The Debate Club discussion

Is it coming? Is it a good thing? How do we stop it?

Oh my gosh so I read this whole book yesterday
The People Paradox: Does the World Have Too Many or Too Few People?

It was so cool and basically about how more people is a good thing I do not have time to write a whole summary but I will find one

While Malthusians associate larger populations with negative externalities such as famine and assume there will be less of everything to share between humans, Professor Landsburg reminds us of the positive externalities that come with population growth. He cites Harvard economist Michael Kremer (1993), who suggests that the ratchet of human history over the last million years has been mostly upwards: ‘More people, more ideas. More ideas, more prosperity. More prosperity, more people.’ Landsburg argues that we have not reached the point where the world is overpopulated. In fact, he believes that the real problem may well be that the incentives to have children are not strong enough

In response, Dr Stephen Davies suggests that if we accept Landsburg’s premise that the world needs more and not fewer people, this raises two questions for economists. Firstly, does having fewer people constitute a market failure that requires correction by government action? Secondly, should economists view people who do not have children as imposing costs or at least not contributing to greater general benefit? Davies also points out that many  economic historians have argued that it was restrained population growth in western Europe that led to an economic revolution happening there, rather than in other parts of the world (Foreman-Peck 2009).
As an economic historian, Davies then asks the following question. If population growth does indeed lead to innovation and economic development, why did sustained innovation and development not really start until very recently? The answer Landsburg tentatively gives is the
one put by Julian Simon, that until the 1750s global population had not reached a level high enough to support sustained innovation (Simon 2001). The quantity of the ‘ultimate resource’ had not reached a critical mass.
Davies also adds a warning that as societies become wealthier, they also become more akin to complex systems, which can be more brittle and prone to breakdown and failure. Even a small event can cascade to derail the entire system. Think of the release of Covid-19 from Wuhan, China, to the rest of the world. However, Landsburg would also ask us to think of a world where the people who developed the necessary vaccines had not been born.

For Davies, the answer to Landsburg’s question ‘Is the world overpopulated?’ depends on whether you think this  fourth bottleneck of modernity will be overcome like the three previous ones. If not, the world is indeed overpopulated because the number of people has reached or gone well past a point of zero marginal return, i.e. the externalities of population growth and increased interaction will have become negative. If you are more optimistic and believe in the ingenuity of humankind to overcome such challenges, then Landsburg is right. Davies believes that we simply do not know whether the human species will succeed again.

Davies tempers his pessimism by citing Deirdre McCloskey, who argues that the cycle of progress has continued thanks to liberalism and individualism (McCloskey 2019; McCloskey and Carden 2020), which has broken through
social limits to growth and weakened any attempts by the ruling classes to stop innovation where they feel it threatens the status quo. Both Landsburg and Davies contend that we need to sustain economic, political, cultural and
social liberalism – and individualism – for progress to continue and for us not to stagnate.

I do actually think more people is a good thing too. Different unique perspectives on things

And the other points?

I need to sit down and read it

Essentialyy
The article explores whether the world has too many or too few people. Steven Landsburg argues that larger populations can foster innovation and prosperity, citing economist Michael Kremer's idea that "more people mean more ideas." He suggests that the real issue might be a lack of incentives to have children.

Dr Stephen Davies examines whether controlled population growth or societal fragility plays a role in economic development. Both stress the importance of liberalism and individualism in sustaining progress. The debate remains open-ended, depending on humanity's ability to tackle challenges and encourage innovation.

I dont think the world is over populated. I do actually think less and less kids is a response to wealth accruing

It is true, but more wealth leads to more prosperity jeaning more kids

I don't know if wealth is what leads to more kids it might be the opposite.

the world is overpopulated/underpopulated depending on how you look at it. @MidnightButterfly you said earlier that more people means more prosperity, but what defines prosperity? is it people and civilizations, or a flourishing world in general and not just confined to people? depending on what you think the answer is, the outcome would change.

the answer to the prompt is also based off of the current situation of our society. a lot of people who believe the world is overpopulated cite things like a growing need to reform agriculture in order to feed everybody, figuring out how to house more people without turning the world into disgusting urban cities, etc. i once heard that if the whole world ate like the US, we would need 3 more planet earths to feed them all (i lost the source, but i know it was reputable).

energy is also an issue-- if we use fossil fuels, we will definitely run out (not to mention other atmospheric issues). but we can't just rely on typical renewable energy, since in the end, old windmills and solar panels need to be disposed of (which isn't an easy task), you can block only so many rivers for only so long, nuclear power isn't efficient and widely available enough yet, etc.

but what if we were able to solve all this? i would say that yes, we are overpopulated, unless we can come up with a solution to all these issues. then, it would be fine. we are only overpopulated if we let ourselves be. right now, our society definitely needs to evolve, but if we fix all these issues and let our civilization stretch to accommodate us, then honestly, it's all perfect.

