| When the world’s population hit 6 billion last month, most of the media coverage delivered the message you’ve probably heard all your life: the world is overpopulated, it can’t survive this rate of growth, the birth rate must be cut now before it’s too late, etc. Most Americans have been told this so long and so often it doesn’t even occur to them to question it; it’s just one of those things everybody knows.
Well, as Will Rogers reputedly said, the biggest problem isn’t all the things people don’t know; it’s all the things they know that ain’t so.
The fact is, though the world’s population has doubled since 1960, global food and resource population are at all-time highs, with plenty of room for more growth.
Consider food. According to a 1993 U.S. Department of Agriculture report, per-person food production intake worldwide rose more than 11 percent (from 2,436 calories daily to 2,706) between 1970 and 1990. Production rose even more during that span among major product groups like cereal (62 percent), fruit (47 percent), vegetables (68 percent) and meat (76 percent) — all outstripping the rate of population growth during the same period (43 percent).
Prospects for the future are even brighter. As the World Bank notes, less than half the world’s land area suitable for crop production is being used for that purpose and only 15 percent of cropland is irrigated. Perhaps even more important, dramatic advances in biotechnology — the genetic manipulation of plants and animals — are opening the door to massive increases in productivity.
Other natural resources also remain abundant. "Given current economic conditions and technologies," the World Resources Institute reported in 1994, "proven reserves alone could supply petroleum needs for 40 years, natural gas for 50 years, and coal for well over 200 years; there is also the expectation that new fossil reserves will be discovered in the coming years." Again, as with food, we’ve barely begun to tap into other sources of energy; for example, the World Resources Institute notes that in 1990, only 15 percent of the world’s exploitable hydroelectric potential was used. And solar energy is limitless.
None of this is to say that there are no parts of the world that face a shortage of some resources. But the correlation between population and economic well-being just doesn’t pan out. The populations of some of the most densely packed countries in the world (Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, the Netherlands) are among the most prosperous, while those in some lightly populated areas (like sub-Saharan Africa) are among the poorest. Factors like weather, wars and oppressive political/economic/social regimes tend to be the real culprits of poverty.
Even if you think overpopulation is a problem, the idea that it’s out of control is out of date. Citing United Nations numbers, the Population Research Institute think tank notes that in the developing world, women’s fertility has dropped from an average of six children in the 1950s to just over three today. This number is hardly cause for alarm over a "population bomb."
Up to now I’ve given you a lot of good news. I readily admit there are real population problems, but they’re not necessarily the ones you’ve heard about. In many countries — including ours — the threat on the horizon is not that too many babies are being born, but too few.
In Europe, China, Japan and the United States, among other places, fertility rates have fallen below replacement level — sometimes far below. Paul Mitchell, author of the book Agequake, adds up these countries and finds they represent more than half the world’s current population.
This trend means big trouble down the line, starting around 2010, when the post-World War II baby boom generation begins to retire, and worsening in the decades to come. Between lengthening life spans and declining birth rates, countries like ours face a future where more and more retirees will need support from fewer and fewer working people. That’s an untenable situation, and it’s setting the stage for fierce political conflicts between the generations.
How did we get to this point? A lot of things played a role, including anti-family government policies that raised the tax burden on families to the point where it discouraged childbearing — except among single girls and women, whose childbearing was subsidized by the welfare state. But perhaps the largest share of the blame should be placed on a shift in cultural attitudes. We’ve gone from being a society that viewed children as a blessing from God and family obligations as a sacred trust, to one which emphasizes prosperity and self-indulgence. To all too many people, the responsibilities of families — especially large families — are just a drag.
How do we get out of this situation? To some extent, we can’t. It’s too late for Americans to start having enough children to forestall the coming generational conflict. And that conflict will likely be all the more intense because older Americans will increasingly rely for support not on their own children, who might be moved by love and a sense of duty, but on distant strangers whose income is conscripted by the government.
In the long run, we may yet rediscover the basic truth well known to our ancestors — that children really are a blessing from God, bringing not only material benefits but emotional and spiritual ones. It’d be nice to see the day again when that’s just one of those things everybody knows. 
Thanks to Ron Reno for extensive research that figured prominently in this article.
|
