Overpopulation – The Deadly Myth behind the Other Modern Myths

By Kay Kiser, author of Saving Africa From Lies That Kill: How Myths about the Environment and Overpopulation are Destroying Third World Countries, Book 2 of the Modern Mythology Series

Originally Posted May 20, 2019 on blog www.savingafricafromliesthatkill.com

Who says the world is overpopulated? And what does that mean anyway? Hunger?  Crowding? Environmental harm?  For over 200 years we’ve been told that the world is overpopulated. But is it? Check this out.

In 1798, Thomas Malthus thought the world was overpopulated when world population was under one billion. In his book, An Essay on the Principles of Population, he advocated not supporting the poor and controlling the population. He was wrong.

When world population was about 1.3 billion, Charles Darwin, who’s Theory of Evolution was based on Malthus’ book, thought the struggle for survival would cause the extinction of underdeveloped cultures by developed peoples. He was wrong.

Francis Galton, creator of Eugenics, the so-called science of improving the human race, thought the African races were so inferior genetically that Chinese should be settled in Africa to drive the Negro races to extinction and replace them[1]. He was wrong.

Around 1920 when the population was about 1.9 billion, Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood and a prominent eugenicist, believed we needed to get rid of “human weeds,” including dark skinned people from Southern Europe, Africa and India as well as the mentally or physically impaired. She advocated for sterilization, birth control, and abortion. She was wrong.

In the 1930s when world population was about 2 billion, Adolf Hitler believed the world was overpopulated and sought to gain “Lebensraum” (living room) by invading other countries and exterminating “inferior” people, including Jews and Gypsies. By doing so he sought to create a super race of Arian Germans.  He was wrong.

In 1966 when the world population was 3.3 billion, to control population, under President Johnson, US AID began requiring population control quotas as a condition for receiving foreign aid. Mass sterilization camps were set up in poor countries using equipment supplied by the UN and US. He was wrong.

Meanwhile, in the 1960s the Green Revolution of higher yield, more disease resistant and more nutritious varieties, increased crop yields by orders of magnitude, making it possible to feed the world without sacrificing forests and other pristine wilderness areas.

When The Population Bomb was published in 1968 by Paul Ehrlich, world population was about 3.7 billion. He believed the world was overpopulated and required drastic action to reduce the population in order to prevent mass starvation and collapse of the society. He was wrong.

In 1972, after nearly 30 years of controlling disease carrying insects, DDT was banned by the EPA in spite of overwhelming evidence refuting claims of harm[2]; the ban was based more on political fears of growing populations in developing countries than on real science or perceived harm. Before the ban DDT eliminated Malaria in the developed world. Developing countries were threatened with loss of foreign aid if they did not discontinue DDT use. Most did, but India did not comply.

Today the world population is about 7.5 billion. USAID, UNFPA, (UN Fund for Population Activities), UNESCO (UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), WHO, World Bank, International Planned Parenthood, Population Council, Marie Stopes and other groups continue the Overpopulation Myth with abortion, sterilization, IUD implantation and birth control activities in poor countries around the world.  They are still wrong.

So, is the world overpopulated? Not by any measure. Let’s look at what we mean by overpopulated.

Do we have enough food for everyone? Yes. Thanks to modern agricultural techniques and high yield crops there is more than enough for at least 11 billion people without any increase in acres cultivated.  Advancing technology will probably multiply the yield still further as it has in the past.  Myths against modern pesticides, herbicides, modern agricultural techniques and biotech crop enhancements (aka GMO) are used to keep poor countries on subsistence agriculture, which results in deforestation to replace depleted fields.

Is the food distributed fairly? No. Other than disasters and wars, hunger has more to do with local politics than with food supplies.  Corrupt governments, propped up by government to government foreign aid, which the poor rarely see, are incentivized to help with international population control schemes, but not to build infrastructure, attract investment and help to raise the standard of living of their own rural poor. As long as the people are kept poor, the aid money keeps coming, so corrupt governments have little or no incentive to improve conditions for their people. Foreign aid should be replaced by foreign and domestic investment in infrastructure with accountability.

Is there enough room for all the people? Compared to the land area of the earth, the population is very small. For perspective, if all the people in the world were placed in an area the size of Texas, each person would have almost 93 square meters.  A family of four would have 372 square meters. That’s about 4000 square feet, enough for a 2000 square foot house and a yard or garden.  This thought experiment puts population in perspective with the size of the earth. No one is suggesting we actually do this, except for the loony left who are grasping at straws to defeat this argument against the overpopulation myth.

Global average population is 55 people per square kilometer of land area, excluding Antarctica. That’s 17.96 acres per family of four. In 2016, over 54% of the population lived in cities, which cover only 2.7% of the land.  That means that 46% of the population is rural and lives on 97.3% of the land area. That calculates to 26 people /km2 in rural areas or 38 acres per family of four.  Yes, I know that large areas are uninhabitable. Even if we assumed 50% uninhabitable, that’s still a lot of land per person.  The fact that only 10% of the land is actually inhabited doesn’t change the picture.  There is still a lot of land out there to accommodate and feed a larger population. All this doesn’t even count the 71% of the earth’s surface that is water, which is a food source and a highway between markets.

Is Overpopulation causing Climate Change? No. As a part of the biosphere, even with technology the human race is a small contributor to the total carbon and carbon dioxide gas, and is exceeded by orders of magnitude by land and sea vertebrate animals, and even more extremely by insects and other invertebrates, both in numbers and total mass. One estimate claims there are 300 pounds of insects for every human pound, or 1.4 billion insects per person. With almost 2 million different species described so far and possibly many more un-described, estimates vary widely, even for human populations, especially in poor countries. Corrupt governments may over estimate numbers and under report economic conditions to receive more foreign aid dollars.

Is the environment being harmed by too many people? No. Poverty, including subsistence farming, not population, causes environmental harm and deforestation.  Modern agriculture and higher yield crop varieties can end deforestation and provide surplus crops to sell.  Roads, electricity, clean water and disease control can provide a healthy workforce and energy to attract investors and run industry. Historically, improved infrastructure and opportunity also stabilize populations and reduce family size. By keeping the poor in poverty, environmentalists actually are doing more harm to the environment. Raising standards of living means people will be able to care for their environment.

Many developed countries have bought into the overpopulation myth to the point that their birth rates are below replacement value. Japan, which reached one of the lowest global birth rates of 1.4 in 2014, has started paying people to have children because of the looming demographic catastrophe of too few people to work and support the elderly who cannot work. Some of the highest density areas of the world are the richest.  Look at Shanghai. It is not only the most populated city in the world, 24 million, with an average population density of 2050/km2 (3854/km2 urban) but is one of the most prosperous.

Rural poor areas in developing countries are underpopulated. With diseases from insects and contaminated water taking a high toll and attrition from migration into cities by the young and healthy, there are not enough healthy people to build infrastructure and markets and raise the standard of living of the rural poor.  They already have population control by disease and poverty.  They certainly don’t need birth control, sterilization and abortion.

Is the planet overpopulated? No.  By all measures of overpopulation, the earth is far from capacity to support its people.  Since overpopulation advocates have been scaring us for 200 years, why should be believe what they keep saying?  Quit worrying about an assumed problem that has yet to materialize.  The real problem is with the population control advocates, the abortionists, the sterilizers and the international governmental and nongovernmental organizations that keep paying these organizations for killing off the hope of the future while keeping people in extreme poverty: poor, sick, isolated, ignorant and controlled. Free market solutions are the answer, not money given to prop up corrupt government officials, which the poor rarely see.

The rural poor in developing countries need disease control, electricity and roads to end isolation. They need Employment, Education, Investment, Infrastructure and Disease Control to join the 21st century.  It is possible and you can help.

How can you help? Get involved through charities, investments and campaigning against policies that hurt and oppress the poor.  Be an advocate for economic development and against population control.

Posted 5/20/2019 by Kay Kiser on blog www.savingafricafromliesthatkill.com

[1] Galton, Francis. “Africa for the Chinese.” The London Times. June 5, 1873

[2] J. Gordon Edwards, “DDT: A Case Study in Scientific Fraud,” Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 9, Number 3, Fall 2004. See this report at http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf

5 3 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
French geographer
May 25, 2019 10:27 am

Thank you for this article which summarize the principles and reality of human demography. The green activists of WWF are accused, in a dutch television program (2019/05/17), of supporting forced sterelization programs on populations near National Parks in Africa and in India. See, herre (in french) : https://www.atlantico.fr/pepite/3572687/l-association-wwf-accusee-de-soutenir-des-programmes-de-sterilisation-forcee-aux-abords-de-parcs-nationaux-en-afrique-et-en-inde
Hitler not dead ?

Reply to  French geographer
May 26, 2019 3:36 am

Thank you for the link French geographer.

