A Serendipitous Last Chance
By James Walker, Ph.D.
A Brief Summary of Parts I and II
In 1798, Thomas Malthus published a simple mathematical model positing that the population tended to grow faster than the food supply, condemning the vast majority of humanity to always live at a subsistence level. The Industrial Revolution, which was then in its infancy, produced a cornucopia of products that had never before been imagined. As it matured, the great majority of that production was used not to raise humanity's standard of living, but primarily to produce huge increases in population. The world population, which stood at about 750 million in 1750, has ballooned to over 8 billion and has increased by over ten times in the last 2 1/2 centuries. A series of computer simulations commissioned by the Club of Rome and carried out in 1972 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology tracked the predicted outcomes of a set of assumptions they called "business as usual" from 1900 to 2100 on several variables, such as pollution, natural resources, population, food, production, and industrial production. The results were frightening, predicting a catastrophic buildup of pollution and population accompanied by a drop in industrial production, natural resources availability, and food production, followed by a steep drop in population brought on by starvation and war as people fought over the diminishing supply of food and industrial output. The results from these studies predicted that the early stages of change would begin to appear between 2015 and 2030, with the catastrophic stage to start somewhere around 2050 and to have come to their sad conclusion well before 2100. The book that reported these results was titled The Limits to Growth. And since its publication in 1972, we have had 52 years to observe how well events have tracked the predictions. 40-year and 50-year follow-ups found that subsequent events have followed the predictions rather closely, and the scenario produced by The Limits to Growth is tracking almost precisely. We may already see the disaster's early stages, beginning with pollution, climate change, and population growth, spurring excessive immigration.
Working Against Ourselves
Over the last 2 1/2 centuries, we have, without intentionally planning it or even thinking about it much, unconsciously painted ourselves into a corner that will be very difficult to get out of. We have used the cornucopia of the Industrial Revolution to produce a population of 8 billion people, most of whom still live at or near a subsistence level on a planet, which ecologists estimate can support about one and 1/2 to 2 billion people at a level of consumption near that of the average person in the developed world. Our bodies, which have been evolving for millions of years, and our culture, which has been developing for thousands of years, conspire against our best interests now; testosterone present in both men and women fuels sexual desire, while oxytocin stimulates loving relationships and love of babies. Until well into the 19th century, it took five live births per married woman to sustain the population since about half of babies born never lived to reproductive age. Most people lived on subsistence farms, and their children were their slave labor force and their Social Security plan for old age. Sons were particularly valued because the backbreaking work of unmechanized farming required men's greater strength and endurance. Men's strength and aggressiveness were also needed to repel the attacks of neighboring tribes or later of nations to preserve their societies. In recent times, the Napoleonic wars and the First World War depleted the manpower of France, and it took a century after each war to restore their male population. Every religion that I know of encourages the birth of children, and many view any effort to prevent it as sinful. We go on celebrating the birth of children with new fathers, passing out big cigars that resemble a body part useful in producing them and representing the virility and success of the father. We subsidize children with a tax deduction for dependents and a raise for each child with the earned income tax credit. At the same time, economic theory says that activities that produce harmful effects should be taxed, not subsidized. All of this occurs in a world where it is pretty clear that we have about four times as many people as desirable.
A Serendipitous Way Out of the Trap Opens
In the middle of the 19th century, an unnoticed and unremarked change began in the British upper classes. The birth rate began to drop, spreading to the upper classes in the northeastern United States and Europe's upper classes. Birth rates have fluctuated occasionally, low in the great depression and higher in the baby boom. However, the long-term trend in the developed world has been downward. It has now reached the point that most of the world's developed countries have birth rates below the replacement rate of 2.1 per woman, required to maintain a stable population. The world fertility rate peaked at a disastrously high 5.7 births per woman in 1965. As of 2019, it stood at 2.27, a much slower but still increasing rate. Some of the rates in a sample of different economic level countries are:
Fertility Rate (Developed Country)
United States 1.66
Italy 1.25
Spain 1.19
Japan 1.20
South Korea. 0.90
Fertility Rate (Lesser Developed)
Senegal 4.39
Saudi Arabia. 2.42
Pakistan. 3.47
Afghanistan. 4.64
Nigeria. 5.24
Ethiopia. 4.16
Fertility Rate (Other)
China. 1.16
Taiwan. 1.22
India. 2.03
Indonesia. 2.17
Replacement rate. 2.10
Current world rate. 2.27
Suppose the world fertility rate should drop to that of South Korea's present rate. In that case, the World population should be more than cut in half in about 70 years and only a quarter of its current level in only a little over a century. This extreme drop in population can be accomplished without any coercive policies from governments, but by only the unseen hand of Adam Smith, who said, "Whereby each man in seeking only his own good helps the general welfare even better than if he were intentionally seeking it." This trend may save us from ourselves if only we can stay out of its way. Unfortunately, some nations are trying to increase their fertility rates, hoping to grow their economies.
