Why are we putting up with either one?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Blackandproud

At least the evil eugenicists of yesterday were proposing a solution that would leave useful groups in tact.

These new generation claustrophobics don’t seem to have a problem with the exploding Muslim populations.


18 posted on 07/20/2011 7:51:20 AM PDT by Retired Greyhound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Its not the gross number, its the percentages within:

More productive people = more prosperity

More parasitical people = less prosperity


19 posted on 07/20/2011 8:03:10 AM PDT by SampleMan (If all of the people currently oppressed shared a common geography, bullets would already be flying.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

So more illegals in drug gangs and more welfare recipients mean more prosperity??? Maybe for the Democrat party, but that’s all!!!!


20 posted on 07/20/2011 8:05:55 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blackandproud
Depends on who is breeding. If Welfare mothers are breeding like rabbits and those with high intelligence only have one child, civilization will soon end.

I think you make a valid point. If I were to guess, based upon what I have noticed over the years, it is the low-class, low-intelligent people who are producing the most children. High-intelligent people, as a rule, don't have a lot of children; there are exceptions, of course (Tax-Chick would be one of those exceptions).

21 posted on 07/20/2011 8:10:50 AM PDT by OldPossum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Friedman forgets that every new human comes equipped with 2 feet, 2 hands and a brain.....

.....Well, maybe not a brain in Friedman's case.

22 posted on 07/20/2011 8:14:00 AM PDT by cookcounty (Nullius in Verba. "Take no man's word for it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The cure for “over-population” is more capitalism governed by the rule of law. Industrialized democracies have populations that are either declining (Japan, Western Europe) or remaining static (the US). The more affluent a country, the more people will delay having children. As always, the answer is more Liberty.


23 posted on 07/20/2011 8:18:27 AM PDT by Lou Budvis ("Socialism...the smiling face of slavery")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
“we are currently growing at a rate that is using up the Earth’s resources far faster than they can be sustainably replenished.”

The amount of life the Earth can hold has not remained constant over 4 billion years. It has increased as organisms become better at unlocking the energy in new environments. This idiot might as well look out over life in the Cambrian period where life was stuck in the seas and say "well, that's it...I guess the Earth is full!" Yeah, except that in subsequent ages, there would be huge forests spread out all over the land. Life adapted to take advantage of new environments.

Provided that life becomes more efficient at deriving energy from the sun, from geothermal sources, and from technologies like nuclear energy, the earth will be able to hold more and more life as time goes on.

24 posted on 07/20/2011 8:22:29 AM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Liberals also argued for free abortions for welfare recipients which was enacted during the sixties I believe. Less babies was supposed to cut the crime rate. Instead, due to a number of factors, the crime rate exploded. Turns out it was not having the babies per se but how the babies were raised did a lot more to affect the crime rate.


25 posted on 07/20/2011 8:27:55 AM PDT by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: All

Twitpic of David Beckham with newborn baby. Harper, the first daughter for
the celebrity couple who have three sons: Brooklyn, 11, Romeo, 8, and Cruz, 5.
David, 36, and Victoria, 37, married in 1999.(Copyright ©2011 KABC-TV/DT.
All Rights Reserved.)

26 posted on 07/20/2011 8:48:19 AM PDT by Liz ( A taxpayer voting for Obama is like a chicken voting for Col Sanders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum; Blackandproud

Unlike our current Pres__ent, I (and my FReepless husband) have the test scores and transcripts to prove our intelligence ;-). And several other FReepers have more children than we do, to the great benefit of the nation.

Nonetheless, it was not poor people with a dozen children who enacted socialism, anywhere. It was wealthy ideologues with small families - Roosevelts, Rockefellers, Fords - the equivalent of today’s Friedman and Attenborough and Ted Turner. Their goal was not to help, but to take control.

That is also the goal of “environmentalists”: to control. “Green” on the outside, red on the inside. If they can get freedom-loving Americans to buy into “Just enough of me, way too much of you,” instead of “Way too little freedom, way too much government,” then they win and everyone loses.


27 posted on 07/20/2011 8:52:35 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Public schools = TSA: incompetent, abusive, anti-American. Why are we putting up with either one?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
Why do you believe liberals have high intelligence? Some do, but the overwhelming majority do not.

The fact is we do have welfare programs and they are not going away anytime soon, unfortunately. And, the results will only get worse as they reproduce more and more welfare mothers and more islamists.

28 posted on 07/20/2011 8:58:55 AM PDT by Blackandproud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Blackandproud

The kind of liberals who influence legislation, the courts, the media, and so on have, if not objectively high intelligence, then elite credentials that help to place them in positions of power.

And yes, we do have welfare programs, but if it all falls apart, as it may, the self-sufficient will survive and own the future.


29 posted on 07/20/2011 9:53:33 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Public schools = TSA: incompetent, abusive, anti-American. Why are we putting up with either one?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“Population boon. More People Means More Prosperity (An argument against the Malthusians out there)”

So....

How many folks does the United States really need?

300 million? We’re there now.

Would 700 million mean “more prosperity”?

Would 1.3 billion Americans mean “more prosperity?”

Would 3.5 billion Americans mean “more prosperity?”

Seems like the most conservative folks live in less-populated areas. And one thing they DO NOT want is for more people — especially liberals — to start movin’ in.

I can understand why they feel that way, and have no problems with such sentiments. They’re absolutely right.

It’s exactly for that reason I don’t believe when it comes to population, that “more means better”. In reality, “more” often means “more liberalism” and “more complications”.

The nation of the Founders worked — and grew (within reason and limits) — precisely because there was ample room for growth, and folks still by and large remained “spaced out”.

When people crowd (or are pushed) together, it’s like more atoms crowding together. Things “heat up”, particularly friction between competing groups (and we know how well “diversity” works, eh?). Almost like a chain reaction.

And what “keeps the lid on things”, so they don’t heat up to the point of combustion?

Why government control, of course!

I know most of those who consider themselves “conservatives” in this forum will disagree, perhaps vehemently, to what I’ve posted. So be it.

But “conservatism” per se springs from the word “conserve”:
“1. to prevent injury, decay, waste, or loss of:
2. to use or manage (natural resources) wisely: preserve: save”
(source, old Random House Webster’s College Dictionary)

We do not “conserve” a nation, a culture, a people by “more, more, more, more”. (Aside, aren’t we seeing the effects of “more, more, more” in _government_ right now?)

A “population boom” ends the same as any OTHER “boom” or “bubble” — eventually, with a crash. How many on FR bemoan the “Baby Boomers” (a “boom” if there ever was one) and the future drains they will impose upon the public treasury?

Growth is (usually) inevitable.
But save the “booms” for somewhere else.
I’ve had enough.

Just sayin’....


30 posted on 07/20/2011 10:48:41 AM PDT by Grumplestiltskin (I may look new, but it's only deja vu!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grumplestiltskin
It's a non-problem. There is no boom or bubble. The trend is down: Population growth
31 posted on 07/20/2011 11:13:01 AM PDT by Reeses (Obamacare: do not resuscitate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson