The Population Problem

| 12/14/2011 3:52:27 PM

Tags: Beautiful and Abundant, Population, Economics, Bryan Welch,

In Italy, the human population is officially stable. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, which keeps track of populations around the world, Italy gained about a million people between 1995 and 2005, but has now stabilized around 58 million legal residents.

Likewise Spain. Spain’s official population is projected to be stable around 40 million people for the foreseeable future. Germany is steady at 82 million. And Finland. Stable at about 5 million people.

Numerous economic studies show that the most prosperous countries generally have slower rates of population growth. Economists have even given the phenomenon a name. They call it the “demographic-economic paradox.” It’s a paradox because a lot of wise people, including Thomas Robert Malthus, have theorized that prosperous societies will have more children because they can afford them. Not so, apparently.

As developing nations achieve a certain level of prosperity, the health and education level of their citizens improves. When a society improves health and education – for women, specifically – the birth rate falls. Prosperous people recognize the incentives for raising small families. In more prosperous countries, the quality of life is determined more by the family’s overall level of education than by the number of laborers in the household. And affluent people in the world today are reasonably confident that all their children will survive to adulthood. In poor countries with high childhood-mortality rates it makes sense to hedge your bet on your offspring by having more of them.

In much of the world, a large family is a genetic – and social – insurance policy.

Poor people, if they want to be cared for in their old age, can improve their chances by having more children. If you’re very poor, your children are your employees, your economic safety net and, eventually, they provide your nursing home in their own houses.

12/12/2014 2:51:27 AM

the world’s poorest countries, including Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Uganda, India. Countries like those are providing valuable immigrant labor across the globe, without which many of the rich nations with stable populations would founder, economically. In the Netherlands the people alreade know more and more homeless people, food help, the are dependant on the social security . The ones with no jobs are more and more pushed to take work under the minium wages (salary')s otherwise they get no money. And the worst part is the most of them pay there whole live a Insurance for when the lost their work. The govermentand and the big firm's were importing workers out the midle east, now Poland and the old sovjet Union. in my home city alone there are living more people from outside the country then the originals.

mary williams
3/22/2012 4:31:50 PM

Very few people are even considering this. So many people are living day to day. The problem has continued too long. Then we have the "get rich quick" game of today; it's glorified everywhere, and many people just don't care about tomorrow. One could talk until she's blue in the face and no one would listen. The great amount of children born haphazardly will continue and the haphazard thinking will abide with them. It will all come to a big head and we'll have to employ emergency measures when it does. We have to grow up on the small scale to make things work on the larger scale. I don't see that happening any time soon. People who think are just way outnumbered by those who don't.

bryan welch
3/22/2012 3:55:48 PM

I agree with your conclusion that we'll need to stabilize the economic model, and I've written about that extensively. See

bryan welch
3/22/2012 3:53:08 PM

Wow. What makes some people so grouchy? You've completely misinterpreted my essay. I'm not in favor of unchecked immigration, but it makes a few isolated islands of population stability irrelevant - an observation you seem to agree with.

john sepp
12/16/2011 4:33:19 PM

PS How about some formatting so that you can break up paragraphs?

john sepp
12/16/2011 4:32:35 PM

I come to this website to learn how to live sustainably. What about our constant growth paradigm is sustainable? 3-5% annual economic growth is unsustainable. Just look at real rates of growth and you will see that. Bringing immigrants in to Western countries to create demand is retarded. In Canada, for instance, we import 1% of our population per year. That contributes a nominal 1% to GDP growth through added consumption. But did you know that the immigrant population in Canada used $23 billion more last year in social services than they paid in? That is almost the entirety of last year's fiscal budget deficit. Mass immigration is not only a bad fiscal proposition, it is bad culturally and environmentally. These immigrants who move to the first world up their consumption levels to first world averages. So a Bangladeshi, who uses very little carbon, within a few years of moving to Canada or the US, immediately becomes one of the world's top polluters. Canada's carbon footprint, like our nominal GDP, grows 1% per year through immigration. Canada also has only 30 million people. Our unique culture is becoming swamped. There are 5.5 billion people in the world who would love to move to Canada. How many should we let in? We can't even handle the 3-400,000 per year we let in currently. Why should we destroy the country just because Boomers were too selfish to have 2 kids apiece? If they need old age care, let's build some old age homes in Jamaica instead of importing Jamaicans here. Did you know that immigration is also bad for the immigrants' home countries? We are stealing their brightest and most ambitious people to basically wash our dishes and mow our lawns. They should be back in their home countries working to make them better, not ditching them to make a quick buck abroad. Use your brain before you copy and paste this corporatist rubbish. Environmentalism is supposed to be about sustainability. Not kicking the can down a road to try and squeeze 5 more years of economic growth out of a rotten economic model.

t brandt
12/15/2011 11:59:23 AM

You came close, but missed the right conclusion... Increasing population is a huge problem: it takes up more natural habitat & resources, it requires increasing use of technology to feed itself and having larger families dilutes the economic resources of the family. ... Using immigration to artificially increase demand for goods & services expands the economy only as long as a supply of new immigrants continues to be available. That must necessarily come to a stop some day as food supply eventually limits population growth, so you've only avoided dealing with stable population temporarily....BTW-we see the economic catastrophe of socialism in a society with stable population now in Europe....Money, like water, flows downhill. China & India have manufacturing sectors in ascendency only because their labor costs are so low. As their standard of living rises, so will wages. As wages approach our levels, that flow of money will stop when goods are just as expensive to produce there as here. (This happened before when the US produced goods for most of the world. As our costs went up, the flow of money stopped and we had the Great Depressiion, then the war, then Japan took over as the low cost producer for the world. Now it's China & India.)...Our efforts should be directed at establishing a stable economy, not dependent on growing population. That would mean more local industry & community based trade. "Buy local" works for food. Why not everything else?... Keep in mind, most of the problems experienced today by the American First Nations can be traced back to their ancestors' lax immigration policy ;-)

mother earth news fair


Oct. 21-22, 2017
Topeka, KS.

More than 150 workshops, great deals from more than 200 exhibitors, off-stage demos, inspirational keynotes, and great food!