The greatest threat to humanity (and ecology) is the Malthusian and Eugenics movement which were indeed behind the Nazi and has long time ago infiltrated the UN, WWF, the World Bank, etc., the Obama administration (with John Holdren, Paul Ralph Ehrlich’s disciple), and is pushing all those climate and population scams in order to achieve its insane agenda :

– massive population impoverishment (especially the Third World) and if needed, reduction, to solve a non existent problem and many corrupt leaders are their allies to accomplish this sordid task.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Petit_Barde
May 26, 2019 3:47 pm

Ehrlich was Holdren’s PHD supervisor. Small world, eh?

May 25, 2019 10:36 am

Excellent job.. A “must read” for the political fence sitters..

Tom Halla
May 25, 2019 10:37 am

The problem with arguing a given place is overpopulated is that the starving countries have the confounding problem of corrupt and/or socialist governments. So is it the overpopulation, or the government?

Reply to  Tom Halla
May 25, 2019 11:15 am

Many also have foreigners sending them ‘free’ food, which undercuts the local farmers and puts them out of business. Thereby ensuring more starvation in future.

Bill Powers
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 25, 2019 11:49 am

it is the apportionment of resources. There is no greater illustration of the corrupt nature of power than to point to the fact that the very form of government where everything is supposed to be apportioned equally, socialism, is without a single example of equal distribution of resources. The Government bureaucrats live opulent lives and the masses hunt dog for survival. And to your point, Tom, the only problem with the population numbers is that they are dwindling due to starvation, disease and exposure.
And to all the whatabouter, no the Nordic countries are not economically socialist. They practice free market principles which grows the pie, creating jobs and wealth.

Reply to  Bill Powers
May 25, 2019 12:50 pm

Rhodesia under a capitalist government was the bread basket of Africa. Zimbabwe, under a socialist/communist government is a basket case that can’t even feed it’s own people.

Reply to  MarkW
May 26, 2019 2:11 am

You mean Cecil Rhodes’ plantation?

Reply to  bonbon
May 26, 2019 1:04 pm

Ah yes, bonbon and his all Englishmen are evil schtick.

May 25, 2019 10:44 am

“The Population Bomb” by Paul Ehrlich in 1968 is the keystone of the alarmism we are suffering through now. Attempts to defuse the population bomb failed, so instead of reducing the number of people, they switched tactics to reducing the effect of each person. They failed at that too, but they have not given up yet. Just wait until they try the Pol Pot solution.

The earth can support more population, but I’m not for that. It is too crowded in some localities.
comment image
For more photos, google everest photo traffic jam

Reply to  Toto
May 25, 2019 12:52 pm

That people voluntarily choose to squeeze themselves into cities is not evidence that there is over crowding. Even in the crowded cities.

Reply to  MarkW
May 25, 2019 2:32 pm

So the only overcrowding is in concentration camps. Sounds about right. ?

William Astley
Reply to  MarkW
May 25, 2019 3:46 pm

When you speak you think of America or movies.

We miss the reality of the dangerous population explosion that is occurring in Africa as there are no movies about real Africa.

There are millions of people living in shack cities along roads and around African cities whose names we might of heard but would never visit.

Imagine a day without power in any major US city.

Take an overland holiday in real Africa.

Imagine massive shack cities without electricity and modern infrastructure.

Access to electricity is growing rapidly around the world—except in Africa
India, Bangladesh and Indonesia have all been success stories achieving electrification rates higher than 80% despite their vast

…As such, the population without access to electricity still stands at the big 600 million number.
The contrast of crawling electrification and booming population will likely remain prominent in coming decades given projected population growth on the continent.


More than half of the world’s population growth will be in Africa by 2050

Africa will account for the highest population spurt with an additional 1.3 billion people on the continent, a new UN population report shows.
Much of Africa’s population boom will come from Nigeria, currently the world’s 7th most populous country. By 2050, the report predicts, Nigeria will become the world’s third largest country by population,

Leonard Weinstein
Reply to  William Astley
May 25, 2019 4:51 pm

Rapid population growth occurs in poorly governed, underdeveloped countries. Almost all developed high tech countries are facing population decline except for people moving in from other countries. Bring Africa up with better government, education, technology, and resulting wealth would slow and eventually stop population growth, with a far better life for all. The resulting main problem may then be too much population decline and aging population.

Reply to  Leonard Weinstein
May 26, 2019 6:52 am

If we don’t do it, the Chinese will.

William Astley
Reply to  Leonard Weinstein
May 26, 2019 11:37 am

My father worked a couple a years in Tanzania, running the government owned railway engine repair shop, my daughter did volunteer work in Malawi, and another relative did volunteer work in a Lagos (largest city in Nigeria) children’s hospital so I have information which is not available in any news.

News agencies no longer cover Africa.

Africa does not have law and order and infrastructure which is required to industrialize.

The local people are scared of the police. Law and order exponentially decreases if you move outside of the core of any of the cities. It is dangerous to travel at night.

There are no safe or serviceable roads from city to city.

Aid has not worked.

Someone needs to come in invited, backed up with force, to set up city states (safe large regions with electricity and infrastructure).

A city state has a police force, electrical utility, hospitals, schools, maintenance department, road repair, and so on.

All the city state departments need to run by external companies using a many local people as possible.

Reply to  Leonard Weinstein
May 26, 2019 1:04 pm

In other words, you agree that the problem is corruption, not population.

William Astley
Reply to  Leonard Weinstein
May 26, 2019 1:35 pm

Hi Mark,

There are two problems. African chaos that is institutionalized after decades and decades.

I believe there is a maximum population density. The maximum is greater for advanced countries like China.

I would not want to live in India or China. I believe those countries have reached the absolute limit of population density.

Africa currently has a population of 1.2 billion people. In 2050 based on current population growth Africa will have 2.5 billion people.

This is an interesting video that explains the danger of steady say 3% increases in terms of time to double.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  William Astley
May 25, 2019 6:17 pm

Africa is very big. Much bigger than yout think it is. It is bigger than China, India, US, and EU combined. It has plenty of space for more people:


Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
May 25, 2019 7:11 pm

I was hopping the link would display the map here. It shows the outline of Africa containing the maps of China, India, US & EU. Please check it out. It is a great graphic.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
May 26, 2019 6:00 am

The example quoted to me a few years ago was that every living person could be given a quarter-acre of land in Australia leaving the whole of the rest of the planet for food, industry and anything else we might want it for. More generous than a few square metres of Texas!

The UN estimates that the world population will peak at ~11 billion shortly after mid-century and will start to decline around 2100. Already there are some researchers projecting that by 2200 some regions will not have enough people for them to remain viable.

Of course if we want the world population to stabilise and the birth rate to decline we could stop keeping poor countries poor by barring access to the cheap reliable energy that would do more than anything to put an end to that poverty. Or is that too simple?

Reply to  William Astley
May 25, 2019 7:36 pm

You speak from stereotype, not from any knowledge.
There is no population explosion in Africa, and Africa could easily feed it’s population and many, many more, if it weren’t for the corrupt governments it is inflicted with.

Your claims are complete and utter BS, and I must wonder why you insist on believing them despite the evidence against you.

Reply to  MarkW
May 26, 2019 2:19 am

Africa has been under depopulation policies since the jolly old British Empire. See Cecil Rhodes Round Table well documented statements. Today the IMF, WB carry on the colonial death warrant.
Now China has another policy entirely – win-win, and African nations notice the difference.

China is on-board to refill Lake Chad with the Transaqua Project that the IMF refused for decades to fund.

Writing apologetics for Cecil Rhodes is a quaint pastime, I would say, what?

Reply to  MarkW
May 26, 2019 1:07 pm

Yes I know, as far as you are concerned, the English invented evil.

Reply to  MarkW
May 26, 2019 1:07 pm

Funny how pointing to facts, is now considered apologetics.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  MarkW
May 26, 2019 4:09 pm


I have worked in 20 African countries and have at least some first hand knowledge of the continent. The population doubling time is lowest in the NE and the drop in babies per woman is in strongly correlated with wealth. Poor people have far more children that wealthy people. Everywhere.

The biggest single issue is the great disparity in wealth. Extremes of wealth and poverty, however caused, should draw our attention first. It leads to civil war eventually. Yes, corruption is a contributing factor, but that is more curable than the disparity. Nigeria and Tanzania both have examples of resolving corruption in short order. South Africa provides an example of the very rapid spread of top to bottom corruption in large part driven by the extremes of wealth and poverty and the stresses it creates. The latter (extremes) is the hard part. New economic models are needed, and classical socialism isn’t one of them (because it doesn’t work).

Nostradamas III
Reply to  William Astley
May 26, 2019 2:17 am

I think the USA is crowded enough thank you very much. Some negative population growth would be welcome. Much of the land now growing food in the US is watered from aquifers that are declining. What will happen when the water runs out? What if winter snows are reduced? Much water for irrigation in the west comes from those snows.

No place in the US has too few people. Land is expensive NOW.

This video will PROVE that we are overcrowded:

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Nostradamas III
May 26, 2019 12:07 pm

Nostradamas III
Thanks for posting this. I believe he had an article on this in Geotimes back in the 1970s.

