Comment 29411

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted March 09, 2009 at 08:54:20

I never thought I'd write this, but ... what A Smith said.

I'll go a bit farther, though, and draw ACSial's attention to a post I just made last week on global research by Hans Rosling that compares the developed and developing countries by economy, public health, and so on:

I think ACSial is working from assumptions about the state of the "third world" - culturally and economically - that haven't really been true since the 1960s/'70s.

Population growth will always equal an increase in land (and potable water, food) consumption, NO MATTER WHAT.

Nope. countries like Sweden are reducing their net resource consumption even as their populations and per capita wealth continue to increase.

Immigrants aren't necessarilly "industrious" and "productive"

I wrote, "immigrants tend to be among the most ambitious and enterprising members of the societies they left to immigrate" [emphasis added]. Citing an anecdotal counterexample does not contradict my thesis.

The developing world needs to curb its absurdly-high birthrate. Poverty isn't the cause--CULTURE is.

Nope. Look at the data - birthrate is connected to economy, not culture, and birthrates are falling steadily in nearly every country on earth.

the Darfur conflict is largely due to more people chasing fewer resources

The Darfur conflict is largely due to the absence of a strong, functioning liberal democratic government. As P.J. O'Rourke (of all people) observed in one of his books, liberal democracies may have droughts but they never have famines.

Do the math: having half as many children means twice as much food.

Do the math: having twice as many children means twice as much chance that some will survive. Birthrate is a function of poverty.

You can't expect to climb out of poverty if you have a dozen children per family.

Really? The facts do not support your assumptions. Falling birthrates to not precede rising affluence, they follow it.

remember WW II? Germany, Italy and Japan embarked on a vicious shock-colonization of Eurasia, North Africa and Asia for 'lebensraum'.

Imperialistic country is imperialistic. How is this not a non-sequitur?

Contrary to what the New Green Revolution crowd likes to bullshit about, food scarcity IS an issue.

It sure is. Good thing global birth rates are falling steadily.

Remember the food price-spike last year? That's a preview of coming attractions.

I'm inclined to agree. Not sure how this factors into your thesis about immigration.

People in most places in the world are STARVING!

That hasn't been true since the 1960s/'70s. You need to update your data.

We can't just tolerate population growth as some sort of inevitability.

I don't "tolerate" population growth in Canada. I welcome it.

The only people who benefit from bulging demographics are land speculators and developers.

Read Richard Florida's "Who's Your City?". He cites abundant strong evidence that increasing density in a city also increases the efficiency of infrastructure and raises the innovation rate.

It's only through increased efficiency and faster innovation growth that we may be able to forestall the kind of disaster you're warning about.

Putting our heads in the sand and building barricades around our country will not save us. That reaction, in fact, is what drove the world into the Great Depression after the 1929 economic crash.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools