|
Greeatings to all!
I have composed this somewhat lengthy writing on the environment. I ask you to please read it, and then offer any polite comments that you wish to say, whether you agree or disagree. I would be interested in reading any specific comments in your own words where you explain specifically why you agree or disagree. I realize that this essay challenges much of the "conventional wisdom that everyone knows is true," and so I invite responses to hear whatever opinions you may have of it.
* * * * *
Over the years, I have heard a large number of environmentalists say things along the following lines:
"The earth's carrying capacity has been exceeded. The earth is overpopulated with too many human beings. We currently use 3 or 4 planet earths to maintain our current lifestyle. Our present population and standard of living are not sustainable. In the long run, the earth's carrying capacity cannot support the current population. As the population grows in the future, we will be forced to face lower standards of living. Overpopulation causes poverty, famine, water shortages, energy shortages, and depletion of natural resources. As the population continues to grow, and as more people try to obtain a higher standard of living, these problems will continue to get worse. The earth cannot continue to take this. If everyone was willing to cut back on their consumption of natural resources, the earth might be able to support 3 or 4 billion people. But if everyone wants a first world standard of living, then the earth can only support 1 or 2 billion people. Anything above that is unsustainable."
Such a statement is based on the mistaken belief that human beings are parasites who consume resources.
The truth is the opposite. Human beings are creative beings who use their minds to increase the supply and availability of resources.
In fact, I would argue that the very term "natural resource" is meaningless, and I would like to offer some real world examples to explain why.
As one example, please consider petroleum. For most of human history, petroleum was worthless. In fact, it had negative value, because it was a nuisance that got in the way of people who were digging water wells.
But in the 19th century, a human being with a brain figured out a way to use the petroleum as fuel, and all of a sudden, the petroleum acquired value.
So what is the real resource in this case? Is it the petroleum, or, is it the human brain that figured out how to use the petroleum?
And today, with thermal depolymerization, we can turn garbage into oil at a cost of $15 per barrel. Imagine that! We can turn garbage into oil! Wow! Again, this is because of the human brain.
Another example is that today, we take worthless sand, and we turn it into valuable computer chips that are worth trillions of dollars. Again, what is the real resource? Is it the sand, or it is the human brain?
Several decades ago, telephone signals were carried on copper wire. But today, we use fiber optic cable instead. Compared to the copper wire, the fiber optic cable carries more information, but it uses fewer atoms of material. Again, what's the real resource here? Is it the physical material in the fiber optic cable, or, is it the human brain?
Of course, not every country is doing these kinds of things. The human mind functions best when people are free. As a general rule, the freer the people, the more the people will use their minds to improve the quality of life.
As an example, please compare South Korea to North Korea. The two countries have similar geography and climate, similar cultures, similar "natural resources," similar population densities, etc. But South Korea is a rich country with a first world standard of living and all of the modern conveniences, while North Korea is a third world country whose people are suffering from famine, water shortages, energy shortages, etc.
The explanation for why South Korea is so rich while North Korea is so poor is because of the differences in the two countries' legal and economic institutions. South Korea is a free country with private property rights, the rule of law, enforcement of contracts, and a free market pricing system to encourage efficient use, allocation, and distribution of resources. North Korea does not have these institutions.
I would now like to point out some of the past predictions that were made regarding the subject of "overpopulation," and explain *why* these predictions failed to come true. When I use the term "overpopulation doomsayers," I am referring to people such as Paul Ehrlich and Lester Brown, and the millions of people who share their beliefs. These poeple aren't "stupid." On the contrary, many of them are highly intelligent, and they tend to have high I.Q.s, and many have college degrees. However, they are misinformed, and many of their beliefs are mistaken. I would like to explain why their beliefs are in error.
The "overpopulation doomsayers" who predicted a worsening of third world famine as the world's population doubled from 3 billion to 6 billion were wrong. Despite what Paul Ehrlich and other "doomsayers" predicted in the 1960s and 1970s, the truth is that over the past few decades, per capita food production has increased in China, India, Latin America, the developing world in general, and the world as a whole.
The "doomsayers" were wrong in their claim that the Chinese famines of the 1960s were caused by "overpopulation." And the "doomsayers" were wrong in their prediction that as China's population got bigger, its problem of famine would get worse. In reality, China's famines of the 1960s were caused by bad economic policies, not by "overpopulation." China's switch from collective farming to private farming in the late 1970s caused a tremendous increase in per capita food production. Today, China's population is much bigger than it was in the 1960s. And today, the people of China are much better fed than they were in the 1960s.
Despite what Paul Ehrlich and other "doomsayers" want us to believe, Africa actually has a low population density, and its land is very rich in many valuable "natural resources," and it has many large tracts of fertile land that are sitting idle, unplanted, with no crops being grown. The real cause of African famine is bad economic policies, not "overpopulation." Collective ownership of farmland discourages farmers from planting crops, because the person who plants the crop is not necessarily the person who gets to harvest it. Government price caps on food discourage farmers from growing food.
Poor countries remain poor because of corrupt government, bad economic policies, and a lack of strong protections of private property rights. Whenever a poor country adopts strong protections of private property rights, free market pricing, and free trade, combined with a strong rule of law, and enforcement of contracts, and holds on to these policies, the country experiences tremendous increases in its standard of living. Recent examples of poor countries transforming themselves into rich countries include Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea, and all of this happened while these countries experienced substantial increases in their populations. Paul Ehrlich said this was impossible, but real world experience proves that Ehrlich was wrong.
In the rich capitalist countries with a first world standard of living, the air and water have been getting cleaner. Once per capita GNP in a country reaches about $4,000, people can start to afford worrying about protecting the environment. And the richer the country gets, the better off its environment becomes. Just as richer people have better access to food, housing, clothing, education, and health care, they also have better access to a cleaner and healthier environment.
On privately owned timberland, the greedy landowner is concerned about the future resale value of his land, so he usually plants more trees than he cuts down.
On privately owned fish farms, fish populations keep getting bigger and bigger. Overfishing is not a problem at all on privately owned fish farms.
Government price caps on the price of water keep the price artificially low. This artificially low price encourages people to waste water. Also, this artificially low price prevents many water suppliers from being able to afford desalination plants. 70% of the world's surface is covered in water, to an average depth of 2 miles. Water "shortages" are caused by bad economic policies, not by an actual lack of water.
The "doomsayers" who predicted that before the year 2000, the world would run out of oil, copper, gold, iron, tin, and aluminum, were wrong. In a free market, with private ownership of resources, and free market pricing, it's impossible to run out of a resource. Scarcity of a resource leads to higher prices. Higher prices encourage users to conserve. Higher prices encourage suppliers to look for more of the resource, and/or to find a cheaper substitute. The "doomsayers" don't understand the function of prices in a free market economy, and that's why their predictions of "running out" of resources have been consistently wrong.
The "doomsayers" of the 18th century who worried about running out of candle wax and whale oil never realized that things like petroleum and electricity and light bulbs would come along. The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones, and the petroleum age won't end because we run out of petroleum.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(48 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