Reply to  Nostradamas III
May 26, 2019 1:09 pm

Land is expensive in and around cities. We aren’t over crowded, far, far from it.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Nostradamas III
May 27, 2019 12:09 pm

As I said elsewhere, overpopulation is in the eye of the beholder. I’m older than you and during my lifetime I have seen the population of the US more than double. During that time I have observed degradation of the environment that I find alarming. At the same time I have observed government becoming more intrusive into my freedom to go places and do things that formerly were not a problem. As an example, about a decade ago, a friend and I were detained and lectured by NPS rangers for gold panning without a permit in a National Recreation Area (NRA) located within the confines of Trinity National Forest. A nearby NRA administered by the US Corps of Engineers does not have similar restrictions. There was no notice of the permit requirement and the restrictions were so unreasonable that it would have been almost impossible to find any gold! On opening day of deer hunting season in National Forests near major metropolitan centers, there are cars parked along the access roads for miles, sometime making it hard to find a parking place. BLM areas that I used to collect minerals in, now not only have restrictions about when you can enter and how long you can stay, but also you have to pay an entry fee.

If you have grown up with the present conditions, you don’t miss what you haven’t known. However, those of us who grew up enjoying the freedom of going anywhere we wanted on Public Land are not happy with the restrictions imposed on us. My subjective experience is that we are already overpopulated and the government actions are a reaction to it.

Ron Long
May 25, 2019 10:44 am

CTM and Kay Kiser, good points in the report as far as it went, however there is one omission in the “over population” problem. There have been several studies just released showing the most advanced countries in the world are undergoing an IQ decline. The effect appears to be due to increased fertility in lower IQ segments of the population, and is exacerbated by higher IQ segments of the population having fewer offspring, but of increasing IQ. This leads to two consequences: 1. the lower IQ population is susceptible to manipulation by unscrupulous persons (I’m thinking politicians here), and 2. a classic haves and have-nots division increases and socialism sounds attractive. I personally am willing to help any person survive and thrive, but this problem is real and I have no idea what the solution is. Climate Change? We better solve this problem before the next glacial cycle starts, because you can feed everyone in a warm environment but not when it’s cold.

Reply to  Ron Long
May 25, 2019 11:49 am

This is not a new thought by any means. All of the names above held this true as well. It’s bull.

Reply to  Archer
May 25, 2019 4:12 pm

It might not be true but just proclaiming it so is meaningless. Do you know of evidence that the average IQ isn’t declining? Do you have evidence that economic and social disparities are not increasing? Do you have evidence that, if there are actually some of these conditions, the cause if something else? Without really good evidence, a bias against something is no different that an bias for something . If is just your expression of what you want to believe.

Just as a comment, arguments that IQ scores are somehow meaningless or useless or whatever are not relevant to the questions asked here. IQ is often poorly understood. Tests were developed as a predictor of academic success. Some people with high IQs have attitudes, or neurosis, or other conditions, that lead them to refuse the effort for such success but in general, IQ scores are a good predictor of ability at what they were intended to measure, regardless of how useless they might be for some other purposes.

Reply to  AndyHce
May 25, 2019 7:41 pm

Those that are proposing radical solutions, are reqyured to prove that the crisis they are using to justify their Orwellian schemes actually exist.

It is incumbent upon them to show that IQ rates are declining and that this is being caused by genetic causes and not social ones.

As to the whines about economic disparity, that is 100%+ caused by government intervention in the economy. Those with government connections prosper, everyone else suffers.

Tom Foley
Reply to  AndyHce
May 25, 2019 10:58 pm

Maybe the posts here are the proof that IQ really is declining?

Just joking. I think. Now where did I put my IQ? Somewhere near my keys? Where are my keys?

Reply to  Tom Foley
May 26, 2019 2:21 am

It’s an iPad app. Not sure if its on Android…

Reply to  Ron Long
May 25, 2019 12:03 pm

Ron Long

Much like climate change, unless you want to play God, leave it alone. What will happen, will happen.

Reply to  HotScot
May 25, 2019 7:43 pm

Unfortunately there are way to many humans who are convinced of their own ability to play god.
They seek the power to forcibly perfect humanity, even if humanity doesn’t want to be perfected.

Reply to  MarkW
May 26, 2019 2:22 am

That’s the Fabian Society in brief.

Reply to  Ron Long
May 25, 2019 12:53 pm

Poor does not equate to low IQ.

Reply to  MarkW
May 25, 2019 2:03 pm

No, but low IQ often equates to being poor.

…and voting for Socialists. ;p


Reply to  Schitzree
May 25, 2019 7:41 pm

More often, it is ignorance, not stupidity.

Reply to  Ron Long
May 25, 2019 4:48 pm

Ron Long: “1. the lower IQ population is susceptible to manipulation by unscrupulous persons (I’m thinking politicians here)”

What does that say about the US and their stupidity? Throw the media manipulation and we are a very low IQ country by that standard.

Ron Long
Reply to  Ron Long
May 25, 2019 11:47 pm

How many of you commentators searched for these new reports, read them, and considered their findings before commenting? Science starts with data, not beliefs or feelings. I actually read these reports and am alarmed by them. Having said that, I remain committed to helping anyone, and am serious about the climate implications.

Reply to  Ron Long
May 26, 2019 10:07 am

Another compensating factor is that the world population’s diet has generally improved radically over the last 50years and well, or better-nourished humans tend to have improved brain functions.

R Shearer
May 25, 2019 10:53 am

Leftist ideology is overpopulated.

Bill Powers
May 25, 2019 10:54 am

Spot on. I Caught on to this Progressive Elite One World Governance ploy after reading the cautionary tales of Aldous Huxley and George Orwell. By the Time Ehrlich published his Population Bomb it was easy for those paying attention, to see right through their big stage magic act socialist ploy aka Corporatism. Eisenhower warned of it by calling it the military industrial complex. They are the 1% or the 1% that control 90% of the wealth

They bought the crookedest Politicians, got control of education k-12 and the institutions of higher indoctrin…aahhh learning and bought the best big government, media messaging money can buy: The NY Times and commercial News Rooms. Voila the Public never saw what hit em.
Man Made Global Warming is a means to strip the great unwashed of their quality of life, drive up their cost of living and justify population controls, especially in poorer neighbohoods and 3rd world countries and it is dressed up like a hobgoblin so the people will voluntarily reduce their Quality of life in exchange for salvation.

Reply to  Bill Powers
May 25, 2019 12:05 pm

“They bought the crookedest Politicians, got control of education k-12 and the institutions of higher indoctrin…aahhh learning and bought the best big government, media messaging money can buy: The NY Times and commercial News Rooms. Voila the Public never saw what hit em.” +1 That’s how we ended up where we are in a nut shell. The only thing left out is the useful idiots with all the money that are paying for this debacle. I try to understand why they are doing it but can only come up with the theory they believe they are actually pulling the strings and will be the leaders when the One World Government comes about. Or at least that’s what they’re led to believe.

May 25, 2019 11:03 am

If anything, the rate of population growth is slowing too fast. In most countries, the total fertility rate (average number of children per woman) is at or below replacement (about 2.1).

The population in most countries is aging rapidly, which creates a host of problems, not least of which is markedly slower economic growth.

We’re it not for Africa, the future would be grim indeed.

May 25, 2019 11:14 am

I believe eventually, I have no idea when though, population will start to really boom again and birth rates will go up. It will likely take at least a few generations.

David Guy-Johnson
Reply to  Stevek
May 25, 2019 1:41 pm

You ha e absolutely no evidence or rationale to back up that have you?

Reply to  David Guy-Johnson
May 25, 2019 7:44 pm

Neither do you.

Reply to  Stevek
May 25, 2019 6:01 pm

There’s far more evidence to the contrary. Studies show that the young are having less sex, and fewer are marrying, or are doing so later in life. Technology seems on the edge of developing realist sex robots that would make human relations even less likely.

Reply to  jtom
May 25, 2019 6:46 pm

I agree with you, but evolution always finds a way, though it may take a long time.

Gary Pearse
May 25, 2019 11:15 am

Should mention that population growth is attenuating ~9B peak pop shortly after mid century. Keeping people poor may ironically cause overshhot to 10B with this declining as prosperity finally overtakes them.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
May 25, 2019 6:15 pm

10 billion seems unlikely at this point. Once the peak is reached, it’s going down by about 75% over the next 100 years. China and the US will be just about even by 2100, at around 500 million.

Population crash is the real deal dystopian future.

May 25, 2019 11:19 am

While the points of the article are all nominally correct, the conclusion is quite limp, as in liberal imperial.

“How can you help? Get involved through charities, investments and campaigning against policies that hurt and oppress the poor. Be an advocate for economic development and against population control.”

That’s exactly the kind of thing the globalists want to see pushed.
It is quite another thing entirely to take on exactly why all along the timeline they were wrong.

The key underlying assumption of all the wrong-ers and most of their so-called skeptics is the insane belief that humans are a kind of animal species.

As long as that is not faced squarely, everyone will be complicit in genocide.

The key economic scientific principle involved is relative potential population density. This is linked to the energy flux density per capita, per hectare of any economy, including Brazil, or Nigeria. This is a unique discovery of one man, recently deceased, who got exactly the same treatment as meted out to Trump by the very same Mr. Mueller. He took on the strategic underlying policy of empire, that humans are cattle to be culled at a whim. Trump is taking on that policy – American troops are not cannon fodder for endless wars, nor are anyone else. Just reel at the absolute madness in D.C,. It is over exactly this issue.

So taking this on with charities or demo’s won’t cut it – it must be government policy from the get-go.
So do go after all representatives – none want to be complicit in genocide, but to blunder into it with our vote is intolerable!

Mankind’s economic science determines our relative potential population density – policies that force that down are genocidal. And the decarbonizers, de-nuclearizers know that full well.
Food production, of course with Borlaug’s real green revolution, is heavily dependent on energy.

Fusion has the energy flux density to guarantee a higher economic platform with a greater relative potential population density.

Reply to  bonbon
May 25, 2019 1:13 pm

On fusion the solutions is so simple.
All they have to do is replicate the gravitational force of the Sun.
When and how?

Reply to  Bob Hoye
May 25, 2019 2:19 pm

Thermonuclear weapons , fusion with”high Z” if you know what that means, work quite well, without gravity. Fusion plasma focus also. Many other methods are being tried. So a Manhattan Project full crash program from top down is needed.

Reason? – survival.

This is not an academic Kant-Critique children’s point-scoring playground game! Grow up!

John Doran
May 25, 2019 11:32 am

Economist Julian L. Simon took money off Paul Ehrlich in a bet, 1980 to 1990.
He examined all the big concerns of the 20th century: population, land, food, energy, pollution etc.

He came to the conclusion that population growth was historically a main driver of prosperity & progress: that more people meant more inventors, artisans, manufacturers, farmers & so on.

He makes his case more than convincingly, in my opinion.
It’s a hefty tome, but a joy to read.
He identified the fake news mainstream media back in 1998, way before I did, & he pinpointed human ingenuity as our best asset.
Book: The Ultimate Resource 2, by Julian Simon.

The perfect antidote for Malthusians.

J D.

Reply to  John Doran
May 25, 2019 2:35 pm

I don’t think he quite got the concept of relative potential population density, a physical economic scientific principle.
He does have optimism, but science is more than that.

Reply to  John Doran
May 25, 2019 3:07 pm
Global Cooling
Reply to  Sam Grove
May 26, 2019 12:18 am

Thank you. The book is very expensive in the bookstores. Need for reprint again.

Reply to  Global Cooling
May 26, 2019 5:13 am

try Alibris.com I find theyre good for out of print and other non fiction books I couldnt afford otherwise, and if your usa based i belive post is free. i pay around 18 aus for a hefty hardcover postage last yr

May 25, 2019 11:38 am

“Many developed countries have bought into the overpopulation myth to the point that their birth rates are below replacement value.”

This seems simplistic. From what I’ve read, there are many reasons birth rates are declining in the West. The Pill makes it relatively easy for parents to beget fewer children; machine labor reduces pressure on families to increase the number of hands in the household; government programs to provide for people in old age have had a similar effect; a philosophical shift toward hedonism and materialism makes the expense of children a larger factor in decisions on family size; loss of the belief in the sacredness of life has led to rampant abortion and denigration of offspring/parenting in general; etc.

The idea that “we’re having fewer children because the world is overpopulated” is probably a rationalization, except in some hardcore leftist households.

Reply to  damp
May 25, 2019 4:21 pm

This lecture is quite entertaining as well as full of relevant information.

May 25, 2019 11:40 am

Very good essay.
Interesting things come to light when reviewing Malthusian concerns.
Some have derided the great man by referring to him as Parson Malthus. He was a brilliant intellectual that had a personal revelation that population growth would exceed the expansion of food supply. Given the culture of the day it was OK for him to suggest letting the lower-class population numbers decline.
With the horrendous Irish Famine of the 1840s, there were Malthusians in Whitehall (Brit bureaucracy) who knew that it was best to let as many as possible die. It would help the future.
Much the same happened with a severe famine in India in the 1890s.
Oddly enough, those that murdered the most people where not Malthusians.
The Communists were out to create the “Perfect Man”, which was constructive.
While this atrocity was not inspired by Malthus, Malthusians in every political party should be pleased.

Reply to  Bob Hoye
May 25, 2019 2:24 pm

My dear fellow, have a look here :

What the Malthusians Say
“We are bound in justice and honour formally to disdain the Right of the poor to support. “To this end, I should propose a regulation to be made, declaring that no child born from any marriage taking place after the expiration of a year from the date of the law, and no illegitimate child born two years from the same date, should ever be entitled to parish assistance…. “The infant is, comparatively speaking, of little value to society, as others will immediately supply its place.” –Thomas Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population

Interesting how the genocidalists scurry from their burrows!

May 25, 2019 11:47 am

We produce enough food to feed billion? Did you include the corn being wasted, um used for “gasahol”? I bet we could feed more than 11 billion.

Reply to  F.LEGHORN
May 26, 2019 1:56 am

Exactly – Obama’s bio-gas program literally ate into the relative potential population density.

May 25, 2019 11:53 am

its not that its overpopulated, its that there are too many aholes IN the population…..

Leo Smith
May 25, 2019 12:14 pm

commenters here should visit africa, india or even part of Europe and make up their own minds

They wont end up agreeing

Reply to  Leo Smith
May 25, 2019 3:52 pm

I agree with you and F. Leghorn – but we are a minority on these pages.

Reply to  Leo Smith
May 25, 2019 7:46 pm

Visiting a country is an excellent way to think you understand that country when in fact all you are doing is confirming your own prejudices.

The poverty in places like Africa and India aren’t caused by over crowding, they are caused by bad government.

Reply to  MarkW
May 26, 2019 1:12 pm

Poverty in both India and China was reduced dramatically as socialism/communism were abandoned.
Poverty in Africa grew by leaps and bounds as capitalism was abandoned.

May 25, 2019 12:19 pm

Kenyan doctors recently found an anti-fertility antigen in all tested vaccines that were provided for a WHO-sponsored tetanus vaccination program that targeted young girls and women of childbearing age.

Tom Halla
Reply to  icisil
May 25, 2019 12:23 pm

I have seen mention of that claim, but that it was spread by various Muslim radicals. Much the same claim was made in Pakistan and Nigeria, again by the usual suspects.

Reply to  Tom Halla
May 25, 2019 1:25 pm

This time it was Catholic doctors who after becoming suspicious sent 6 samples to S Africa for testing. (I just read the date on the article and it wasn’t recently, but over 4 years ago)


Tom Halla
Reply to  icisil
May 25, 2019 1:35 pm

Oh? An alternative medicine and organic industry website? Either is about as credible as the mullahs.

Reply to  Tom Halla
May 25, 2019 2:41 pm

It’s a Catholic-affiliated website, so I suspect it’s an accurate portrayal of what they say happened at a Catholic hospital in Kenya. It’s best to play the ball instead of the man. Here is a followup article. Apparently, the government took it seriously enough to order an independent inquiry.


Tom Halla
Reply to  icisil
May 25, 2019 2:56 pm

Radical rignt-to-lifers allied with anti-vaxxers this time. Conspiracy theory BS smells the same every time.
Are you a 911 Truther, too?

Reply to  Tom Halla
May 25, 2019 2:53 pm
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 25, 2019 3:02 pm

From the above article.

The controversy culminated in the formation of a joint committee of experts from the government and the Church, which was co-chaired by Prof Fredrick Were from the ministry and Dr Stephen Karanja representing the Church.

But months after the joint testing, the company hired to test the samples —Agriq Quest Ltd — in a damning letter claimed that the ministry through its then Principal Secretary Nicholas Muraguri wanted the results altered.

Tom Foley
Reply to  icisil
May 26, 2019 3:21 am

If 2 million girls were injected with an anti-fertility antigen five years ago (and how many in years since?), this should have shown up in birth rates. So, can we have the data on births in Kenya, say between 1998 and 2018 (to get an overview before v after), broken down by age group: under 20, 20-30 etc.

Without some hard evidence it is not credible – after all the six (only six were tested? How many others gave negative results?) alleged samples could have been tampered with.

Reply to  Tom Foley
May 26, 2019 5:47 am

Read the articles. A government inquiry conducted independent tests and tried to get the results altered.

Reply to  icisil
May 25, 2019 8:34 pm

Snopes has shown it’s a bullcrap claim duplicating one that made the rounds 20-30 years ago.

Reply to  Kemaris
May 26, 2019 6:05 am

Snopes is for dopes. They did reveal,though, that the gov’t dis-accredited the lab that refused to alter the test results.


Reply to  icisil
May 26, 2019 5:21 am

its simply HCG so the body sees an embryo as an enemy. first trialled in the phillipines.
and before you naysay it happened, ask why they only gave it to young girls and women of childbearing ages and in repeats of up to FIVE injections when the normal is one and a follow up in 10yrs or if you get a rusty or dirty wound

Tom Foley
Reply to  ozspeaksup
May 26, 2019 5:38 pm

Why give it only to girls and women of child-bearing age? It is a tetanus vaccination, and aim is to protect the woman before she gets pregnant, and so also protect her babies before they are born (The protection is passed on in the womb).

Given this, it would be pointless vaccinating boys or men for this purpose. Of course, males should be vaccinated, but the program to vaccinate women was to reduce the number of deaths of new-borns due to tetanus acquired in childbirth in unsanitary conditions in villages.

May 25, 2019 12:19 pm

“that Chinese should be settled in Africa”

Well, not quite, but we thought that nobody had seen it coming!

May 25, 2019 12:23 pm

Overpopulation is the most evil lie because it justifies murder, poison-based agriculture and so many other atrocities. Like all the most devastating lies, it is a half-truth: we cannot reproduce like mindless beasts forever. But the world can hold more people than it has, so there is not need to panic.

Globull warming is the second most devastating lie because ti attacks carbon dioxide–the main input to photosynthesis, the basis of life.

AGW would seem worse because it attacks all living things, not just people. But both are death-orientations. Destroying population would harm the ecosphere as well–as was pointed out in this article.

Kevin Balch
May 25, 2019 12:28 pm

We were told in the 1960s that we had to achieve Zero Population Growth to save the planet. Now we are told that since our population growth has slowed we need to import more third worlders to keep our economy growing and save our retirement plans.

I don’t like the loony left re-engineering our society via global warming scares or immigration. On the other hand, telling third worlders they can reproduce at will with no consequence and expecting them to be Milton Friedman’s is fantasy. What we will get is more of what europe is getting across the Mediterranean and we are getting on the southern border.

If we continue to import third worlders, we will have a third world country.

Reply to  Kevin Balch
May 25, 2019 3:56 pm


Earl Rodd
May 25, 2019 12:34 pm

The Church father Tertullan wrote about 200AD:

“‘Everything has been visited, everything
known, evetything exploited. Now pleasant estates
obliterate the famous wilderness areas of the past.
Plowed fields have replaced forests, domesticated
animals have dispersed wild life. Beaches are
plowed, mountains smoothed and swamps drained….In truth, plague, famine, wars and
earthquakes must be regarded as a blessing to
civilization, since they prune away the luxuriant
growth of the human race”

So the idea goes way back!

Reply to  Earl Rodd
May 25, 2019 2:32 pm

It goes back to Babylon – see Enlil of the Gilgamesh.
And Rome was the wh*re of Babylon.

Max Hugoson
May 25, 2019 12:39 pm

England = 50,000 square miles. 55 million people, land area of Earth, 28,000,000 square miles, of which about 50% is potentially “habitable”. Thus the Earth if it had English population density could have 14,000,000 *1,000,000 people or 14 Trillion people.

We currently have 0.05% of the maximum theoretical population.

Tom Foley
Reply to  Max Hugoson
May 25, 2019 7:24 pm

Britain is not self-sufficient in food, in spite of good rainfall and soils. It exports some food, but imports much more so has a big trade deficit in food. So there might be a problem if the earth had the same population density everywhere, especially in those countries where agriculture is more limited due to climate, soils, lack of water.

The maximum theoretical possible population may be OK space-wise – we could all have our acre of so, but we might not have much to eat.

Reply to  Max Hugoson
May 25, 2019 7:59 pm

Suggest you recalculate your numbers.

May 25, 2019 1:02 pm

I have my doubts.

I am not a Malthusian by any degree, and would be the first to refute hysterical alarmist claims — but I think that people would be happier if there would not be so many of them, and that birth control pills and other changes of lifestyle will eventually shrink the population to a more reasonable size.

Who needs so many people, anuway? People who suffer just because they are born, people who don’t know what to do with themselves, people who kill themselves in so many different ways, starting with drugs and ending with blowing themselves and others up?

Also, I think that, in a long run, Darwin was right.
Evolution takes time. It has all the time in the world.

Reply to  Alexander Feht
May 26, 2019 3:13 am

Dear fellow, you speak as a true Malthusian :
What the Malthusians Say
“We are bound in justice and honour formally to disdain the Right of the poor to support. “To this end, I should propose a regulation to be made, declaring that no child born from any marriage taking place after the expiration of a year from the date of the law, and no illegitimate child born two years from the same date, should ever be entitled to parish assistance…. “The infant is, comparatively speaking, of little value to society, as others will immediately supply its place.” –Thomas Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population

Darwin and eugenics should be required reading.

Reply to  bonbon
May 26, 2019 5:05 am

“We are bound in justice and honour formally to disdain the Right of the poor to support” — I didn’t sat anything remotely resembling this statement. Darwin’s theiry of evolution reflects reality, it has to do with the natural selection but has nothing to do with the policy of artificial government-coordinated eugenics, which I would be first to protest against.

Do you want to deny evolution, or somehow to stop natural selection? Good luck trying.

May 25, 2019 1:17 pm

“Some of the highest density areas of the world are the richest. Look at Shanghai. It is not only the most populated city in the world, 24 million, with an average population density of 2050/km2 (3854/km2 urban) but is one of the most prosperous.”

Some of the highest density areas of the world are the poorest. The 10 most dense cities are:
1. Dhaka, Bangladesh. Population: 16,235,000. Density: 114,300 per square mile
2. Hyderabad, Pakistan. Population: 2,990,000. Density: 106,800 per square mile
3. Vijayawada, India. Population: 1,775,000. Density: 80,700 per square mile
4. Chittagong, Bangladesh. Population: 3,250,000. Density: 75,600 per square mile
5. Mumbai, India. Population: 22,885,000. Density: 67,300 per square mile
6. Hong Kong. Population: 7,280,000. Density: 66,200 per square mile
7. Aligarh, India. Population: 1,050,000. Density: 65,600 per square mile
8. Macau. Population: 655,000. Density: 65,500 per square mile
9. Hama, Syria. Population: 1,300,000. Density: 65,000 per square mile
10. Mogadishu, Somolia. Population: 2,265,000. Density: 64,700 per square mile

Guinness World Records says the Mong Kok district in Hong Kong has the highest population density in the world, with 130,000 in one square kilometre.

The place which holds the all time record no longer exists. “Kowloon Walled City” in Hong Kong. Estimates were that between 33,000 and 50,000 people lived in that city block, 210 by 120 metres (690 by 390 ft), 2.6-hectare (6.24 acre, 0.010 sq mi). The 33,000 number puts it at 1,255,000 inhabitants per square kilometre (3,250,000/sq mi). More of that amazing story here:

Conclusion, population and population density are not necessarily either good or bad. People will adapt to whatever they have to to survive. Some will thrive, some will not.

But the preferences, given the choice, for most of us would neither be overcrowding nor underpopulation.

Tom Foley
Reply to  Toto
May 25, 2019 11:42 pm

Shanghai and the other high population density cities don’t grow their own food. That would be difficult with a population density of 2050/km2 (3854/km2) . What is the area of land required to grow the food to support 24 million people in Shanghai? Add that to the area of the city, then divide by 24 Million plus the number of people on the farmland, and it will give a more realistic figure for the population density.

Reply to  Toto
May 26, 2019 1:54 am

“Density” is not the economic factor, rather relative potential population density.
Relative to an economic platform – infrastructure, energy flux density, agro-industrial progress.
If the relative potential falls, expect mass genocide.
It is critical to engage the energy flux density of fusion for exactly this reason. and spread its use throughout economies.
People are doing some of the effort but it is being actively opposed by Malthusians of all stripes.

Reply to  Toto
June 1, 2019 11:10 am

Rich cities? How about Singapore? Crazy rich. You can watch the movie Crazy Rich Asians, or you can read the books of the same name by Kevin Kwan. Outrageous but fun. Makes Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio look like pikers.

Nick Schroeder
May 25, 2019 1:22 pm

All 7.6 E9 people on earth today would stack easily, if somewhat uncomfortably, within half of the Grand Canyon.

Picture that. No human anywhere else on earth.

What ever the real problem is the number 7.6 E9 is not it.

May 25, 2019 1:37 pm

The problem is not overpopulation, but rather concentrated population schemes, including immigration reform in lieu of emigration reform.

May 25, 2019 2:26 pm

Those making the most noise about population, never seem willing to adopt the obvious strategy of removing themselves from it.

Those who make the most noise about “the environment” also seem most anxious to condemn the same highly productive agriculture that enables us to feed them without ploughing every arable inch of the earth’s surface.

We should keep rubbing their noses in these contradictions.

May 25, 2019 2:31 pm

I don’t understand, why my comment has been filtered out.
It it already verboten to mention that Darwin wa right, and evolution always goes on?

May 25, 2019 2:46 pm

Re-filling Chad with the Transaqua Project, China is on board, an Italian Project sin the 1960’s, blocked by the EU, is the litmus test for Malthusians. A 2,000km canal from Congo tributaries is on the cards.
Transaqua Moves Forward: Water Transfer Is Not an Option, It Is a Necessity
The official outcome of the Feb. 26-28 International Conference on Lake Chad in Abuja, Nigeria is an unequivocal statement of support for the Transaqua project, calling for the transfer of water from the Congo River basin to Lake Chad. It clearly states:

*There is no solution to the shrinking of Lake Chad that does not involve recharging the lake by transfer of water from outside the basin.

*That Inter-basin water transfer is not an option, but a necessity.

*The Transaqua Project, which would take water from the right tributary of River Congo, conveying the water 2,400 kilometers through a channel to Chari River, is the preferred feasible option.

Malthusians of all limp stripes will not like this.

Reply to  bonbon
May 26, 2019 5:18 am

look what happened to libya gaddafi got the water things picked up for his people and then…he got removed, with the hate campaign against china now, Id expect “issues”
not saying gaddafi was wonderful but he did do some good and now hes gone the wars and slavetrading and people dying trying to leave isnt pretty- looks like he was by far the lesser evil.

Reply to  ozspeaksup
May 26, 2019 5:58 am

Muamma Gaddafi was in many ways an ogre and an international terrorist to boot, but the extensive punishment of his people for the sins of their leader was a step too far. He enabled the most extensive irrigation system in the world and his people had access to an excess of good food, modern medicine and education to a high level (for both sexes). Hillary did not like his plans for a gold based pan-African currency, so Libya was bombed back into the middle ages.

China is edging towards an alternative financial system to the US dollar, I understand plans are underway for Hillary to be wheeled out again for 2020, could be interesting.

Alexander Vissers
May 25, 2019 3:03 pm

The issue is not global overpopulation although, of course, there is a limit and that is probable not 11 billion. Less population growth and more balanced and stable age structure would make life easier in many countries and birth rate reduction may still be favorable to wealth and well being,especially in areas where natural resources are under stress and water and food production is insufficient.

May 25, 2019 3:44 pm

Gee, does anyone besides me notice that the CITIES do NOT spread OUTWARD any more? They spread UPWARD now. It’s not just office space. It’s living space. Up NOT Out.

Reply to  Sara
May 25, 2019 4:33 pm

This is very much not true for many many cities in the US.

May 25, 2019 3:52 pm

Two things to consider, which favour a smaller population .

While its true that there is sufficient food overall, its not getting to parts of
the world where it is needed, so unless you can solve that particular problem,
then some curb on population seems to be desirable.

Second, with today’s industry requiring far fewer people, look at both
farming in Western countries, plus automation in industry.

So are we seeing a future where we will have more and more unemployed
people, with unless we also have a very generous social security scheme
operating, will lead to civil disorder and worse.

Then we have a possible cultural problem in that certain cultures, and of
course I am thinking of the Islamic nations, from their point of view the more
people of their culture the better.

I think long term we will have a major problem with water, especially in the
Middle East, and War of course could well occur over such matters.

As for the fact that the population in Western countries is declining, well this
has been occurring for a long time. Its expensive in today’s World to have
children, if you want to give them a western lifestyle, and education, so
couples are deciding to not have children.

Maltha was right in the basics of what he said, when a country, especially in
places like Africa cannot feed itself, then you have a problem. In the western countries such overpopulation is countered by countries exporting
enough goods to be able to buy food. A good example being the UJK.

Anyway if we think that its a good idea to be concerned about other creatures
in this world, then in the name of caring for the environment then we should
reduce the human population. We see this w in parts of Africa where Natural Parks are created for such creatures as the gorilla , only to have the swelling local population moving in.

One obvious way is to assist such countries, mainly Africa, to
industrialise, and that of course means digging up or drilling for lots of
fossil fuel. With a higher standard of living and good government they
would not need large fanalies to look after them as they aged.


Reply to  Michael
May 25, 2019 4:40 pm

While I put in reference to this entertaining and informative lecture above, here I point out how incorrect is the reference to Islamic nations. Also, while Iran is not mentioned in the lecture, a look at their population and birth rate statistics between the ouster of the Shah and today will also be eye opening.

Reply to  Michael
May 25, 2019 7:50 pm

The problem of distributing food was solved decades ago.
The problem today is the same problem that have plagued poor people for generations.
Corrupt government getting between people and food.

Reply to  MarkW
May 26, 2019 2:10 am

Odd no mention of the 5 or 6 global food consortiums.
Missing there Cargill, Anderson, Tyson and the 4 meat packers.
These firms set prices to below parity when they can. Right now the trade war tariffs are hurting US farming. The CFTC from the Grain Futures Act ended up as a derivative outfit.

All of that gets between produces and consumers.

Reply to  bonbon
May 26, 2019 1:16 pm

It really is amazing how much garbage you believe.
So long as either capitalism or the English are the bad guys, you accept it without question.

Reply to  MarkW
May 26, 2019 3:36 am

“The problem of distributing food was solved decades ago.”

Not so, I believe.
A good transportation system is required to do very much. Many if not most places with food shortages don’t have such.

Refrigeration is need, both during transport and for storage at destination or much is lost in little time. Adequate, reliable electrical power is need for r.efrigeration . That also doesn’t exist in to many places.

Insect and rodent proof storage is needed in addition to refrigeration or much food is lost (or ‘shared’ if you are inclined to have that viewpoint). Such storage doesn’t exist in too many places that are short of food.

NOt that there also aren’t political problems and those problems are probably often at least partly responsible for the others.

Reply to  AndyHce
May 26, 2019 1:17 pm

Once again, you are pointing to the problems that always come with bad government.

Reply to  Michael
May 25, 2019 7:53 pm

Your knowledge of economics is as bad as your knowledge of agriculture.
Automation makes things cheaper. As a result individuals don’t need to work as much in order to earn enough money to buy the things they need.

200 years ago, the average person worked at least 6 days a week, 12 to 14 hours a day. And they still needed the wife and children to work in order to support the family.

Today, in many homes a single parent, working 40 hours a week can earn enough to support the entire family at a much higher standard of living.
That is 100% the result of this automation that haunts your nightmares.

More automation will result in the same trends continuing.

Tom Foley
Reply to  MarkW
May 26, 2019 4:42 am

What happens when the job of that parent, supporting his/her family on a single salary, is automated? When the amount of automation removes the jobs of a majority of the population? Is there a point where automation is counterproductive? Will everyone be working on the design, construction, repair and supervision of automated systems, or will those tasks be automated too?

Reply to  Tom Foley
May 26, 2019 5:26 am

This is a non problem. It has been shown (several times) in articles on WUWT that when the entire power supply is derived from wind, PV and batteries, the erection, maintenance and decommissioning of these structures will require more than the current workforce.

Reply to  Tom Foley
May 26, 2019 1:19 pm

Then the parent learns another skill.
If we ever did reach the point were every job was automated, then everything would be free. Still not a problem.

There is no point at which there is too much automation.

May 25, 2019 4:15 pm

Charles the moderator,

Please, answer to my question.
Is it already forbidden to say on this forum that, in my opinion, Darwin was right, and evolution always goes on?
Why this comment was dumped?

May 25, 2019 4:23 pm

On balance, if I were the world dictator, I would attempt to ensure that all countries, no matter how poor, have 15 years of schooling for children above the age of 5, and efficient savings/old age pension systems, to eliminate the purely economic motive to have children.

So what is wrong with the malthusian concept? With an increase in population comes an increase in production. Increasing demand for resources should cause them to become more expensive. However technological change defeats this. The cost of a resource is reflected in the amount of time taken to create or extract it, and time is not a resource in short supply in malthusian scenarios. Malthusian predictions are doomed.

May 25, 2019 5:15 pm

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I understand what you all are saying. But that being said, I frankly would not mind fewer people per square kilometer in cities. And that being said, here is my take on the real problem:

Humans seem addicted to population crowding. They pack themselves into Inadequate city spaces, with inadequate clearances to allow for a more aesthetically pleasing spatial existence and experience.

We have to consider habitable space on earth, not just all space on Earth — all space on Earth is not habitable. Who would want to be crammed into the Texas example? Really? You think it’s just about bodies occupying square meters? — it isn’t — it’s about flow of movement within and about the square meters . That Texas example ignores the dynamics of living, … the movement, the visual, the psychological, the reality of supporting infrastructure, utilities, transportation, delivery of services and supplies, etc.

I’m not completely buying the line of argument.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
May 25, 2019 7:56 pm

OK, two Texas’s.
If you don’t like living in cities, the solution is easy. Don’t.

May 25, 2019 5:27 pm

It’s such a minor, unrelated thing I hate to say it, but I can’t stop myself.

“By doing so [Hitler] sought to create a super race of Arian Germans.”

An Arian is a type of Christian heretic from the first millennium. An Aryan is what Hitler was looking for.