The Cause Behind the Change
This drop in birth rate began in the most highly developed countries among the wealthy classes, but now it has shown signs of spreading into lesser developed countries and down the socioeconomic scale. When this occurs, it is almost always preceded and then accompanied by two changes:
Improved educational opportunities for women.
Increased job opportunities for meaningful and rewarding careers for women.
It seems that when women are allowed to do something meaningful other than producing babies, they do it. This change has two beneficial outcomes for society.
It enhances economic output.
It lowers the birth rate, often dramatically
Though this trend originated and is strongest in highly developed countries, it has also appeared in less developed countries where the prerequisite conditions of educational and career opportunities for women have emerged, as in some sub-Saharan African countries and some less developed Asian countries. It also appeared in the 20 years in Afghanistan of the United States presence, though the Taliban are now enthusiastically stamping out those opportunities.
Many people are frightened by the dropping birth rates, fearing that they will produce an aging population with too few working-age people to support the pensions of a larger number of retirees. Others fear that their towns will dry up and die. Some towns in Italy that fear a shrinking population will cause them to lose their school offer a free lot to any young family that will move there and build a house. These fears are manifestations of a broader fear that deprived of the push of necessity to provide for a growing number of children and furnish a continually growing supply of new workers that capitalism, which has served us so well since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, will sputter, falter, and then collapse as it did in the great depression. These fears are not entirely unfounded. Capitalism's Achilles heel is that it appears to be what engineers call a positive feedback system. A fire is an example of a positive feedback system. Once a fire starts, it generates heat, which causes it to consume more wood, generating more heat. The system continues to feed on itself until it destroys itself. We had regular "panics" throughout the 19th century, primarily responsible for populating Texas. Sam Houston, William Travis, and Davy Crockett came to Texas after going bankrupt in the Eastern United States in one of these panics. With the establishment of the Federal Reserve, Keynesian economic management policies that include countercyclical elements and fiat money in the twentieth century have had some success in lengthening the business cycle from four years to between 8 and 11 years and decreasing its amplitude to make it more like a negative feedback system such as a thermostat. A thermostat maintains temperature within a fixed range. When the temperature reaches the upper end of the range, the thermostat switches off the heat. When the temperature drops to the lower end of the range, the thermostat automatically switches the heat back on. These efforts have made our economy behave more like a negative feedback system than a positive one. We have the federal reserve mandate, unemployment (4 to 6%), 2% inflation, and a target of about 3% real growth. Anytime we get far from this pattern, the economy begins to sputter. The capitalist system thrives on growth, suffers in decline, and does not seem to function well even in stability. Can it continue to function well for over a century with a declining population? We have little alternative, but we need to find a way to make it do so.
The Underdeveloped World vs the Developed World
The outpouring of production created by the Industrial Revolution has succeeded, at least for a time, in considerably lifting the living standards in some parts of the world, the so-called developed world. However, this comprises only about 15% of the world population. Most people of the other 85% of the world live at or near the Malthusian subsistence level. Because of television and smartphones, these people are acutely aware of how the other 15% live and long for that same level of affluence. It is not feasible to bring all 8 billion of us up to that level of consumption when the earth is already faltering at current consumption levels. We must substantially reduce the population relatively soon. In the underdeveloped world because their numbers are so great, and in the developed world, because the per capita consumption levels are so high.
The Problem to Solve
The problem we must solve is bringing up living standards in the underdeveloped world to at least near that of the developed world without pulling down that of the developed world. This solution must be accomplished while the world population declines substantially over a few centuries. We must accomplish this feat because the underdeveloped world will not stand quietly by while the developed world enjoys a much higher living standard than they do. The developed world will not quietly allow their living standard to be reduced or even held constant to bring up that of the underdeveloped world.