Prosperity can be defined by more ideas. As in, ideas and by extension, inventions (not necessarily physical) are what leads to prosperity - more efficiency (leading to growth without inflation), and more free time.

Let me give an example

Originally when the idea of a housewife was popularised (at its peak in the 1950s, before then it was typically the husband+wife would work together and raise the kids together but that is a diffferent story), the typical housewife would work 8.5hrs just doing LAUNDRY per day, and with no running water, the physical labour was instense, significantly more draining than a man's equivalet office job. Throughout the day, the stove had to be continually fed with new supplies of coal or wood , aeound an average of fifty pounds a day. At least twice a day the ash box had to be emptied, so they had ro gather ashes and cinders in a grate and then dump them into a pan below. They spent four hours every day sifting ashes, adjusting dampers, lighting fires, carrying coal or wood, and rubbing the stove with thick black wax to keep it from rusting.

With the invention of the first washing machine this drastically reduced. And running water. And numerous other inventions that meant women did not need to be housewives anymore.

Inventions are a direct result of a large population.

More people, more genuises. Even if yiu do not think that, the more people, the more conversations, the more collaboration

People want places in africa for example to stop populating. Aid now comes ONLY if they use birth control, for example.
They fail to realise that without a large popilation concentration, there is no incentive to create infrastrcutre. Solutions.

With more people, the solution can be nuclear fusion. Which would essentially end the whole debate on reneweables and fossil fuels

Yes, the population is rapidly declining due to the huge rise in gay people existing and not having children. It's an abomonation. We should force all gay people to become straight and have kids so we can fix the population.

YourLocalPoliticsPotato wrote: "Yes, the population is rapidly declining due to the huge rise in gay people existing and not having children. It's an abomonation. We should force all gay people to become straight and have kids so..."

Sure, maybe they do not have kids. Theres MORE straight people deciding to have 0, 1 or 2 kids though. Which does not increase a population

ray ੈ✩‧₊˚ (semi-hiatus till summer) wrote: "lol I assumed they were either a rage-baiter or just really young if they think gay people are the reason the population is declining and want to force us to be straight. plenty of queer couples ch..."

HOW DARE YOU ASSUME I'M A RAGE BAITER. WHY THE HECK WOULD YOU THINK THAT?! I HAVE MY OWN BELIEFS AND I'M JUST STANDING UP FOR THEM

Okay sure stand up for it just explain it a bit more because you seem like a joke

https://fortune.com/article/why-are-m...

ray ੈ✩‧₊˚ (semi-hiatus till summer) wrote: "can’t read more than the title without a subscription so does the article account for infertility issues?"

Oh sorry
It is just no it is a lifestyle choice that people make DINK

Double Income No Kids

ray ੈ✩‧₊˚ (semi-hiatus till summer) wrote: "I feel like people should be allowed to not have kids but also I think we could encourage people to have kids. According to single people on reddit, though they are single so not the best thing to ..."

For me personally, I just don't want kids. I don't see the idea of carrying a baby for nine months and giving birth, then going through all the stuff to raise them, appealing whatsoever. I see myself doing a lot of other things that would require my time and energy to be focused on and I don't want to sacrifice that for another human. I don't think it's "selfish" at all like what you said, I just personally don't want children and want to focus my time on other things in my life. I'm sure some others feel the same way.

Do what this info what you wish lol

But if everybody feels that way human civilisation will end

MidnightButterfly wrote: "But if everybody feels that way human civilisation will end"

Right, but not everyone does, plenty of people I know want kids and love the idea. It's just not appealing to everyone

Sure, but if enough people do not want kids, population collapses

MidnightButterfly wrote: "Sure, but if enough people do not want kids, population collapses"

Then how do you intend to solve that? Force people to have kids?

Well, no. I do think that incentivising, im not in favour just because it involves more gov interventiin, but you cooouuulllddd incenstivise like in Austria

ray ੈ✩‧₊˚ (semi-hiatus till summer) wrote: "MidnightButterfly wrote: "Sure, but if enough people do not want kids, population collapses"

what if our population is meant to collapse? like how do we know that life as a whole is never supposed..."

