Some think a growing population serves to exacerbate all of the systemic problems of our world. Beth Mendenhall has even written a column on the subject. In fact, such a thing is only a bad dream and not the truth.
Scarcity is indeed a problem. In fact, in terms of economics, it is the problem. People are forced to economize in the face of scarcity. We have limited resources to fill unlimited ends. Mendenhall acts as if "overpopulation" is some new problem that will be the downfall of the human race and the planet. In fact, this is not a new "problem."
Such a problem was dreamt up by Thomas Malthus in the late 1700s. He did some rough calculations and came to the conclusion that the world would run out of food by the end of the 1800s. To remedy this problem, he advocated the killing of elderly people and placing limits on how many children people could have. Mendenhall, thankfully, does not advocate a government control of birth rate.
One might ask, though, how could the government control birth rates? When I get married, I certainly don't want anyone telling me and my wife how many children we can have. But I digress. Let's assume Malthus was right with his calculations and the world would have run out of food.
What happened in the 1800s that allowed the veritable explosion in population growth during and after that period? The Industrial Revolution. The new technologies in all areas of life that developed out of that era allowed the limited resources of the earth to be spread over more and more people. These technologies allowed for a healthier population, as well, because people could consume higher-quality food and could live in cleaner environments.
Mendenhall decries capitalism as one of the evils destroying our earth. I submit that, as capitalism is the driving force behind new technology, it actually saves humanity. As entrepreneurs work to become profitable, their inventions make our entire world better.
Let's assume all this analysis is wrong and a growing population will really cause all of the horrible things Mendenhall thinks it will. Is "overpopulation" really on the horizon? In fact, no. According to the United Nations Population Division, the worldwide birthrate will be less than replacement by 2050.
This means the worldwide population will begin to decline. It is already far below replacement in many European countries. The native populations of the entire European Union will eventually die off, as the average birth rate is about 1.5 children per woman (far below the replacement rate, which is 2.1). In the U.S., we already have the problem of too many elderly people and not enough youth. This is one of the main causes of the imminent failure of Social Security. There will simply be too many people who cannot work for the people who can work to take care of. How will we deal with this problem after 2050 when the entire world begins to experience this?
Let's take another look at the United States. Population growth has leveled off in the U.S. partly through a natural phenomenon. As a country becomes more developed, there is an increased need for an educated populace. This means that, more and more, people put off raising a family in favor of continued education. Birth rates slowly decline as a result.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, this has been happening in the U.S. for quite some time. In the last 30 years, the number of U.S. women who reached the end of their childbearing years without bearing a child went from 10 percent to 20 percent.
There is no need for Malthusian population control, either at the whim of the government or a self-hating ideology.
-Levi Russell is a graduate student in economics. Please send comments to opinion@spub.ksu.edu.
is a member of the 
6 comments