Here is David Henderson in the Wall Street Journal with some very nice observations on Nobel Laureate Edmund Phelps. My favorite:
In 1968, long before Julian Simon popularized the idea that population
growth is good, Mr. Phelps made the same argument: The more people
there are, the more ideas are developed, and ideas, once developed, can
be transferred to others at almost no cost. He wrote: "One can hardly
imagine, I think, how poor we would be today were it not for the rapid
population growth of the past to which we owe the enormous number of
technological advances enjoyed today. . . . If I could re-do the
history of the world, halving population size each year from the
beginning of time on some random basis, I would not do it for fear of
losing Mozart in the process." Thomas Alva Edison is an even better
example, but the point is clear.
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 5 comments }
Why is Thomas Edison a better example? Unarguably he was a smart guy, but sooner or later someone else would have come up with the same inventions, so things would just been delayed. In a few decades or centuries when Edison's work will have no more practical relevance, Mozart's music will still be heard. Good article though!
Torsten,
I think that Thomas Edison's inventions saved quite a few lives in the first few decades of use.
I think that Mozart's music, no matter how aesthetically pleasing has had far less an impact on people's well-being.
Edison was the seventh child in is family. If his parents had felt a moral or "scientific" obligation to have 2.1 kids then he never would have been born.
And amazingly, there are still people (such as the Stan Becker) who claim that overpopulation is a problem. http://www.quakerearthcare.org/InterestGroups/OtherAreasBeingExplored/PopulationConcerns/StanBarticle.htm
There are several problems with this post and the idea behind it:
1. Though the history of nations hangs in many circumstances on contigency, the march of science is a progression, in which similar discoveries were made at amazingly similar times. Would the world be a different place without Newton? Certainly. But we would have gotten there. I believe those claiming otherwise have not looked very closely at the history of science.
2. The argument that more people is good because there are more ideas is empty. How many more people? What is the cost benefit analysis? If a billion more are good, why not two billion? Why not a trillion? Those making the arguments that ideas can be exchanged at no cost must still take into account the cost of all the additional people for those ideas to have been produced. Since they do not do so, there is really no argument taking place. No tradeoffs. It's largely an empty statement.
3. The history of technology is very short, little more than a few thousand years, ten thousand if liberal, a few hundred if conservative in defining it. Those making claims that ideas and technology will always win out are basing their conclusions on a small time period in a large evolutionary past on this planet. There guess are largely based on poor statistical sampling and a form of faith in technology.
4. While the percentages look great in terms of poverty and suffering, the absolute numbers of those living in poverty and living in abysmal conditions increases. I suppose one can take some utilitarian approach, arguing that the "utils" of the large numbers who benefit from population growth–in particular those at the top–far makes up for the small number of "utils" of those at the bottom. It's not a black and white argument though. Some consideration should be given.
5. No natural biological system can continue to grow exponentially forever. That includes humans. The time when resource constraints will place constraints on human numbers is not well understood. But it is a given. Those aruing otherwise simply do not understand basic mathematics. The human population will have to stabilize. So then it's just a matter of what is a good number. The argument that more people is always better has no role in considering this. Ecologically economic considerations will, taking into account technological innovation of course.
6. As always pointed out, the argument of no Mozart should also consider the argument of no Hitler. As I mentioned above, I believe that historical contingency particularly plays a role in politics and aesthetics. Not as much in science, due to the nature of science. Therefore with fewer people one can argue that we might have missed Hitler and Mozart. Not that I'm making this argument. It's a silly and juvenile argument to make–either way–not worthy of adult debate.
7. My own belief is that more accurate models–in particular energy production models–show that we are approaching a constraint that will be difficult to overcome: cheap, easy energy. This is not a place to get into all the debates about alternatives, nuclear, coal liquifaction, etc. But any honest look at technology, resources that we have, and basic physics argues that the world will face a major energy crisis this century. That will place tight constraints on human numbers. For those arguing that the club of Rome and yada yada, please: there was no consensus then, and there still isn't now. But the models are getting better. If you believe in science, you have to believe in the power of modeling, a critical component of science. And the models are speaking more clearly regarding energy production.