PERHAPS The most damaging of all false concepts to ever be conceived was one by an economist Thomas Malthus on the principle of "overpopulation":
"The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world".
—Malthus T.R. 1798. An essay on the principle of population. Chapter VII, p61
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)
At its core, the claim is verifiably false. Were Malthus correct, people from from his time would be richer than they are today, when exactly the opposite is true. Starvation and hunger are far less prevalent in today's society, and entertainment to supplement adequately-met needs has skyrocketed.
This is because, while the world's population has grown very fast, the amount of wealth produced by it has grown even faster.
But more importantly, the issue is being posed in a completely backwards manner.
Malthus portrays the scenario as "Power of Population" vs. "Power of Earth", when really the two go hand in hand. An increase in the world's population is one of the major contributors to an increase in wealth production.
This is because, on average, people produce far more than they consume in their lifetime.
Furthermore, the process of technological development is sped up as the population grows. Keep in mind that these developments are each made by an individual. To analogize, consider individuals who invent something, or otherwise forward technological progression, as "gold". Everyone else is rock. In large quantities of rock there is some gold to be found, and birthing children- increasing the population- is equivalent to "mining" for more rock. In order to get more gold, one must continue to mine.
Some mines are more profitable than others, of course, and the rock found there is more likely to contain gold, just as genius children are more likely to create new technology, and genius parents are more likely to have genius children. Some refineries are better suited than others, and more likely to obtain the gold out of their rock, just as some parents are more likely to "make the most" out of their children through good parenting.
A child is "gold" if she goes on to use her reasoning mind to radically alter the way an industry creates wealth. And if anything is predictable, it is that the greatest nation on Earth will be that with the most gold.
I would forward that due to a lack of incentive to match the benefits associated with having children, it is the duty of intelligent, hard-working, capable men and women to have and raise children for the betterment of society.
(^The drill is not an innuendo.)
This is precisely why Malthus' idea about population was so harmful. His thinking, and others' has led to damaging cultural ideas and government policy that have misconstrued the impacts of having children as being largely negative.
CHINA'S ONE-CHILD POLICY
"Since the regulations were introduced in 1978, China has kept its population in check using persuasion, coercion and encouragement. ... [It's] family planning policy has prevented 400 million births"
-BBC News
The 400 million unborn children as a result of China's One-Child Policy, for example, may account for a large portion of the gap between the United States and Chinese living conditions. So much gold was lost- and keep in mind that, like most things in life, this is not a relative measurement. We're not talking about a ratio of gold to rock- we're concerned with the sheer *quantity* of gold. In fact, just as most rocks and minerals mined have at least some value, all but the deadbeats and criminals should be welcome additions to society- and their being unborn through the Chinese policy adds to the riches that their economy failed to gain.
Perhaps more unsettling is the recent cultural trend throughout the west that having children is undesirable for society, for one reason or another. Lately, the most popular argument has been:
(Excerpt from "The New York Times")
It is hard to find words that adequately express how despicable I find this claim, mostly due to the fear that it causes people who would otherwise have added people to the world to not do so, and also because these unborn children would have been housed to parents that are good enough to care about society as a whole, in this case the environment, rather than just themselves. Not only do I see this as a hinderance on "gold children" production, just like a government regulation on mining, it is an exploitation of the nature of good people (and if you know anything about me- the word "exploit" is not used lightly).
As I stated in my very first post- The Experience-Free Opinion- I work to serve a utilitarian end. If you share this goal, consider also that the more people there are in existence, the more good there is to be had.
+++
And finally if you think space is an issue...
Note that God gave us three dimensions to work with.
No comments:
Post a Comment