So we want humans to die out? That isnt in our evolutionary nature

ray ੈ✩‧₊˚ (semi-hiatus till summer) wrote: "you don’t have to want something for it to be meant to happen tho…"

No, no, not want. I meant human bioloigy is not programmed to

Lol, all animals have a survival instinct, no? All animals want to be able to mate with the best mate to pass on best characterists to their offspring to create the best chance of survival for the offspring and the species

ray ੈ✩‧₊˚ (semi-hiatus till summer) wrote: "Barnette wrote: "ray ੈ✩‧₊˚ (semi-hiatus till summer) wrote: "I feel like people should be allowed to not have kids but also I think we could encourage people to have kids. According to single peopl..."

Oh yes, I have considered the possibility of adopting in the future. I am a bit young to be making plans and fully deciding this but I know how I feel now and how I see myself in the future

MidnightButterfly wrote: "Lol, all animals have a survival instinct, no? All animals want to be able to mate with the best mate to pass on best characterists to their offspring to create the best chance of survival for the ..."

Definitely

ray ੈ✩‧₊˚ (semi-hiatus till summer) wrote: "i’m just asking questions for now lol debate me on this next year after I get my ged and can get into a college and learn some level of biology 💀💀"

What are you doing in college?

Ew i forgot that americans have to do general studies and go into uni not knowing what theyre doing when in the uk we make the choice at 14 lol 😂😂

MidnightButterfly wrote: "Sure, but if enough people do not want kids, population collapses"

true, but thinking logically, that's a very big number. there are plenty of humans in the world; it will take a long time and many childless people to actually collapse civilization, which isn't happening. we had 2 billion less people 25 years ago and things were going perfectly fine. in order to truly collapse civilization, we would need a great threshold of people to not have kids that we do not currently have and will not have in the near future.

many people who think kids are a good/bad idea try to force their idea onto others, completely ignoring the fact that society is a lot more stable, flexible, and innovative than we give it credit for. if you want to have kids, have kids. if you don't want to have kids, then don't have kids. there's nothing more to it.

Here is an interesting Wikipedia article.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human...

In summary, global population is widely projected to peak in the mid-to-late 21st century (around the 2080s under medium assumptions). After that, a gradual decline is expected, unless unforeseen events change the trend.
The decline won’t be dramatic (in many scenarios) by 2100, but the downward trend is real if current paths continue.

for sure.... go to those women and others saying no to having children!!! go make them decisions!!!

atleast in my area, ive been seeing less children around here.

I think that’s partly because women are realizing they don’t have to have children to be happy, it’s becoming less expected of women in society.
I can’t decide if it s a good thing or not.

honestly probably a good thing.. i dislike children.. (says the minor..)

Sketchie ✰ wrote: "honestly probably a good thing.. i dislike children.. (says the minor..)"

lol

Lmfao.
I think it could be a bad thing because the population could decline, but we’re already overpopulated.
Pros:
Women feel less pressure to give birth when they don’t want to
The population may decline enough for nature to regain its strength which we need
Cons:
The population declining too much eventually?

I don’t think it could decline too much, since women still a lot enjoy having children and we are developing ways to have children outside of women. I think that could also be good and bad, less pressure on women, but I also gives a lot of power to authorities I’m not sure authorities should have.

i think for now it's okay to not have a lot of kids, especially because childhood mortality is at wayy better numbers than it was literally 75 years ago, and also, at least for the us, 330 million is a pretty steady number to be at. however, we shouldn't discourage having kids or anything, we should just leave it at the liberty of those in question.

less ppl means more resources for everyone

birth rate in europe and asian countries is decreasing soo... population collapse it is

Sketchie ✰ wrote: "honestly probably a good thing.. i dislike children.. (says the minor..)"

Lol real

Fun fact, there’s estimated to be 15 million vacant and unbought houses in America. There’s only estimated to be 800,000 homeless people. Yep.

In most countries, women are having less children so the populations are predicted to decrease. However, scientists still predict the population will increase by 2 billion people in the next 60 years so I don't think theres much to worry about. Tbh, less people in the world would almost certainly be beneficial,; food security, climate change, extinctions are all negatively affected by having more people.
Also theres currently 8 billion people in the world...that is LOADS. Even if the population was falling rapidly, it would take quite a while for it to get reallyy low.

The world is over populated and you all know it, period. But no one seem curious as to why this is. It is all about Satan's defiance of The Commandments, especially Exodus 20:12.

Tessie wrote: "Fun fact, there’s estimated to be 15 million vacant and unbought houses in America. There’s only estimated to be 800,000 homeless people. Yep."

oh my god please research new york's rent freeze laws post renter death or whatever theyre called