A Stab at How to Reduce Population Without Precipitating Disaster
The number one rule for how to get out of a hole when you find yourself in one is to stop digging. Unfortunately, because of entrenched cultural ideas, we are still digging. Many advanced nations with dropping birth rates are trying to increase those rates. Some, such as Canada, directly subsidize children by sending checks to their families. Growing populations are viewed as both a sign of and a cause of economic success. However, If we look at these countries with dropping fertility rates, we see no signs of economic failure. If we look at these countries, Japan, China, Western Europe, South Korea, and the native-born citizens of the United States, we see consistent, per capita, economic growth. We see poverty and decline in the countries with rapidly growing populations. We must stop trying to raise fertility rates and adjust to handling population decline in intelligent and efficient ways. Some of the ways to do this are:
Quit equating population growth with economic success.
Quit saying we need more workers entering the workforce and concentrate on making better, more productive workers enter the workforce through improved educational opportunities and techniques.
Place women of all ages and all countries in the most productive positions possible through better educational and career opportunities. A great deal of opportunity for greater economic productivity is wasted around the world in both developed and underdeveloped countries by prejudice and ancient ideologies about the role of women. We are all familiar with places such as Iraq and Afghanistan, and lest we think this inefficiency occurs only in Third World countries, consider JD Vance's recent contention that women should drop their careers and become stay-at-home mothers and that the whole purpose in the world of postmenopausal women is to become nannies for their grandchildren. He touts how his mother-in-law, a professor of microbiology at a university, quit her position and became a babysitter for her grandchildren, exchanging a highly economically productive worker for a low productive one.
Quit subsidizing the birth of more children through personal tax exemptions, increased earned income credits for extra dependents, and direct payments per child to families.
Stop selfish, short-sighted, and counterproductive trade policies, such as tariffs and embargoes, and let David Ricardo's Law of comparative advantage work (make what you do best and trade for the rest) to benefit the world.
Harness improving technology to substitute for an increasing workforce to increase per capita industrial production. This improvement is the only way to improve living standards.
End Ludditism by whatever means necessary. Ever since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, people in industries where technological innovation has improved productivity have resisted its application for fear of losing jobs in their industries. These innovations have always led to more jobs in the workforce, greater economic output, and better living standards. It is a selfish, short-sighted, and counterproductive approach that should be ended. A recent example of this is the longshoreman strike. After a pay raise, the longshoremen's second most strident demand was an agreement not to implement improved mechanization, which would increase worker productivity and possibly lead to a decrease in union jobs.
Continue reducing pollution per industrial output unit by developing and employing better technology.
Continue to increase educational and career opportunities worldwide for women to continue dropping fertility rates worldwide, as it has been doing for some time now, in addition to creating the aforementioned increased economic output.
Establish adequate pension plans for old age in all countries worldwide so that people do not feel they will need a lot of children to support them in old age.
Harness Keynesian Countercyclical economic management techniques to consistently keep some economic growth going.
Count on the fact that with a dropping population, even a constant production level produces rising per capita production, and even a modest economic growth rate produces amplified per capita growth.
Completely reject trickle-down economic policy. It has not worked in nearly 50 years since its introduction.
Establish equitable distribution policies. Optimally, we should funnel low growth to developed nations and modest growth to underdeveloped countries. Developed nations cannot be expected to stand by calmly while all growth is shunted to underdeveloped nations, and they get none. Who is it that sells AMERICA FIRST? On the other hand, the underdeveloped world cannot be expected to stand by quietly while they fail to gain ground on the developed world. Perhaps we can navigate a middle path where the underdeveloped world gradually gains on the developed world. High growth rates for all seem unrealistic with an already stressed planet and a shrinking workforce.
Update building codes on insulation and lighting to save energy.
Convert from fossil fuels to clean energy sources as fast as is feasible.
A Call for Action: Threading the Needle
Getting the world population down to a sustainable level will be a lengthy task, encompassing perhaps as long as the next two centuries, requiring a lot of international cooperation and eschewing short-term advantage for long-term strategic thinking. It will be a difficult needle to thread, but we have no choice because failure will be disastrous. The world population reached 2 billion in 1926, reaching 3.7 billion in 1970. It now stands at over 8 billion. It has quadrupled in the last century, producing four times as many people as was produced in the many millennia since we became human. It seems unlikely that we could survive another century like the last one.
Comments