Revolution Watch

The Economist magazine has just published a most interesting article on the merits of slowing down population growth. They stated that countries with stable populations are economically better off. To my knowledge this may be one of the first times a major publication has made this statement. In the past it has always been an understanding that population growth was the driver of innovation and economy. It was the old Julian Simon thing that the world's resources were endless and lets just have at it and it will all work out because Adam Smith has it right.

There has always been detractors who clung to the old Malthusian ideas that there are limits and that if we just keep breeding all hell will break loose. Well, for interesting reasons, the name of Malthus never seems to go away even though he was deemed an idiot years ago. The ever presence of his name seems odd all in itself.

The article states that population will level off at 9 billion or so and all will be fine, even though there are other groups that think 11 billion may be more accurate (6.7 billion now & 75 million more each year). The Economist notes that birth rates are falling and by 2050 they may be at replacement only levels. Now that does not mean population will quit expanding because of the inertia factor which they kindly mention. They also mention the limitation of resources (maybe hinting at "Limits to Growth"Opps!).

All in all it is admirable they are having this discussion because it is, in my opinion, imperative. This, I believe is a step in the right direction. I do believe there are many holes in their discussion but I will credit them for the effort.