The Death Of Doom

Overpopulation hysteria has all but vanished. The real issue of population is basic economics.

Paul Ehrlich, who just died, was a full-time doomsday prophet, telling the world dire things about the immediate future, none of which came true. He said hundreds of millions would starve to death in the 1970s and 80s. He said he’d “take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” He even said that “Boomers” such as himself would live past 50. When he died he was 93.

The major media outlets at the time worshipped at Ehrlich’s feet and boosted his theories. Nations started taking the dire predictions seriously and implemented policies based on his claim. Now the major media are posting obituaries emphasising how wrong he was.

Economist Julian Simon was voice in the wilderness calling out Ehrlich’s lack of basic understanding of the role of economic incentives and how and why they would deal with the problems. Other market-based economists said the same thing.

What worried me then was how the public in general and media outlets were unaware of this counter position. Steeped in economic jargon it lost readers from the start. What was needed was an easy-to-read short book that translated the economics ideas for the lay audience. The problem was many had good intentions built on bad economics.

So in 1995 I wrote a book on myths about population growth. Exploding Population Myths was published by South Africa’s Free Market Foundation. I noted “that many liberals woefully lack an understanding of the economics involved. So while their sentiments are praiseworthy this lack of economic knowledge results in a misunderstanding of these issues.”

The main point of my book was to explain world population growth and why it was going to continue to decline. It wasn’t the threat panic mongers claimed it would be. It would peter out over the next century. After 31 years this theory, so far, is proving to be true. In 1995 world population was growing at 1.57% annually. As of last year it was down to 0.85%. During that same period South Africa’s growth rate went from 2.4% down to about 1.1%.

One of my main points was the driving forces behind population growth were the death rates, life expectancy, and poverty.

I argued only the very poor could “afford” to have many children. It was necessary for them given the high death rates in such nations. In poor nations children were an asset not a liability. They provided labour to the family and were the old age “pension” for parents.

In richer nations children were a liability. Parents provide education, medical care, computers, cell phones, even cars when their kids reach their teens. At the same time children in better off nations did not provide hard labour for their family or fund their parents’ retirement.

The result of this economic reality was as people grew more prosperous, they had fewer children than when they were poor. Proof of this can also be found in the TFR, or total fertility rate, for the average woman in any nation. In the 60’s South African women gave birth to 6 children on average while the latest estimate from Stats SA is 2.21—zero population growth is reached when the TFR hits 2.1.

In the more market-oriented economies fertility rates declined but the populations tended to grow even as the TFR fell below replacement levels. The reason was longer lifespans. Growth wasn’t due to more births but the result of fewer deaths. In 1950 Europe’s life expectancy was 62, while South Africa’s was 37.2. Their rates today, respectively, are 79.1 and 66.

The real issue to consider is with rising life expectancy, the work force in nations grows older on average given they are living longer but the TFR is in decline meaning fewer new workers per year. Wealthy counties thus found immigrants contributing to the nation’s well-being even as the immigrants themselves had improved lives.

Nationalistic opposition to immigrants is harmful to the general population. For instance, Trump’s violent attacks on immigrants have meant farmers lack field workers, home construction went to a standstill as workers were rounded up, and care givers for the elderly are in shorter supply. In truth, it is a lose-lose situation.

Overpopulation hysteria has all but vanished with serious media not buying into it. Greater wealth creation has put into place the incentives for lower birth rates while longer life expectancy countered some of that trend.

If nations, such as South Africa, want to address the remain levels of population growth they heed to increase economic prosperity. The real issue of population is basic economics. In the final paragraph of my 1995 monograph I wrote:

“The good news for the people of Africa is that they need not suffer in poverty any longer. The solution is simple: free the people to produce; allow the people to keep what they produce; and the people will produce.”

I do not celebrate Paul Ehrlich’s death but I’m glad his ideas died out long ago.

James Peron has written for multiple publications and author of several books, including Exploding Population Myths and The Liberal Tide. James is an associate of the Free Market Foundation.