May 25, 2019 5:30 pm

You may be right, we’re not technically overpopulated, but I would argue that we still have too many people running around here. Yes, maybe we could fit all 7.5 billion people inside Texas- it is a big state. Who would want to? Even in Texas, lots of the land area is not very hospitable for humans to live on. Not without heating and air conditioning and fresh water coming from somewhere else. Even then, ICK!
I don’t know about you and all the others saying we’re fine with 7.5+ people and advocating for even more, but I want to live in a world where we all have the ability to spend time in the wilderness. I want there to be space and natural habitat for ALL of nature, not just humans to use for living space, agriculture, industry, whatever. I want to live in a world where every person has the ability to live a GOOD life. Not just a daily struggle to survive on a couple of dollars/day, but a GOOD life. That means with all the things we take advantage of in the West: good food and plenty of it, good education, transportation, comfortable homes, a choice of meaningful employment, etc, etc, etc.
Too many people right now are living hand to mouth, more people just means more of that. Yes, I agree, plenty of that misery is caused purely by government systems. But until people have the strength to stand up for themselves, you are always going to have corrupt government. Even in the USA, we have plenty of corrupt government. We no longer follow our own Constitution, which provided us with the framework to create more freedom and prosperity than ever seen before on this planet. Yet, we’ve thrown all that in the garbage.
I really do not see why anyone wants to advocate for even MORE people on this planet. Anywhere. We should be limiting our population growth and we should be decreasing it, if for no other reason than that we can ALL enjoy our lives. It seems strange to me that so many want more people, but don’t want to do anything to fix all the problems all those people cause. And YES, they/we do cause problems: pollution, deforestation, destruction of the environment everywhere there are people, loss of species, on and on and on. Even poverty and war can be blamed on the issue of overpopulation. Competition for resources is at the root of most of this.

Reply to  Jill
May 25, 2019 7:58 pm

There is plenty of wilderness out there, and always will be.
Regardless, who do you propose killing so that you can have more wilderness time?

lower case fred
Reply to  Jill
May 26, 2019 3:37 am

“I really do not see why anyone wants to advocate for even MORE people on this planet. ”

If you examine the criticisms you will see that much of the resistance is to the plans of the people who think they should (or can) control the planet. I’m an oddball here, I realize that the plans some make for the world are unworkable and sometimes heinous, but also believe that nature (or “Nature’s God” in the words of Thomas Jefferson) will have the last word.

Many of the arguments that these population levels are sustainable seem akin to arguments that a mine or mill with accumulations of combustible dust is safe because it hasn’t blown up – yet.

I think that in the end it will be human behavior that is the critical factor, not resources.

Reply to  Jill
May 26, 2019 6:15 am

I’m with you, Jill. More and more and more and more people is not what I think is the answer.

Tom Foley
May 25, 2019 6:12 pm

Kay Kiser is writing from a Catholic anti-contraception and anti-abortion stance. It is therefore understandable that she wants to discredit the idea of over-population. I am not being particularly critical of her stand, indeed her blog and books seem to be strongly anti-racist and anti-eugenics and pro-African development. It’s just that people with strong beliefs tend to pick and chose their evidence and arguments. Watts Up challenges pro-global warmers when they do this, but it’s important to realise that everyone does it, and not just accept an argument at face value because it corresponds with your own beliefs.

World population has been going up exponentially – that’s a fact. Various thinkers have predicted catastrophe by certain dates, and this has not eventuated. This does not mean that human population can keep increasing indefinitely, however many improvements we make in agriculture, food distribution, that’s mathematically impossible. At some stage it has to level out or gradually decline (hopefully without dramatic crashes in local areas due to mass deaths). Lambasting people whose predictions haven’t eventuated (yet), blaming everything on communism, or suggesting the solution is to give more to charity and to lobby against population control is not actually going to help much.

Reply to  Tom Foley
May 25, 2019 8:00 pm

The things you know to be facts, aren’t.
The world population isn’t going up exponentially and hasn’t been for over 100 years.
The growth rate for the world’s total population has been collapsing for the last 100 years. If it weren’t for continued improvements in life expectancy, the total population would be falling already.

Clyde Spencer
May 25, 2019 6:24 pm

Overpopulation, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Ask someone who was born in Tokyo what overpopulation is and you will get a different answer than someone from Cheyenne (WY). But, high population densities change their societies. That is why someone can get mugged on the street in New York and no one comes to their aid. There is a direct correlation between crime rates and population density. Japan has an old saying that “The nail that stands out gets hammered down.”

The claim was made that, “… if all the people in the world were placed in an area the size of Texas, each person would have almost 93 square meters.” That is unrealistic! It ignores the infrastructure necessary for people to get to work, and the buildings they need to work in. It ignores the infrastructure necessary to provide food, water, electricity, and to dispose of waste. There is more to life than just living! People need room to recreate. At this late stage, most of the best land is already claimed. You don’t want people living in flood plains, and people don’t want the expense of living in mountainous terrain. The claim was not realistic, and doesn’t adequately address the issues of habitable land.

Tom Foley
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 26, 2019 5:05 am

The peak growth rate was 1955-70, not over 100 years ago. Overall growth rate has declined since 1970, though it remains high in Africa. However the total population number will continue to increase because the absolute population is so big that a smaller rate of increase still has a big cumulative effect.

So yes, world population is no longer increasing exponentially, because the rate isn’t increasing, but it will continue to increase in absolute number.

This will maybe give us breathing space to fix food distribution etc, though we’re on track to reach 10-11 billion before, maybe, it stabilised.

Reply to  Tom Foley
May 26, 2019 5:38 am

Interesting youtube here from the late Rosling:
in which he postulates that we are already at “peak child” and that further increase in overall population will be down to extended longevity. He also relates the decline in birth rate to factors which might influence it, such as prosperity. I don’t agree with a lot of what the foundation he represents espouses, but he and his wife did a great deal of fascinating work in this field.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  PeterGB
May 26, 2019 11:26 am

While more people are reaching old age because most childhood diseases have been controlled, there is little to no evidence of “extended longevity.” A woman in Roman North Africa (150 CE) who reached the age of 70 could expect to live longer than a woman of the same age in the US today. It is possible that some breakthrough might be made in curing cancer, but there is little evidence of slow improvement in longevity.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 26, 2019 11:30 am

The World Health Organisation (bless their hearts) would beg to differ:
“Global average life expectancy increased by 5.5 years between 2000 and 2016”.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 26, 2019 1:21 pm

Life expectancy at all ages has been increasing and is still increasing.

Paul of Alexandria
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 27, 2019 7:15 am

The key word there is “average”. In the ancient world, if a person reached 50 they would probably live to 90. What we have done is not so much increase the upper limit as decrease infant mortality and childhood deaths due to disease and malnutrition.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 27, 2019 11:48 am

Paul of Alexandria
You get it! The others don’t. One needs to look at an actuary table to see how many years one can expect to live for each and every year. Simple averages (such as a global temperature) hides much information.

Walter Sobchak
May 25, 2019 6:28 pm

Empty Planet: The Shock of Global Population Decline
by Darrell Bricker & John Ibbitson February 5, 2019

“An award-winning journalist and leading international social researcher make the provocative argument that the global population will soon begin to decline, dramatically reshaping the social, political, and economic landscape

“For half a century, statisticians, pundits, and politicians have warned that a burgeoning population will soon overwhelm the earth’s resources. But a growing number of experts are sounding a different alarm. Rather than continuing to increase exponentially, they argue, the global population is headed for a steep decline—and in many countries, that decline has already begun.

“In Empty Planet, John Ibbitson and Darrell Bricker find that a smaller global population will bring with it many benefits: fewer workers will command higher wages; the environment will improve; the risk of famine will wane; and falling birthrates in the developing world will bring greater affluence and autonomy for women.

“But enormous disruption lies ahead, too. We can already see the effects in Europe and parts of Asia, as aging populations and worker shortages weaken the economy and impose crippling demands on healthcare and social security. The United States and Canada are well-positioned to successfully navigate these coming demographic shifts–that is, unless growing isolationism leads us to close ourselves off just as openness becomes more critical to our survival than ever.”

May 25, 2019 6:49 pm

OK. I’ve been on WUWT many years. Until now, I haven’t seen a simple polite comment about Darwin being right, and evolution going on — being removed. It’s an unreasonable censorphip. and I am out of here. Good luck to all good fellows.

Reply to  Alexander Feht
May 25, 2019 8:01 pm

I’ve seen many such comments.
Your paranoia and lack of patience are duly noted.

Reply to  MarkW
May 26, 2019 3:55 am

My first commetn appeared almost immediately. Then it was “disappeared,” and appeared again almost six hours later, after I posted a third complaint. Time enough to become paranoid and impatient, don’t you think? Or you don’t think much?

May 25, 2019 7:06 pm

overpopulation ? Absolutely yes : until now , we were able to exploit the ressources to the detriment of other species . Overfishing is at the maximum , so marine birds disappear , in Bornéo, rainforest is destroyed to plant palmtrees , ….. Many species will disappear not because Climate Change , but only because man activity extention due to overpopulation !
It’s quite easy to understand !

May 25, 2019 7:51 pm

“Do we have enough food for everyone? Yes. ..”

Until something disrupts international trade, communications, or transport. A better question would be, how many days of food supply do we have in place in the metropolitan areas of the world? And the answer would be, not enough to survive a month.

“Is there enough room for all the people? ”

Sure, if humans were lab rats and aliens from outer space brought the food and water, their own accommodations and set up and ran the lab.

“Is the environment being harmed by too many people? No. ”

REALLY? So the size of China’s population has no relationship to the toxic pollution of its air, soil, and water supplies? If so, then the US population could grow to the size of China’s without adding any more environmental damage . YES!

STRANGELY LEFT OUT: drinkable water

Global Cooling
Reply to  otropogo
May 26, 2019 12:21 am

Toxic pollution happened also in Soviet Union where population density was very low. Socialism results in pollution and starvation. Look at Venezuela’s fate now.

Reply to  otropogo
May 26, 2019 1:23 pm

Written like a person who has spent their entire life in a big city and is incapable of imaging life in the real world.

The level of pollution in China is the result of a corrupt government.

Kurt Linton
May 26, 2019 12:25 am

Were I a betting man I would wager that a century from today Artificial Intelligence will have made ALL of this discussion irrelevant.

May 26, 2019 1:42 am

I’ll remember that we are not overpopulated next time I’m stuck on the M25 or in the tube.

Reply to  Roger
May 26, 2019 1:25 pm

The fact that London is over crowded is proof that the entire world is over crowded.
Is that really the argument you want to stick with?

May 26, 2019 3:32 am

The combined mass of humankind and its associated plant and animal species keeps increasing while the combined mass of the rest of the species keeps decreasing.

Isaac Asimov calculated that with a doubling period of 35 years the total mass of all living organisms on Earth will be made solely by humans by 2430, hence in 1970 he wrote his short story “2430 A.D.” that was later published in the book “Buy Jupiter, and other stories.”

The story was inspired by a quote from J. B. Priestley:

“Between midnight and dawn, when sleep will not come and all the old wounds begin to ache, I often have a nightmare vision of a future world in which there are billions of people, all numbered and registered, with not a gleam of genius anywhere, not an original mind, a rich personality, on the whole packed globe.”

Anybody interested can read it here:

May 26, 2019 5:27 am

every time i see pics of sanger I Cant help thinking SHE would be one of the culled ones if they wanted a tidier gene pool

May 26, 2019 6:34 am

Absolute proof the world is overpopulated. Check all the famous tourist destinations . Is this really the world y’all want.

Reply to  Dr Norman Page
May 26, 2019 1:27 pm

The fact that in a richer world, more people can afford to go to exotic places proves that the entire world is over crowded.

John Dowser
May 26, 2019 6:52 am

Some statistics in the article are misleading. Only a small section of land is “habitable” in terms of the balance between climate, landscape, accessibility which all reflect in basic cost of living.

All civilizations arose where the climate at the time as optimal, trading routes, risks, wars etc. It’s being implied in the article that population could simple be distributed over extremely undesirable and difficult areas. That’s nonsense.

In any case, the various problems caused by dense populations, as predicated, actually came out more often than proven wrong. The developed few always benefited from the cheap pricing of goods and labor elsewhere. This is a system that is simply not scalable, hence the idea of overpopulation, in terms of wealth distribution. Which is of course what is meant with it, according to the more serious claims, and not as much the technical capacity of the planet. Which would be a meaningless number in any case.

While technical solutions created the possibility to add some billions over earlier estimates, the impact on the local environment in those places has had a steep price. Not to mention the ideal incubation tank for diseases.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  John Dowser
May 26, 2019 11:42 am

John Dowser
I would submit that, as with all dynamic systems, there is an optimum population level, which may fluctuate over time. There may be a minimum population such as has been observed with some animals that have become extinct, and there is probably a maximum which results in summing forth one or all of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. That may result in the ever diminishing minimum. The optimum population would be resilient to either of the extinction forces. It would allow for coexistence of a natural world and ‘civilization.’ Strangely, I never see an argument for what that optimum might be. The ultra-conservatives say the world is not overpopulated and we could easily feed twice as many as currently inhabit the world. The Greenies talk as if humans are a plague and the Earth would be better off without us. Where is the middle ground?

Reply to  John Dowser
May 26, 2019 1:29 pm

Land is habitable when people can live there without dying. Period. Outside Antartica and perhaps the deepest parts of the Sahara, all land is habitable. For that matter, much of the oceans are habitable as well.

The world’s environment has improved dramatically, even while the population was going from 3 billion to over 7 billion.

May 26, 2019 10:51 am

This is yet another excellent article from Charles the Moderate. There is nothing in it with which to disagree and much in it to learn from.

TG McCoy
May 26, 2019 11:43 am

I’ve bookmarked this article. My cousin on the Native American side was sterilized by the
government for bein “Fertile While Native”-she was 12. No she wasn’t an alcoholic. She married a Orchardist off the Rez. and adopted. She got a settlement and put in her children’s trust fund. Both wen to college and have familes and good jobs.
I truly hate Eugenics .All of it. The Green movment’s big fear is that of healthy , happy, prosperous, dark skinned people..

edward bergonzi
May 26, 2019 12:42 pm

Aside from the fact that Ms. Kiser misrepresents Darwin, turning him into a kind of “social Darwinist”, there are ample examples of extinct cultures, or at least cultures that have been absorbed by others, and, thus, cease to exist. Bruce Caton, the author of those wonderful books on the Civil War, wrote a book on the history of Michigan. Although given to sweeping generalizations, Caton made the point, to paraphrase, that native Americans who thought they were living in the “stone age” were really living in 17th Century France. And whatever happened to the Khazars? While I don’t believe there are too many people in the world, it is possible to advance that viewpoint for the wrong reasons.

May 26, 2019 4:09 pm

Re. Mark W, May 25, comments, “Today in man y homes a single
person can earn enough to support the family”.

Well certainly not in today’s Australia, but yes back in 1950 that was so.

Today the cost of living, probably at least in part due to the very high
cost of energy, i.e. supporting the renewable , we have a situation where
the prosperous, just, both work, with the ever higher cost of childminding
being part subsisted by the Federal government, while there are many
families with neither adults being able to find work.

That situation will not continue, something such as the Paris protests will
soon occur.


May 26, 2019 9:22 pm

“Galton, Francis. “Africa for the Chinese.” The London Times. June 5, 1873″

In 1873 there was no such newspaper as The London Times. . Nor does a newspaper with that name exist today.

Reply to  RoHa
May 27, 2019 1:52 am

“The Times” newspaper is ofttimes referred to as “The London Times” by those in the old colonies to differentiate it from whippersnapper upstarts and poor imitators which subsequently sprang up in various foreign parts.

Regrettably, through time, many have evolved with similar political leanings

May 26, 2019 9:28 pm


First, we were lucky, that the biosphere bloomed due to CO2 fertilization, increasing biomass by about 1/3. Without that, me might have already seen unprecedented hunger.

Second, your view treats human beings like interchangeable peas. They are not.
Unprecedented population growth in Africa, Bangladesh and elsewhere on one hand and Green open borders policy in parts of Europe one the other, excited the desire to emigrate in now hundreds of millions of people. I can’t see that end well.

Third its not poverty. Its poverty times (number of people). Poverty of 10 million is not the same as poverty of 200 million. Hence environmental consequences are directly related to the number of people. As are number of refugees. Number of people killed in wars. Etc.

Tom Foley
May 26, 2019 11:05 pm

Although The Times strangely doesn’t appear in on-line lists of digitised British newspapers, it did exist in 1873. That year several Australian newspapers ran an article on its history. Australian newspapers regularly reprinted articles from The Times, and it was variously quoted as the The Times of London, The Times, London or just The Times.

Australian Town and Country Journal (Sydney), Saturday 25 October 1873, page 24
The “Times” Office-Printing House Square.
THE Times office, Printing House Square, is a household name throughout London. Any one of the millions of inhabitants of that modern babylon would direct you to it with us much facility, as he would show you the way to St Paul’s, the Tower, or the Crystal Palace.

The first number of The Times was issued from Printing House Square on the 1st January, 1788. In 1854 the machinery was so much further improved, that he was able to print 40,000 copies in less than four hours. Correspondents are found in every part of the United Kingdom, und in the chief places throughout the world. The Times is the only London morning paper which is still in the hands of the family of its founder-now in existence over 85 years, the daily issue is over 70,000 copies.

[This is just an extract, the article is much longer: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/70481742?searchTerm=Times%20%20London&searchLimits=l-decade=187|||l-year=1873|||l-state=New+South+Wales#]

The Galston letter can be found here: http://galton.org/letters/africa-for-chinese/AfricaForTheChinese.htm

[Francis Galton, letter to the Editor of The Times, June 5 1873.]
Note that this letter is commonly dated incorrectly as June 6 1873.
A rejoinder to Galton’s letter, by one Gilbert Malcolm Sproat, is also included.
Africa For The Chinese.
To The Editor of The Times.

For today’s edition try https://www.thetimes.co.uk/

Yes, technically it was The Times, not The London Times, but London was often included in the title, to avoid confusion with other newspapers with similar names.

Reply to  Tom Foley
May 27, 2019 4:40 am

But for a formal citation, the correct title should be used.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights